[Draft] Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations

[Widowed Land]

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

OOC: Well so do members of religious organizations have right to resist people they see unfit from joining their community.

[Maowi]

“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"

'You say it would be unfair to force a religious organisation to allow homosexuals to participate in religious activities. That's a pretty low standard for what constitutes 'unfair', ambassador - in fact, if you have your threshold set that low, I'm amazed you don't consider it unfair for this religious organisation to hold such a harsh stance against homosexuality.'

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

OOC: Thanks for the support. For some reason, I had a weird feeling you'd support this ... can't think why

[Widowed Land]

"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"

'You say it would be unfair to force a religious organisation to allow homosexuals to participate in religious activities. That's a pretty low standard for what constitutes 'unfair', ambassador - in fact, if you have your threshold set that low, I'm amazed you don't consider it unfair for this religious organisation to hold such a harsh stance against homosexuality.'

"All I am saying that religious organizations should have right to hold their atrociou laws and we shouldn't meddle with their worship. Of course as long as that doesn't hurt an individual. As I said before I still haven't chosen either to approve or go against the draft, ambassador"

[New Udonia]

True freedom gives individuals the freedom to associate or disassociate themselves as they wish.

The whole point of a relationship is consent, something which can't be given if one group is forced to associate with another group.
There is nothing "free" or "human rights" about forcing religious groups to accept anyone.
You can't manipulate religions for "social justice" if you seek actual equality.

Finally, this is a double edged sword, which always cuts the wielder.

[Widowed Land]

True freedom gives individuals the freedom to associate or disassociate themselves as they wish.

The whole point of a relationship is consent, something which can't be given if one group is forced to associate with another group.
There is nothing "free" or "human rights" about forcing religious groups to accept anyone.
You can't manipulate religions for "social justice" if you seek actual equality.

Finally, this is a double edged sword, which always cuts the wielder.

OOC: That's what I am saying, but somehow I turn into freedom hating tyrant... It makes lots of sense.

[Maowi]

'You say it would be unfair to force a religious organisation to allow homosexuals to participate in religious activities. That's a pretty low standard for what constitutes 'unfair', ambassador - in fact, if you have your threshold set that low, I'm amazed you don't consider it unfair for this religious organisation to hold such a harsh stance against homosexuality.'

"All I am saying that religious organizations should have right to hold their atrociou laws and we shouldn't meddle with their worship. Of course as long as that doesn't hurt an individual. As I said before I still haven't chosen either to approve or go against the draft, ambassador"

'And what I am saying is that discrimination such as that in the example used so far can be damaging to those subject to it, spiritually and psychologically.'

True freedom gives individuals the freedom to associate or disassociate themselves as they wish.

The whole point of a relationship is consent, something which can't be given if one group is forced to associate with another group.
There is nothing "free" or "human rights" about forcing religious groups to accept anyone.
You can't manipulate religions for "social justice" if you seek actual equality.

Finally, this is a double edged sword, which always cuts the wielder.

OOC: It is absolutely a human right to follow a religion and its way of life, and carry out its associated rituals and practices, despite some people's highly debatable interpretation of their holy text that it excludes a certain arbitrary group of people.

[New Udonia]

OOC: It is absolutely a human right to follow a religion and its way of life, and carry out its associated rituals and practices, despite some people's highly debatable interpretation of their holy text that it excludes a certain arbitrary group of people.

I am going to attempt to explain this clearly. Religions aren't copyrighted. If an individual wants to follow a religion, they can do so.
They can start their own church if they want.
Religions can exclude people, because those people can then go and build their own religion. That is the reason why there are multiple religions.

[Maowi]

OOC: It is absolutely a human right to follow a religion and its way of life, and carry out its associated rituals and practices, despite some people's highly debatable interpretation of their holy text that it excludes a certain arbitrary group of people.

I am going to attempt to explain this clearly. Religions aren't copyrighted. If an individual wants to follow a religion, they can do so.
They can start their own church if they want.
Religions can exclude people, because those people can then go and build their own religion. That is the reason why there are multiple religions.

So you think that someone who is being excluded from a religion because of the way they were born should dedicate their life, abandoning their career etc., to start a whole new religion which is identical to another except for this one detail? You don't just snap your fingers and bam! a new religion. This takes a lot of work and dedication.

[United Massachusetts]

OK. Well, then. There's quite a bit to break down here. In short, my contention holds -- the text of 430 GA prohibits the forced hiring of individuals specifically unauthorised to hold religious positions.

