[Draft] Against Forced Conversion

[Kenmoria]

How would this proposal apply to nations like us where religious worship is banned?

(OOC: Religious worship is permitted in all member states as a result of Freedom of Religion, as well as Protecting Free Expression. However, I can’t see how his interacts with a restriction on religious activity, by which I mean there isn’t much interaction, as these are different topics.)

[Great Robertia]

OOC feedback:

impinge

Perhaps this could simply be "infringe"?

hateful and abusive ideas

While I understand the sentiment, I feel this might be too personally biased. Because what may seem hateful and abusive to you or me, may seem just and pious to another. So, these words would invoke a discussion of a highly subjective nature as to the definition of "hateful and abusive ideas". My suggestion would be to phrase this in a different, more objective manner.

[Tinfect]

While I understand the sentiment, I feel this might be too personally biased. Because what may seem hateful and abusive to you or me, may seem just and pious to another. So, these words would invoke a discussion of a highly subjective nature as to the definition of "hateful and abusive ideas". My suggestion would be to phrase this in a different, more objective manner.

OOC:
No.

[Great Robertia]

OOC:
No.

OOC: If the intent of this draft is to simply create a ruckus, then it definitely succeeds at that. But if you actually want this resolution to pass and have an actual effect, then I'd strongly recommend you to reconsider. Because "hateful and abusive ideas" really is highly subjective and incredibly vague. A more objective and less emotional phrasing would allow this resolution to have a meaningful effect. Now it just generates controversy and that doesn't do a whole lot, I have to say.

[Tinfect]

OOC: If the intent of this draft is to simply create a ruckus, then it definitely succeeds at that. But if you actually want this resolution to pass and have an actual effect, then I'd strongly recommend you to reconsider. Because "hateful and abusive ideas" really is highly subjective and incredibly vague. A more objectively and less emotional phrasing would allow this resolution to have a meaningful effect. Now it just generates controversy and that doesn't do a whole lot, I have to say.

OOC:
I'm not having OOC debate in this thread, and I don't really care to change an accurate statement. It would be appreciated if you could refrain from implying that this draft is solely intended to piss people off in the future.

Please don't expect a reply to any other OOC posts.

[Great Robertia]

OOC: If the intent of this draft is to simply create a ruckus, then it definitely succeeds at that. But if you actually want this resolution to pass and have an actual effect, then I'd strongly recommend you to reconsider. Because "hateful and abusive ideas" really is highly subjective and incredibly vague. A more objectively and less emotional phrasing would allow this resolution to have a meaningful effect. Now it just generates controversy and that doesn't do a whole lot, I have to say.

OOC:
I'm not having OOC debate in this thread, and I don't really care to change an accurate statement. It would be appreciated if you could refrain from implying that this draft is solely intended to piss people off in the future.

Please don't expect a reply to any other OOC posts.

OOC: And this is what you get for trying to help. I'll remember that you don't care for help from others next time. Have a good one.

OOC: Apologies for the snark, in my tiredness I forgot that it's your absolute right to disagree with feedback that is given. I phrased myself poorly OOCly, and for that you have my apologies.

[Riverpost]

OOC: Let's take it easy and try to distinguish ourselves from common internet debate etiquette and give some courtesy to respectful disagreement. It'll do us all well.

"If the World Assembly so gave us member nations the power, I would personally conjure a censure of the pitiful WA gnome who has defaced the copies of the dialogue thus far. What business does any delegation have knowing whether a foreign ambassador squinted at the resolution - among other things - is truly beyond me. You might as well note that the Bigtopian ambassador drinks orange juice on Wednesday committees.

Setting aside what appears to be fantastical political shenanigans, there is little of the actual resolution that has been brought to merit or actual scrutiny. In it, there's been constant misinterpretation and plenty of fictional allusion, but as members of the World Assembly we must know to distinguish reality from other worlds to a context that applies as universal as our thoughts may allow.

A missionary, at least in the plainest sense without any degree of context, is an advocator of a cause in common English; a person on a mission of some sort. While several nations inspired by the great works of historical fiction may find it synonymous to religious evangelism, the seldom mentioned hamster empire - as an example - may see no such equivalence, and the fact that recent resolutions have taken care to utilize 'sapient' over 'human' is a testament to the growing variety of national backgrounds in the World Assembly. Since different sapients may not think from the same tree of reasoning, religion, and history, it is only wise for a resolution's author to plant a firm and proper root; the definition of missionary work in this particular case.

Allow me to elaborate, perhaps, since I don't have enough time to make it truly any shorter. The premise of traditional organized religions, as in the ones that most nations seem to share and recognize as being a true 'religion' in their worldview - rather than the Violetan Order or the Hamster Orthodox Faith - tend to elaborate and evolve, if you will, from shared rituals and practices; even before the conception of a heavenly figure or figures entered the human mind. This shows religion as a key perception of principles innately part of the human societal fabric, and in their purest forms religions root largely from one another. For one, it shares the feel of the land they grew upon, no matter the distance, and second of all covers empathy, among other basic things. For that note, I find it funny when the two sides question each other's sanity and care, as the whole resolution principles on the converging ends of two such sane and caring sides. Of the trillions upon trillions of sapient beings that could have been in this room, what are the chances that all of the ambassadors you happen to disagree with could somehow all be morally bankrupt, especially for the naysayers in this resolution, whose whole shared premise comes from the religious avenue of empathy that even the ayes agree upon, save for her fall into disgrace?

Mind you, this sets no place for the actions of certain deranged nut jobs. But at the same time, we cannot place all the fruit in one basket, at least in our regard for consideration and reason.

Now, accounting what we have just heard, allow us to perform a simple prognosis of deduction. If the congregation of sapients, in particular among sapients in the way most of us come to see them, are that of a general harmony - in that most are of a sound mind - we must go beyond our comfort zone and move forth with life we may not be well acquainted with, and judge if a societal fabric, religion or not, is really universal. I recall reading of a study on rats which attempted to replicate the bystander effect previously observed in sapients with a non-sapient species. Interestingly, in both the sapient human and the non-sapient rat, the idea that the more observers seeing an imperilled individual lessens the chance of aid came completely reversed with both in such rat study and more recent human studies. If we regard something as simple as the non-sentient, yet certainly group-minded rat as able to interact in a coherent way beyond their natural necessity, then it is without a doubt that the characteristics of religion and care - alas society - among all sapients must be true if lapses of it can even be seen in the non-sentient.

For this reason, though much human missionary work synonymous with religious evangelism is practically akin with aspects of predation and an unequal partnership against vulnerable and weak-minded recipients, we cannot apply this same barometer against a rat or hamster people - in religion or not - or even more familiar nations who practices may be wildly different from our sometimes very oriented perspectives; we are inter-dimensional in nature, after all. A proper resolution accounting for this, therefore, must set her boundaries or recuse her present being; for the boundaries we may perceive of our friends and ourselves will never last the lands and waters of 23,000 fellow members, as meritorious as they are."


OOC: Also, is it me, or has WA membership dropped quite a tad? Last time I remember surfing the forums, there were 25,000 members or something.

[Riverpost]

... certain Member-States ...

OOC: Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it might make more sense to use "Member-States" as a plural common noun rather than a plural proper noun (the latter of which would always be capitalized), as it seems to me as quite general of a mention rather than anything specific.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Also, is it me, or has WA membership dropped quite a tad? Last time I remember surfing the forums, there were 25,000 members or something.

OOC: It got inflated around April/May, and now it is down back to normal.