[NEW DRAFT] Freedom of Religion

[Tinfect]

OOC: Happily there's a loophole that lets you ban religious rituals entirely. EDIT: Oh, and another one that, taken together with existing resolutions, lets you ban religious peeps from having any extra privileges.

If those loopholes didn't exist, I'd be writing a challenge for this (though not right now, need to go do some Xmas shopping).

OOC:
Aww, you went and pointed it out!

[Bruke]

OOC: Hooray, he pointed it out! Now the loopholes can be closed.

[Separatist Peoples]

"We oppose anything that does not allow us to summarily ban a particular ritual. The C.D.S.P. government position is that religion is tolerated only insofar as it does not interfere with the rights or well-being of individuals or society as a whole. Allowing indoctrination to occur unregulated is not something we will tolerate."

[States of Glory WA Office]

"We oppose anything that does not allow us to summarily ban a particular ritual."

Fairburn: NAPA doesn't allow you to ban a particular religious ritual. When can we expect a repeal?

"The C.D.S.P. government position is that religion is tolerated only insofar as it does not interfere with the rights or well-being of individuals or society as a whole."

Neville: With respect, Ambassador Bell, we are not sure what the issue is. In cases where religion interferes with other individuals' rights or well-being, your nation is still free to impose restrictions.

"Allowing indoctrination to occur unregulated is not something we will tolerate."

Neville: There is nothing in this proposal about indoctrination, unless your nation believes the act of publicly expressing a religious belief to be indoctrination.

OOC: Also, slight modifications have been made.

[Separatist Peoples]

Fairburn: NAPA doesn't allow you to ban a particular religious ritual. When can we expect a repeal?

"You know what I meant."

Neville: With respect, Ambassador Bell, we are not sure what the issue is. In cases where religion interferes with other individuals' rights or well-being, your nation is still free to impose restrictions.

Bell relaxes into a small smile. "I know. The comment was in reference to rectifying the current loooholes."

Neville: There is nothing in this proposal about indoctrination, unless your nation believes the act of publicly expressing a religious belief to be indoctrination.

"We have seriously considered such a definition, ambassador. I fail to see anything redeeming about religious beliefs, nor any justification for tolerating them."

Ooc: one of the few times it's more fun to roleplay intolerance rather than tolerance.

[Tzorsland]

"We oppose anything that does not allow us to summarily ban a particular ritual."

"I hope you are not thinking of banning the seventh inning stretch. Or the obligatory standing at the Hallelujah Chorus."

(Turns to the side ... ) "Wait you say those aren't religious rituals?"

[Araraukar]

OOC: Aww, you went and pointed it out!

OOC: Figured I owed SoG that much, considering the grief I've given him over the previous incarnation of this thing. Besides, if he tries to completely plug one of them, it's a contradiction of CoCR.

[Alpha Cassiopeiae]

"it seems to me that 4a would not apply to any future legislation and thus make future legislation difficult to pass or ineffective."

Neville: That is precisely the point, Ambassador. It's meant to block future restrictions on freedom of religion by this assembly except for the circumstances specified in Clauses 4b, 4c and 4d.

"I see. In that case, we cannot support the proposal. It would completely prevent this Assembly from visiting rights issues that have not yet been forseen, render repeals nearly impossible to pass for fear of opening new loopholes in the law, and would render most legislation completely ineffective as one could theoretically claim anything to be a tenet of their 'religion' to bypass General Assembly orders. And while 4b, 4c, and 4d may partially alleviate these concerns, I would like the Assembly to entertain the following scenario:

The Assembly passes a repeal to GAR #267, for whatever reason, and passes similar legislation, or if you prefer, imagine this proposal was passed before it. A poacher could then found a 'religion' based entirely on the non-stop hunting of a specific animal, and thereby eliminate the animal completely from a region due to over-hunting and eventually render the animal endangered. Nothing in 4b, 4c, or 4d could stop this 'religious' group from openly operating and threatening the region. Simply put, there are some things that don't violate these clauses that should nonetheless be illegal, and limiting our options now just because we can't think of any future scenario is foolish."

