[PASSED] Protecting Sites of Religious Significance

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Since you yourself compared a religious pilgrimage to people visiting to see a secular artifact like a painting, why did you word clause 2 in such a way that religious pilgrims have to be given special treatment. Why not mandate that pilgrims have to face the same impediments as an average tourist. Why discriminate against secular tourists as if religious travel is somehow objectively more important and valuable than secular travel?

Personal belief belies the reason for travel, not aesthetics or a desire to see something.

"Pilgrims would not travel but for the object of their destination. The material is at least as important as the immaterial relative to intent. We still see no reason to pander to unwanted pilgrims merely because they think a particular rock or hill is special."

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

The Holy Empire would certainly be in favor of a proposal protecting religious pilgrims. Pilgrimages in many religions are vital and are intrinsically linked to religious freedom. This freedom is to be protected, for "the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself" (Dignitatis humanae, 1965).

--Saint Bona of Pisa, patron of pilgrims
Membrum, Sanctum Collegium Cardinalium

OOC: I'll seek to bring you more extensive feedback later.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Since you yourself compared a religious pilgrimage to people visiting to see a secular artifact like a painting, why did you word clause 2 in such a way that religious pilgrims have to be given special treatment. Why not mandate that pilgrims have to face the same impediments as an average tourist. Why discriminate against secular tourists as if religious travel is somehow objectively more important and valuable than secular travel?

Personal belief belies the reason for travel, not aesthetics or a desire to see something.

OOC: Personal belief to see something or experience something. I still don't get how relgious travel needs special treatment over secualr travel. How is a man traveling because he believes he must fulfil his religious duties is more important than a man traveling because he believes he must see the Mona Lisa. Both of them are traveling for the sake of their beliefs and while both might believe one's belief is more important than the other, neither is objectively correct.

[Bananaistan]

Personal belief belies the reason for travel, not aesthetics or a desire to see something.

"We look forward to personal beliefs as a reason for travel being enshrined in international law. We have many party members who personally believe in communism and a worldwide revolution. They will be only to happy to spread their good news to the international proletariat."

[Attempted Socialism]

Personal belief belies the reason for travel, not aesthetics or a desire to see something.

"We look forward to personal beliefs as a reason for travel being enshrined in international law. We have many party members who personally believe in communism and a worldwide revolution. They will be only to happy to spread their good news to the international proletariat."

"Since all places of worker exploitation are sites worthy of a pilgrimage, this argument has convinced us and I am instructed to issue a retraction to my earlier statement. Full support, we are delighted to see the good news of the world revolution and slight demolishing of the capitalist class be granted special travel rights."

[Araraukar]

"Would proof of belonging to a religion that holds a certain site holy be required of a traveler to be counted as a pilgrim?"

[Boston Castle]

"Ambassador, I suggest a serious rethink of the wording in Clause 6(a)(v). Perhaps a time limit should apply within which the desecration charge may be waived, or simply remain silent on the matter of invasions. If this passed as is, the World Assembly would be inviting a free-for-all of destruction of the type likely to cause a new era of religious wars. Which is a godawful idea."



OOC: The current wording, if applied IRL, is basically inviting Israel to raze the Temple Mount and build a Third Temple. And inviting Muslims to wreck that Third Temple - immediately and indefinitely - afterwards. (That area sure has had a lot of invasions, amirite???) Or inviting indigenous people in Brazil to knock down the giant statue of Christ that overlooks Rio de Janeiro; or, uh, literally any site in the Western Hemisphere holy to religions originating in the Eastern Hemisphere. If you're going to regulate this, it needs a very precise touch.

"Would eliminating the bit after danger to health or safety with continued use of site work or is my friend asking for a sunset to be added on? And if so, would he specify what time frame they would like to use for the sunset?"

[Boston Castle]

"Would proof of belonging to a religion that holds a certain site holy be required of a traveler to be counted as a pilgrim?"

"I'm not entirely sure how we could prove that and quite honestly, I'm not sure if it should."

[Boston Castle]

OOC: Serious question for everyone, notwithstanding your personal support, how close do you all think this is to being ready to be submitted?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Serious question for everyone, notwithstanding your personal support, how close do you all think this is to being ready to be submitted?

(OOC: It’s been only two days, so I think there is still a significant amount of time this needs to go through. A lot of GA regulars probably haven’t seen this yet, and the ones that have still have more feedback that hasn’t been given yet.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Ambassador, I suggest a serious rethink of the wording in Clause 6(a)(v). Perhaps a time limit should apply within which the desecration charge may be waived, or simply remain silent on the matter of invasions. If this passed as is, the World Assembly would be inviting a free-for-all of destruction of the type likely to cause a new era of religious wars. Which is a godawful idea."



