NationStates

Howdy, everyone! I came up with this idea the other day and drafted it. There have already been some eyes on it, and while they have not requested Co-Author credit, my thanks go out to Orca and Narwhal, Maowi, and Cretox State for reviewing the proposal.

As for the specifics, I did ask Imperium Anglorum regarding a clause in GAR 430 and this idea was why, so this proposal serves to shore up a gap in existing legislation.

Edit: after discussions with Cretox, this proposal has been overhauled. We discussed it and protecting religious sites was going to be an easier lift than protecting freedom of movement, which seemed to be an insurmountable hurdle with everyone earlier.

Further Edit: Minor wording changes made between this and submission, update coming to submitted text.

An edit to an edit to an edit: After discussions with Wallenburg, clause 4(b) has been cut in order to remain compliant with GAR 17. Thanks for the heads up!

The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that many religious traditions have and maintain sites that are important to the history of their creed and the practice of their creed,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that certain sites of religious significance have have not been properly maintained and preserved,

NOTICING that while the World Assembly has affirmed the right of citizens of nations to practice the religion of their choosing, it has not affirmed that the places of significance to a religion must be protected as well.

DESIRING that this deficiency in existing legislation be remedied in international law, hereby:

1. Defines a "site of religious significance" to be:
   
   
   1. The foundational place, or places, of a religion;
      
   2. A focus of worship for a religion;
      
   3. The graves of people associated with or significant to a religion;
      
   4. Places of religious community;
      
   5. A museum, or other site protected by law, with a religious character;
2. Creates the Office for the Protection of Religious Sites, hereafter noted as the OPRS, which shall:
   
   
   1. Work with faith leaders to identify and designate sites of religious significance to presently practiced religions, especially those which have significant meaning to, or are are focuses of worship of, a presently practiced religion;
      
   2. Work with member nations to develop an effective plan to protect designated sites of religious significance; and
3. Further clarifies that member nations must allow sites as designated by the OPRS to be deemed significant and made compliant with this resolution,
   
4. Asserts the following actions are in violation of this resolution:
   
   
   1. Desecrating sites of religious significance and desecration shall be defined as;
      
      
      1. Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to sites of religious significance;
         
      2. Destroying artefacts or materials contained at said sites which are of religious importance;
         
      3. The removal of bodies, relics, or items of significance with the intent to make said sites 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 by removing their religious character; though
         
      5. Desecration shall not apply in the event of an imminent threat to health and safety with the present conditions of the site, in the event that said sites were established in a hostile fashion (such as through invasion), or if said sites are being altered with a view towards preservation in perpetuity (such as through conversion into a museum);
   2. Abusing one's private property rights in the pursuit of gaining the legal right to protect or maintain a site of religious significance;
      
   3. Showing favoritism to, or selectively working to maintain, sites of one belief over another; and
5. Clarifies that nations may restrict access to religious sites in an event which requires that a nation restrict the freedom of movement throughout the whole nation such as a civil war, conflict which occurs on a nation’s territory, internal instability in the region of a religious site, or if a pandemic is declared by a national health service or disease control center,
   
6. Further clarifies that nations may not impose these restrictions on access solely on the grounds of religion,
   
7. Urges member nations to take additional measures to provide for the security of sites of religious significance including appointing third-party controllers of religious sites in the event that this would prove to be more conducive to their continued survival and maintenance than local administration.

“Clause 6a I have a few issues with, mainly because it doesn’t contain any exemptions. If a very religious ancient civilisation previously occupied the area in which a member state has recently grown, this clause could make it impossible for that member state to build virtually any large-scale building projects. Likewise, if a theocratic state invaded a member nation’s territory and placed a large religious monument there, the invaded country is forced to live with that monument in perpetuity.

Also, there’s no exception for a religious site on somebody’s private property, nor on top of a vast reserve of natural material, nor to remove something on a religious site that poses a significant security or health risk, nor for any other compelling purposes.”

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 6a I have a few issues with, mainly because it doesn’t contain any exemptions. If a very religious ancient civilisation previously occupied the area in which a member state has recently grown, this clause could make it impossible for that member state to build virtually any large-scale building projects. Likewise, if a theocratic state invaded a member nation’s territory and placed a large religious monument there, the invaded country is forced to live with that monument in perpetuity.

Also, there’s no exception for a religious site on somebody’s private property, nor on top of a vast reserve of natural material, nor to remove something on a religious site that poses a significant security or health risk, nor for any other compelling purposes.”

First, regarding the "very religious ancient civilisation" thing, would adding "presently practiced religion" in the resolution satisfy your quibble with the resolution? At least that quibble?

Addressing the bit about a theocratic state, I do think that's a reasonable thing to add, but I would need to think about how to word it so it wouldn't render the rest of the resolution moot.

For what it's worth, I object to the "development" idea for removing a religious site and "on top of a vast reserve...". However, the health and preservation of private property rights are good recommendations, I'll just have to figure out where to put them.

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 6a I have a few issues with, mainly because it doesn’t contain any exemptions. If a very religious ancient civilisation previously occupied the area in which a member state has recently grown, this clause could make it impossible for that member state to build virtually any large-scale building projects. Likewise, if a theocratic state invaded a member nation’s territory and placed a large religious monument there, the invaded country is forced to live with that monument in perpetuity.

Also, there’s no exception for a religious site on somebody’s private property, nor on top of a vast reserve of natural material, nor to remove something on a religious site that poses a significant security or health risk, nor for any other compelling purposes.”

Noting this in a separate reply, but "presently practiced religion" was noted multiple places. A 5th clause was added to clause 6a in order to assist with some of your other concerns.