[Bears Armed]

Neville: That is precisely the point, Ambassador. It's meant to block future restrictions on freedom of religion by this assembly except for the circumstances specified in Clauses 4b, 4c and 4d.

"I see. In that case, we cannot support the proposal. It would completely prevent this Assembly from visiting rights issues that have not yet been forseen, render repeals nearly impossible to pass for fear of opening new loopholes in the law, and would render most legislation completely ineffective as one could theoretically claim anything to be a tenet of their 'religion' to bypass General Assembly orders. And while 4b, 4c, and 4d may partially alleviate these concerns, I would like the Assembly to entertain the following scenario:

The Assembly passes a repeal to GAR #267, for whatever reason, and passes similar legislation, or if you prefer, imagine this proposal was passed before it. A poacher could then found a 'religion' based entirely on the non-stop hunting of a specific animal, and thereby eliminate the animal completely from a region due to over-hunting and eventually render the animal endangered. Nothing in 4b, 4c, or 4d could stop this 'religious' group from openly operating and threatening the region. Simply put, there are some things that don't violate these clauses that should nonetheless be illegal, and limiting our options now just because we can't think of any future scenario is foolish."

OOC
'Religion' doesn't mean "anything that anybody whatsoever claims is a Religion", it means "anything that the law, acting in good faith (and according to generally-accepted RL definitions, if there's no definition in the relevant proposal/resolution) has to accept is a Religion". What we here in this forum call 'Reasonable Nation theory' applies.

[Araraukar]

'Religion' doesn't mean "anything that anybody whatsoever claims is a Religion", it means "anything that the law, acting in good faith (and according to generally-accepted RL definitions, if there's no definition in the relevant proposal/resolution) has to accept is a Religion". What we here in this forum call 'Reasonable Nation theory' applies.

OOC: Except, here, the proposal provides the definitions, not RL or RNT. And "an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its followers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment" certainly sounds like how you wouldn't even need your "religion" to be recognized as a real religion by anyone or anything else. There's no requirement for it to have more than one follower, either.

[Xanadaria]

To whom it may concern,

The Federation of Xanadaria, whilst acknowledging that some dissident or rebellious citizens may partake in believing in some form of spiritual entity, refuse to support this proposal in any capacity, as we have done so in the past. Our nation has eliminated all religious practices so that our people may worship the Emperor, not some invisible, non-existent being. This proposal seeks to undermine centuries of worship to our glorious Emperor.

Should said proposal be accepted, trade embargoes and military action WILL follow.

Glory to Xanadaria,
Michael Blumenthol III, Chief of Foreign Affairs

[Bears Armed]

'Religion' doesn't mean "anything that anybody whatsoever claims is a Religion", it means "anything that the law, acting in good faith (and according to generally-accepted RL definitions, if there's no definition in the relevant proposal/resolution) has to accept is a Religion". What we here in this forum call 'Reasonable Nation theory' applies.

OOC: Except, here, the proposal provides the definitions, not RL or RNT. And "an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its followers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment" certainly sounds like how you wouldn't even need your "religion" to be recognized as a real religion by anyone or anything else. There's no requirement for it to have more than one follower, either.

OOC: I'd still uphold the national courts having a right to decide whether that's an actual 'ideology' or just an excuse...

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'd still uphold the national courts having a right to decide whether that's an actual 'ideology' or just an excuse...

OOC: Too bad the proposal makes no such exceptions.

Also I can't help but wonder whether 4.b. was worded that way intentionally to allow causing suffering on sapients, since you can hurt someone without harming them... And 4.c. on the other hand bans causing undue suffering of non-sapients, but not harming them...

[Moronist Decisions]

I'm concerned that given the broad range of possible religious rites that I've seen across the multiverse, 4a would lead to a very broad blocker on almost anything, or effectively grant a religious exemption on most activities. I am against.

