[Draft] Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations

[Maowi]

Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations

Category: Civil rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Maowi

The World Assembly,

Aware that discrimination within religious organisations against certain groups causes significant spiritual and psychological harm to individuals within those groups,

Outraged that this discrimination is, in many member nations, still permitted as being a compelling practical purpose, and

Determined to put an end to this disguised yet no less deplorable discrimination,

Hereby:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a ‘religious organisation’ as any member nation or organisation of natural persons offering religious services, or basing its actions on religious beliefs or teachings;

Mandates that no religious organisation may deny, restrict, have a different set of criteria for, or delay the giving of a right, power, permission or service to a person based on their innate belonging to a reductive category; but

Makes an exception to the above, in that religious organisations may deny, restrict, have a different set of criteria for, or delay the giving of a right, power, permission or service to a person based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, except for the right to convert to the religion of that organisation.

[Maowi]

Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations

Category: Civil rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Maowi

The World Assembly,

Aware that discrimination within religious organisations against certain groups causes significant spiritual and psychological harm to individuals within those groups,

Outraged that this discrimination is, in many member nations, still permitted as being a compelling practical purpose, and

Determined to put an end to this disguised yet no less deplorable discrimination,

Hereby:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a ‘religious organisation’ as any member nation or organisation of natural persons offering religious services, or basing its actions on religious beliefs or teachings;

Mandates that no religious organisation may deny a person a right, power, permission or service based on their innate belonging to a reductive category; but

Makes an exception to the above, in that religious organisations may deny a person a right, power, permission or service based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, except for the right to convert to their religion.

Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations

Category: Civil rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Maowi

The World Assembly,

Aware that discrimination within religious organisations against certain groups causes significant spiritual and psychological harm to individuals within those groups,

Outraged that this discrimination is, in many member nations, still permitted as having a compelling practical purpose, and

Determined to put an end to this disguised yet no less deplorable discrimination,

Hereby:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a ‘religious organisation’ as any member nation or organisation of natural persons offering religious services, or basing its actions on religious beliefs or teachings;

Mandates that no religious organisation may deny a person a right, power, permission or service based on their innate belonging to a reductive category; and

Clarifies that religious organisations may deny a person a right, power, permission or service based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, except for the right to convert to their religion.

Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations

Category: Civil rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Maowi

The World Assembly,

Aware that discrimination within religious organisations against certain groups causes significant spiritual and psychological harm to individuals within those groups,

Outraged that this discrimination is, in many member nations, still permitted as having a compelling practical purpose, and

Determined to put an end to this disguised yet no less deplorable discrimination,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a ‘religious organisation’ as any organisation or member nation offering religious services, or basing its actions on religious beliefs or teachings;
   
   
2. 1. Mandates that no religious organisation may deny a person a right, power, permission or service based on their innate belonging to a reductive category; and
      
      
   2. Clarifies that religious organisations may deny a person a right, power, permission or service based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, except for the right to convert to their religion.

Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations

Category: Civil rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Maowi

The World Assembly,

Aware that discrimination within religious organisations against certain groups tends to cause significant mental and spiritual harm to individuals within those groups,

Outraged that this discrimination is, in many member nations, still permitted as having a compelling practical purpose, and

Determined to put an end to this disguised yet no less deplorable discrimination,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a ‘religious organisation’ as an organisation offering religious services, or basing its actions on religious beliefs or teachings;
   
   
2. Mandates that no religious organisation may deny a person a right, power, permission or service based on their belonging to an arbitrarily assigned, reductive category.

[Courelli]

I think this deserves a higher strength than "Mild."

[New Udonia]

Why not just ban religion, it would have the same effect.

Mandates that no religious organisation may deny a person a right, power, permission or service based on their belonging to an arbitrarily assigned, reductive category.

This legislation is going to crash and burn so hard.

[United Massachusetts]

I think this deserves a higher strength than "Mild."

Would this require the Church to have women priests? How is this not a contradiction of Freedom of Religion (GA 430?)

[The New Nordic Union]

based on their belonging to an arbitrarily assigned, reductive category.

