[Draft] Secularism in Governance

[Essu Beti]

"I don't understand why the author of this proposal fears priests so much, if that is the case," says Inan. "In addition, this would put undue hardship, once again, on the Azosk tribe, as it would effectively ban them from politics. The state of being a priest is not something that can be resigned from."

[Adirondack Commonwealth]

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."

That can be easily done so long as you have a well-organized and supportive Region, or even without given you've prepared for such things. And at least with Regions you can join one that will actually respect your sovereignty.

[The Sheika]

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

Are we grasping at straws now? A clergy member can say whatever they want. Nobody has said otherwise, and using the example you have given does not meet what one could consider a political endorsement, just a frank statement about a member of their church.

[Bitely]

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:

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."

Sorry, but i disagree with your view. One of the dictionary definitions of endorse is: "to approve openly".
By prohibiting any citizen of openly approving something is a violation of rights granted in World Assembly Resolution #30

[Essu Beti]

OOC: Dude, Gameplay regions have literally no effect on WA role playing. So I'm going to act as if you said region with a lowercase r, as in the nations that happen to exist in the same general physical location as my nation, because that's how Iksana would interpret it.

IC: "Yes, let's go up to the guys who abandoned us on a completely undeveloped island and ask them for food. Great idea. It's not like they already washed their hands of us already or anything like that. Or maybe you'd like us to turn to the guys who drove us out of our original home in the first place? I'm sure they wouldn't just take the opportunity to slaughter the other half of my people."

[The Sheika]

"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."

Sorry, but i disagree with your view. One of the dictionary definitions of endorse is: "to approve openly".
By prohibiting any citizen of openly approving something is a violation of rights granted in World Assembly Resolution #30

Nobody said that anybody was prohibited from giving their approval. Clergy members can give their approval all day long, from here to eternity. What is prohibited is a political candidate accepting the endorsement or approval.

[Adirondack Commonwealth]

OOC: Dude, Gameplay regions have literally no effect on WA role playing. So I'm going to act as if you said region with a lowercase r, as in the nations that happen to exist in the same general physical location as my nation, because that's how Iksana would interpret it.

IC: "Yes, let's go up to the guys who abandoned us on a completely undeveloped island and ask them for food. Great idea. It's not like they already washed their hands of us already or anything like that. Or maybe you'd like us to turn to the guys who drove us out of our original home in the first place? I'm sure they wouldn't just take the opportunity to slaughter the other half of my people."

OOC: Rather than take it as a general region, take what I said as rather an alliance of nations. International agreement or whatever (because that's what Regions pretty much are anyway).

[Separatist Peoples]

"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."

Sorry, but i disagree with your view. One of the dictionary definitions of endorse is: "to approve openly".
By prohibiting any citizen of openly approving something is a violation of rights granted in World Assembly Resolution #30

"Its a shame that you're objectively wrong, then. Holding a position is not itself an expression. You do not have a right to the position. You might have a nondiscrimination right to apply, but not to hold it.

"At any rate, this is irrelevant. The clergy have every right to voice their opinions. The candidate may not accept endorsements from them, nor financial support from the clergy or any church. Accepting support is not an expression of one's ideals or beliefs."

OOC: If you truly believe there is a violation, than a challenge is in order at such time as the proposal is unlikely to substantially change.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

"Those that aren't are fundamentalist lunatics and have basically admitted that they are lunatics."

Teran Saber: "That's an ad hominem, an appeal to emotion AND an argument from motive, and a completely ridiculous one at that. You obviously didn't pay attention any of the oppositional arguments and simply jumped to conclusions, and for that I call into question your qualifications as an ambassador."

"If you bothered to pay attention or at least read the transcripts, one of the points of contention is that this proposal would, in essence, force a number of member states to rebuild their governments entirely from scratch or alternatively resign from the World Assembly altogether. The Greater Siriusian Domain is not one of these, but we do not believe that the benefits of this proposal is worth essentially destroying or removing multiple member states and creating power gaps where potentially WORSE governments could come into power. If the proposal didn't have this huge price, we would be in support of it."

[Bitely]

Sorry, but i disagree with your view. One of the dictionary definitions of endorse is: "to approve openly".
By prohibiting any citizen of openly approving something is a violation of rights granted in World Assembly Resolution #30

"Its a shame that you're objectively wrong, then. Holding a position is not itself an expression. You do not have a right to the position. You might have a nondiscrimination right to apply, but not to hold it.

"At any rate, this is irrelevant. The clergy have every right to voice their opinions. The candidate may not accept endorsements from them, nor financial support from the clergy or any church. Accepting support is not an expression of one's ideals or beliefs."

