[Legality Challenge] Secularism in Governance

[Wallenburg]

1) It doesn't violate #35, as all religious institutions are treated in an equal manner, and #35 only protects from discrimination against individuals.

2) It doesn't violate #27 because, again, #27 only protects the individual's right to free expression.

They do not have that right under WA law. That's rather obvious to anyone who reads the Resolution #27's clauses.

Apparently it is not obvious, but whatever.

Then I have another resolution for you. GAR #174.

If semantics can twist GAR #27 into the actions of a group being the actions of a bunch of individuals, then semantics can EASILY twist a petition into being a letter of endorsement.

It isn't semantics. Both resolutions explicitly protect individual rights, and say nothing about the rights of organizations.

I also have a question about GAR #27, because I think you are wrong.

Clause 3 of GAR #27 states that "These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people." Which is not something I wish to bitch and whine about, because that makes perfect sense.

So what? Those are exemptions to the protection of individual free "expression". That has nothing to do with your apparent claim that organizations qualify as individuals.

You realise that this ruling would mean that the joke "Is The Pope Catholic" would now be a legitimate question. Just sit and think about that while you question whether the previous precedent should apply to this or not.

No, it wouldn't. "Catholic" is a religious classification, not an organization. "Is the Pope the Roman Catholic Church" would be a more apt analogy. Your statements are becoming more absurd as you go.

[Wallenburg]

Not if you actually read the definition of petition as it appears in Resolution 174;

Who is running for government should be of MASSIVE public interest, don't you think? It is to me. Whether or not it is to you is something I can't really do anything about.

GAR #174 defends the right to send advice, criticism, and complaints to public officials. None of those remotely qualify as endorsement. It is entirely irrelevant to "Secularism in Governance". Your petty vendetta against this proposal is showing quite clearly now that you are pulling random FoD and Human Rights resolutions out of the air and throwing them at us to see if anything sticks.

That wasn't my point. My point was that if a government can take action against a group as a whole (by proscribing the group) then the group MUST exist as an entity. And if it exists as an entity, then other groups (that are not doing bad things) must ALSO exist as entities, and they WOULD qualify for protection under GAR #27.

Nobody is arguing that organizations of people do not exist. We are saying, as we have made extremely, painfully clear, that organizations do not qualify for the rights guaranteed to individuals under #27 and #35.

One could argue.

One could not, at least without delving into absurdities.

The Vatican is a city state. Or, to put it another way, a Nation State. It is run by The Bishop of Rome. Always has been and always will be. However under this new proposal, The Vatican can no longer enforce a requirement to have, as its head of state, a Catholic, because it is now illegal to require someone to have a religious affiliation to do the job.

That would mean The Bishop of Rome would no longer have to be Catholic.

Do you SEE the problem with this?

Not really, especially since the cardinals wouldn't elect a non-Catholic anyway. It poses no pressing issue in theory nor in practice.

[The New California Republic]

Wallenburg's point that your use of GAR #174 is unjustified is completely true, if your argument is that GAR #174 prohibits the limitation of endorsement of candidates and the like. That is simply not true. Reading through it again (the first time I have done so in ages), 174 regards petitioning, not endorsement or financial support. Basing the new aspect of your legality challenge on GAR #174 would be an uphill challenge at best. I'm sure someone from GenSec will be along shortly to clarify this. Here is the relevant section of 174 first, and then the relevant section of the current draft for comparison:

DEFINES a petition as: a written observation, suggestion, request, criticism or complaint that relates to an issue of public or private interest;

RESOLVES that citizens and residents of World Assembly Member States, acting alone or as part of a group, have the right to send petitions to officials and institutions that claim jurisdiction over their person, and extends this right equally to companies, organisations and associations that have their headquarters in a World Assembly Member State;

Prohibits,

1. Member-States from creating or maintaining any law pertaining to the legitimacy or acceptance of any religious belief,
   
2. Member-States from creating or maintaining any law promoting or otherwise supporting any religious belief above others,
   
3. Member-States from creating or maintaining any law establishing a requirement regarding the acceptance or rejection of any religious belief, or membership within any religious institution, as a prerequisite for holding any position within a government office or industry,
   
4. Member-States from enforcing the acceptance of any state-run or affiliated religion, or religious institution,
   
5. Religious institutions from directly involving themselves in the political process of Member-States, through the endorsement or financial support of political candidates or organizations,

Personally, I don't see anything there that directly contradicts the draft as it currently stands. Petitioning is not the same as endorsement or financial support. The only way that one could argue that there was a contradiction is if one were to misinterpret either the GAR or the draft.

