[Draft] Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations

[The Benevolent Empire of America]

"Seems to me that there are two misconceptions at the core of this whole thing. Firstly, that governments should inherently have the right to dictate and forcibly modify religious dogma whenever a preexisting practice or belief is deemed 'discriminatory'; in other words, telling people what to believe and how to practice their religion, or else. Secondly, that just because someone wants a particular position in an organization, that they somehow have an innate right to said position.

To be blunt, it all seems very one-sided and, well, intolerant in and of itself. I can understand curbing the religious freedom of people to practice their beliefs in certain cases, like human sacrifice for example. Even if the victim is willing, they're still being injured, to say the least, but someone applying for a position in a religious organization and being told 'no' does them no harm. I don't see how the latter is a crime, nor why it should be labelled as one."

[Araraukar]

"Seems to me that there are two misconceptions at the core of this whole thing.
*snip*
but someone applying for a position in a religious organization and being told 'no' does them no harm. I don't see how the latter is a crime, nor why it should be labelled as one."

"Misconceptions indeed, but not in the proposal, it appears. You truly see no problem at all for, let's say, banning people with blue eyes from partaking the services of a church that is at the core of the culture they belong to? Being ostracized for having an innate feature that cannot be altered? Being told that you are unnatural and should not defile the church building with your presence? Being cut off from ever having "proper" rites of passage, all because of something you can't do anything about? You can replace having blue eyes by any other innate attribute and it will still be an apt comparison. It is that kind of thing that the resolution seeks to ban. It's not trying to ban a church from choosing someone with brown eyes over someone with blue eyes to the higher order of church ranks. It's seeking it make it so that the colour of their eyes cannot be the only reason the blue-eyed person is rejected."

[The Benevolent Empire of America]

"Misconceptions indeed, but not in the proposal, it appears. You truly see no problem at all for, let's say, banning people with blue eyes from partaking the services of a church that is at the core of the culture they belong to? Being ostracized for having an innate feature that cannot be altered? Being told that you are unnatural and should not defile the church building with your presence? Being cut off from ever having "proper" rites of passage, all because of something you can't do anything about? You can replace having blue eyes by any other innate attribute and it will still be an apt comparison. It is that kind of thing that the resolution seeks to ban. It's not trying to ban a church from choosing someone with brown eyes over someone with blue eyes to the higher order of church ranks. It's seeking it make it so that the colour of their eyes cannot be the only reason the blue-eyed person is rejected."

"I've never heard of a religion with such a prohibition, but no, from a legal perspective I don't see a problem with it. In your example, if the doctrine of said religion regarding blue eyes is so condemnatory that it completely excludes them from all of said religion's rituals, that would still fall under freedom of conscience. Whether we find someone else's beliefs agreeable or not, they still have the right to believe as they wish. The public is not threatened by the hypothetical anti-blue-eye religion, unless of course the adherents of said religion are violent, which changes things. Being insulted is not a threat, neither is being offended. Therefore, any attempt by a governing body to abridge the beliefs of the aforementioned religion would amount to a clear violation of the right of the anti-blue-eye people to freely practice their religion. As an aside, realistically, I can't imagine a blue-eyed person in such a scenario having any desire to join said religion.

A particularly contentious point in this discussion isn't over complete exclusion, at least not as far as I'm aware. Rather, it concerns the potential for government-mandated admittance of individuals with certain physical or personal qualities to positions of leadership in a religious body. Such individuals would normally not be eligible for said positions due to their qualities, per the beliefs of said religion. For instance, and I believe this was mentioned earlier, there are many churches that forbid women from being ordained as priests/ministers. The extent of this varies between churches, but often women are capable of holding any of the other numerous positions in the church, but are not allowed to be formally ordained. The fact that she is female is an innate feature and is itself the reason for her exclusion from ordination. Whatever the stipulated reason for this may be, it is nevertheless a part of that religion. If someone finds that doctrine or any other to be offensive, there's nothing stopping them from leaving. The religion itself is under no obligation to have its teachings altered simply to make them more palatable.

Similarly, in monastic societies, men and women who take vows are relegated to different positions: men serve as monks, and women as nuns, in Roman Catholicism particularly. While their duties and functions may overlap at times, they are officially considered to be separate positions. Should this be overturned? Should men be allowed to join convents, and women monasteries, for the sake of inclusiveness? Must those monks and nuns who disagree be nevertheless forced to live among the opposite sex, which I assume to be a breach of one of the fundamental points of a cloistered lifestyle?"

[Kenmoria]

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

"Doesn't this prevent Clerical celibacy from being instated for religious offices? Either ways, we see no reason why anybody who is pious enough to care enough about anything in the church wouldn't also accept the rules made by said church. Full opposition."