OOC: If you truly believe there is a violation, than a challenge is in order at such time as the proposal is unlikely to substantially change.

In the real world, this type of situation has already been ruled on by the courts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

So, technically
I'm not wrong. Clause 5 IS not in line with World Assembly Resolution #30 period. If the GENSEC can't see that this enfrengess on rights granted in WAGA RES. #30 and this proposal goes for a vote I'll have to bring this to the entire WA membership's attention.

[Tinfect Continental States]

In the real world, this type of situation has already been ruled on by the courts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

So, technically
I'm not wrong. Clause 5 IS not in line with World Assembly Resolution #30 period. If the GENSEC can't see that this enfrengess on rights granted in WAGA RES. #30 and this proposal goes for a vote I'll have to bring this to the entire WA membership's attention.

OOC:
Guess what? US Law is literally 100% totally meaningless when it comes to the World Assembly! What you're saying here is that unless this Draft is dropped, you're going to spread a deliberate misinformation campaign to try and get it to fail. I'll take that as a threat, and archive this for when you try to do anything of the sort.

[The Sheika]

"Its a shame that you're objectively wrong, then. Holding a position is not itself an expression. You do not have a right to the position. You might have a nondiscrimination right to apply, but not to hold it.

"At any rate, this is irrelevant. The clergy have every right to voice their opinions. The candidate may not accept endorsements from them, nor financial support from the clergy or any church. Accepting support is not an expression of one's ideals or beliefs."

OOC: If you truly believe there is a violation, than a challenge is in order at such time as the proposal is unlikely to substantially change.

In the real world, this type of situation has already been ruled on by the courts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

So, technically
I'm not wrong. Clause 5 IS not in line with World Assembly Resolution #30 period. If the GENSEC can't see that this enfrengess on rights granted in WAGA RES. #30 and this proposal goes for a vote I'll have to bring this to the entire WA membership's attention.

OOC: Real world references mean nothing here. So please refrain from using anything of the sort.
IC: Once again, nobody is preventing anybody from expressing themselves. Nobody is telling a clergy member they can't say anything about a political candidate. They can say whatever they want in favor of their chosen candidate. What is being prohibited is the candidate accepting the endorsement of the clergy member. Therefore, no violation of freedom of expression.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Its a shame that you're objectively wrong, then. Holding a position is not itself an expression. You do not have a right to the position. You might have a nondiscrimination right to apply, but not to hold it.

"At any rate, this is irrelevant. The clergy have every right to voice their opinions. The candidate may not accept endorsements from them, nor financial support from the clergy or any church. Accepting support is not an expression of one's ideals or beliefs."

OOC: If you truly believe there is a violation, than a challenge is in order at such time as the proposal is unlikely to substantially change.

In the real world, this type of situation has already been ruled on by the courts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

So, technically
I'm not wrong. Clause 5 IS not in line with World Assembly Resolution #30 period. If the GENSEC can't see that this enfrengess on rights granted in WAGA RES. #30 and this proposal goes for a vote I'll have to bring this to the entire WA membership's attention.

OOC: As amusing as it is to cite US law to a law student, its irrelevant, as Tinfect has pointed out. NS =/= Real World.

Clause 5 is perfectly legal from what I can tell. If you believe it to be illegal, file a challenge.

[Bitely]

In the real world, this type of situation has already been ruled on by the courts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

So, technically
I'm not wrong. Clause 5 IS not in line with World Assembly Resolution #30 period. If the GENSEC can't see that this enfrengess on rights granted in WAGA RES. #30 and this proposal goes for a vote I'll have to bring this to the entire WA membership's attention.

OOC:
Guess what? US Law is literally 100% totally meaningless when it comes to the World Assembly! What you're saying here is that unless this Draft is dropped, you're going to spread a deliberate misinformation campaign to try and get it to fail. I'll take that as a threat, and archive this for when you try to do anything of the sort.

now you're putting words in my mouth. There is no disinformation about it. Clause 5 violates Freedom of expression.(in my opinion and in real world courts opinion) and I will let people know that.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:
Guess what? US Law is literally 100% totally meaningless when it comes to the World Assembly! What you're saying here is that unless this Draft is dropped, you're going to spread a deliberate misinformation campaign to try and get it to fail. I'll take that as a threat, and archive this for when you try to do anything of the sort.

now you're putting words in my mouth. There is no disinformation about it. Clause 5 violates Freedom of expression.(in my opinion and in real world courts opinion) and I will let people know that.

