[PASSED] Protecting Sites of Religious Significance

[Boston Castle]

OPPOSED. In a diverse country with many different religions, supporting a religious site of a specific religion could infuriate the members of other religions ultimately leading to rise in hostility between the religious groups which could have disastrous consequences. I believe that the support of important historic structures should not be based on religion.

Check clause 4(d), please.

[The Grand Imperial Reich]

OPPOSED. I see no issues in this proposal that are not already covered under GA#287.

[Savyy]

OPPOSED. In a diverse country with many different religions, supporting a religious site of a specific religion could infuriate the members of other religions ultimately leading to rise in hostility between the religious groups which could have disastrous consequences. I believe that the support of important historic structures should not be based on religion.

Check clause 4(d), please.

I believe clause 4(d) is almost impossible to enforce when there are a large number of sites belonging to different religions, unless all of them are protected by the committee which would require an enormous budget that I don’t think the committee is capable of funding.

[Boston Castle]

Check clause 4(d), please.

I believe clause 4(d) is almost impossible to enforce when there are a large number of sites belonging to different religions, unless all of them are protected by the committee which would require an enormous budget that I don’t think the committee is capable of funding.

"Well, Ambassador, quite luckily, we in this Assembly aren't dealing with raw numbers or even really forced to tussle with the budgetary concerns of our resolutions."

[Fruit Smiles]

Fruit Smilesian WA delegate Paul Harrison: What assurance do we have that this won't infringe on any freedoms of speech?

[Tinfect]

Fruit Smilesian WA delegate Paul Harrison: What assurance do we have that this won't infringe on any freedoms of speech?

"Ambassador... How could it possibly?"

[Fruit Smiles]

Fruit Smilesian WA Delegate Paul Harrison: Where I come from, graffiti is an essential part of expressing ideas. This bill expressly prohibits this. I'm all for freedom of religion, but not at the expense of the freedom of speech.

[Tinfect]

Fruit Smilesian WA Delegate Paul Harrison: Where I come from, graffiti is an essential part of expressing ideas. This bill expressly prohibits this. I'm all for freedom of religion, but not at the expense of the freedom of speech.

"I can't imagine the author being inclined to allow possibly irreparable vandalism of otherwise-protected sites simply on the basis that a can of paint is supposedly a critical avenue with which to express oneself."

[Araraukar]

""Also any sites actually worthy of consideration (IE more than just some layman happened to have a pray somewhere once) are already covered by existing legislation - we already passed "Cultural Site Preservation"."

IC: "This hasn't been addressed yet to my knowledge. Why does the author think the existing resolution does not cover the sites they wish preserved?"

OOC: Though c. and d. of the definition need to go. You shouldn't be in the business of making churches (the buildings) untouchable or houses that were built before safety of visitors was a concern, for that matter. Unless the joke with d. is in that if you remove the community from the location (that is, evacuate everyone on the premises), then it stops being a "place of religious community". And if taking places like USA or Western Europe as example, the birthplace of most people these days is a hospital. So basically, read through your proposal and replace every occasion of "site of religious significance" with "maternity ward of the local hospital" and see if the mandates make any sense.

Some become amusing:

Asserts the following actions are in violation of this resolution:

1. Desecrating the maternity wards of the local hospitals and desecration shall be defined as;
   
   
   1. Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to the maternity wards of the local hospitals;
      
   2. Destroying artefacts or materials contained at said maternity wards of the local hospitals which are of religious importance;
      
   3. The removal of bodies, relics, or items of significance with the intent to make said maternity wards of the local hospitals no longer significant as deemed by the OPRS, unless the removal of the bodies, relics, or items of significance is for restoration or maintenance purposes, and
      
   4. Altering the religious nature of said spaces as defined by the OPRS in an attempt to make them no longer significant; though
      
   5. Desecration shall not apply in the event of an imminent threat to health and safety with the present conditions of the site or in the event that said maternity wards of the local hospitals were established in a hostile fashion (such as through invasion);

and this:

Abusing one's private property rights in the pursuit of gaining the legal right to protect or maintain a maternity ward of the local hospital;

So maybe the birthplaces could instead be nixed from the list?

[Boston Castle]

""Also any sites actually worthy of consideration (IE more than just some layman happened to have a pray somewhere once) are already covered by existing legislation - we already passed "Cultural Site Preservation"."

IC: "This hasn't been addressed yet to my knowledge. Why does the author think the existing resolution does not cover the sites they wish preserved?"

