Weaken Faith Authority [DRAFT]

[The New California Republic]

PLus why do you think that it is a bad idea? For starting surveillance on people or escorting religious representatives? Esiring their safety and loyalty is one of the best/good idea.

Here:

5.) Mobilization of police forces
a) Places of worship will be defended by police forces chosen by the government to ensure stability.
b) Religious representatives will be escorted by police officers chosen by the government to ensure their safety and to report their speeches to the government.

What the actual fuck is this? You know, I wouldn't have thought it was possible, absolutely would not have thought it was possible for this draft to be made worse, but it has. I barely even know where to begin with my criticism of this clause, but I'll try.

First, what on Earth are the places of worship being "defended" from?? I know fine well what you are trying to do here, you are trying to be incredibly sneaky by oppressively placing police around all places of worship under the guise of "defending" them. Sorry, that shit is transparent as hell. It isn't smart.

Second, the religious representatives are NOT being escorted for "their safety" at all. More completely underhanded bullshit.

[Dawn Kingdom]

Second, the religious representatives are NOT being escorted for "their safety" at all. More completely underhanded bullshit.

[/quote]

Sorry if I am being rude, but do you have paranoid personality disorder, cause I believe I told you at least millions of times that I am not trying to ban religion itself. Why the hell do you even think that I am using "underhanded bullshit"?!

[Dawn Kingdom]

Personally, I really like clause 4 and 5, even though 4 is illegal. Surveillance on citizens and religious people is a good way to make sure no dissent will rise.

Thank you for appreciating my hard work, these days not many are appreciating other people's work.

[Holy Marsh]

Second, the religious representatives are NOT being escorted for "their safety" at all. More completely underhanded bullshit.

Sorry if I am being rude, but do you have paranoid personality disorder, cause I believe I told you at least millions of times that I am not trying to ban religion itself. Why the hell do you even think that I am using "underhanded bullshit"?!

I think California's reasoning is sound. Clauses 1-3 don't give one any faith (pun intended) that Clause 5 is anything more than intimidation aimed at religious establishments and those involved in running them. One can legally dress it up as something else, but the intent, when taken with the rest of the proposal, seems rather clear.

[Separatist Peoples]

PLus why do you think that it is a bad idea? For starting surveillance on people or escorting religious representatives? Esiring their safety and loyalty is one of the best/good idea.

"Ambassador, loyalty is earned. Compelled loyalty is not genuine loyalty, and cannot be relied upon. Your efforts here undermine both the World Assembly's enduring policies of pluralism and individual liberty. As such, you are unlikely to garner any great political support. Since the ambassador as made it clear that he is uninterested in accepting realistic advice about how to propose a successful resolution, the Confederate Dominion's delegation will merely register it's opposition."

[Dawn Kingdom]

PLus why do you think that it is a bad idea? For starting surveillance on people or escorting religious representatives? Esiring their safety and loyalty is one of the best/good idea.

"Ambassador, loyalty is earned. Compelled loyalty is not genuine loyalty, and cannot be relied upon. Your efforts here undermine both the World Assembly's enduring policies of pluralism and individual liberty. As such, you are unlikely to garner any great political support. Since the ambassador as made it clear that he is uninterested in accepting realistic advice about how to propose a successful resolution, the Confederate Dominion's delegation will merely register it's opposition."

1.) I am listening to advises, not all of them for some of them.
2.) What is Confederate Dominion's delegation.
3.) I want this proposal to be successful. Telling me to delete it won't make the proposal successful.

[The New California Republic]

Sorry if I am being rude, but do you have paranoid personality disorder, cause I believe I told you at least millions of times that I am not trying to ban religion itself. Why the hell do you even think that I am using "underhanded bullshit"?!

ROFL, "sorry if I am being rude but [insert questioning someone's mental health here]"

You know exactly what underhanded bullshit this proposal is engaging in. "Stationing police around places of worship to defend them" my arse, like hell that is what it is for. "Getting police to follow religious representatives to defend them" my arse, like hell that is what it is for. Completely ridiculous.

[Kenmoria]

"Ambassador, loyalty is earned. Compelled loyalty is not genuine loyalty, and cannot be relied upon. Your efforts here undermine both the World Assembly's enduring policies of pluralism and individual liberty. As such, you are unlikely to garner any great political support. Since the ambassador as made it clear that he is uninterested in accepting realistic advice about how to propose a successful resolution, the Confederate Dominion's delegation will merely register it's opposition."

1.) I am listening to advises, not all of them for some of them.
2.) What is Confederate Dominion's delegation.
3.) I want this proposal to be successful. Telling me to delete it won't make the proposal successful.

(OOC:
1) While it is perfectly reasonable to not take every single comment that appears on the forums, ignoring the majority of criticisms, which is what you have been doing, is not.

2) A delegation is an IC diplomatic mission to the World Assembly. The Confederate Dominion’s delegation is the mission from Separatist Peoples.