OOC: Such as belonging to another religion?

[New Udonia]

Would this require the Church to have women priests? How is this not a contradiction of Freedom of Religion (GA 430?)

Shush, don't burst the World Assembly legal bubble.

[Maowi]

I think this deserves a higher strength than "Mild."

Would this require the Church to have women priests? How is this not a contradiction of Freedom of Religion (GA 430?)

OOC: Freedom of Religion 'Asserts, furthermore, the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to engage in any religious practice, or to refuse to engage in said practices, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order'. I do not see this as allowing religious organisations to stop women becoming priests; in fact, to my reading (please correct me if I'm wrong) it gives women the right to 'engage in the religious practice' of becoming a priest. (That's why it's mild, and also because of GAR 35).

based on their belonging to an arbitrarily assigned, reductive category.

OOC: Such as belonging to another religion?

OOC: I don't think someone would want to take part in a religious practice which is contradictory to their religion, so I think it's a small problem, but my fear was that allowing religious organisations to deny people services based on their religion would allow them to block people from changing religion.

[Iciaros]

I think this deserves a higher strength than "Mild."

Would this require the Church to have women priests? How is this not a contradiction of Freedom of Religion (GA 430?)

(OOC: Could I have some clarification on that? My reading of GAR#430 gives me the impression that it applies to individuals rather than organisations; the only clause governing organisations is that which says individuals are allowed to join them. Is it arguable that GAR#430 therefore leaves it to member states to decide how to regulate religious organisations insofar as doing so does not impinge upon the rights of the individual? That sort of conceptualisation of GAR#430 might suggest that while preventing individuals from engaging in religious practices is forbidden, member states are not obliged to leave untouched religious organisations, so long as individuals can organise into such an organisation and are still free to engage in religious practices.

In relation to your particular example, I would also add that (on a plain reading of GAR#430) I am unsure if individuals have an enshrined right to prevent other individuals from engaging in religious activity in a particular role, as with female priests in the Church. The freedom to participate in an religious activity does not, to me, immediately translate to a right to dictate the precise contours of this activity.

I ask these questions not as criticism, but as genuine queries, particularly since it looks like you're the one who wrote GAR#430? So if there's anyone who can explain how the various clauses come together to empower and protect religious organisations beyond their mere existence, it would be you.)

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 2 may need some clarification, as the arguement could be made that the categories described in a religion’s holy book as causes for discrimination are not arbitrary. This is because they were believed to be described by a deity so would be, at least in the view of a religious follower, perfectly rational.”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I think this deserves a higher strength than "Mild."

Would this require the Church to have women priests? How is this not a contradiction of Freedom of Religion (GA 430?)

OOC: Well, let's see.

The General Assembly, finally transcribing the freedom of religion into international law, hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the following terms:
   1. "religious belief" as any set of spiritual beliefs regarding the nature and origins of the universe involving a concept of the divine or supernatural,
   2. "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. Asserts the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to hold any religious belief, including a lack of religious beliefs, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution,
   
   
3. Asserts, furthermore, the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to engage in any religious practice, or to refuse to engage in said practices, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order,
   
   
4. Asserts the right of all individuals to gather into groups, organisations, and institutions associated with religious belief without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, subject to the same restrictions established in Clause 3,
   
   
5. Strongly urges member nations to adopt a secular policy towards religious practice,
   
   
6. Strongly urges all member nations to refrain from criminalising victimless crimes when performed out of a genuinely-held religious belief,
   
   
7. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as preventing member nations from taking action against those groups whose religious beliefs manifest themselves in violence or coercive action.

Let's say the world's largest automobile manufacturer ups and fires its CEO. They need a new leader, so they put out a call for all the best and brightest business minds in all the land to give themselves a wide selection of qualified applicants. After several months of careful searching, they hire a guy to do the job and everything seems swell. News story comes out a few months later that they didn't even interview a single female candidate - not one woman made it past "We've received your resumé and we'll call you." Nobody would bat an eye at the company's home nation deciding 'You know what, that's clear discrimination, especially as your own records show you knew specifically that Alice Appleby (CEO of a large aircraft manufacturer), Bhimala Bakshi (EVP of finance of a major software company), and Catrina Cohen (your own SVP of research and development) had applied.' The right to practice business philosophies does not extend that far. No one says they have to hire a particular person, but the fact that qualified candidates weren't even considered, based solely on their gender, is clearly a violation of CoCR [Article 2, Clause (a)].