For context, I should start by examining the reasons the Catholic Church has traditionally refused to hire women as priests, though providing a series of other roles to women paralleling those of priests, oftentimes. In short, the Church contends that it does not have the authority, in the strictest sense, to ordain them; since the priests are the successors to the apostles, and Jesus explicitly chose his apostles as males. Whatever the reasons for this choice, the Church has considered herself bound by them. It should be noted, however, that women have played a vital and key role in both the Church's work in the world (through the lay faithful and orders of sisters, who have done fantastic work for the Church) and its gospel (the first person to discover Christ resurrected and share the Good News was a woman, and the only human other than Christ born free of original sin was a woman).

Having put that to the side, it's time to address the legality concerns.

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,

There are a couple parts to this.

Is the ordination of a woman into the Catholic Church a religious practice?
The answer here is a clear and resounding yes. The rites of ordination constitute a whole Sacrament, which almost certainly fits the definition outlined, one which explicitly references "rituals." This is a ritual if I have ever seen one, and thus a religious practice, performed by an individual (a bishop, in this case).

Would this resolution involve "state punishment, reprisal, or persecution" for a religious practice?
Yes. Illegalising something implies a punishment. And that punishment would constitute state reprisal. Pretty clear.

Do this resolution's mandates constitute a "compelling practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order?
Nah. I'm not going to debate on whether it constitutes a "compelling practical interest," because that's a matter on which we'll never come to consensus. But it is not an interest in safety, nor in health, nor in the legal sense an interest in "good order." It would seem clear that this would violate GA 430 as presently written.The compelling practical purposes outlined in CoCR have no restrictions on their area of effect -- any "compelling, practical public interest" fits the bill. For this reason, permitting states to refuse to hire women priests could be permissible under GA 35, since protecting religious freedom is a valid "compelling, practical public interest."

It is my understanding, however, that GA 430, does not permit religious individuals to engage in discrimination in non-religious matters on the basis of say, sexual orientation. For this reason, a Christian baker could not refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple -- baking a cake is not a religious act. Similarly, almost all forms of hiring discrimination eliminated under 35 are not restored under 430, simply because hiring someone is not a religious practice. The reason ordination is different is because it involves a religious ritual.

As written, United Massachusetts believes this resolution to be illegal as presently written. If ruled legal without further changes, United Massachusetts will oppose this resolution and draft up another resolution defending the rights of religious institutions. If ruled legal with further changes to our satisfaction, United Massachusetts will gladly support this draft.

PS: It should be noted that if people believe that CoCR already establishes a ban on "discrimination" extending to religious rituals, this would still be illegal for duplication. There would be nothing that this resolution does that CoCR does not.

[New Udonia]

So you think that someone who is being excluded from a religion because of the way they were born should dedicate their life, abandoning their career etc., to start a whole new religion which is identical to another except for this one detail? You don't just snap your fingers and bam! a new religion. This takes a lot of work and dedication.

If someone is so dedicated, so be it. If the issue is that important to them, they should be willing to carry out such an effort. If a church bans the color purple, only those who feel the need to wear purple to church would consider expending energy in building a separate church. The whole reason there are multiple denominations of Christians, Muslims, and Jews... is that because individuals felt a vital need to separate themselves. Do you know what happens when you try to prevent denominational offshoots through regulation? Then you get radicals, such as the Inquisition, Jihad, and Zionism.

When did the needs of the minority outweigh the needs of the majority? I have always perceived "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" to be a horrific practice, however the reverse is just as despicable.

Finally, if this resolution passes so be it. The Federation has legal safeguards to prevent abuses of the World Assembly.

[Maowi]

So you think that someone who is being excluded from a religion because of the way they were born should dedicate their life, abandoning their career etc., to start a whole new religion which is identical to another except for this one detail? You don't just snap your fingers and bam! a new religion. This takes a lot of work and dedication.

If someone is so dedicated, so be it. If the issue is that important to them, they should be willing to carry out such an effort. If a church bans the color purple, only those who feel the need to wear purple to church would consider expending energy in building a separate church.

To be frank, that's a pretty bad comparison. Wearing purple is a choice. Being female, being homosexual, being black - they're not. You can't help being born one of them.