3) I’m sorry, but this proposal has almost no hope of being successful unless you take onboard the criticism coming your way. Clause four is illegal and the majority of nations won’t like the majority of the other clauses.)

[Dawn Kingdom]

I think California's reasoning is sound. Clauses 1-3 don't give one any faith (pun intended) that Clause 5 is anything more than intimidation aimed at religious establishments and those involved in running them. One can legally dress it up as something else, but the intent, when taken with the rest of the proposal, seems rather clear.

Don't give one any faith (pun intended), I hear ya But in all seriousness, make your point clearer, how do you want to improve the proposal?

[The New California Republic]

I think California's reasoning is sound. Clauses 1-3 don't give one any faith (pun intended) that Clause 5 is anything more than intimidation aimed at religious establishments and those involved in running them. One can legally dress it up as something else, but the intent, when taken with the rest of the proposal, seems rather clear.

Don't give one any faith (pun intended), I hear ya But in all seriousness, make your point clearer, how do you want to improve the proposal?

By removing the underhanded bullshit. Holy Marsh is agreeing with me.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador, loyalty is earned. Compelled loyalty is not genuine loyalty, and cannot be relied upon. Your efforts here undermine both the World Assembly's enduring policies of pluralism and individual liberty. As such, you are unlikely to garner any great political support. Since the ambassador as made it clear that he is uninterested in accepting realistic advice about how to propose a successful resolution, the Confederate Dominion's delegation will merely register it's opposition."

1.) I am listening to advises, not all of them for some of them.
2.) What is Confederate Dominion's delegation.
3.) I want this proposal to be successful. Telling me to delete it won't make the proposal successful.

Ambassador Bell stares at the delegation from the Dawn Kingdom. "Ambassador, I am the plenipotentiary representative of the Confederate Dominion of Separatist Peoples. I was referring to the diplomatic staff for my nation. Did...did you forget how to be an ambassador?

"As for your proposal, it will never pass. I've been an ambassador here for the better part of a decade. I have a great deal of experience here. I am even considered something of an expert.Take my word for it: there is absolutely no possible way you will succeed if you insist on forcing nations to verify loyalty and create situations where religious leaders require constant police escort, then you will fail. If not of your own failure, then because I will actively campaign against this."

The ambassador shakes his head in disgust.

[Jebslund]

"Ambassador, loyalty is earned. Compelled loyalty is not genuine loyalty, and cannot be relied upon. Your efforts here undermine both the World Assembly's enduring policies of pluralism and individual liberty. As such, you are unlikely to garner any great political support. Since the ambassador as made it clear that he is uninterested in accepting realistic advice about how to propose a successful resolution, the Confederate Dominion's delegation will merely register it's opposition."

1.) I am listening to advises, not all of them for some of them.
2.) What is Confederate Dominion's delegation.
3.) I want this proposal to be successful. Telling me to delete it won't make the proposal successful.

[OOC:
1.) You may wish to listen to more of it. Your pride is the biggest impediment to your goal right now.
2.) The Confederate Dominion of Separatist Peoples.
3.) See 1.).]

[Dawn Kingdom]

3.) See 1.).]

???

[The New California Republic]

3.) See 1.).]

???

Listen to criticism rather than resorting to ad hominems, in other words.

[Dawn Kingdom]

Ambassador Bell stares at the delegation from the Dawn Kingdom. "Ambassador, I am the plenipotentiary representative of the Confederate Dominion of Separatist Peoples. I was referring to the diplomatic staff for my nation. Did...did you forget how to be an ambassador?

"As for your proposal, it will never pass. I've been an ambassador here for the better part of a decade. I have a great deal of experience here. I am even considered something of an expert.Take my word for it: there is absolutely no possible way you will succeed if you insist on forcing nations to verify loyalty and create situations where religious leaders require constant police escort, then you will fail. If not of your own failure, then because I will actively campaign against this."

The ambassador shakes his head in disgust.

1.) Is this some kind of roleplay?
2.) concerning clause 5, police forces won't escort religious representatives whole days. After preaching is done, they are free to roam, unless they are going to publicly speak. In there house, out in the city/cafe/library they will have full independence.
3.) I am making changes in clause 5 to make sure that basic human right of religious representatives are being annulled as I care for my each citizen.

[The New California Republic]

police forces won't escort religious representatives whole days. After preaching is done, they are free to roam, unless they are going to publicly speak.

That's not what the draft says...

3.) I am making changes in clause 5 to make sure that basic human right of religious representatives are being annulled as I care for my each citizen.

That would likely make the clause highly illegal...

[Dawn Kingdom]

police forces won't escort religious representatives whole days. After preaching is done, they are free to roam, unless they are going to publicly speak.

That's not what the draft says...

3.) I am making changes in clause 5 to make sure that basic human right of religious representatives are being annulled as I care for my each citizen.