Now turn it around. Why is the state's (and the WA's) interest in non-discriminatory practices limited by religious belief? We don't say that sincerely held religious beliefs give someone the right to commit other sorts of crimes; why do we draw the line at employment discrimination?

All this is in service of saying, basically, the state and the WA have the power under Clause 3 of GAR #430 ("...except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order..."), assuming they didn't already have it under CoCR, to investigate and if necessary prosecute organizations that practice systemic employment discrimination based on reductive categories such as race and gender. Unless your sincerely held religious belief requires that priests be, I dunno, say, capable of donating sperm, there's no reason why the WA or any state can't force your church to admit women to the priesthood or suffer legal consequences.

No contradiction here; carry on.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
How is this discrimination neither banned already under GA Resolution #35's restrictions or legally allowed through that resolution's "compelling practial purpose" exemption? One or the other of those points should cover it...

Now turn it around. Why is the state's (and the WA's) interest in non-discriminatory practices limited by religious belief? We don't say that sincerely held religious beliefs give someone the right to commit other sorts of crimes; why do we draw the line at employment discrimination?

OOC
Because if the religion's current leaders who would be making the decision believe the rules about priesthood [etc] to have been decreed by their deity then requiring them to open up candidacy in that way would be forcing them to commit a sin : You would be fording them to choose between obeying the law and obeying their God[s].
Would you consider it reasonable for a nation that wants to increase profits for its pig-farming industry to require that everybody in that nation, regardless of religious beliefs or philosophical principles, must publicly eat a certain amount of pork every week?

Your argument would logically also require religious organisation to open 'religious' jobs up to non-believers (and some non-believers might apply, either for the pay & privileges involved or to undermine the religion from inside or simply to troll the believers)... and in theocracies that would require them to allow non-believers into the government, which pretty much wrecks the basic concept of Theocracy (government by a religion's authorities) to the extent that I'd consider imposing that requirement an Ideological Ban. (And if anybody here wants to claim that that Theocracies should be required to open all government positions to non-believers, would those players also be willing to accept that the governing parties in nations with single-party government should be required to open all government positions to people who aren't members of their Party?! The same logic applies...)

In fact, wouldn't taking your argument to its logical extent mean that political parties couldn't require either membership or adherence to specific principles when selecting candidates for office?

Basically, there are cases where I would argue that it is reasonable to let ideologically-based organizations discriminate when selecting people for jobs, and that includes cases where religions have "divine commands" (or, at least, theologically-derived & longstanding beliefs) on the matter.

We already have at least one GA resolution which says that nobody can be forced into any religion, after all, so anybody who doesn't like a given religion's rules would be free to look elsewhere instead...

[Aclion]

By holding religious institutions to a higher standard the secular ones wouldn't we be discriminating on the basis arbitrarily assigned, reductive categories, and therefore in violation of this resolution?

[Maowi]

“Clause 2 may need some clarification, as the arguement could be made that the categories described in a religion’s holy book as causes for discrimination are not arbitrary. This is because they were believed to be described by a deity so would be, at least in the view of a religious follower, perfectly rational.”

'Thanks ambassador. I'll think of a way of changing that.'

Your argument would logically also require religious organisation to open 'religious' jobs up to non-believers (and some non-believers might apply, either for the pay & privileges involved or to undermine the religion from inside or simply to troll the believers)... and in theocracies that would require them to allow non-believers into the government, which pretty much wrecks the basic concept of Theocracy (government by a religion's authorities) to the extent that I'd consider imposing that requirement an Ideological Ban. (And if anybody here wants to claim that that Theocracies should be required to open all government positions to non-believers, would those players also be willing to accept that the governing parties in nations with single-party government should be required to open all government positions to people who aren't members of their Party?! The same logic applies...)