[Covenstone]

Wallenburg's point that your use of GAR #174 is unjustified is completely true, if your argument is that GAR #174 prohibits the limitation of endorsement of candidates and the like. That is simply not true. Reading through it again (the first time I have done so in ages), 174 regards petitioning, not endorsement or financial support. Basing the new aspect of your legality challenge on GAR #174 would be an uphill challenge at best. I'm sure someone from GenSec will be along shortly to clarify this. Here is the relevant section of 174 first, and then the relevant section of the current draft for comparison:

DEFINES a petition as: a written observation, suggestion, request, criticism or complaint that relates to an issue of public or private interest;

RESOLVES that citizens and residents of World Assembly Member States, acting alone or as part of a group, have the right to send petitions to officials and institutions that claim jurisdiction over their person, and extends this right equally to companies, organisations and associations that have their headquarters in a World Assembly Member State;

Prohibits,

1. Member-States from creating or maintaining any law pertaining to the legitimacy or acceptance of any religious belief,
   
2. Member-States from creating or maintaining any law promoting or otherwise supporting any religious belief above others,
   
3. Member-States from creating or maintaining any law establishing a requirement regarding the acceptance or rejection of any religious belief, or membership within any religious institution, as a prerequisite for holding any position within a government office or industry,
   
4. Member-States from enforcing the acceptance of any state-run or affiliated religion, or religious institution,
   
5. Religious institutions from directly involving themselves in the political process of Member-States, through the endorsement or financial support of political candidates or organizations,

Personally, I don't see anything there that directly contradicts the draft as it currently stands. Petitioning is not the same as endorsement or financial support. The only way that one could argue that there was a contradiction is if one were to misinterpret either the GAR or the draft.

Was it strictly necessary to pile on? You don't think Wallenberg can speak for themselves?

"Dear Mr President,

We believe that Chuck Norris would be the best choice for Minister of Angel Relations because he is clearly a kick ass dude. Therefore The First Arc would like to let you know we are endorsing him as our candidate.

Yours,
The First Arc of The Covenant."

1. This is an observation.
2. This is written down.
3. This is of public interest.
4. This is a suggestion.

For me, under GAR #174, that classifies it as a Petition. It's not me that is classifying it, it is literally GAR #174 that is doing it. It says so in the text above.

So unless you can think of a way to refute my claim that that falls under the definition of "a written observation or suggestion that is in the public interest" (and no doubt you can because apparently words aren't what they used to be it seems) then I am going to stand by my claim when this ludicrous and insulting proposal is submitted.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You haven't connected the proposal's requirements to the fact question of whether something is or is not a petition. You need to do that to show contradiction between two different requirements in two different proposals.

[Separatist Peoples]

More importantly, you've yet to prove that Tinfect won't make an edit that accomplishes his goals and dodges the legal issue. Until it's unlikely to change, this is purely academic.

[Covenstone]

More importantly, you've yet to prove that Tinfect won't make an edit that accomplishes his goals and dodges the legal issue. Until it's unlikely to change, this is purely academic.

He claims he has.

You haven't connected the proposal's requirements to the fact question of whether something is or is not a petition. You need to do that to show contradiction between two different requirements in two different proposals.

The proposal forbids Religious Institutions (defined as "an organised group that does religious activities") from "getting involved in politics by providing endorsements" (I may be paraphrasing but that is the gist of it).

My example was a Religious Institution (The First Arc) writing a suggestion about who they believe should be appointed to a government post. That suggestion is covered under the definition of "a petition" in the existing resolution "Freedom to Petition."

