Weaken Faith Authority [DRAFT]

[Dawn Kingdom]

kenmoria thank you for your comment.

[Liberimery]

The Democratic States of Liberimery opposes this proposal as it violates tenanted of both Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom against unreasonable Search and Seziure, and Freedom of Religion. While we are a secular government and do not have a state religion, as a direct democracy this act threatens millions of Liberimery voters who are respected citizens from voicing legitimate government concerns. We do not see any part of this bill that is workable within our political system. We remind the ambassador that separation of church and states limits the government's control of religion as much as, if not more, it limits religions control of government.

[The New California Republic]

All replies are OOC of course.

b) Manipulating and urging citizens to be more religious will be prohibited.

Again, you are basically banning all missionary work...

a) Religious representatives cannot publicly mock government's actions without good reason and argumentation.

Censorship plain and simple. Other people aren't placed under these kinds of draconian restrictions, so why should religious representatives be?

b) Collecting money from citizens in religious means will be prohibited.

So all donations to religious groups will be banned? Well, the majority of religions will cease to function in that case, as most of them rely on donations to continue functioning. This is outlawing religion by the back door, it is pretty underhanded to be honest...

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

So separation of church and state suddenly goes out of the window, then? If the government manages the finances of various religions then the line between religion and state will be irrevocably blurred. You will encounter major resistance from many nations because of this.

b) Goverment must start annual cheching of families to determine their loyalty to the nation.

There it is again, the Stasi-esque oppressive shit. I dread to think what these annual checks would involve, being tied to a chair with a bright light shining in their faces, perhaps? This clause needs to be thrown in the trash, post-haste.

[Dawn Kingdom]

Banning missionary work is not same as banning the religion itself. If you want I will put is as ban on missionary work. Separate church and state is out, but main point of this proposal is weakening faith authority, not outlawing it. Yes oppressive shit still remains, it doesn't counter any of the previous legislations do you can't label it as "illegal" just because you don't like it.

[The New California Republic]

All replies OOC.

Banning missionary work is not same as banning the religion itself.

I never said that.

Separate church and state is out

Then this proposal will never succeed. Ever. You will never get a majority of nations or regional delegates to agree to such a thing.

but main point of this proposal is weakening faith authority, not outlawing it.

Except by banning donations you are effectively cutting off the source of income of religions. It is banning them by the back door. It's like saying "charities can continue to exist, but they cannot receive any donations". See the problem?

Yes oppressive shit still remains

A proposal that is intentionally oppressive will win few supporters here. Yearly checks of families to "determine loyalty" is some oppressive and totally unnecessary bullshit.

it doesn't counter any of the previous legislations do you can't label it as "illegal" just because you don't like it.

Not labelling it as illegal, I labelled it as shit, there is a crucial difference...

[Barunia]

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.)

I may have misunderstood. The problem is that the resolution isn't formatted correctly, so I understood " Influence of religious representatives must be decreased" to be a clause, rather than a heading. 2e (which should really be numbered 2c) may violate a theocracy's national sovereignty by not permitting them to organise their own financial structures for government (If the church runs the state, then the church is responsible for running the state's affairs, not the other way around).

All that being said, let's look at the proposal itself...

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.

Presumptuous. Many nation's standards have their origins in religious beliefs and morals. How do you know the ideas spread by a religion are crazy or unfair?

b) Manipulating and urging citizens to be more religious will be prohibited.

This not only bans all mission work and proselytising, it also technically bans any religious service. For example, if a minister implores his flock to take Jesus' words to care for the disadvantaged seriously, he is urging people to be more religious. When believers sing songs of praise, they encourage each other to draw nearer to God, or in other words, to be more religious. Basically the only way a church could possibly comply with this legislation is of they spent the entire service in silence, without communication.

EDIT: Which should therefore be a violation of GAR#430, given that resolution's definition of religious practice as "any practice associated with a religion, be it practiced through rituals, prayer, or any other sort of activity, performed either individually or in a group,"

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.

a) So people of faith are not allowed to speak their minds> Where is the restriction against people of no faith? This seems to be a double anti-rights whammy of removing freedom of speech for a particular group of people. Please tell me why you thin this is even a good idea.

b) Goverment must start annual cheching of families to determine their loyalty to the nation.