In fact, wouldn't taking your argument to its logical extent mean that political parties couldn't require either membership or adherence to specific principles when selecting candidates for office?

OOC: I see your point. I think I'll make an exception for the person's religion, but clarify that religious organisations must allow people to switch religion (which is already a thing under GAR 430, right? Because it affirms people's right to hold any religious beliefs and partake in any religious practice?)

Basically, there are cases where I would argue that it is reasonable to let ideologically-based organizations discriminate when selecting people for jobs, and that includes cases where religions have "divine commands" (or, at least, theologically-derived & longstanding beliefs) on the matter.

We already have at least one GA resolution which says that nobody can be forced into any religion, after all, so anybody who doesn't like a given religion's rules would be free to look elsewhere instead...

I think it's more than 'not liking a religion's rules'. If someone is a believer in a religion, and yet they dislike or disagree with one specific, contentious rule, it would be unfair to make them seek a different religion. To them, that would deny them a chance at salvation, or whatever the 'goal' of their religion is. When a gay couple are refused marriage by the Catholic church, they are denied the chance to fulfil that sacrament. Same goes for when a woman is denied priesthood.

By holding religious institutions to a higher standard the secular ones wouldn't we be discriminating on the basis arbitrarily assigned, reductive categories, and therefore in violation of this resolution?

I understand the point you're making. But religious organisations have a loophole through GAR 35 that secular ones don't, and it needs to be closed. This proposal needs work, but my aim with it is to prevent religious organisations from discriminating against people 'because our religion says so'.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Now turn it around. Why is the state's (and the WA's) interest in non-discriminatory practices limited by religious belief? We don't say that sincerely held religious beliefs give someone the right to commit other sorts of crimes; why do we draw the line at employment discrimination?

OOC
Because if the religion's current leaders who would be making the decision believe the rules about priesthood [etc] to have been decreed by their deity then requiring them to open up candidacy in that way would be forcing them to commit a sin : You would be fording them to choose between obeying the law and obeying their God[s].
Would you consider it reasonable for a nation that wants to increase profits for its pig-farming industry to require that everybody in that nation, regardless of religious beliefs or philosophical principles, must publicly eat a certain amount of pork every week?

OOC: The two cases are quite different. Forcing people to eat something is a clear draconian overreach; forcing an employer to consider in good faith someone whose sole "disqualification" is a reductive categorization is not at all the same thing. A church is not a human body and persons may not be considered "contaminants" or "unclean" in the eyes of the law. The comparison is... not useful, to be polite.

Your argument would logically also require religious organisation to open 'religious' jobs up to non-believers (and some non-believers might apply, either for the pay & privileges involved or to undermine the religion from inside or simply to troll the believers)...

No. If you're talking about custodial staff, I don't see the problem, and if you're talking about church participants, there's a compelling practical need for believers in those positions. A non-believer is not going to teach, preach, practice, or exemplify the religion with the same fire and emotional commitment that a believer will.

and in theocracies that would require them to allow non-believers into the government, which pretty much wrecks the basic concept of Theocracy (government by a religion's authorities) to the extent that I'd consider imposing that requirement an Ideological Ban. (And if anybody here wants to claim that that Theocracies should be required to open all government positions to non-believers, would those players also be willing to accept that the governing parties in nations with single-party government should be required to open all government positions to people who aren't members of their Party?! The same logic applies...)

A theocratic state has a compelling practical reason to keep non-believers out of the government (to the extent that we pretend that a theocracy is a good-faith government at all due to game rules).

In fact, wouldn't taking your argument to its logical extent mean that political parties couldn't require either membership or adherence to specific principles when selecting candidates for office?

Basically, there are cases where I would argue that it is reasonable to let ideologically-based organizations discriminate when selecting people for jobs, and that includes cases where religions have "divine commands" (or, at least, theologically-derived & longstanding beliefs) on the matter.

Gender is not an ideology and existing as one sex or another is not a statement of belief.

We already have at least one GA resolution which says that nobody can be forced into any religion, after all, so anybody who doesn't like a given religion's rules would be free to look elsewhere instead...

