[Draft] Secularism in Governance

[Bitely]

Many nations would find your statement offensive. If you want to incorporate this proposal on your own nation go ahead, but don't force it down the rest of the WA members throats.

"Many Nations would also find similarly the idea of not enforcing through pain of mutilation the specific 'morals' and beliefs espoused by their particular variant of a Faith; and the Union finds that vastly more offensive than the idea that they be required to not do that. We have seen that in history quite recent, we did not stand for it in our own lands, and we will not stand for it abroad.

It is at this time that I would like to announce that substantial changes to the draft have been made, if you are not currently up-to-date on it, I suggest taking the time to re-read it now."

We feel Claus 5 infringes on Citizens freedom of expression. this Claus would punish a citizen for their religious choice of being a clergy member; Taking away their right to voice their opinion.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Many Nations would also find similarly the idea of not enforcing through pain of mutilation the specific 'morals' and beliefs espoused by their particular variant of a Faith; and the Union finds that vastly more offensive than the idea that they be required to not do that. We have seen that in history quite recent, we did not stand for it in our own lands, and we will not stand for it abroad.

It is at this time that I would like to announce that substantial changes to the draft have been made, if you are not currently up-to-date on it, I suggest taking the time to re-read it now."

We feel Claus 5 infringes on Citizens freedom of expression. this Claus would punish a citizen for their religious choice of being a clergy member; Taking away their right to voice their opinion.

"I don't see how. One can still be religious and also run for office. They simply cannot accept the endorsement of that religious entity. They are not estopped from expressing their belief in that religion or institution."

[Tinfect Continental States]

We feel Claus 5 infringes on Citizens freedom of expression. this Claus would punish a citizen for their religious choice of being a clergy member; Taking away their right to voice their opinion.

"Even in its prior form, which this statement is clearly based on, Prohibition 5 did nothing of the sort. A member of the Clergy can say whatever they like; they may not utilize the authority of the faith in doing so. However, as noted, Prohibition 5 have changed, and thus, this is entirely irrelevant."

[Engineerinia]

You cant tell nations what or how to rule their goverment.

[Tinfect Continental States]

You cant tell nations what or how to rule their goverment.

"Yes we can, that's the point of the World Assembly."

[Bitely]

We feel Claus 5 infringes on Citizens freedom of expression. this Claus would punish a citizen for their religious choice of being a clergy member; Taking away their right to voice their opinion.

"I don't see how. One can still be religious and also run for office. They simply cannot accept the endorsement of that religious entity. They are not estopped from expressing their belief in that religion or institution."

Claus 5:

Candidates for positions in government from accepting the endorsement of any religious institution or authority,

A Clergy member is a "religious authority" and therefore according to this claus would be prohibited to voice their preferred Candidate. We feel not allowing a citizen to express their opinions is a violation of citizens rights.

[Tinfect Continental States]

A Clergy member is a "religious authority" and therefore according to this claus would be prohibited to voice their preferred Candidate. We feel not allowing a citizen to express their opinions is a violation of citizens rights.

"Unless they are actively making statements in their capacity as a Clergy Member rather than as an independent, politically-motivated Citizen, this simply isn't true. And if they are, quite frankly, then they shouldn't be allowed, as that would be leveraging the authority of the Institution without the Institution itself taking any action."

[Imperium Anglorum]

No, it isn't. The clergy member is not prohibited from voicing a preferred candidate. The candidate is prohibited from accepting endorsement of that member. No contradiction with clauses in Freedom of Expression.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I don't see how. One can still be religious and also run for office. They simply cannot accept the endorsement of that religious entity. They are not estopped from expressing their belief in that religion or institution."

Claus 5:

Candidates for positions in government from accepting the endorsement of any religious institution or authority,

A Clergy member is a "religious authority" and therefore according to this claus would be prohibited to voice their preferred Candidate. We feel not allowing a citizen to express their opinions is a violation of citizens rights.

"I'm unsurprised by your lack of nuance, ambassador. The individual can run as an private citizen. Not as a clergy member. He would likely have to step down as clergyman, depending on his position, as that would likely constitute receiving support from a religious institution. However, that is not a breach of one's right to expression. One does not have a right to hold a government post when one has a conflict of interests."

[Bitely]

A Clergy member is a "religious authority" and therefore according to this claus would be prohibited to voice their preferred Candidate. We feel not allowing a citizen to express their opinions is a violation of citizens rights.

"Unless they are actively making statements in their capacity as a Clergy Member rather than as an independent, politically-motivated Citizen, this simply isn't true. And if they are, quite frankly, then they shouldn't be allowed, as that would be leveraging the authority of the Institution without the Institution itself taking any action."

Sorry but the claus doesn't say what you just stated. we can only interpret it as written. In fact, Claus 5 contradicts World Assembly Resolution #30 which:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Notice it says ALL people that would include members of the the clergy.

[Adirondack Commonwealth]

You cant tell nations what or how to rule their goverment.

They can't if you don't recognize their authority.

Which I don't understand why any nation would join this institution given national sovereignty is effectively destroyed and handed to foreigners.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Unless they are actively making statements in their capacity as a Clergy Member rather than as an independent, politically-motivated Citizen, this simply isn't true. And if they are, quite frankly, then they shouldn't be allowed, as that would be leveraging the authority of the Institution without the Institution itself taking any action."