“I don’t see celibacy as something innate, though I could be wrong, since it is a choice that can be altered at any time, as opposed to something such as skin colour. As for your arguement, I’m sure somebody who is pious would join the church if they were able, but that can’t happen if they are banned for an arbitrary reason such as sex. Restricting somebody who wants to be in a religion from being so is a complete disregard for freedom of thought.”

[Maowi]

“I believe ‘being’ would be a better word choice than ‘having’ in your ‘outraged’ clause.”

'Good point, ambassador - that will be changed.'

"I've never heard of a religion with such a prohibition, but no, from a legal perspective I don't see a problem with it. In your example, if the doctrine of said religion regarding blue eyes is so condemnatory that it completely excludes them from all of said religion's rituals, that would still fall under freedom of conscience. Whether we find someone else's beliefs agreeable or not, they still have the right to believe as they wish. The public is not threatened by the hypothetical anti-blue-eye religion, unless of course the adherents of said religion are violent, which changes things. Being insulted is not a threat, neither is being offended. Therefore, any attempt by a governing body to abridge the beliefs of the aforementioned religion would amount to a clear violation of the right of the anti-blue-eye people to freely practice their religion. As an aside, realistically, I can't imagine a blue-eyed person in such a scenario having any desire to join said religion.

'Just as much as the anti-blue-eye people should have the freedom to hold any beliefs, so must the blue-eyed people have the same freedom. They blue-eyed people must have the freedom to practise religious rituals in furtherance of what they believe, in accordance with 'Freedom of Religion'. The religion's teachings must not necessarily change, but religious organisations themselves must be tolerant and inclusive of those with slightly varying beliefs. For rarely, even within individual denominations, is there no variation or discrepancy at all between the views of a religion's observers. And, to respond to your aside, if we are imagining a hypothetical society in which this religion is a core part of their culture, a blue-eyed person would feel ostracized and excluded if they were barred entry to that religion. And if they identify with all of that religion's teachings and beliefs, except for this one rule, why should they be forced not to practise their religion?'

A particularly contentious point in this discussion isn't over complete exclusion, at least not as far as I'm aware. Rather, it concerns the potential for government-mandated admittance of individuals with certain physical or personal qualities to positions of leadership in a religious body. Such individuals would normally not be eligible for said positions due to their qualities, per the beliefs of said religion. For instance, and I believe this was mentioned earlier, there are many churches that forbid women from being ordained as priests/ministers. The extent of this varies between churches, but often women are capable of holding any of the other numerous positions in the church, but are not allowed to be formally ordained. The fact that she is female is an innate feature and is itself the reason for her exclusion from ordination. Whatever the stipulated reason for this may be, it is nevertheless a part of that religion.

'The government should not force religious organisations to accept a certain candidate, no matter what. But there needs to be a way of ensuring justice within religious organisations. A religion isn't one sapient being; it will not be offended by, for example, the ordination of a woman. It is far more inclusive and tolerant to allow the ordination of women. In that case, followers of the religion can choose to attended services delivered by women, or not, again in accordance with Freedom of Religion.

'However, I take your point about excessive government interference in religious matters, which I agree ought to be avoided. I wonder what the other ambassadors would think of only allowing those who have been refused positions the right to appeal this decision and ask for government investigation into whether their innate characteristics influenced the decision? This is a very tentative suggestion. I fear it could be easily abused.'

If someone finds that doctrine or any other to be offensive, there's nothing stopping them from leaving. The religion itself is under no obligation to have its teachings altered simply to make them more palatable.

'Is it not far easier and fairer for a church-goer, to keep on the same example, to attend a church with a male priest than for a woman to find, or create, a religion with the exact same beliefs as hers, except for the permission of female priests? I have no interest in regulating or restricting people's private intolerances, but entire organisations must not exclude people in this way.'

Similarly, in monastic societies, men and women who take vows are relegated to different positions: men serve as monks, and women as nuns, in Roman Catholicism particularly. While their duties and functions may overlap at times, they are officially considered to be separate positions. Should this be overturned? Should men be allowed to join convents, and women monasteries, for the sake of inclusiveness? Must those monks and nuns who disagree be nevertheless forced to live among the opposite sex, which I assume to be a breach of one of the fundamental points of a cloistered lifestyle?"

'This is a good point. This proposal would mandate that women be allowed to perform the same roles as male monks, but not necessarily that they must be allowed to live alongside male monks. In fact, as you say, given that living among those of the same sex as you is "one of the fundamental points of a cloistered lifestyle", female monks should only live among other females.'