[Uan aa Boa]

This draft shares its predecessor's fundamental flaw. It allows that an action performed by a religious believer might be legal when an identical action performed by an non-believer would be a crime. As such it violates the basic principle of equality of all citizens before the law. Resolutely opposed.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"The Assembly passes a repeal to GAR #267, for whatever reason, and passes similar legislation, or if you prefer, imagine this proposal was passed before it. A poacher could then found a 'religion' based entirely on the non-stop hunting of a specific animal, and thereby eliminate the animal completely from a region due to over-hunting and eventually render the animal endangered. Nothing in 4b, 4c, or 4d could stop this 'religious' group from openly operating and threatening the region. Simply put, there are some things that don't violate these clauses that should nonetheless be illegal, and limiting our options now just because we can't think of any future scenario is foolish."

Neville: Your argument is fundamentally flawed on the basis that 4b would apply if the animals were sapient and 4c would apply if the animals weren't sapient. Unless you mean to tell us that the extinction of an entire species does not count as 'harm' or 'undue suffering', we don't see the issue.

There is also the problem that if we allow any future resolutions to overrule Clause Four, one of the main drivings points of the proposal would be completely gutted. Someone could just say: 'Oh, I know we're restricting religious rituals for no good reason, but this clause allows us to impose whatever restrictions we like on an international level'. If you have any better suggestions as to how we can structure the exemptions then we would be more than happy to take them on board.

This draft shares its predecessor's fundamental flaw. It allows that an action performed by a religious believer might be legal when an identical action performed by an non-believer would be a crime. As such it violates the basic principle of equality of all citizens before the law. Resolutely opposed.

Neville: There is a very easy solution to this problem: Just allow the non-religious to perform the rituals as well. Seriously, we've tried to word the exemptions in such a way that the only "crimes" that a religious individual would be allowed to commit under this proposal would be entirely victimless. If we've missed anything out then please let us know.

Also, indirect discrimination is very much a thing. Banning everyone from wearing headgear is clearly not discriminatory on a direct level, but it inevitably affects certain religious groups more than others, not to mention the non-religious. Ergo, such a policy would, under this resolution, require an actual victim to protect, whether it be a sapient being, a non-sapient lifeform or an item of property. If your government can't justify indirectly discriminatory laws by pointing out how they protect the rights of others then quite frankly, the laws shouldn't have been passed in the first place.

Barbera: In addition to the present debate, our Delegation wishes to discuss the matter of whether the exemptions granted to member states in Clause Four should be enshrined in such a manner that any future World Assembly resolutions would be unable to remove them without repealing the entire resolution.

There's no requirement for it to have more than one follower, either.

Look again:

DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its followers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

There was some debate last time over whether religions with a single follower should be covered, but I think we can all see the downsides to including them.

Also I can't help but wonder whether 4.b. was worded that way intentionally to allow causing suffering on sapients, since you can hurt someone without harming them...

OK, firstly, how can you cause suffering to sapient individuals without causing harm to them? Secondly, what religious belief would justify such an act? Finally, why would it be intentional on my part?

And 4.c. on the other hand bans causing undue suffering of non-sapients, but not harming them...

Yeah, 'cos animal sacrifice and all that. If your nation wants to require that all animals be stunned prior to slaughter then it can do that. If your nation considers all instances of animal sacrifice to constitute 'undue suffering' then there's no problem. Conversely,
if your nation wants to consider all animal sacrifice, religious or otherwise, to be legally distinct from undue suffering for the purposes of this proposal then once again, no problem.

[Bruke]

Ambassador Dessalegne Nega rises. "The delegation of the Royal Republic strongly supports enshrining the exemptions in Clause Four. They are, in our opinion, sufficient enough to cover any potential problems that might arise from limiting the power of states to restrict religious rituals."

[Uan aa Boa]

This draft shares its predecessor's fundamental flaw. It allows that an action performed by a religious believer might be legal when an identical action performed by an non-believer would be a crime. As such it violates the basic principle of equality of all citizens before the law. Resolutely opposed.

