[Legality Challenge] Banning Discrim. in Religious Orgs.

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Posts: 33
Founded: Nov 23, 2018

[Legality Challenge] Banning Discrim. in Religious Orgs.

Postby Dontriptia » Sun May 05, 2019 9:22 am

I submit a challenge against this proposal, "Banning Discrimination in Religious Organizations."

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,


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.

This proposal is an unlawful ideological ban because it prohibits a theocratic or semi-theocratic government from determining its membership according to religious teaching. Specifically:

Part 1
1. A theocracy is a form of government in which a religious institution is the source from which all authority derives. In a theocracy, divine revelation as established by a religious institution is the ultimate source of law.

2. Many major religions including Christianity and Islam make distinctions based on "reductive categories". For example, many interpretations of Islam require separate religious services for men and women, and only men are able to become imams. The Christian Bible clearly labels homosexuality as a sin and states that only men are eligible to become pastors. Catholic Christians also only ordain men as priests. In a theocratic state, these prohibitions are incorporated into the law, and if those fundamental restrictions were eliminated, the state would no longer be a theocracy as divine revelation is no longer the source of law. As such, this resolution indirectly legislates away theocracy as a valid form of government and therefore is an ideological ban.

Part 2
3. In addition to theocracy, this resolution is also an ideological ban on libertarianism and many forms of liberalism, such as classical liberalism, by abolishing separation of church and state and the free exercise of religion.

4. The separation of church and state requires that the state and religious institutions be kept separate, religious bodies may not control the state, but neither may the state interfere with religious institutions. The fundamental definition of separation of church and state is that the state must not create an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion. When the state is forced to police the internal decisions of religious organizations, such as their leadership decisions, rituals, services, or other internal distinctions, separation no longer exists. As such, this resolution abolishes the ideology of separation of church and state.

5. The free exercise of religion is also considered a fundamental right by many nations. The free exercise of religion is defined as the right to freely act on religious beliefs, and the right to form religious organizations and organically determine the composition and practices of those organizations without state interference. In many nations, the court decisions have established that the free exercise of religion applies to the right to "discriminate" within a religious institution. However, this proposal requires the state to abolish numerous fundamental religious practices, such as the ordination of only men, prohibition of homosexuals from obtaining religious leadership positions in sects that oppose homosexuality, and many more. This serves as an ideological ban on freedom of religion, as it requires states to police the internal free exercise of religious beliefs.

6. To libertarian and classical liberal nations, the belief in lack of state intervention in non-violent, belief-motivated actions is fundamental. One libertarian summed up his belief by stating that "For libertarians, freedom entails the right of people to live their lives any way they choose, so long as their conduct is peaceful." This ideology is abolished by this resolution - the government is required to intervene in people's lives even though their conduct is peaceful to police the makeup and practices of sincerely motivated religious organizations.

Part 3

7. In addition to this proposal's political ideological bans, this proposal also bans several religious ideologies. Specifically, Protestant Christianity believes, generally, in the ordination of men only and the denial of leadership positions to homosexuals. Additionally, one of the most fundamental religious beliefs of Protestant Christianity is the autonomy of the local church, free from state or denominational interference. Also, Protestants believe in sola scriptura, the belief that the entire Bible is divinely inspired and the ultimate authority for Christian beliefs. By requiring churches to violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs regarding the Bible, and by interfering to a massive degree with the local church, this proposal abolishes several key ideologies which make up Protestant Christianity.

8. Catholics also ordain only men and oppose homosexuals in leadership positions. By requiring the Catholic Church to ordain both men and women, this resolution abolishes two fundamental ideologies in Catholic Christianity which have been in place for thousands of years.

9. Similarly, many interpretations of Islam make "distinctions" prohibited by this proposal. By requiring them to violate their beliefs, which are in fact fundamental, these interpretations of Islam, whose distinguishing factors are often "discrimination", are indirectly abolished.

For these reasons, I urge that this proposal be ruled unlawful for indirectly and/or directly abolishing religious, political or economic ideologies.
Religious beliefs: Christian
Political ideology: National Conservative

Economic Left/Right: 1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.21

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
Posts: 14436
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun May 05, 2019 10:10 am

The ideological ban rule applies to facial bans of discrete ideologies, not undermining portions of ideologies. Otherwise, every resolution would be an ideological ban of some degree or another.

I'm calling it legal on this count.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
Posts: 18636
Founded: Jun 01, 2006

Postby Bears Armed » Mon May 06, 2019 4:44 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:The ideological ban rule applies to facial bans of discrete ideologies, not undermining portions of ideologies. Otherwise, every resolution would be an ideological ban of some degree or another.

I'm calling it legal on this count.

The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Posts: 326
Founded: May 27, 2018

Postby Liberimery » Thu May 09, 2019 5:18 am

Just a bit of clarification on Catholic Church doctrine that is mistaken here. The Catholic Church does not consider people with homosexual attractions as sinful for having such an attraction. It is the act of homosexual sex alone that is sinful. It is entirely possible for an openly gay man to be ordained a priest as priests take a vow of celibacy and thus would not have sexual relations of any kind. This was first espoused by Pope John Paul II, and more famously with Pope Francis who summarized the concept more suscinctly. The scandals of homosexual priests in the church stem from the coverup of statutory rape of boys by the church's higherarchy, which is treated with the same outrage as would be afforded to Straight priests who engage in statutory rape of girls (both events are well known to have been covered up. Netflix Documentary "The Keepers" covers both genders but focus more on a scandal in a Baltimore based all girls Catholic School.).

Just wanted to clarify as there is no rule I am aware of that prevents gay men from serving as Clergy in the church and in fact, there's some thoughts that gay priests might be more frequent than not as the vow of celibacy makes sex of any kind by a priest sinful. Willing to cite sources if required but that is time consuming at the time of posting.

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gorundu


Remove ads