OOC Edit: RL is pretty hectic for me right now, but I will get round to updating the draft ... at some point
Also, sorry if there are tons of typos in here, I'm on my phone and it's a nightmare trying to type these things on a tiny screen.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Just to reiterate for the 'nay' crowd: Gender is not an ideology, and existing as one sex or another is not a statement of belief. Religious organizations can and should be permitted to discriminate on matters of individual belief and declaration, but not on innate or otherwise immutable personal attributes. Perhaps if children weren't indoctrinated from their earliest and most impressionable years, you'd have a point about the freedom to adopt religious beliefs that divide and conquer people based on characteristics they can't and shouldn't have to change to participate at all levels of church life. But since you do indoctrinate children, the state has a compelling interest in outlawing both employment discrimination (which it would have anyway), but also publicly-sanctioned racial and sexual prejudice. We don't permit that shit in our schools, and we shouldn't have to permit it in Sunday school. That's all there is to it."

[Bears Armed]

]Restricting somebody who wants to be in a religion from being so is a complete disregard for freedom of thought.

OOC
No it isn't, because they can still think whatever they want.
But if you want to throw around accusations that certain policies show "a complete disregard for freedom of thought", how can you not see that governments trying to tell religious groups what their faiths' doctrines must become doesn't itself fall under that heading?!?

But since you do indoctrinate children, the state has a compelling interest in outlawing both employment discrimination (which it would have anyway)

OOC
Are you saying that in your opinion the case against such discrimination is so strong that member nations would be unable to find a "compelling practical purpose" to justify it in the face of GAR#35, meaning that this proposal just duplicates part of GAR#35?
Conversely, iIf you don't think that GAR#35 already makes such discrimination legally impossible in member nations, because governments could use the "compelling practical purposes" exemption to allow it, then do you agree that this proposal -- by trying to limit away governments' power to use that exemption although GAR#35 said nothing about allowing future resolutions to set such limits -- contradicts GAR#35?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

But since you do indoctrinate children, the state has a compelling interest in outlawing both employment discrimination (which it would have anyway)

OOC
Are you saying that in your opinion the case against such discrimination is so strong that member nations would be unable to find a "compelling practical purpose" to justify it in the face of GAR#35, meaning that this proposal just duplicates part of GAR#35?
Conversely, iIf you don't think that GAR#35 already makes such discrimination legally impossible in member nations, because governments could use the "compelling practical purposes" exemption to allow it, then do you agree that this proposal -- by trying to limit away governments' power to use that exemption although GAR#35 said nothing about allowing future resolutions to set such limits -- contradicts GAR#35?

OOC: That statement was in character, and rhetorical. IC, SL's government has largely kept out of such interference into the internal affairs of religious organizations other than the most obvious no-brainer upholding of public order and the kind of enforcement of WA laws 99% of us already agree on, but Steph personally and politically favors increasing interference to advance social justice-oriented goals.

OOC, my legal position is that a government could conceivably interpret GAR #35 (and #430 for that matter) either way, and thus this proposal is neither contradictory nor duplicative, analogous to the way that GAR #457 wasn't, either. Just as we have allowed resolutions to place more detailed limits on the transfer of nuclear materials and technology beyond NAPA's ham-handed "wrong hands" standard, we have also allowed more detail to be written concerning what constitutes a valid "compelling practical purpose" - at least where the author didn't violate the House of Cards or Amendment rules in so doing.

[Bears Armed]

OOC, my legal position is that a government could conceivably interpret GAR #35 (and #430 for that matter) either way, and thus this proposal is neither contradictory nor duplicative, analogous to the way that GAR #457 wasn't, either. Just as we have allowed resolutions to place more detailed limits on the transfer of nuclear materials and technology beyond NAPA's ham-handed "wrong hands" standard, we have also allowed more detail to be written concerning what constitutes a valid "compelling practical purpose" - at least where the author didn't violate the House of Cards or Amendment rules in so doing.

OOC
GAR #457 "REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between individuals of a certain sexuality or gender to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions". As I read it, this means that any nations which claimed a 'compelling practical purpose' for exemptions under GAR#35 could continue to do so in this respect (and the rest of #457's operative really only applies in cases where an exemption to that line isn't claimed anyway). Thus, in my opinion, it isn't precedent for allowing legislation to limit what counts as a compelling practical purpose". (Not that it would actually be a precedent anyway, in the absence of an actual GenSec majority ruling made on its legality at the time, right? There's certainly precedent for saying something which gets through without a ruling doesn't count as a precedent itself...)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC, my legal position is that a government could conceivably interpret GAR #35 (and #430 for that matter) either way, and thus this proposal is neither contradictory nor duplicative, analogous to the way that GAR #457 wasn't, either. Just as we have allowed resolutions to place more detailed limits on the transfer of nuclear materials and technology beyond NAPA's ham-handed "wrong hands" standard, we have also allowed more detail to be written concerning what constitutes a valid "compelling practical purpose" - at least where the author didn't violate the House of Cards or Amendment rules in so doing.