What the hell is this even doing here? It has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the legislation, or any of its aims. Are you assuming that religious people can't be loyal to a nation?

[Dawn Kingdom]

Religious people aren't prohibited from protesting. If they have some arguments then their protests are most welcome, but "god wills it" is considered as an argument.

Annual checking will take part in reducing faith authority. If needs be and religion takes arms against the government citizens loyalty toward the government must be absolute, without question...

I hope I answered your questions.

[Barunia]

Religious people aren't prohibited from protesting. If they have some arguments then their protests are most welcome, but "god wills it" is considered as an argument.

Annual checking will take part in reducing faith authority. If needs be and religion takes arms against the government citizens loyalty toward the government must be absolute, without question...

I hope I answered your questions.

No you didn't.

Rational or sensible argument is not a requirement for freedom of expression. If it were, the anti-vaccine brigade would not be allowed to present their views. Please explain why a person should not have the right to express any view they like?

Please explain why citizen's loyalty to the government must be absolute. That is an authoritarian view, that does not allow for the wide variety of different views present in the WA. Not every county thinks like yours.

Please explain how "b) Manipulating and urging citizens to be more religious will be prohibited" does not prevent ministers from preaching or religious people from communicating their faith to each other. Also please show how your proposal does not violate GAR#430.

[Dawn Kingdom]

It does violate Freedom of Religion, I do admit it. But Weaken Faith Authority isn't a proposal yet.

If you want to have possible rebellions in your country, then I hope you will.

"Not everyone is authoritarian". Not everyone is liberal either.

[The New California Republic]

All my replies on this thread OOC until further notice.

Religious people aren't prohibited from protesting. If they have some arguments then their protests are most welcome, but "god wills it" is considered as an argument.

It is still limiting the freedom of speech of an entire swath of the population...

Annual checking will take part in reducing faith authority.

But...how though? You are being incredibly vague about this "annual checks of loyalty" thing. It makes me suspect that there is something either really sinister about it, or you just haven't thought this idea through...

If needs be and religion takes arms against the government citizens loyalty toward the government must be absolute, without question

Who is talking about taking up arms against the government? Ironically, if anything, the Orwellian measures in your proposal would lead many to take up arms against the government. Your proposal is so unbelievably self-defeating...

[The New California Republic]

It does violate Freedom of Religion, I do admit it. But Weaken Faith Authority isn't a proposal yet.

And I doubt it ever will be, because the very premise of this draft proposal is flawed, and you seem intent on keeping many things in it that will likely piss off most of the regional delegates.

"Not everyone is authoritarian". Not everyone is liberal either.

Are we really back to the "you are against this because you are liberal" spiel again?

[Barunia]

It does violate Freedom of Religion, I do admit it. But Weaken Faith Authority isn't a proposal yet.

If you want to have possible rebellions in your country, then I hope you will.

"Not everyone is authoritarian". Not everyone is liberal either.

But you have to consider all nations when writing a WA proposal, lest you create an ideological ban. This IS a proposal by the way, otherwise what is it?

[Dawn Kingdom]

It is still limiting the freedom of speech of an entire swath of the population...

It is just demanding to have argumentations while making a protest.

But...how though? You are being incredibly vague about this "annual checks of loyalty" thing. It makes me suspect that there is something either really sinister about it, or you just haven't thought this idea through...

Police and representatives of the government will question citizens determining where their loyalties are.

Who is talking about taking up arms against the government? Ironically, if anything, the Orwellian measures in your proposal would lead many to take up arms against the government. Your proposal is so unbelievably self-defeating...

It is just for safety measures, why risk having rebellions only to avoid 30-40 minutes of annual checking for each family. Safety measures and it will weaken faith authority. If you know the history well, then you know that faith took arms against nations for religious beliefs.... So again why should we risk.

[Dawn Kingdom]

It does violate Freedom of Religion, I do admit it. But Weaken Faith Authority isn't a proposal yet.