And, in a more general sense, citizens and action groups petition the government to remove unsuitable people from office and replace them with more suitable people all the time. This is not an uncommon thing. And if any of those action groups could be described as "religious institutions" (which I am pretty sure quite a few of them could) then those petitions would be violating this new proposal, because suggesting someone for political office can EASILY be spun as an endorsement of said person. It doesn't take very much to spin it that way (since I just did it).

[The New California Republic]

Was it strictly necessary to pile on? You don't think Wallenberg can speak for themselves?

This is an open discussion on the legality of a draft. Unless I am told that this isn't an open discussion, then I will continue to discuss the issue at hand. I didn't "pile on", I contributed to the debate in a rational and reasonable manner, by directly comparing the GAR referred to, with the current version of the draft. I would admit that I would have been "piling on" if I had simply said, "Wallenburg is right, you are wrong!". But as it stands, I didn't.

We believe that Chuck Norris would be the best choice for Minister of Angel Relations because he is clearly a kick ass dude. Therefore The First Arc would like to let you know we are endorsing him as our candidate.

1. This is an observation.
2. This is written down.
3. This is of public interest.
4. This is a suggestion.

For me, under GAR #174, that classifies it as a Petition. It's not me that is classifying it, it is literally GAR #174 that is doing it. It says so in the text above.

So unless you can think of a way to refute my claim that that falls under the definition of "a written observation or suggestion that is in the public interest" (and no doubt you can because apparently words aren't what they used to be it seems) then I am going to stand by my claim when this ludicrous and insulting proposal is submitted.

Ignoring the cynical comment in bold for the time being. Strictly speaking, it could be argued that endorsement is not an observation, suggestion, request, criticism, or complaint. It is a declaration of support. It is not an observation of support, it is not a suggestion of support, it is not a request of support, it is not a criticism of support, and it is not a complaint of support. So the direct applicability of GAR #174 to the current draft is still not entirely clear.

[The New California Republic]

The proposal forbids Religious Institutions (defined as "an organised group that does religious activities") from "getting involved in politics by providing endorsements" (I may be paraphrasing but that is the gist of it).

My example was a Religious Institution (The First Arc) writing a suggestion about who they believe should be appointed to a government post. That suggestion is covered under the definition of "a petition" in the existing resolution "Freedom to Petition."

You are making (something that is arguably not) a suggestion equal petition, and then subsequently petition equal endorsement. There seems to be too many degrees of separation in that chain of logic. An endorsement is not a petition. Look at the rest of the text of GAR #174. It does not mention endorsement anywhere in the body of the text. To say that GAR #174 provides any kind of firm legislation specifically on endorsement requires too many interpretative leaps to be credible, in my opinion.

[Tinfect Continental States]

More importantly, you've yet to prove that Tinfect won't make an edit that accomplishes his goals and dodges the legal issue. Until it's unlikely to change, this is purely academic.

He claims he has.

You've not proved that I haven't, you've just been making entirely baseless claims on its legality that have been roundly dismissed.

[Wallenburg]

Was it strictly necessary to pile on? You don't think Wallenberg can speak for themselves?

1) *Wallenburg
2) Showing support for my sentiment in no way suggests that they consider me incapable of independently arguing my case.

"Dear Mr President,

We believe that Chuck Norris would be the best choice for Minister of Angel Relations because he is clearly a kick ass dude. Therefore The First Arc would like to let you know we are endorsing him as our candidate.

Yours,
The First Arc of The Covenant."

1. This is an observation.
2. This is written down.
3. This is of public interest.
4. This is a suggestion.

For me, under GAR #174, that classifies it as a Petition. It's not me that is classifying it, it is literally GAR #174 that is doing it. It says so in the text above.

Sure, in that specific circumstance, that is both a petition and an endorsement. Under the relevant proposal, the First Arc would be required to remove the last sentence. If the last sentence instead said that "any president who does not immediately support Mr. Norris's candidacy will be taken care of," then the First Arc would also be required to remove the last sentence to avoid breaking the law (in most countries). They still get their petition, they just don't have an unlimited right to communicate any kind of petition they want.