OOC
GAR #457 "REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between individuals of a certain sexuality or gender to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions". As I read it, this means that any nations which claimed a 'compelling practical purpose' for exemptions under GAR#35 could continue to do so in this respect (and the rest of #457's operative really only applies in cases where an exemption to that line isn't claimed anyway)...

OOC: As we discussed, I interpreted it in exactly the opposite way: "subject to previously passed" law meaning in line with e.g. #299, #383, and the like (regarding consent and the like), and removing any alleged CPP from play. I suspect this proposal will not go unchallenged, however - perhaps we will clarify things then.

[Kenmoria]

]Restricting somebody who wants to be in a religion from being so is a complete disregard for freedom of thought.

OOC
No it isn't, because they can still think whatever they want.
But if you want to throw around accusations that certain policies show "a complete disregard for freedom of thought", how can you not see that governments trying to tell religious groups what their faiths' doctrines must become doesn't itself fall under that heading?!?

(OOC: It doesn’t fall under freedom of thought in the most literal, restrictive sense, but it is not uncontroverisal to claim that the right doesn’t apply solely to completely internal thoughts. If it was restricted only to private emotions, there would no no way to infringe upon it without mind-reading technology, which doesn’t exist in RL.

This isn’t about the WA dictating a religious doctrine any more than Ban on Ritual Sacrifice is, as both resolutions target ultimately harmful religious practices. A religion is also still free under this proposal to have all the discriminatory things they want in their Holy Book and related ecclesial statements, and the only thing banned is acting on this discrimination.)

[White Christian Nationalists]

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.

I can see this being passed, this site is mostly leftists and commies. Obviously i will refuse to comply, along with everyone in my region.

[Kenmoria]

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.

I can see this being passed, this site is mostly leftists and commies. Obviously i will refuse to comply, along with everyone in my region.

(OOC: Don’t do that. Noncompliance, without thought, is a form of godmodding, which is a type of poor roleplaying. The purpose of the General Assembly is to pass legislation that the players and delegates have voted upon. If you have a disagreement with that, I suggest either resigning from the WA, using a WA puppet, or finding a proper way of roleplaying noncompliance that takes the Administrative Compliance Act’s fines into account.)

“You might also want to put in something about religious organisations publishing discriminatory materials, as that too can significantly impact members of disadvantaged groups. This is allowed by clause 3 of Protecting Free Expression.”

[Tinfect]

OOC:
What is up with literal Nazis and thinking that anyone cares about their opinions on human rights legislation?

[Maowi]

“You might also want to put in something about religious organisations publishing discriminatory materials, as that too can significantly impact members of disadvantaged groups. This is allowed by clause 3 of Protecting Free Expression.”

'I believe that what you suggest infringes too far on freedom of speech, if I am interpreting you correctly. A blanket ban on the publishing of discriminatory religious materials would effectively ban the publishing of most religious texts, and I do not see a necessity to draw an arbitrary line between what is and what isn't acceptable.'

[Kenmoria]

“You might also want to put in something about religious organisations publishing discriminatory materials, as that too can significantly impact members of disadvantaged groups. This is allowed by clause 3 of Protecting Free Expression.”

'I believe that what you suggest infringes too far on freedom of speech, if I am interpreting you correctly. A blanket ban on the publishing of discriminatory religious materials would effectively ban the publishing of most religious texts, and I do not see a necessity to draw an arbitrary line between what is and what isn't acceptable.'

“Fair enough. Although some religious texts are very discriminatory, I can see that it is a balancing act. The current measures you have reach what I think is an acceptable compromise.”

[American Pere Housh]

"We oppose this resolution most stringently"

[Kenmoria]

"We oppose this resolution most stringently"

“It will only be a resolution once it is passed, for now it is only a proposal. Why do you oppose it? I’m guessing it’s something about freedom of religion, to which I say ‘What can be more oppressive regarding freedom of religion than to allow an organisation to ban someone from a religious practice’?”

[Maowi]

"We oppose this resolution most stringently"

'Ambassador, I am grateful for your constructive and helpful feedback. Rest assured it shall be taken into consideration.'