Sorry but the claus doesn't say what you just stated. we can only interpret it as written. In fact, Claus 5 contradicts World Assembly Resolution #30 which:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Notice it says ALL people that would include members of the the clergy.

"This individual can still express their religious views. Holding a position is not freedom of expression, its participation in governance, and it is not an unlimited right."

[The Sheika]

No, it isn't. The clergy member is not prohibited from voicing a preferred candidate. The candidate is prohibited from accepting endorsement of that member. No contradiction with clauses in Freedom of Expression.

^ This. I read over it twice just to see if maybe I had misread it. What IA spelled out here is exactly what I felt it meant. A clergy member can endorse a candidate all day long, but said candidate cannot accept the endorsement.

[Bitely]

No, it isn't. The clergy member is not prohibited from voicing a preferred candidate. The candidate is prohibited from accepting endorsement of that member. No contradiction with clauses in Freedom of Expression.

^ This. I read over it twice just to see if maybe I had misread it. What IA spelled out here is exactly what I felt it meant. A clergy member can endorse a candidate all day long, but said candidate cannot accept the endorsement.

If it's interpreted as this then it's a useless claus and should be removed.

[Wrapper]

claus

claus

claus

claus

claus

Clause. You're welcome.

[Separatist Peoples]

^ This. I read over it twice just to see if maybe I had misread it. What IA spelled out here is exactly what I felt it meant. A clergy member can endorse a candidate all day long, but said candidate cannot accept the endorsement.

If it's interpreted as this then it's a useless claus and should be removed.

"Its hardly useless. It skirts around the extant legality issues while having the same end result. Its brilliant. Whoever thought of it should have their bar tab forgiven."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie: And if I find out who thought of it, I will pay off their bar tab.

[Tinfect Continental States]

If it's interpreted as this then it's a useless claus and should be removed.

"It has a very clear use; and that is to reduce the power of religious institutions to manipulate political systems to the greatest degree possible under standing World Assembly law."

[Bitely]

claus

claus

claus

claus

claus

Clause. You're welcome.

"What can I say you're Welcome. Maui and do anything but float"

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm on a phone so I don't always notice things like that.

[The Sheika]

^ This. I read over it twice just to see if maybe I had misread it. What IA spelled out here is exactly what I felt it meant. A clergy member can endorse a candidate all day long, but said candidate cannot accept the endorsement.

If it's interpreted as this then it's a useless claus and should be removed.

How exactly is that useless? As some of my counterparts have said, it is a brilliant idea that protects political systems from religious influence.

[Bitely]

If it's interpreted as this then it's a useless claus and should be removed.

"It has a very clear use; and that is to reduce the power of religious institutions to manipulate political systems to the greatest degree possible under standing World Assembly law."

But Clergy can still endorse candidates. The candidate just can't accept the endorsement.

So, all that's going to happen is Clergy members will endorse who they want and all the candidate has to do is not say anything and voilà you've got the same effects as before.

[Essu Beti]

They can't if you don't recognize their authority.

Which I don't understand why any nation would join this institution given national sovereignty is effectively destroyed and handed to foreigners.

Iksana finally speaks up. "Well for one, The WA stopped my nation from starving to death. That's a pretty big benefit. It's still not perfect but it's better than the alternative."

[The Sheika]

"It has a very clear use; and that is to reduce the power of religious institutions to manipulate political systems to the greatest degree possible under standing World Assembly law."

But Clergy can still endorse candidates. The candidate just can't accept the endorsement.

So, all that's going to happen is Clergy members will endorse who they want and all the candidate has to do is not say anything and voilà you've got the same effects as before.

There is actually quite a bit of difference. A candidate cannot use the endorsement given by a clergy member in any sort of advertisement, pamphlet, speech, flier, etc. Whereas a private citizen can give their endorsement and the candidate can use it in any capacity they choose.

[Separatist Peoples]

"It has a very clear use; and that is to reduce the power of religious institutions to manipulate political systems to the greatest degree possible under standing World Assembly law."

But Clergy can still endorse candidates. The candidate just can't accept the endorsement.

So, all that's going to happen is Clergy members will endorse who they want and all the candidate has to do is not say anything and voilà you've got the same effects as before.

"In addition to what the ambassador from the Sheika has pointed out, it also seems to require one resign from a religious post if that post is paid or compensated while running for office. Anything less is accepting financial support."

[Bitely]

But Clergy can still endorse candidates. The candidate just can't accept the endorsement.

So, all that's going to happen is Clergy members will endorse who they want and all the candidate has to do is not say anything and voilà you've got the same effects as before.

There is actually quite a bit of difference. A candidate cannot use the endorsement given by a clergy member in any sort of advertisement, pamphlet, speech, flier, etc. Whereas a private citizen can give their endorsement and the candidate can use it in any capacity they choose.

so, what if a Clergy member says they think a candidate is a great person and outstanding member of the church? can they say that? if not it's violating the rights given to them in World Assembly Resolution #30
Freedom of Expression