The whole reason there are multiple denominations of Christians, Muslims, and Jews... is that because individuals felt a vital need to separate themselves. Do you know what happens when you try to prevent denominational offshoots through regulation? Then you get radicals, such as the Inquisition, Jihad, and Zionism.

This proposal is not trying to prevent new denominations from forming. I have no problem with a minor yet legitimate ideological difference being the cause of a new denomination. But expecting someone to start a new denomination of Catholicism just because they're gay and a certain interpretation of the Bible says that they can't marry their partner is unreasonable. You can hold a fervent religious belief that you care about and still want to have a life.

When did the needs of the minority outweigh the needs of the majority? I have always perceived "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" to be a horrific practice, however the reverse is just as despicable.

I'm advocating acceptance and accommodation of, not subjection to, the minority. And if you claim to find "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" a horrific practice, how can you be fine with, as an example, the barring of homosexual marriage in Catholicism?

[United Massachusetts]

This proposal is not trying to prevent new denominations from forming. I have no problem with a minor yet legitimate ideological difference being the cause of a new denomination. But expecting someone to start a new denomination of Catholicism just because they're gay and a certain interpretation of the Bible says that they can't marry their partner is unreasonable. You can hold a fervent religious belief that you care about and still want to have a life.

When did the needs of the minority outweigh the needs of the majority? I have always perceived "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" to be a horrific practice, however the reverse is just as despicable.

I'm advocating acceptance and accommodation of, not subjection to, the minority. And if you claim to find "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" a horrific practice, how can you be fine with, as an example, the barring of homosexual marriage in Catholicism?

I'm in favour of the state recognizing same-sex marriage. A religious organisation need not do so. Nothing about forcing Catholics to engage in a ritual they believe to be illegitimate is "acceptance." One has the right to be married in a secular state. There is no right to have the Catholic Church, a private organisation, perform that marriage. Conversely, the Catholic Church absolutely has a right to define the terms of the marriages that it, a private organisation, offers.

Then you get radicals, such as the Inquisition, Jihad, and Zionism.

Unrelated: It's very unsavoury to put Zionism, the support for a Jewish state, in the same category as the Inquisition or radical Jihad.

[Essu Beti]

“Against,” says Inan, who is still filling in for Iksana. “In all three religions of the Fraternal religion family, priests must be either samar, of the Azosk tribe, or both. It can’t be anything different.”

Finally, if this resolution passes so be it. The Federation has legal safeguards to prevent abuses of the World Assembly.

((OOC: Oh goodie, another one of you. If you are ICly in the WA, you follow the resolutions ICly (with leeway allowed for loopholes). To do otherwise is considered godmodding in this forum.))

[New Udonia]

This proposal is not trying to prevent new denominations from forming. I have no problem with a minor yet legitimate ideological difference being the cause of a new denomination. But expecting someone to start a new denomination of Catholicism just because they're gay and a certain interpretation of the Bible says that they can't marry their partner is unreasonable. You can hold a fervent religious belief that you care about and still want to have a life.

That is the entire reason the Anglican church exists. The Catholic Church banned divorce.

I'm advocating acceptance and accommodation of, not subjection to, the minority. And if you claim to find "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" a horrific practice, how can you be fine with, as an example, the barring of homosexual marriage in Catholicism?

Because any homosexual Catholic can simply switch to Anglican or some other offshoot. This was a horrible example to give, as the Anglican church is almost identical to the Catholic church. Only leadership and marriage regulations are different.

I am fine with any voluntary organization restricting anyone from participating within their operations. If this was a debate over a non-voluntary organization, such as a government, you would have a point. Voluntary organizations have the right to kick anyone out. They have the right to be sexist and the right to be racist. Does this condone them? No, it does not.

Freedom is freedom, if you are equal to your fellow human, you can't dictate who they have to accept.
I doubt the church of social justice would accept a "sexist racist homophobic white male Nazi" into their flock.

In-case you wish to keep this dead debate going, please see the comment below.

I have tried using dialectic speech, I'm afraid I may have misjudged you.

[New Udonia]

((OOC: Oh goodie, another one of you. If you are ICly in the WA, you follow the resolutions ICly (with leeway allowed for loopholes). To do otherwise is considered godmodding in this forum.))

If you read it fully, rather than pull a 3'rd grader skim, you would have seen that I didn't just use loopholes, I deconstructed the legislation with prior legislation.
Your threats of "godmodding" are quite amusing.