OOC: New draft up. Pretty much just minor changes for improved clarity (hopefully)

[American Pere Housh]

"We oppose this resolution most stringently"

“It will only be a resolution once it is passed, for now it is only a proposal. Why do you oppose it? I’m guessing it’s something about freedom of religion, to which I say ‘What can be more oppressive regarding freedom of religion than to allow an organisation to ban someone from a religious practice’?”

"How is it oppressive? Explain it to me."

[Kenmoria]

“It will only be a resolution once it is passed, for now it is only a proposal. Why do you oppose it? I’m guessing it’s something about freedom of religion, to which I say ‘What can be more oppressive regarding freedom of religion than to allow an organisation to ban someone from a religious practice’?”

"How is it oppressive? Explain it to me."

“Suppose there was a person who wanted to join a religion, it doesn’t matter which, but was prohibited from doing so based on some arbitrary category, such as having green eyes. The actual category itself doesn’t matter, only that the person can’t reasonably change it. This religion probably has some teachings about why people need to follow. It is conceivable that the person has some fears about eternal damnation, bad karma or soul annihilation.

To prevent this person from joining the religion of their choice and exercising all the necessary sacramanets is to deny them the opportunity to grow spiritually and feel secure with their place in the universe. The GA’s very purpose it to uphold fundamental human rights, such as freedom of religion, and this proposal is just a way of achieving that.”

[Bears Armed]

“Suppose there was a person who wanted to join a religion, it doesn’t matter which, but was prohibited from doing so based on some arbitrary category, such as having green eyes. The actual category itself doesn’t matter, only that the person can’t reasonably change it. This religion probably has some teachings about why people need to follow. It is conceivable that the person has some fears about eternal damnation, bad karma or soul annihilation.

To prevent this person from joining the religion of their choice and exercising all the necessary sacramanets is to deny them the opportunity to grow spiritually and feel secure with their place in the universe. The GA’s very purpose it to uphold fundamental human rights, such as freedom of religion, and this proposal is just a way of achieving that.”

Suppose that religion teaches that allowing people with green eyes to participate in its rites is itself a grievous sin: By forcing the religion to admit that person to membership & sacraments you force its members to commit a sin, harming their ability to feel secure within their place in the universe. Son't you recognise the existing members of religions as possessing rights, too?

OOC: As we discussed, I interpreted it in exactly the opposite way: "subject to previously passed" law meaning in line with e.g. #299, #383, and the like (regarding consent and the like), and removing any alleged CPP from play. I suspect this proposal will not go unchallenged, however - perhaps we will clarify things then.

OOC
If GAR#457 is interpreted in that way then I'd say that it was really illegal because it removing nations' power to define CPP was a contradiction (or possibly amendment) of GAR#35, just as I'm arguing that this proposal is illegal for the same reason. Admittedly precedent says that every passed resolution must be regarded as 'legal to some extent simply by virtue if having passed (so that, for example, Repeal attempts can not use "It was illegal" as an argument...), but precedent also says that the inclusion in a passed resolution of details which should have been recognised as illegal before that resolution was passed can not be considered a valid precedent for inclusion of comparably illegal material in future proposals... Otehrwise, for example, the passage of the 'historical' resolution 'Max Barry Day' would effectively have abolished the rules against both RL References and Meta-Gaming...

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Suppose that religion teaches that allowing people with green eyes to participate in its rites is itself a grievous sin: By forcing the religion to admit that person to membership & sacraments you force its members to commit a sin, harming their ability to feel secure within their place in the universe.

OOC: Replace green eyes with dark skin and you've got the 19th-century arguments in favor of slavery arguing that African-Americans were "the children of Ham" or of Canaan and thus cursed to be the servants of all other tribes of humanity. Religious belief is not an abstract, practiced in a vacuum. Like any other ideology, it has real life consequences. Worship of a god that enforces such bigotry on its followers seems different only in degree from worshipping a god that demands human sacrifice - and we happily outlawed that practice.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
I recommend that we end this 'green-eyed' euphemism immediately; this is not about something so trivial, if intrinsic. This is about women, and gay people. If you are going to stand there and defend homophobia and misogyny, say the damn words.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I recommend that we end this 'green-eyed' euphemism immediately; this is not about something so trivial, if intrinsic. This is about women, and gay people. If you are going to stand there and defend homophobia and misogyny, say the damn words.

OOC: I started it with blue eyes and I stand by using that example, because you could argue of gays that they only needed to stop acting gay (person with blue eyes using brown contact lenses as equivalent) and they'd be accepted. It's a good analogy that makes people less angry when debating, because no RL religion that I know of, bans blue-eyed people from partaking it, thus making for fewer hackles raised. You can mentally replace it with whatever term you like.