That would likely make the clause highly illegal...

I meant to say that I will edit the clause 5 to make sure their basic human rights are defended. Typo, sorry. Check out new edit.

[Separatist Peoples]

1.) Is this some kind of roleplay?

OOC: The GA forum is an In Character forum. Anything not marked OOC is IC. So, yes.

2.) concerning clause 5, police forces won't escort religious representatives whole days. After preaching is done, they are free to roam, unless they are going to publicly speak. In there house, out in the city/cafe/library they will have full independence.

IC: "The your legislation creates a need for police supervision is indicative of a gross policy failure."

3.) I am making changes in clause 5 to make sure that basic human right of religious representatives are being annulled as I care for my each citizen.

"Ambassador, I somehow doubt that this is salvageable, no matter how you qualify Clause 5."

[Jebslund]

3.) See 1.).]

???

???

Listen to criticism rather than resorting to ad hominems, in other words.

[OOC: This. You are letting your pride stop you from taking good advice, to speak nothing of allowing your own political leanings to further limit your ability to improve this and other resolutions.]

[Marshite Ponies]

"Hello. I am Ambassador Twilight Sparkle, and I am here to look over your proposal. The first clause presents an issue because it lacks any definition of sound argumentation. Under the wording of the law, it would be legal to restrict the rights of religious officials regardless of their argumentation if the government disagrees with their views. Nothing states that illegal or unsound argumentation results only from religious views. It gives a broad capability for governments to stamp out religious leader's ability to speak publicly against the government no matter what their manner or means of argumentation is. Therefore, the Republic of Akila opposes the first clause.

The second restricts the economic freedom of citizens to engage in charity with non-profit and legal organizations. By placing the burden thusly on the government, clause three, you create an economic requirement for the state to engage in religious affairs. While the intent of this is to weaken faith's authority, it effectively marries the concept of state and church together. It is easy to see one influencing the other and for religion to play an even more prominent role in 'secular' governments. Not to mention the financial burdens carried by the state are shared by the tax-paying citizens regardless of belief, effectively meaning non-believers and those of different faiths are being forced to subsidize religious institutions. This dual focus on depriving economic freedom on both ends runs counter to the economic policy the Republic supports, while the burdens placed upon the government seems to borrow troubling issues from several angles. As such, the Republic of Akila opposes the second and third clause.

The fourth is rather blatant. While further modifications have moved it into greater acceptance, we do believe it is used more as a tool of state control rather than security for those it directs such forces to 'protect'. This is due to our reading of the first three clauses bringing religious institutions and those in them into compliance and control of the government. The security measures come across more as an enforcement and intimidation tactic rather than securing places of worship and religious officials. As such, the Republic of Akila opposes the fourth clause.

The Republic of Akila believes that this proposal has several fatal flaws that would require a major overhaul to function, and even then does not believe it would be able to sustain those changes without becoming toothless in the eye of the Dawn Kingdom. It does not believe that there are a series of changes that could make this acceptable, nor does it believe it could ever find the support it needs. As such, the Republic of Akila opposes this Draft in its entirety. Have a Harmonious day."

[The New California Republic]

b) Religious representatives will be escorted by police officers chosen by the government to ensure their safety and to report their speeches to the government, but after hours of preachering is done police forces will be disbanded and religious representatives will be left without any kind of surveillance, unless they intend to publicly make statements..

The police will be disbanded? A bit of an extreme measure to take when the "preachering" (sic) is done, don't you think?

And this little bit of window dressing does nothing to redeem this clause. The preacher still has a government minder with them when they are working. And no, I still don't buy the completely asinine shit about this being to "ensure their safety"(!)

[Dawn Kingdom]

I accept the fact that main role of clause 5 is to diminish religious authority, this is what this article is about, but don't reject that secondary role of clause 5 is to ensure safety of religious representatives as Dawn Kingdom cares about each and every citizen of WA. (mostly for dawnians)

[The New California Republic]

I accept the fact that main role of clause 5 is to diminish religious authority, this is what this article is about, but don't reject that secondary role of clause 5 is to ensure safety of religious representatives as Dawn Kingdom cares about each and every citizen of WA. (mostly for dawnians)

It isn't to "ensure their safety" at all, and everyone knows it...

[Separatist Peoples]

I accept the fact that main role of clause 5 is to diminish religious authority, this is what this article is about, but don't reject that secondary role of clause 5 is to ensure safety of religious representatives as Dawn Kingdom cares about each and every citizen of WA. (mostly for dawnians)

"Ambassador, I assure you that not every nation cares about citizens of other WA members as you do. Its a bad argument upon which to predicate your argument. Further, there isn't anything to suggest that religious leaders need police escorts. It's a solution looking for a problem. Unless protection isn't the intent."

[Frisbeeteria]

Sorry if I am being rude, but do you have paranoid personality disorder?

I told you to stop making personal attacks on players. *** Warned for flaming. ***