So unless you can think of a way to refute my claim that that falls under the definition of "a written observation or suggestion that is in the public interest" (and no doubt you can because apparently words aren't what they used to be it seems) then I am going to stand by my claim when this ludicrous and insulting proposal is submitted.

I fail to see how "Secularism in Governance" is insulting.

[Tzorsland]

Just to keep everyone on the subject the offending line is "Religious institutions from directly involving themselves in the political process of Member-States, through the endorsement or financial support of political candidates or organizations,"

If you said The Fraternal Order of Police could not endorse a political candidate and instead required each and every police officer to endorse one individually, would that be acceptable?

Well the line is technically "endorsement of financial support."

Now the Fraternal Order of Police is, technically speaking, a union. Unions generally are structured from the bottom up with office holders (the people making the decision to endorse) being elected and thus govern with the consent of the governed, in other words the union members. If the top is not in harmony with the bottom and the bottom doesn't like it then the top changes to reflect the will of the bottom.

This is not true of a religious institution. The members of the institution have no say whatsoever in the decisions of the hierarchy. Moreover they get tax incentives from governments to give that money to the religious institution. Since the hierarchy is not answerable to the membership there is a greater chance of candidate collusion. Thus the will of the members is less represented by the will of the organization as a whole.

If you wrote A LAW forbidding the Veterans of Foreign Wars to endorse a candidate in the name of that group, do you think ANYONE would accept that? Or would they throw faeces (and other projectiles) at you until you overturned that law?

It's already the law of my land ...

In return for its favored tax-status, a charitable nonprofit promises the federal government that it will not engage in “political campaign activity” and if it does, IRS regulations mandate that the charitable nonprofit will lose its tax-exempt status. This prohibition against political campaign activity (defined as “supporting or opposing a candidate for public office”) is SEPARATE from lobbying or legislative activities, which charitable nonprofits ARE permitted to engage in, although knowing the rules is important, as limitations apply.

Religious groups, institutions and so forth should NOT be forbidden by law from expressing an opinion en mass (so to speak) just because they are a religious group instead of a secular one. It is discrimination of the worst order (which violates GAR #35 to one degree or another) and CLEARLY violates GAR #27. And I don't see HOW you can argue against that fact. Just because they CAN do it as individuals doesn't mean they SHOULD HAVE TO do it as individuals.

Well technically it should be based on tax exempt status and all religious organizations are tax exempt. #35 applies to individuals. #27 applies to individuals. In fact it states that individuals rights trump the rights of a religious organization as a whole, "No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights; unless the individuals organizing are trespassing on private property ..."

[Covenstone]

Just to keep everyone on the subject the offending line is "Religious institutions from directly involving themselves in the political process of Member-States, through the endorsement or financial support of political candidates or organizations,"

If you said The Fraternal Order of Police could not endorse a political candidate and instead required each and every police officer to endorse one individually, would that be acceptable?

Well the line is technically "endorsement of financial support."

Now the Fraternal Order of Police is, technically speaking, a union. Unions generally are structured from the bottom up with office holders (the people making the decision to endorse) being elected and thus govern with the consent of the governed, in other words the union members. If the top is not in harmony with the bottom and the bottom doesn't like it then the top changes to reflect the will of the bottom.

This is not true of a religious institution. The members of the institution have no say whatsoever in the decisions of the hierarchy. Moreover they get tax incentives from governments to give that money to the religious institution. Since the hierarchy is not answerable to the membership there is a greater chance of candidate collusion. Thus the will of the members is less represented by the will of the organization as a whole.

If you wrote A LAW forbidding the Veterans of Foreign Wars to endorse a candidate in the name of that group, do you think ANYONE would accept that? Or would they throw faeces (and other projectiles) at you until you overturned that law?

It's already the law of my land ...