OOC: Except what it is in real life is utterly irrelevant on the game. And if GenSec says its legal under GAR#30, all you're doing is spreading a lie.

[Bitely]

now you're putting words in my mouth. There is no disinformation about it. Clause 5 violates Freedom of expression.(in my opinion and in real world courts opinion) and I will let people know that.

OOC: Except what it is in real life is utterly irrelevant on the game. And if GenSec says its legal under GAR#30, all you're doing is spreading a lie.

Has GENSEC ruled on it yet? Do you speak for all of GENSEC?

[The Sheika]

OOC:
Guess what? US Law is literally 100% totally meaningless when it comes to the World Assembly! What you're saying here is that unless this Draft is dropped, you're going to spread a deliberate misinformation campaign to try and get it to fail. I'll take that as a threat, and archive this for when you try to do anything of the sort.

now you're putting words in my mouth. There is no disinformation about it. Clause 5 violates Freedom of expression.(in my opinion and in real world courts opinion) and I will let people know that.

How is there a violation? Where? Point it out.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Except what it is in real life is utterly irrelevant on the game. And if GenSec says its legal under GAR#30, all you're doing is spreading a lie.

Has GENSEC ruled on it yet? Do you speak for all of GENSEC?

OOC: I speak for 1/6th of it. Which is just as well, because my language was conditional. Emphasis added. Since clearly you didn't notice the basic sentence structure.

[Bitely]

Has GENSEC ruled on it yet? Do you speak for all of GENSEC?

OOC: I speak for 1/6th of it. Which is just as well, because my language was conditional. Emphasis added. Since clearly you didn't notice the basic sentence structure.

So therefore, Since no decision has been made my statement that it violates WAGA
Res. #30 is just as relevant as the author's statement that it doesn't. And the accusation that I'm lying when I say that it does is unfounded because GENSEC hasn't ruled either way yet.

[Separatist Peoples]

:rofl:

OOC: I speak for 1/6th of it. Which is just as well, because my language was conditional. Emphasis added. Since clearly you didn't notice the basic sentence structure.

So therefore, Since no decision has been made my statement that it violates WAGA
Res. #30 is just as relevant as the author's statement that it doesn't. And the accusation that I'm lying when I say that it does is unfounded because GENSEC hasn't ruled either way yet.

OOC: Do you not understand the meaning of "if?"

If you have a challenge to make, make it in another thread. We'll see how it goes.

[Tinfect Continental States]

:rofl:

OOC: I speak for 1/6th of it. Which is just as well, because my language was conditional. Emphasis added. Since clearly you didn't notice the basic sentence structure.

So therefore, Since no decision has been made my statement that it violates WAGA
Res. #30 is just as relevant as the author's statement that it doesn't. And the accusation that I'm lying when I say that it does is unfounded because GENSEC hasn't ruled either way yet.

OOC:
Since you're fucking dead-set on being absurd, if you actually have a legality challenge to make, I'll tell you the same thing I told Covenstone. Fucking make it and stop playing fucking games with it.

[Bitely]

:rofl:
So therefore, Since no decision has been made my statement that it violates WAGA
Res. #30 is just as relevant as the author's statement that it doesn't. And the accusation that I'm lying when I say that it does is unfounded because GENSEC hasn't ruled either way yet.

OOC:
Since you're fucking dead-set on being absurd, if you actually have a legality challenge to make, I'll tell you the same thing I told Covenstone. Fucking make it and stop playing fucking games with it.

If you would just remove Clause 5 We'd consider your proposal.

[The Sheika]

OOC:
Since you're fucking dead-set on being absurd, if you actually have a legality challenge to make, I'll tell you the same thing I told Covenstone. Fucking make it and stop playing fucking games with it.

If you would just remove Clause 5 We'd consider your proposal.

That is not likely to happen. If you feel that it is in violation of an existing resolution, your only recourse is to put up a legality challenge or leave it be.

[Tinfect Continental States]

If you would just remove Clause 5 We'd consider your proposal.

OOC:
Prohibition 5 is a substantial and necessary part of the draft. I don't particularly care that you'd support it without it, because it isn't going anywhere. I will repeat my request; If you actually have a legality challenge to make, fucking make it and stop playing fucking games with it.

[Greater Cesnica]

If you would just remove Clause 5 We'd consider your proposal.

OOC:
Prohibition 5 is a substantial and necessary part of the draft. I don't particularly care that you'd support it without it, because it isn't going anywhere. I will repeat my request; If you actually have a legality challenge to make, fucking make it and stop playing fucking games with it.

Hey Buddy. Cut it out with the flaming. No one wants to listen to your incessant insults and personal attacks.