Unrelated: It's very unsavoury to put Zionism, the support for a Jewish state, in the same category as the Inquisition or radical Jihad.

I know it is. However I can't turn a blind eye to Palestinian blood.

This is my final comment on the manner, as the metaphorical saying goes... don't cast pearls before swine.

[Maowi]

I'm in favour of the state recognizing same-sex marriage. A religious organisation need not do so. Nothing about forcing Catholics to engage in a ritual they believe to be illegitimate is "acceptance." One has the right to be married in a secular state. There is no right to have the Catholic Church, a private organisation, perform that marriage. Conversely, the Catholic Church absolutely has a right to define the terms of the marriages that it, a private organisation, offers.

The Catholic Church may be a private organisation but Catholicism is an ideology, to which anyone may adhere, in accordance with Freedom of Religion. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments. Why should homosexual people be barred from fulfilling that sacrament? And if Catholicism teaches that the only way to do so is through the Catholic Church, so be it. The proposal would stop religious organisations as a whole from denying them this right, so it's not even saying that every Catholic priest must agree to perform such a marriage, just that at least one must do so.

This proposal is not trying to prevent new denominations from forming. I have no problem with a minor yet legitimate ideological difference being the cause of a new denomination. But expecting someone to start a new denomination of Catholicism just because they're gay and a certain interpretation of the Bible says that they can't marry their partner is unreasonable. You can hold a fervent religious belief that you care about and still want to have a life.

That is the entire reason the Anglican church exists. The Catholic Church banned divorce.

Henry VIII was the King of England. He was the most powerful man in England and it took him years to found the Anglican church. This merely reinforces my point.

I'm advocating acceptance and accommodation of, not subjection to, the minority. And if you claim to find "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" a horrific practice, how can you be fine with, as an example, the barring of homosexual marriage in Catholicism?

Because any homosexual Catholic can simply switch to Anglican or some other offshoot. This was a horrible example to give, as the Anglican church is almost identical to the Catholic church. Only leadership and marriage regulations are different.

They also have very different practices, such as confession, and different beliefs about life after death, e.g. purgatory. Perfectly fine example.

I am fine with any voluntary organization restricting anyone from participating within their operations. If this was a debate over a non-voluntary organization, such as a government, you would have a point. Voluntary organizations have the right to kick anyone out. They have the right to be sexist and the right to be racist. Does this condone them? No, it does not.

Belief in an ideology, though variable, is not something you choose through random personal whim.

Freedom is freedom, if you are equal to your fellow human, you can't dictate who they have to accept.
I doubt the church of social justice would accept a "sexist racist homophobic white male Nazi" into their flock.

You are not born sexist, racist or homophobic. I find it slightly insulting that you're comparing homosexuality with sexism, racism and homophobia. The latter three are a choice; the former is not.

This is my final comment on the manner, as the metaphorical saying goes... don't cast pearls before swine.

Thanks. I'm flattered.

[United Massachusetts]

I'm in favour of the state recognizing same-sex marriage. A religious organisation need not do so. Nothing about forcing Catholics to engage in a ritual they believe to be illegitimate is "acceptance." One has the right to be married in a secular state. There is no right to have the Catholic Church, a private organisation, perform that marriage. Conversely, the Catholic Church absolutely has a right to define the terms of the marriages that it, a private organisation, offers.

The Catholic Church may be a private organisation but Catholicism is an ideology, to which anyone may adhere, in accordance with Freedom of Religion. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments. Why should homosexual people be barred from fulfilling that sacrament? And if Catholicism teaches that the only way to do so is through the Catholic Church, so be it. The proposal would stop religious organisations as a whole from denying them this right, so it's not even saying that every Catholic priest must agree to perform such a marriage, just that at least one must do so.

This resolution would absolutely require the Church and its priests to perform same-sex marriages, but the fact is this -- Sacraments are not rights. They never have been. We do not baptise non-Christians. We do not ordain non-celibates. We do not give the Eucharist to those in a state of mortal sin, and there are valid theological reasons for all three. It really is the height of arrogance to tell us what constitutes a change in our religion -- we know what our faith dictates, and it is not your right to waltz over and trample the theological systems of other people's religions, all the while claiming to "protect freedom of religion."

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Look, UM, here's a compromise for you. Either you can have Maowi's moderate proposal, or I can make one, and do a hell of a better job of putting 'religious' bigotry in the hole it belongs in.