OOC: Though c. and d. of the definition need to go. You shouldn't be in the business of making churches (the buildings) untouchable or houses that were built before safety of visitors was a concern, for that matter. Unless the joke with d. is in that if you remove the community from the location (that is, evacuate everyone on the premises), then it stops being a "place of religious community". And if taking places like USA or Western Europe as example, the birthplace of most people these days is a hospital. So basically, read through your proposal and replace every occasion of "site of religious significance" with "maternity ward of the local hospital" and see if the mandates make any sense.

Some become amusing:

Asserts the following actions are in violation of this resolution:

1. Desecrating the maternity wards of the local hospitals and desecration shall be defined as;
   
   
   1. Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to the maternity wards of the local hospitals;
      
   2. Destroying artefacts or materials contained at said maternity wards of the local hospitals which are of religious importance;
      
   3. The removal of bodies, relics, or items of significance with the intent to make said maternity wards of the local hospitals no longer significant as deemed by the OPRS, unless the removal of the bodies, relics, or items of significance is for restoration or maintenance purposes, and
      
   4. Altering the religious nature of said spaces as defined by the OPRS in an attempt to make them no longer significant; though
      
   5. Desecration shall not apply in the event of an imminent threat to health and safety with the present conditions of the site or in the event that said maternity wards of the local hospitals were established in a hostile fashion (such as through invasion);

and this:

Abusing one's private property rights in the pursuit of gaining the legal right to protect or maintain a maternity ward of the local hospital;

So maybe the birthplaces could instead be nixed from the list?

IC: "Well, ambassador, different sites require different preservations..."

OOC: To use as an example: we would take different measures to preserve the Church of the Holy Sepulcher or the Kaaba than we would say things like the Palace of Versailles or the Coliseum. Additionally, there's probably some truth in nixing the birthplaces from the protected category, but as for your criticism of the desecration clause...I think that that clause is necessary to protect the sites, else I wouldn't have included it.

Edit: "and birth places" stricken from clause 1(c).

[Separatist Peoples]

Fruit Smilesian WA Delegate Paul Harrison: Where I come from, graffiti is an essential part of expressing ideas. This bill expressly prohibits this. I'm all for freedom of religion, but not at the expense of the freedom of speech.

"I can't imagine the author being inclined to allow possibly irreparable vandalism of otherwise-protected sites simply on the basis that a can of paint is supposedly a critical avenue with which to express oneself."

"A shame. What better a way to express your opinion of a belief than via spraypaint?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Insert Singapore hitting the doubt button so hard.

[Boston Castle]

Insert Singapore hitting the doubt button so hard.

OOC: That made me chuckle.

[Boston Castle]

Unless someone can point out something illegal with it, I personally am satisfied with this and will be submitting it in ~48 hours or so.

[South St Maarten]

Mild support at this point.

[Attempted Socialism]

Would 4a(iv) prohibit turning religious sites into museums? And given given the mandate in 2a, would museums containing religious sites of presently practised religions be included? Further, if a new religion adopts a site, possibly of a defunct religion (Such as Neopagans of various sorts adopting sites of perceived significance, Stongehenge as just one example), would that site become a significant site? Are there limits?

[Tinhampton]

Article 4d: strike out "in cases"?
Article 5: EPARC is still not called the "Epidemic and Pandemic Response Center" and still has no explicit authority anywhere in international law to declare a "pandemic" of anything.
Article 7a: Not complaining, but any reason why this isn't its own clause? ;P

[Honeydewistania]

Clause 6 is a little superfluous, as you can just say in Clause 5 ‘if it is necessary to protect public health’

I’m opposed to protecting religious sites over non-religious sites but you do you

[Boston Castle]

Would 4a(iv) prohibit turning religious sites into museums? And given given the mandate in 2a, would museums containing religious sites of presently practised religions be included? Further, if a new religion adopts a site, possibly of a defunct religion (Such as Neopagans of various sorts adopting sites of perceived significance, Stongehenge as just one example), would that site become a significant site? Are there limits?

These are actually excellent questions. I'll attempt to resolve these, but don't expect anything barring a real burst tonight until tomorrow morning.

Edit:
Here are some thoughts:
1. This is a great criticism and to be honest, I hadn't thought of it. My reading of it is no. Clauses 4(iv) and 4(v) edited to reflect the criticism.
2. I don't particularly see why it would, especially given the mandate the addenda to 4(iv) and 4(v).
3. Hence the whole idea of "presently practiced religion", it gives us latitude to determine what is currently practiced and we can adapt as necessary.

[Boston Castle]

Article 4d: strike out "in cases"?
Article 5: EPARC is still not called the "Epidemic and Pandemic Response Center" and still has no explicit authority anywhere in international law to declare a "pandemic" of anything.
Article 7a: Not complaining, but any reason why this isn't its own clause? ;P

1. Done
2. Amended to read "as declared by a national health service or disease control center."
3. Also done, Clauses 7(a) and the original Clause 7 merged.