In return for its favored tax-status, a charitable nonprofit promises the federal government that it will not engage in “political campaign activity” and if it does, IRS regulations mandate that the charitable nonprofit will lose its tax-exempt status. This prohibition against political campaign activity (defined as “supporting or opposing a candidate for public office”) is SEPARATE from lobbying or legislative activities, which charitable nonprofits ARE permitted to engage in, although knowing the rules is important, as limitations apply.

Religious groups, institutions and so forth should NOT be forbidden by law from expressing an opinion en mass (so to speak) just because they are a religious group instead of a secular one. It is discrimination of the worst order (which violates GAR #35 to one degree or another) and CLEARLY violates GAR #27. And I don't see HOW you can argue against that fact. Just because they CAN do it as individuals doesn't mean they SHOULD HAVE TO do it as individuals.

Well technically it should be based on tax exempt status and all religious organizations are tax exempt. #35 applies to individuals. #27 applies to individuals. In fact it states that individuals rights trump the rights of a religious organization as a whole, "No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights; unless the individuals organizing are trespassing on private property ..."

Hold, I am confused. How did tax get into this? Firstly the proposal makes NO MENTION of tax status (exempt or otherwise) and secondly we are not all your country, so whatever laws you have don't necessarily apply to the whole world. How do you know that religions don't pay tax in Covenstone?

Thirdly, how do you know that religions are not democratic in Covenstone? The definition of "Religious Institution" in the proposal is unbelievably vague to the point where almost ANYTHING can be a Religious Institution, providing they are a) a formal group and b) do some kind of religious activity. That does not preclude a democratic structure where people listen to each other.

(From a certain point of view, and I am just using this as a very extreme example so please do not take it seriously, my entire government is a Religious Institution. We are a formal group : a government, and we perform religious activities : we build churches. And as an EVEN MORE extreme example, my entire COUNTRY is a Religious Institution, because we are a formal group : a country, and we perform religious activities : we build churches, altars, temples etc. So if my government is not permitted to get involved in the political process my country would be monumentally fucked. But as I said, this was just an example and not to be taken seriously.)

Oh - by the way - the line has changed. Political Institutions are now no longer allowed to involve themselves in politics full stop. Which I am even more certain violates GAR #174, because it means that they would not be allowed to say anything about ANY issue relating to ANYTHING even vaguely political, which could be ANYTHING.

[Separatist Peoples]

The proposal has undergone major rewrites since this challenge. As such, this is no longer a viable challenge. Can the OP get this locked? Any further challenges should go in a different thread so this doesn't become unintelligible.

[Tinfect Continental States]

Thirdly, how do you know that religions are not democratic in Covenstone? The definition of "Religious Institution" in the proposal is unbelievably vague to the point where almost ANYTHING can be a Religious Institution, providing they are a) a formal group and b) do some kind of religious activity. That does not preclude a democratic structure where people listen to each other.

For the record, this is the definition in question:

Religious Institutions as formal organizations with purposes specifically relating to religious activities, such as the establishment of places of worship, the training of clergy, or proselytism,

It isn't vague in the slightest, and its inclusion of less traditionally structured religions is entirely intentional.

(From a certain point of view, and I am just using this as a very extreme example so please do not take it seriously, my entire government is a Religious Institution. We are a formal group : a government, and we perform religious activities : we build churches. And as an EVEN MORE extreme example, my entire COUNTRY is a Religious Institution, because we are a formal group : a country, and we perform religious activities : we build churches, altars, temples etc. So if my government is not permitted to get involved in the political process my country would be monumentally fucked. But as I said, this was just an example and not to be taken seriously.)

Unless your state-run construction industry serves the sole purpose of constructing churches, I really don't see how you came to this conclusion. The definition requires specificity.

Oh - by the way - the line has changed. Political Institutions are now no longer allowed to involve themselves in politics full stop. Which I am even more certain violates GAR #174, because it means that they would not be allowed to say anything about ANY issue relating to ANYTHING even vaguely political, which could be ANYTHING.

And it's been changed again, for exactly this reason.

[Bears Armed]

The proposal has undergone major rewrites since this challenge. As such, this is no longer a viable challenge. Can the OP get this locked? Any further challenges should go in a different thread so this doesn't become unintelligible.

