NationStates

---

Rights of Religious Travellers
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Recalling its longstanding commitment to the preservation of free expression and free worship,

Accepting then, a necessary corollary to those two fundamental rights -- that religious expression and missionary work ought to be legally protected as well,

Believing that when peaceful and non-coercive, missionary work does not pose a harm significant enough to justify its criminalisation,

Also aware that many religious travellers seek to engage in pilgrimage or visit holy sites,

Expressing its firm opinion that such travel, a fundamental aspect of religious freedom, also ought to be legalised,

The General Assembly, with the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the following terms:
   1. "missionary work" as the act of travelling to another country for the purposes of teaching about religious belief, engaging in faith-based charity work, or spreading a non-violent and otherwise permitted religious belief, including non-belief,
   2. "missionary" as an individual engaged in missionary work,
2. Prohibits any member-nation from criminalizing the act of non-coercive missionary work, provided that:
   1. the work is done non-violently and in accord with all other relevant national law,
   2. the work does not pose a risk of sparking significant lawlessness, civil unrest, or other significant threats to health or safety,
3. Declares that no member-nation shall:
   1. inhibit the rights of missionaries to enter a country, on sole account of their desire to engage in non-coercive missionary work,
   2. deny an individual the right to access and visit a public holy site of their faith tradition, except where a compelling practical purpose exists to do so in the name of public health, security, or good order, and where doing so is the least restrictive means of advancing said purpose, subject to reasonable operational and administrative restrictions,
   3. hamper the right of a traveller to possess, read, travel with, or distribute religious literature.

The Candy Of Bottles wrote:Might want to toss maintenance in to that list of practical purposes. Even religious buildings need maintenance, and sometimes repair. Poor Notre Dame...

Kenmoria wrote:“I actually broadly support this. Your ‘also aware’ clause has two ‘also’s in quite close succession, which is mildly displeasing, but overall I support this measure.”

Kenmoria wrote:“I actually broadly support this. Your ‘also aware’ clause has two ‘also’s in quite close succession, which is mildly displeasing, but overall I support this measure.”

Marilyn Manson Freaks wrote:I actually fully support this. Creative topic, nice work.

East Meranopirus wrote:"...Additionally, we would like to ask the ambassador if spreading atheist believes counts as "missionary work", as the resolution does not make it clear."

East Meranopirus wrote:"As the ambassador from East Meranopirus, like my colleague from Separatist People, I am opposed to this bill, for much of the same reasons.

If a nation can control its borders and immigration in almost every other way, why should an exception be made for missionaries and religious people? Why should a nation allow religious literature to be distributed if it is fundamentally against religion?

Additionally, we would like to ask the ambassador if spreading atheist believes counts as "missionary work", as the resolution does not make it clear."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"3.b raises some concerns. If the holy site is on private property, should not the government be able to enforce private property rights to the exclusion of religious interests? I would perhaps clarify "holy site" with "public holy site" so as to avoid any interference with private property."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

East Meranopirus wrote:"...Additionally, we would like to ask the ambassador if spreading atheist believes counts as "missionary work", as the resolution does not make it clear."

"I see you've already heard the Good News, ambassador - what a wonderful universe we live in, that isn't presided over by a self-righteous, genocidal thug, in which death is followed only by peaceful oblivion!"

"As to the proposal: we're undecided at this point. Would a belief system that includes, say, blood libel be considered 'non-violent' if its priests refrain from actually spelling out '...and therefore we shouldn't tolerate them!'? This assembly's past law on freedom of religion isn't particularly helpful here - it's one thing to permit existing belief systems to continue, but something else entirely to mandate that we allow foreigners to come in and spread racist, sexist, or other bigoted belief systems."

United Massachusetts wrote:
Prohibits any member-nation from criminalizing the act of non-coercive missionary work, provided that:

1. the work is done non-violently and in accord with all other relevant national law,

Bananaistan wrote:"Mere non-violence is insufficient. Our government rightfully prevents religious bigots who wish to preach intolerance from entering and spreading their bile in Bananaistan. We will not entertain those who say that teh gays will burn in hell or women should be tied to the kitchen sink."

Bananaistan wrote:"Mere non-violence is insufficient. Our government rightfully prevents religious bigots who wish to preach intolerance from entering and spreading their bile in Bananaistan. We will not entertain those who say that teh gays will burn in hell or women should be tied to the kitchen sink."

Marxist Germany wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:"Mere non-violence is insufficient. Our government rightfully prevents religious bigots who wish to preach intolerance from entering and spreading their bile in Bananaistan. We will not entertain those who say that teh gays will burn in hell or women should be tied to the kitchen sink."

"Your free speech laws are not very liberal, ambassador."

Bananaistan wrote:"Mere non-violence is insufficient. Our government rightfully prevents religious bigots who wish to preach intolerance from entering and spreading their bile in Bananaistan. We will not entertain those who say that teh gays will burn in hell or women should be tied to the kitchen sink."

Tinfect wrote:"The fact alone of such beliefs is legitimate grounds to bar entry."

Bears Armed wrote:

Tinfect wrote:"The fact alone of such beliefs is legitimate grounds to bar entry."

OOC
Belief would be an "arbitrary and divisive categorisation" according to GAR #35. Do you claim a 'compelling practical purpose' for this policy?

United Massachusetts wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:"Mere non-violence is insufficient. Our government rightfully prevents religious bigots who wish to preach intolerance from entering and spreading their bile in Bananaistan. We will not entertain those who say that teh gays will burn in hell or women should be tied to the kitchen sink."

"We wouldn't be surprised if the delegation from Bananaistan classified religion itself as being fundamentally intolerant. Of course, bigots will be bigots. The vast majority of religious belief is not fundamentally hateful."