If you want to have possible rebellions in your country, then I hope you will.

"Not everyone is authoritarian". Not everyone is liberal either.

But you have to consider all nations when writing a WA proposal, lest you create an ideological ban. This IS a proposal by the way, otherwise what is it?

This is an idea. That might turn into a proposal and hopefully legislation. And neither liberals are considering authoritative nations while enacting bunch of feee speech legislations.

[The New California Republic]

It is still limiting the freedom of speech of an entire swath of the population...

It is just demanding to have argumentations while making a protest.

Nope. It is much more than that. It is setting conditions for free speech, conditions that are not imposed on the rest of the population. It is unbelievably discriminatory.

But...how though? You are being incredibly vague about this "annual checks of loyalty" thing. It makes me suspect that there is something either really sinister about it, or you just haven't thought this idea through...

Police and representatives of the government will question citizens determining where their loyalties are.

Oh joy. And dare I ask how this will take place? And where? And who for that matter? The intent here seems to be to question all citizens. Does that include children? Babies? People in comas? Citizens that are out of the country?

Who is talking about taking up arms against the government? Ironically, if anything, the Orwellian measures in your proposal would lead many to take up arms against the government. Your proposal is so unbelievably self-defeating...

It is just for safety measures, why risk having rebellions only to avoid 30-40 minutes of annual checking for each family.

Do you seriously believe that such checks would stop a rebellion? I have news for you: people can lie. They can lie during the interviews.

[Aureumterra]

It is just demanding to have argumentations while making a protest.

Nope. It is much more than that. It is setting conditions for free speech, conditions that are not imposed on the rest of the population. It is unbelievably discriminatory.

Police and representatives of the government will question citizens determining where their loyalties are.

Oh joy. And dare I ask how this will take place? And where? And who for that matter? The intent here seems to be to question all citizens. Does that include children? Babies? People in comas? Citizens that are out of the country?

It is just for safety measures, why risk having rebellions only to avoid 30-40 minutes of annual checking for each family.

Do you seriously believe that such checks would stop a rebellion? I have news for you: people can lie. They can lie during the interviews.

You know, I have given up with this thread, the OP will learn the lesson when it inevitably gets defeated if by some miracle reaches the delegate approval quorum

[Kenmoria]

“Now that I have analysed the grammar and formatting of the proposal, I will attack the content instead. Comments are in this colour.”

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. This does not read like a law, this section should be much more similar to a piece of legislation than a blog or commentary.

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 faith. That is already covered by prior legislation.
b) Manipulating and urging citizens to be more religious will be prohibited. You have now banned: missionary work, all sermons, choir singing and essentially all preaching.

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. No.
b) Collecting money from citizens in religious means will be prohibited. Theocratic governments are now banned from raising tax. Also, churches, synagogues, temples and mosques will become extinct due to a lack of ways to make any money whatsoever.
e) Goverment will manage church's funds and expenses, by that faith will be solely dependent of the goverment. Why just churches? Surely non-Christians also deserve to lack the separation of church and state‽ Also, why is this clause e and not clause c, as the alphabet traditionally works?

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. No. Absolutely not. There is no way this is entering into the final draft. Remove it immediately.

Category - Political Stability

Strenght - Mild I believe this should be at least significant, maybe strong.

[Dawn Kingdom]

You know, I have given up with this thread, the OP will learn the lesson when it inevitably gets defeated if by some miracle reaches the delegate approval quorum

You won't be missed. Have a nice authoritarian day.

[The New California Republic]

You know, I have given up with this thread, the OP will learn the lesson when it inevitably gets defeated if by some miracle reaches the delegate approval quorum

You won't be missed. Have a nice authoritarian day.

Or you could take the criticisms on board instead of resorting to the same "authoritarian Vs liberal" rhetoric again...

[Dawn Kingdom]

“Now that I have analysed the grammar and formatting of the proposal, I will attack the content instead. Comments are in this colour.”

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. This does not read like a law, this section should be much more similar to a piece of legislation than a blog or commentary.