I doubt any woman would be interested in joining an MRA cult in the first place, so that works out fine.

Edit: very minor word change in sentence beginning "Gender is not an ideology...)

[TURTLESHROOM II]

I understand the point you're making. But religious organisations have a loophole through GAR 35 that secular ones don't, and it needs to be closed. This proposal needs work, but my aim with it is to prevent religious organisations from discriminating against people 'because our religion says so'.

A turtle hiding in the vents waited for a pause in the discussion before interjecting through a grate in the ceiling, calling to th room below. He spoke specifically to the ambassador who proposed the law.

"Quite frankly, the fact that y'all consider a religion actually enforcin' its teachin' to be discrimination shows your true intent: this here's a backdoor attempt to outlaw freedom of thought and compel religious people to sin."

He thought for a moment.

"Mainstream Christian thought holds that only humans, and specifically, only male humans, can serve as fully ordained clergymen in a church gov'nance. While women and non-humans can lead certain aspects of worship, like singin' or Sunday School, ONLY men can administer the Lord's Supper and actually shepherd a church. Your proposal would force churches to taint the Lord's Supper by serving it impurely. You would also compel churches to explicitly defy the Bible. That ain't acceptable in any civilized nation, and I thought the Devil's Congregate of the World Assembly had enough standards to laugh this proposal out of its halls."

"If the gov'ment tried to compel the purchase of pork despite religious or health objections, would this be acceptable? Should vay-gans be forced to eat eggs? What if a temple said you cain't serve no role if you're a meat eater? Should a vegetarian cult be forced not only to tolerate something it deems an abomination, but allow a person practicing the sin to govern?"

"Secular gov'ments makin' non-discrimination law also protect discriminatin' based on religion. Your provision could be used to force a temple or church to hire an Atheist and let him lead the Church. If he denounced God or the religion's gods on the pulpit, he couldn't be fired for literally blaspheming God or the deity."

"Did you REALLY think this through, son?"

[Maowi]

I understand the point you're making. But religious organisations have a loophole through GAR 35 that secular ones don't, and it needs to be closed. This proposal needs work, but my aim with it is to prevent religious organisations from discriminating against people 'because our religion says so'.

A turtle hiding in the vents waited for a pause in the discussion before interjecting through a grate in the ceiling, calling to th room below. He spoke specifically to the ambassador who proposed the law.

"Quite frankly, the fact that y'all consider a religion actually enforcin' its teachin' to be discrimination shows your true intent: this here's a backdoor attempt to outlaw freedom of thought and compel religious people to sin."

He thought for a moment.

"Mainstream Christian thought holds that only humans, and specifically, only male humans, can serve as fully ordained clergymen in a church gov'nance. While women and non-humans can lead certain aspects of worship, like singin' or Sunday School, ONLY men can administer the Lord's Supper and actually shepherd a church. Your proposal would force churches to taint the Lord's Supper by serving it impurely. You would also compel churches to explicitly defy the Bible. That ain't acceptable in any civilized nation, and I thought the Devil's Congregate of the World Assembly had enough standards to laugh this proposal out of its halls."

'Why should women be denied the right to priesthood? Every denomination of Christianity has many, many churches. Why should a woman be forced to find another denomination rather than forcing someone who disagrees with her priesthood to find another church in which to worship?'

"If the gov'ment tried to compel the purchase of pork despite religious or health objections, would this be acceptable? Should vay-gans be forced to eat eggs? What if a temple said you cain't serve no role if you're a meat eater?

OOC: The two cases are quite different. Forcing people to eat something is a clear draconian overreach; forcing an employer to consider in good faith someone whose sole "disqualification" is a reductive categorization is not at all the same thing. A church is not a human body and persons may not be considered "contaminants" or "unclean" in the eyes of the law. The comparison is... not useful, to be polite.

^This, and also
'What are vay-gans? I can only assume you mean vegans. Unless vay-ganism is different to veganism, it's not a religion. Vegans abstain from eating eggs and dairy products for the benefit of the animals they come from, and the environment. Christians do not ban women from becoming priests for the benefit of the women, if they woman believes in her right to priesthood.

