Weaken Faith Authority [DRAFT]

[The New California Republic]

All replies OOC.

The case isn't entiry closed. It is just an idea, not a proposal.

It's a draft proposal...

And I ask you to speak respectfully about our delegate.

No.

OOC: Abandoning two separate proposal drafts in less than 24 hours is bad, really really bad. And I'm surprised that anyone agreed to co-author this train wreck.

I am not abandoning this one. And not going to abandon it. We will improve the draft to shape it as legal document.

We will see.

[Dawn Kingdom]

We will improve the draft to shape it as legal document.

As we've explained to any number of new would-be authors, there's an enormous difference between "legal" and "good". Don't stop at "legal". Aim for "good".

Frankly, I don't think "good" is possible for this subject matter. Players have tried and failed at this for almost 2 decades. There's simply no way to reconcile the concept with the rules and the fact that some players require religion in their government.

I aim for legal. And it isn't "bad" proposal either. Only after voting it will be branded either as "good" or "bad".

[Wallenburg]

As we've explained to any number of new would-be authors, there's an enormous difference between "legal" and "good". Don't stop at "legal". Aim for "good".

Frankly, I don't think "good" is possible for this subject matter. Players have tried and failed at this for almost 2 decades. There's simply no way to reconcile the concept with the rules and the fact that some players require religion in their government.

I aim for legal. And it isn't "bad" proposal either. Only after voting it will be branded either as "good" or "bad".

It's bad. That every person commenting here, other than yourself, says it's bad should be a sign to you.

[The New California Republic]

As we've explained to any number of new would-be authors, there's an enormous difference between "legal" and "good". Don't stop at "legal". Aim for "good".

Frankly, I don't think "good" is possible for this subject matter. Players have tried and failed at this for almost 2 decades. There's simply no way to reconcile the concept with the rules and the fact that some players require religion in their government.

I aim for legal. And it isn't "bad" proposal either. Only after voting it will be branded either as "good" or "bad".

OOC: It is a bad proposal. It has crippling flaws in it.

[Dawn Kingdom]

The world assembly,
Many nations have zealous population. Churches are spreading their influence throughtout the nation, while polluting nation's firm standards and enacting crazy and zealous, unfair ideas.

1.) Decreasing religious authorities' influence.

What does this mean?

a) Religious authorities will be prohibited to spread hate in the name of the god.

Contradicts Protecting Free Expression.

b) Number of religious authorities in the goverment will be strictly under regulation.

Contradicts Charter of Civil Rights.

c) Abusing human rights in the name of the god will be prohibited.

General duplication of existing rights resolutions.

2.) New legislations enacted in church by the goverment.
a) Representatives of church must publicly approve all of goverment's legislations.

Contradicts Protecting Free Expression.
pquote]b) Various fanatic and dangerous sects will be disbanded and outlawed. Their HQ will be deatroyed.

Contradicts Freedom of Assembly and Cultural Site Preservation.

c) Religious representatives must not mock goverment's legislations, just because it is against "the will of god", but if they have more arguments they can protest.

Contradicts Protecting Free Expression.

d) Embazzling money from citizens in religious means will be prohibited.

Okay.

e) Goverment will manage church's funds and expenses, by that faith will be solely dependent of the goverment.

So much for separation of church and state.

3.) Using police force
a) Possible corrupted, bribed or fanatic policemen must be relived from his duties.

That's rather vague, and unrelated to secularism.

b) Goverment must start monthly checking each house inspect population if they are fanatics, and take extreme measures.

(1) Goodbye privacy, apparently.
(2) Define extreme measures.[/quote]

Freedom of expression is already repealed, so you should scratch those.

[Dawn Kingdom]

The world assembly,
Many nations have zealous population. Churches are spreading their influence throughtout the nation, while polluting nation's firm standards and enacting crazy and zealous, unfair ideas.

1.) Decreasing religious authorities' influence.

What does this mean?

a) Religious authorities will be prohibited to spread hate in the name of the god.

Contradicts Protecting Free Expression.

b) Number of religious authorities in the goverment will be strictly under regulation.

Contradicts Charter of Civil Rights.

c) Abusing human rights in the name of the god will be prohibited.

General duplication of existing rights resolutions.

2.) New legislations enacted in church by the goverment.
a) Representatives of church must publicly approve all of goverment's legislations.

Contradicts Protecting Free Expression.
pquote]b) Various fanatic and dangerous sects will be disbanded and outlawed. Their HQ will be deatroyed.

Contradicts Freedom of Assembly and Cultural Site Preservation.

c) Religious representatives must not mock goverment's legislations, just because it is against "the will of god", but if they have more arguments they can protest.

Contradicts Protecting Free Expression.

d) Embazzling money from citizens in religious means will be prohibited.

Okay.

e) Goverment will manage church's funds and expenses, by that faith will be solely dependent of the goverment.

So much for separation of church and state.

3.) Using police force
a) Possible corrupted, bribed or fanatic policemen must be relived from his duties.

That's rather vague, and unrelated to secularism.

b) Goverment must start monthly checking each house inspect population if they are fanatics, and take extreme measures.

(1) Goodbye privacy, apparently.
(2) Define extreme measures.[/quote]

Freedom of expression is already repealed, so you should scratch those.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: ...What are you doing?