OOC: The current wording, if applied IRL, is basically inviting Israel to raze the Temple Mount and build a Third Temple. And inviting Muslims to wreck that Third Temple - immediately and indefinitely - afterwards. (That area sure has had a lot of invasions, amirite???) Or inviting indigenous people in Brazil to knock down the giant statue of Christ that overlooks Rio de Janeiro; or, uh, literally any site in the Western Hemisphere holy to religions originating in the Eastern Hemisphere. If you're going to regulate this, it needs a very precise touch.

"Would eliminating the bit after danger to health or safety with continued use of site work or is my friend asking for a sunset to be added on? And if so, would he specify what time frame they would like to use for the sunset?"

OOC: Sorry for doing this wholly OOC, but... your response here indicates you're purely reacting to feedback, as opposed to taking it and using it to inform your own position. To deal intelligently with this, you'll need to do some research - how many holy sites would not exist but for "hostile action"? And is permitting their desecration a good way to disincentivize hostile action in the future? Or will it just act as another incitement to religiously motivated violence? My IC response was intended to give possibilities for likely rules, but as you're the author, you will have to determine what fits best in this regulatory framework. This is why the GA is the hardest part of the game.

Also, it's considered bad form to triple-post. You can actually add quotes from other posts to the one you're already working on using the window beneath the "Options" tab on the reply page, and if necessary you can edit your post afterwards to add anything you missed.

Good luck!

[Boston Castle]

OOC: Serious question for everyone, notwithstanding your personal support, how close do you all think this is to being ready to be submitted?

(OOC: It’s been only two days, so I think there is still a significant amount of time this needs to go through. A lot of GA regulars probably haven’t seen this yet, and the ones that have still have more feedback that hasn’t been given yet.)

Well, we're trying to draft this, so I welcome it. I know it may seem as though I'm rushing it, but I'd prefer everyone here be a little more direct rather than draw things out.

OOC: Sorry for doing this wholly OOC, but... your response here indicates you're purely reacting to feedback, as opposed to taking it and using it to inform your own position. To deal intelligently with this, you'll need to do some research - how many holy sites would not exist but for "hostile action"? And is permitting their desecration a good way to disincentivize hostile action in the future? Or will it just act as another incitement to religiously motivated violence? My IC response was intended to give possibilities for likely rules, but as you're the author, you will have to determine what fits best in this regulatory framework. This is why the GA is the hardest part of the game.

Also, it's considered bad form to triple-post. You can actually add quotes from other posts to the one you're already working on using the window beneath the "Options" tab on the reply page, and if necessary you can edit your post afterwards to add anything you missed.

Good luck![/quote]
1. In terms of feedback, if I didn't believe this wasn't a worthy cause and something I strongly believe we ought to do....why would I have written the resolution? I'm willing to have my position changed, but I'm going to ask that you're direct in making your points clear. So, yes, I am going to react to feedback in that applying people's corrections is the way I operate and I find that much easier than dancing around what we actually think/want to do.

2. That clause can definitely be worded better "hostile action", the desecration clause in general, and any suggestions as to how to re-structure/recreate it would be greatly appreciated.

3. As for triple-posting, sorry about that, just trying to respond to everyone and wasn't exactly thinking about how to do it with the forum tech, when I was responding tho those posts last nights, I was fighting with my laptop re: Discord. As for right now, multiple tabs works wonders, doesn't it? (I've never been super tech savvy and I don't want to screw something up.)

[The Iron Guard]

Any pilgrim who steps on the soil of the Iron Guard will be shot on sight. The Iron Guard recently completed the removal of all beliefs based on non empirical evidence. The people of the Iron Guard do not have rights, so don't expect pilgrims to have any more.

[Separatist Peoples]

Any pilgrim who steps on the soil of the Iron Guard will be shot on sight. The Iron Guard recently completed the removal of all beliefs based on non empirical evidence. The people of the Iron Guard do not have rights, so don't expect pilgrims to have any more.

"The Iron Guard is in violation of several WA resolutions. As such, I am not sure why we care about Iron Guard input."

[Honeydewistania]

I think there's already freedom of movement, freedom of religion, and prevention of desecration of cultural sites so this gives special rights to religious people over others, and I don't see a point

[Honeydewistania]

Also there isn’t a category or strength/area of effect

[Araraukar]

"Would proof of belonging to a religion that holds a certain site holy be required of a traveler to be counted as a pilgrim?"

"I'm not entirely sure how we could prove that and quite honestly, I'm not sure if it should."

"This whole proposal shouldn't exist so your "should" is a bit late to worry about. You want to give religious tourists more rights than nonreligious - how do we know who's a religious tourist and who just wants more privileges, unless they are required to provide some proof? Or unless their traveling can be legally restricted to the site of pilgrimage alone?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

"I'm not entirely sure how we could prove that and quite honestly, I'm not sure if it should."