Neville: There is a very easy solution to this problem: Just allow the non-religious to perform the rituals as well. Seriously, we've tried to word the exemptions in such a way that the only "crimes" that a religious individual would be allowed to commit under this proposal would be entirely victimless. If we've missed anything out then please let us know.

Also, indirect discrimination is very much a thing. Banning everyone from wearing headgear is clearly not discriminatory on a direct level, but it inevitably affects certain religious groups more than others, not to mention the non-religious. Ergo, such a policy would, under this resolution, require an actual victim to protect, whether it be a sapient being, a non-sapient lifeform or an item of property. If your government can't justify indirectly discriminatory laws by pointing out how they protect the rights of others then quite frankly, the laws shouldn't have been passed in the first place.

The inequality is there in black and white in the proposal. If wearing a certain religious face covering is illegal in a nation then according to your definitions its wearing is (perhaps) a religious ritual when done by Citizen A (an adherent of a religion) but definitely not a religious ritual when done by Citizen B (a non-adherent). I think we're agreed that this sinks the principle of equality before the law. It's no use saying there's a workaround to restore equality by changing the fundamental basis of the nation's legal system. Such a change is far too big to be smuggled in as a consequence of a law on religion.

In any case, there's not nearly enough substance to this resolution to allow these issues to be consistently decided. A state could well argue that it is constitutionally fundamental that governance is secular and neutral on matters of religion, perhaps against a background of historical religious persecution, as a way of allowing citizens of all religions to live together in harmony and equality with none of them occupying a position of privilege. To this end, it could be ruled unlawful for state employees to wear religious clothing or symbols while performing their duties. Is this forbidding a victimless act? That act wouldn't cause harm to a specific individual or their property, but if the ban is intended to make religious conflict and persecution less likely on a societal scale then it is intended to prevent likely harm. How direct does the link to the harm have to be, and what precisely constitutes harm?

Should a government be able to ban hate speech or the denial of past genocide that stops short of incitement to violence in the belief that it increases the risk of actual violence? Should it ban the use of chlorofluorocarbons or other pollutants on the grounds that they cause generalised harm in the long term? Or is there no "actual" victim in these cases? This is far too sketchy.

Equally sketchy are the definitions of religion and religious ritual. Will all religions recognise "spiritual enlightenment" as the purpose of all their rituals? Is it not Eurocentric, indeed biased towards Protestant Christianity, to regard belief and ideology as the the defining features of religion? This is perhaps not to the occasion to go too deeply into this, however. I'm merely pointing out that the issues exist.

[Araraukar]

Look again:

DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its followers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

OOC: Fine, someone and their drinking buddy.

OK, firstly, how can you cause suffering to sapient individuals without causing harm to them?

Emotional suffering is still suffering, and also it's entirely possible to cause physical pain without causing measurable damage. Or any damage, really; pain receptors react to a lot of things that don't cause actual damage, like, say, eating really hot peppers.

Secondly, what religious belief would justify such an act?

Ask that of anyone who uses their religion as the excuse to be verbally abusive of those who either do something they don't approve (like, say, abortion) or are different from them (like, say, belonging to a different ethnicity/race/religion).

Finally, why would it be intentional on my part?

Because it looks like that, given that you're including a suffering ban on non-sapients in the same subclause. Which indicates that you're well aware of the difference between harm and suffering.

I think we're agreed that this sinks the principle of equality before the law.

OOC: ...and is the challenge-worthy contradiction of CoCR.

To this end, it could be ruled unlawful for state employees to wear religious clothing or symbols while performing their duties. Is this forbidding a victimless act? That act wouldn't cause harm to a specific individual or their property, but if the ban is intended to make religious conflict and persecution less likely on a societal scale then it is intended to prevent likely harm.

Anyone who groused at me for mentioning the loopholes can now direct their complaints at Uan for detailing them.

Equally sketchy are the definitions of religion and religious ritual. Will all religions recognise "spiritual enlightenment" as the purpose of all their rituals? Is it not Eurocentric, indeed biased towards Protestant Christianity, to regard belief and ideology as the the defining features of religion?

I argued this on the previous thread. SoG chose to ignore it.