[Wallenburg]

Freedom of expression is already repealed, so you should scratch those.

1) Please don't double post.
2) https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

[Dawn Kingdom]

What the difference between freedom of expression and protecting free expressions?!

[Wallenburg]

What the difference between freedom of expression and protecting free expressions?!

One is repealed. The other is not. The other also permits bans on pornography.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Many of the criticisms still haven't been addressed.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Many of the criticisms still haven't been addressed.

OOC: It's less than 24 hours since this thread was created. Of course many criticisms will have gone unaddressed.

[Aureumterra]

The case isn't entiry closed. It is just an idea, not a proposal.

But… it’s a draft

And I ask you to speak respectfully about our delegate.

That delegate is the one who tried to boycott forum drafting, and has every single proposal of his defeated, so not a very good author

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Many of the criticisms still haven't been addressed.

OOC: It's less than 24 hours since this thread was created. Of course many criticisms will have gone unaddressed.

OOC: I mean some of them have, there have been 10 edits of the draft. It's odd, some of the things I pointed out have been changed, such as the section on the police, but others haven't.

[Dawn Kingdom]

As I said several times, I am constantly changing stuff, to make the proposal more legal, practical and acceptable.

[Jebslund]

As I said several times, I am constantly changing stuff, to make the proposal more legal, practical and acceptable.

[OOC: and, every time you do, you should be putting the previous draft under a spoiler and putting the current one above it in the OP (original post).

[Aureumterra]

As I said several times, I am constantly changing stuff, to make the proposal more legal, practical and acceptable.

But the entire premise is too broad, as I said earlier, this is a train wreck, and should be abandoned until you get more drafting experience

[Dawn Kingdom]

Just churches?
Unless you're gonna apply it to mosques and synagogues too, I guess, but something tells me that in your case mosques get a free pass.
Side note: Wouldn't this outlaw theocratic nations?
This is just the little 'Happy Birthday' sign they put on birthday cakes, I imagine there's more to point out.

I have changed word "churches" to "places of worship". Is that more satisfying for you?

[Sezraha]

The World Assembly,
Many nations have a zealous population. Places of worship are spreading their influence throughtout the nation, while polluting nation's firm standards and enacting crazy and zealous, unfair ideas.

Hereby,

1.) Influence of religious representatives must be decreased.
a) Religious authorities will be prohibited to spread hate towards minorities and social groups in the name of the god.
b) Manipulating and urging citizens to be more religious will be prohibited.

2.) New firm legislations must be passed in places of worship.
a) Religious representatives cannot publicly mock government's actions without good reason and argumentation.
b) Collecting money from citizens in religious means will be prohibited.
e) Goverment will manage church's funds and expenses, by that faith will be solely dependent of the goverment.

3.) Using police force
a) If policeman/policewoman is bribed by faith representative, he/she will be immediately relieved from his/her duties.
b) Goverment must start annual cheching of families to determine their loyalty to the nation.

Soo, I haven't proposed it yet, I just wanted to hear your thoughts about it. Constructive criticism is appreciated.

"the god" should probably be changed to "religion" since not all religions believe in god.

[Kenmoria]

“What is the category and strength of this proposal? They should be put on the draft.”

[Dawn Kingdom]

It is well past time, I have chamged the title from "Separate church and state" to "Weaken Faith Authority", because original name violated several laws of WA proposals.

[Dawn Kingdom]

“What is the category and strength of this proposal? They should be put on the draft.”

Strength - Significant/Mild, definitely not strong.

I haven't chosen category yet, cause misclassification is considered illegal. I am still thinking about it.

[Barunia]

It is well past time, I have chamged the title from "Separate church and state" to "Weaken Faith Authority", because original name violated several laws of WA proposals.

Changing the title does nothing. This is still illegal for an ideological ban as it prevents theocracies. Several members of the secrtariat and a game mod have told you this. It doesn't matter how many times you change the wording, the underlying premise behind this resolution (that religous organisations should not be involved in government) is not compatible with the idea of theocracy. Therefore, if this were to pass, it would effectively ban theocracies, and is therefore illegal. What part of this are you not understanding?

[Kenmoria]

It is well past time, I have chamged the title from "Separate church and state" to "Weaken Faith Authority", because original name violated several laws of WA proposals.

Changing the title does nothing. This is still illegal for an ideological ban as it prevents theocracies. Several members of the secrtariat and a game mod have told you this. It doesn't matter how many times you change the wording, the underlying premise behind this resolution (that religous organisations should not be involved in government) is not compatible with the idea of theocracy. Therefore, if this were to pass, it would effectively ban theocracies, and is therefore illegal. What part of this are you not understanding?

(OOC: After the new draft was posted in the OP, I’m not sure this criticism still applies. Although the draft has lots of things to restrict traditionally theocratic activities and legislature, it does not prohibit a theocracy in its current form. The closest it gets is 1b or 2a, but those don’t directly outlaw a government in which priests rule in the name of God(s), just ban the activities typical of them. I suppose one could argue that 2b restricts a theocratic government from ever having taxation, but that isn’t by itself an ideological ban. There are still major issues with the draft though, and I’m fairly certain it’s still illegal.)

[Dawn Kingdom]

I am not just chaning wording, but also I delete illegal proposals and edit the one which can be edited into something legal. Still working on this tho.