[United Massachusetts]

OOC:
Look, UM, here's a compromise for you. Either you can have Maowi's moderate proposal, or I can make one, and do a hell of a better job of putting 'religious' bigotry in the hole it belongs in.

I didn't ask for compromise here. The standard established by the partnership between GA 35 and GA 430 provide a sound framework for religious discrimination, one that, I should note, prevents horrid bills like Indiana's "Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

EDIT: And either way, Maowi's proposal is illegal as of now. If it is amended to my satisfaction, I'm not opposed to the principle of an anti-discrimination bill specifically targeting religious intolerance.

[Tinfect]

I didn't ask for compromise here.

OOC:
I don't care. Human Rights are non-negotiable. This draft is the absolute least that is acceptable.

[Phydios]

I didn't ask for compromise here.

OOC:
I don't care. Human Rights are non-negotiable. This draft is the absolute least that is acceptable.

OOC: You have no right to have other people agree with you. You have no right to have your beliefs accepted by other people. And other people most certainly have the right to say that you are wrong and oppose your beliefs. If this is not true, then all militant antitheists should immediately stop all criticism of all religions and their followers- including this proposal, which claims that "religious organizations" (read: Christian churches that haven't bowed to social pressure) are wrong to declare some things wrong.

The NS left truly scares me. At least, it would if it was relevant in real life. Under the rhetoric of love and tolerance, it seeks out and attempts to destroy anyone that does not share its beliefs that there is no right and wrong- there is only power and those too bigoted to accept it.

https://xkcd.com/1357/
https://babylonbee.com/news/man-in-critical-condition-after-hearing-slightly-differing-viewpoint
https://babylonbee.com/news/progressives-issue-friendly-reminder-that-if-you-dont-agree-with-them-on-everything-they-will-destroy-you
https://babylonbee.com/news/movement-that-demands-forceful-silencing-of-all-opposing-viewpoints-unsure-why-nation-so-divided
https://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/howard-kurtz-rips-media-double-standard-mozilla-ceos-resignation

[Tinfect]

OOC: You have no right to have other people agree with you. You have no right to have your beliefs accepted by other people. And other people most certainly have the right to say that you are wrong and oppose your beliefs. If this is not true, then all militant antitheists should immediately stop all criticism of all religions and their followers- including this proposal, which claims that "religious organizations" (read: Christian churches that haven't bowed to social pressure) are wrong to declare some things wrong.

The NS left truly scares me. At least, it would if it was relevant in real life. Under the rhetoric of love and tolerance, it seeks out and attempts to destroy anyone that does not share its beliefs that there is no right and wrong- there is only power and those too bigoted to accept it.

OOC:
Er, mate, don't take this as an insult, but this here is some next-level nonsense and it honestly reads like you're high as a kite.

I'm not actually an antitheist, contrary to popular belief; I think Religion is a wonderful thing that can preserve a culture and bring communities together. The uh, problem arises, when Religion is used as little more than a shield for bigotry

I'm not trying to establish thought-crime here; I do not want religion to be used as a shield for bigotry. Genuinely, I cannot see why so many people are against it.

And the bit about right and wrong and power ect. I, uh, don't really know how to respond to. That's some conspiracy-theory shit.

[Kenmoria]

EDIT: And either way, Maowi's proposal is illegal as of now. If it is amended to my satisfaction, I'm not opposed to the principle of an anti-discrimination bill specifically targeting religious intolerance.

(OOC: I don’t believe you are correct, as this proposal falls inside the specific exemption detailed by GA #430 of, ‘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,’. The preamble includes information on the possible mental harm to people denied religious services on the basis of characteristics, which would therefore be a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of health.)

[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.”

'Ambassador, do you have any thoughts on the following phrasing:

"...based on their inherent belonging to a reductive category"?

'Maybe inherent is not precisely the right word, but do you think phrasing it like that would solve the problem?

'Anyway, we're working on a revised draft which we'll present shortly. Thanks for your feedback, ambassadors.'

[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.”

'Ambassador, do you have any thoughts on the following phrasing:

"...based on their inherent belonging to a reductive category"?

'Maybe inherent is not precisely the right word, but do you think phrasing it like that would solve the problem?

'Anyway, we're working on a revised draft which we'll present shortly. Thanks for your feedback, ambassadors.'

“How would you feel about ‘based on their innate belonging to a reductive category’? I believe that would be the correct word to use in this scenario.”