Should a vegetarian cult be forced not only to tolerate something it deems an abomination, but allow a person practicing the sin to govern?"

"Secular gov'ments makin' non-discrimination law also protect discriminatin' based on religion. Your provision could be used to force a temple or church to hire an Atheist and let him lead the Church. If he denounced God or the religion's gods on the pulpit, he couldn't be fired for literally blaspheming God or the deity."

'As I have said already, I intend to add an exception allowing religious organisations to deny people of other religions certain services, while still allowing religious conversions.'

[Aclion]

By holding religious institutions to a higher standard the secular ones wouldn't we be discriminating on the basis arbitrarily assigned, reductive categories, and therefore in violation of this resolution?

I understand the point you're making. But religious organisations have a loophole through GAR 35 that secular ones don't, and it needs to be closed. This proposal needs work, but my aim with it is to prevent religious organisations from discriminating against people 'because our religion says so'.

What loophole is this exactly?

[Kenmoria]

I understand the point you're making. But religious organisations have a loophole through GAR 35 that secular ones don't, and it needs to be closed. This proposal needs work, but my aim with it is to prevent religious organisations from discriminating against people 'because our religion says so'.

What loophole is this exactly?

(OOC: The annoying ‘compelling practical purpose’ exemption is easy to abuse by a religion claiming that saving souls from hell represents this, in accordance with the appropriate scripture.)

[Aclion]

What loophole is this exactly?

(OOC: The annoying ‘compelling practical purpose’ exemption is easy to abuse by a religion claiming that saving souls from hell represents this, in accordance with the appropriate scripture.)

Yeah no. That's not a reasonable interpretation of the resolution outside of RP wank.

[Widowed Land]

"Does this mean government will enforce religious organizations to accept people they preach against. For example if religion prohibits homosexuality, how can LGB person take part in religious ritual?"

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The annoying ‘compelling practical purpose’ exemption is easy to abuse by a religion claiming that saving souls from hell represents this, in accordance with the appropriate scripture.)

Yeah no. That's not a reasonable interpretation of the resolution outside of RP wank.

(OOC: I think it falls inside the limits of creative compliance. At the very least, some players apparently think it is a reasonable interpretation, and I see nothing wrong with closing a potential loophole.)

"Does this mean government will enforce religious organizations to accept people they preach against. For example if religion prohibits homosexuality, how can LGB person take part in religious ritual?"

“That is what the proposal will do, yes. However, I think you are over-exemplifying the importance of discrimination against certain groups for religions. For example, in Kenmoria, there are several faiths that preach against homosexuality, but all of these have a primary focus on other areas of life. It is clear that the two lifestyles can co-exist as is evidenced by the many accepting churches in Kenmoria and its neighbours.”

[Widowed Land]

Yeah no. That's not a reasonable interpretation of the resolution outside of RP wank.

(OOC: I think it falls inside the limits of creative compliance. At the very least, some players apparently think it is a reasonable interpretation, and I see nothing wrong with closing a potential loophole.)

"Does this mean government will enforce religious organizations to accept people they preach against. For example if religion prohibits homosexuality, how can LGB person take part in religious ritual?"

“That is what the proposal will do, yes. However, I think you are over-exemplifying the importance of discrimination against certain groups for religions. For example, in Kenmoria, there are several faiths that preach against homosexuality, but all of these have a primary focus on other areas of life. It is clear that the two lifestyles can co-exist as is evidenced by the many accepting churches in Kenmoria and its neighbours.”

"Yes, but if religious organization has a very harsh stance against (let's say again) homosexuality, then it seems rather unfair to enforce them to worship with the individuals they see unfit for participating in ritual. Even if visions of certain organizations are atrocious for some of us(including me). And in some indirect way it is against Freedom of Religion. Or I might be wrong. I am not fully opposed to the draft, as I somewhat agree, but I still have to defend interests of my people who might get offended by the resolution"

[Marxist Germany]

"This is a big no for me, Ambassador."

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Full support. Human Rights are non-negotiable.