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 faith. That is already covered by prior legislation.
b) Manipulating and urging citizens to be more religious will be prohibited. You have now banned: missionary work, all sermons, choir singing and essentially all preaching.

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. No.
b) Collecting money from citizens in religious means will be prohibited. Theocratic governments are now banned from raising tax. Also, churches, synagogues, temples and mosques will become extinct due to a lack of ways to make any money whatsoever.
e) Goverment will manage church's funds and expenses, by that faith will be solely dependent of the goverment. Why just churches? Surely non-Christians also deserve to lack the separation of church and state‽ Also, why is this clause e and not clause c, as the alphabet traditionally works?

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. No. Absolutely not. There is no way this is entering into the final draft. Remove it immediately.

Category - Political Stability

Strenght - Mild I believe this should be at least significant, maybe strong.

Thank you for showing my mistake. You could be little less rash, but that's beside the point. At least some kind of help from the forum. Also don't use termin separate church and state. Use Weaken Faith Authority (WFA is you are tired of typing)

[Kenmoria]

“Now that I have analysed the grammar and formatting of the proposal, I will attack the content instead. Comments are in this colour.”

Thank you for showing my mistake. You could be little less rash, but that's beside the point. At least some kind of help from the forum. Also don't use termin separate church and state. Use Weaken Faith Authority (WFA is you are tired of typing)

(OOC: That’s just my IC persona. When I type in speech marks, that’s a character I’ve created speaking, who is a lot more rude and direct than I am normally. When I type, as I am now, in brackets with an OOC mark, that’s the actual player speaking, and what I actually think. I’m not nearly as rude in real life as I am when being an ambassador :) . Also, when I said separate church and state, I was referring to the political concept, not the draft.)

[The New California Republic]

You could be little less rash, but that's beside the point.

Erm:

You won't be missed.

---

At least some kind of help from the forum.

We have been helping, it isn't our fault that you have been consistently rejecting it...

[Dawn Kingdom]

Well I am sometimes rude and impulsive too. I am sorry if I have offended someone directly/personally. Telling that he is the only one who helps was ungrateful from my side cause I have fixed several issues with your help.

[Grays Harbor]

Well I am sometimes rude and impulsive too. I am sorry if I have offended someone directly/personally. Telling that he is the only one who helps was ungrateful from my side cause I have fixed several issues with your help.

Fixed? What has been “fixed”? All I have seen is for this to become increasingly more fascist and oppressive. There is literally nothing, not one thing, about this train wreck that is redeemable, let alone even marginally acceptable to any reasonable nation. Annual loyalty checks on the population by police? Bans on donations? Government running churches? Any religious people being 2nd class citizens and automatically suspect for their “loyalty”. Why in the hell would anybody be “loyal” to such an oppressive regime in the first place.

“Oh, why are you just criticizing and not helping fix it?”

Because there is nothing fixable. This whole thing is junk. It is gross government overreach. It is worse than authoritarian, it is spitefull and egregious oppression, and singles out one group, religion, for massive discrimination and repression. Forceful repression. The only thing it is missing is mandatory re-education camps.

[The New California Republic]

Well I am sometimes rude and impulsive too. I am sorry if I have offended someone directly/personally. Telling that he is the only one who helps was ungrateful from my side cause I have fixed several issues with your help.

Fixed? What has been “fixed”? All I have seen is for this to become increasingly more fascist and oppressive. There is literally nothing, not one thing, about this train wreck that is redeemable, let alone even marginally acceptable to any reasonable nation. Annual loyalty checks on the population by police? Bans on donations? Government running churches? Any religious people being 2nd class citizens and automatically suspect for their “loyalty”. Why in the hell would anybody be “loyal” to such an oppressive regime in the first place.

“Oh, why are you just criticizing and not helping fix it?”

Because there is nothing fixable. This whole thing is junk. It is gross government overreach. It is worse than authoritarian, it is spitefull and egregious oppression, and singles out one group, religion, for massive discrimination and repression. Forceful repression. The only thing it is missing is mandatory re-education camps.

Nailed it in one. This entire thing is unsalvageable. I just hope the OP realizes that...