"This whole proposal shouldn't exist so your "should" is a bit late to worry about. You want to give religious tourists more rights than nonreligious - how do we know who's a religious tourist and who just wants more privileges, unless they are required to provide some proof? Or unless their traveling can be legally restricted to the site of pilgrimage alone?"

This is a good point. If the author wants to give privileges to specific people and not to the general population, it ought to be possible to determine who those specific people are. Eg unemployment benefits.

[Boston Castle]

"I'm not entirely sure how we could prove that and quite honestly, I'm not sure if it should."

"This whole proposal shouldn't exist so your "should" is a bit late to worry about. You want to give religious tourists more rights than nonreligious - how do we know who's a religious tourist and who just wants more privileges, unless they are required to provide some proof? Or unless their traveling can be legally restricted to the site of pilgrimage alone?"

That is a valid point in my honest opinion, Ambassador, and I would be curious to see how exactly we can edit this piece of legislation so that a) we can clearly delineate tourists and pilgrims and b) the issue you refer to be can addressed.

"This whole proposal shouldn't exist so your "should" is a bit late to worry about. You want to give religious tourists more rights than nonreligious - how do we know who's a religious tourist and who just wants more privileges, unless they are required to provide some proof? Or unless their traveling can be legally restricted to the site of pilgrimage alone?"

This is a good point. If the author wants to give privileges to specific people and not to the general population, it ought to be possible to determine who those specific people are. Eg unemployment benefits.

[OOC: re: this, see above]

[OOC: Sorry for not responding for over a week, it's just been a really stressful time for me irl, and uhh yeah...]

[Attempted Socialism]

"This whole proposal shouldn't exist so your "should" is a bit late to worry about. You want to give religious tourists more rights than nonreligious - how do we know who's a religious tourist and who just wants more privileges, unless they are required to provide some proof? Or unless their traveling can be legally restricted to the site of pilgrimage alone?"

That is a valid point in my honest opinion, Ambassador, and I would be curious to see how exactly we can edit this piece of legislation so that a) we can clearly delineate tourists and pilgrims and b) the issue you refer to be can addressed.

"Ambassador those are fundamental issues to your proposal. You want to give extra rights to people who are wholly undeserving, without any attempt to credibly delineate who they are, and who could if they are genuine apply for a tourist visa. The edit needed is, quite frankly, a shredder."

[Graintfjall]

“While the Government strongly supports the idea of an international law defending the rights of Christian pilgrims, as written we are concerned this draft might extend to non-Christians. Should the legislation be more appropriately, that is, narrowly, tailored, we would support it.”

-- Gregor Goðasson
Cabinet Office Liaison Attaché to the Grænfjall Observer Mission

[Kenmoria]

That is a valid point in my honest opinion, Ambassador, and I would be curious to see how exactly we can edit this piece of legislation so that a) we can clearly delineate tourists and pilgrims and b) the issue you refer to be can addressed.

"Ambassador those are fundamental issues to your proposal. You want to give extra rights to people who are wholly undeserving, without any attempt to credibly delineate who they are, and who could if they are genuine apply for a tourist visa. The edit needed is, quite frankly, a shredder."

“From a more... reasonable standpoint, the issue with the proposal is that it gives rights to religious pilgrims and then does not extend the same rights to travellers of similar circumstances more generally, thereby favouring a religious group over another. Fixing this could involve expanding the proposal to cover all people travelling to explore a belief, restricting it in some way to cover more limited circumstances, or abandoning it, as the ambassador from Attempted Socialism suggests.”

[Comfed]

That is a valid point in my honest opinion, Ambassador, and I would be curious to see how exactly we can edit this piece of legislation so that a) we can clearly delineate tourists and pilgrims and b) the issue you refer to be can addressed.

"Ambassador those are fundamental issues to your proposal. You want to give extra rights to people who are wholly undeserving, without any attempt to credibly delineate who they are, and who could if they are genuine apply for a tourist visa. The edit needed is, quite frankly, a shredder."

Undeserving? Since when?

[Honeydewistania]

"Ambassador those are fundamental issues to your proposal. You want to give extra rights to people who are wholly undeserving, without any attempt to credibly delineate who they are, and who could if they are genuine apply for a tourist visa. The edit needed is, quite frankly, a shredder."

Undeserving? Since when?

What have religious people done that gives them more rights? As opposed to everyone else?

[Araraukar]

OOC: I do wonder if the author is aware of legit religions like Estonian maausk (literally "earthfaith"), whose places of worship can literally be forests or, to quote, "a location which may have ancient trees, glacial boulders, bodies of water or unique plants". Many old religions of the Finno-Ugric (and Sami, which are not closely related despite geographcal closeness) culture area have sacred forests or specific holy nature locations. There are many such religions around the globe, but these are ones I know something about, hence using them as examples.

So just be aware that a site of religious pilgrimage can be something not actually built by people, whether a cathedral or mosque or a tomb of some kind.