[Attempted Socialism]

Would 4a(iv) prohibit turning religious sites into museums? And given given the mandate in 2a, would museums containing religious sites of presently practised religions be included? Further, if a new religion adopts a site, possibly of a defunct religion (Such as Neopagans of various sorts adopting sites of perceived significance, Stongehenge as just one example), would that site become a significant site? Are there limits?

These are actually excellent questions. I'll attempt to resolve these, but don't expect anything barring a real burst tonight until tomorrow morning.

Edit:
Here are some thoughts:
1. This is a great criticism and to be honest, I hadn't thought of it. My reading of it is no. Clauses 4(iv) and 4(v) edited to reflect the criticism.
2. I don't particularly see why it would, especially given the mandate the addenda to 4(iv) and 4(v).

I think the phrasing is very roundabout, in that they are still major religious sites and museums are only not deigned desecration. I'd prefer museums to be generally exempt as 1e, and then turning religious sites into museums to be exempt from desecration in 4a(v).

3. Hence the whole idea of "presently practiced religion", it gives us latitude to determine what is currently practiced and we can adapt as necessary.

Perhaps I was unclear. Neopaganisms are presently practised religions, or at least I can't see how they wouldn't be and other religions are, and they have adopted as significant to them various sites they imagine were significant to the beliefs they allegedly continue. As one specific RL example, there is a Neopagan Wicca belief centered around Stonehenge (Alongside several other Neopagan and pseudo-Celtic religions). There's no actual link between these religions and what religion may have established Stonehenge in the first place, but Stonehenge itself would satisfy 1a, 1b and 1d for the modern Wicca. Would Stonehenge become a religiously significant site for the presently practised religion of Wicca? -- And I recognise that Stonehenge specifically is a World and English heritage site and thus protected already, it just serves as an example.

[Honeydewistania]

OPPOSED. Whether any site ought to be treated as significant to any particular religion should be determined by the leaders of that religion, not a Big, Unwieldy Piece of WA.

Also a bit applicable

[Boston Castle]

These are actually excellent questions. I'll attempt to resolve these, but don't expect anything barring a real burst tonight until tomorrow morning.

Edit:
Here are some thoughts:
1. This is a great criticism and to be honest, I hadn't thought of it. My reading of it is no. Clauses 4(iv) and 4(v) edited to reflect the criticism.
2. I don't particularly see why it would, especially given the mandate the addenda to 4(iv) and 4(v).

I think the phrasing is very roundabout, in that they are still major religious sites and museums are only not deigned desecration. I'd prefer museums to be generally exempt as 1e, and then turning religious sites into museums to be exempt from desecration in 4a(v).

3. Hence the whole idea of "presently practiced religion", it gives us latitude to determine what is currently practiced and we can adapt as necessary.

Perhaps I was unclear. Neopaganisms are presently practised religions, or at least I can't see how they wouldn't be and other religions are, and they have adopted as significant to them various sites they imagine were significant to the beliefs they allegedly continue. As one specific RL example, there is a Neopagan Wicca belief centered around Stonehenge (Alongside several other Neopagan and pseudo-Celtic religions). There's no actual link between these religions and what religion may have established Stonehenge in the first place, but Stonehenge itself would satisfy 1a, 1b and 1d for the modern Wicca. Would Stonehenge become a religiously significant site for the presently practised religion of Wicca? -- And I recognise that Stonehenge specifically is a World and English heritage site and thus protected already, it just serves as an example.

1. Thanks for the clarification, I'll fix the wording on 4a(iv) and add an 1(e), that is probably the best route of action.
2. I completely understand, I don't necessarily see how this wasn't addressed by "presently practiced religion".

OPPOSED. Whether any site ought to be treated as significant to any particular religion should be determined by the leaders of that religion, not a Big, Unwieldy Piece of WA.

Also a bit applicable

Could always add a bit about "in consultation with faith leaders".

2 Edits:
In response to Attempted Socialism, 1(e) allowing a museum carve out has been created.
In response to Honeydewistania, 2(a) has been amended to read "Work with faith leaders...".

[Refuge Isle]

This is now at vote.

[Absentia]

Absolutely NO. First, religions themselves make this untenable; if religion A considers any artifacts of religion B to be blasphemous, destroying those artifacts will itself be a religious activity, and the site of that destruction will be a protected location.

But more importantly, this is an issue that has no effect. Absentia has determined that religious belief is a mental disorder, adults who believe in invisible friends are clearly deranged, and as such there is no such thing as a 'practiced religion,' only a mass psychosis. Accordingly, there are no places that would qualify for such protection, so this issue is nothing but a waste of WA resources.