Regardless of whether this proposal still contradicts any passed resolutions (and I not only agree that it does contradict GAR#27 'Freedom of Assembly' but would consider it contrary to GAR#30 'Freedom of Expression' as well...), I still consider it to be illegal as an ideological ban anyway.
Clauses 3 & 5 would, as I pointed out in this proposal's drafting thread, make it impossible for the government of any member nation to be vested in any religious organisation... and government being vested in a religious organisation is the basic definition of 'theocracy' which numerous Modly rulings (every time somebody tried to introduce a 'Separation of Church and State' proposal) have confirmed is a protected form of government under the rule against ideological bans.

[Separatist Peoples]

The proposal has undergone major rewrites since this challenge. As such, this is no longer a viable challenge. Can the OP get this locked? Any further challenges should go in a different thread so this doesn't become unintelligible.

Regardless of whether this proposal still contradicts any passed resolutions (and I not only agree that it does contradict GAR#27 'Freedom of Assembly' but would consider it contrary to GAR#30 'Freedom of Expression' as well...), I still consider it to be illegal as an ideological ban anyway.
Clauses 3 & 5 would, as I pointed out in this proposal's drafting thread, make it impossible for the government of any member nation to be vested in any religious organisation... and government being vested in a religious organisation is the basic definition of 'theocracy' which numerous Modly rulings (every time somebody tried to introduce a 'Separation of Church and State' proposal) have confirmed is a protected form of government under the rule against ideological bans.

The clauses are totally different and would be best served with a new challenge thread not full of bickering over outdated information. That had nothing to do with a substantive decision and everything to do with ease of recordkeeping.

[Covenstone]

For my part you can lock it if you want.

My only point would be I am not the first person to do this, and there is nothing written down anywhere about not doing it. So if you don't want people raising challenges this soon again, I would suggest adding something to the GenSec guidelines, because it is not entirely clear as to when and how Challenges should be raised.

[Separatist Peoples]

For my part you can lock it if you want.

My only point would be I am not the first person to do this, and there is nothing written down anywhere about not doing it. So if you don't want people raising challenges this soon again, I would suggest adding something to the GenSec guidelines, because it is not entirely clear as to when and how Challenges should be raised.

I haven't raised that as a requirement, I'm making a suggestion so future challenges can be easily assessed.

[Sciongrad]

For my part you can lock it if you want.

My only point would be I am not the first person to do this, and there is nothing written down anywhere about not doing it. So if you don't want people raising challenges this soon again, I would suggest adding something to the GenSec guidelines, because it is not entirely clear as to when and how Challenges should be raised.

There is no rule against making challenges. But GenSec has discretion over which challenges we'll respond to, and we've very clearly and publicly noted that challenges should be a last resort, not a first one. You're right that we should put some type of public reminder in the GenSec thread so new players can more readily understand this, but you're not a new player. If you and Tinfect can't reach some type of understanding, then challenge the proposal. But the challenge isn't a tool to block policy you don't like. At least try to hash out your disagreements with the author first.

[Bitely]

The proposal has undergone major rewrites since this challenge. As such, this is no longer a viable challenge. Can the OP get this locked? Any further challenges should go in a different thread so this doesn't become unintelligible.

Regardless of whether this proposal still contradicts any passed resolutions (and I not only agree that it does contradict GAR#27 'Freedom of Assembly' but would consider it contrary to GAR#30 'Freedom of Expression' as well...), I still consider it to be illegal as an ideological ban anyway.
Clauses 3 & 5 would, as I pointed out in this proposal's drafting thread, make it impossible for the government of any member nation to be vested in any religious organisation... and government being vested in a religious organisation is the basic definition of 'theocracy' which numerous Modly rulings (every time somebody tried to introduce a 'Separation of Church and State' proposal) have confirmed is a protected form of government under the rule against ideological bans.

Great points. I had said earlier that I thought it was in conflict with WAGA RES #30, but I hadn't even thought about the fact that it goes against the ideological ban rule.