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum! Please do not take criticism of your proposal as criticism of you, and remember that in in-character (IC) our roleplay characters can be quite rude without us players being out-of-character (OOC) rude to you.

You mention asking IA about a previous resolution - exactly what were you concerned about in regards to the resolution?

I don't have time right now to do a comprehensive feedback combing through, but in clause 3 - why are you making a WA committee identify pilgrimage sites with heavy traffic? Wouldn't the nations in which they are, be already aware of such? And isn't 3.b. the whole point of this proposal existing?

Is clause 6 trying to police the religions or churches as well? If in RL the Catholic Church as a whole decided to move the whole of Vatican City somewhere else, brick by brick, would this proposal prevent that from happening? And what if the location that's the target of pilgrims, is on private land, or the object of worship is privately owned by someone not related to the religion? There are resolutions about seizure of private property and just compensation is required. Should the religious people/churches pay the compensation? The WA? The member nation? Before you pick any, do remember that nations might end up with having "holy" sites on their territory that are not in any way related to the religions practiced within their borders.

Does all of this apply even to religions that would for other reasons be banned or parts of their expression be banned (like, say, human sacrifice, or virgin rape, or child marriages, or whatever) by existing WA law?

I'm personally against this - I don't like organized religions because of all the death and misery they have caused and continue causing around the RL world - and my IC people are likely going to be rude about it, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to help you make it better.

Boston Castle wrote:A 5th clause was added to clause 6a in order to assist with some of your other concerns.

Burying the private property thing in the subclause of a subclause is perhaps not the best option - it should be a main clause clarification. It's currently part of the definition, rather than an exception outside the definition, to clarify.

Also, the health exception would allow, in RL, the eradication of all religious sites of pilgrimage as they attract mass numbers of people, which of course is a bad thing in a contagious pandemic situation.

OOC: That 10,000 people per year seems awfully arbitrary. On human scale it is acceptable but what about hamster scale? Or potted plant scale (looking at you, Ara)? Just something to think about.

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, how is "a journey undertaken to an area of religious significance to a presently practiced religion" not a "practice associated with a religion... performed either individually or in a group?"

Tinhampton wrote: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, how is "a journey undertaken to an area of religious significance to a presently practiced religion" not a "practice associated with a religion... performed either individually or in a group?"

As I see it, the practice would be done when one got there and would not be constituted in access to the sites/protecting the ability to get to the sites.

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: That 10,000 people per year seems awfully arbitrary. On human scale it is acceptable but what about hamster scale? Or potted plant scale (looking at you, Ara)? Just something to think about.

I can see it as being arbitrary, but my entire purpose was to set the bar high enough that any ordinary thing wouldn't qualify, but not so low that many sites wouldn't qualify.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Welcome to the GA forum! Please do not take criticism of your proposal as criticism of you, and remember that in in-character (IC) our roleplay characters can be quite rude without us players being out-of-character (OOC) rude to you.

You mention asking IA about a previous resolution - exactly what were you concerned about in regards to the resolution?

I don't have time right now to do a comprehensive feedback combing through, but in clause 3 - why are you making a WA committee identify pilgrimage sites with heavy traffic? Wouldn't the nations in which they are, be already aware of such? And isn't 3.b. the whole point of this proposal existing?

Is clause 6 trying to police the religions or churches as well? If in RL the Catholic Church as a whole decided to move the whole of Vatican City somewhere else, brick by brick, would this proposal prevent that from happening? And what if the location that's the target of pilgrims, is on private land, or the object of worship is privately owned by someone not related to the religion? There are resolutions about seizure of private property and just compensation is required. Should the religious people/churches pay the compensation? The WA? The member nation? Before you pick any, do remember that nations might end up with having "holy" sites on their territory that are not in any way related to the religions practiced within their borders.

Does all of this apply even to religions that would for other reasons be banned or parts of their expression be banned (like, say, human sacrifice, or virgin rape, or child marriages, or whatever) by existing WA law?

I'm personally against this - I don't like organized religions because of all the death and misery they have caused and continue causing around the RL world - and my IC people are likely going to be rude about it, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to help you make it better.

Boston Castle wrote:A 5th clause was added to clause 6a in order to assist with some of your other concerns.

Burying the private property thing in the subclause of a subclause is perhaps not the best option - it should be a main clause clarification. It's currently part of the definition, rather than an exception outside the definition, to clarify.

Also, the health exception would allow, in RL, the eradication of all religious sites of pilgrimage as they attract mass numbers of people, which of course is a bad thing in a contagious pandemic situation.

Alright, going to address this point by point:

1. I mentioned IA because I had asked him whether GAR 430 had constituted a right to pilgrimage, he clarified that it did not.

2. I created the WA Committee here not because this couldn't be decentralized to the national level, but due to the *objective* eyes that the WA is supposed to provide.

3. Yes, 3.b is the entire point of it, but restating it as part of the mission of the Committee is not exactly a bad thing, at least imo.

4. As for physically moving the site, I have absolutely no idea how that could be prevented or if it even could.

5. As for prohibiting religions from being recognized under the terms of this, I've been told that it's a rule violation to reference a Resolution already on the books, but I believe that's covered under GAR 430 in Clause 7 and thus, it's unnecessary to legislate it anew here.

6. Ah, will move the Private Property thing to a main clause.

7. I think some sort of a force majeure clause is necessary, but I don't think there's a WA Health Commission and therefore, I don't think there's an objective voice we can slough that responsibility on to (a la "In the event the [Health Commission] declares a pandemic...").

Boston Castle wrote:2. I created the WA Committee here not because this couldn't be decentralized to the national level, but due to the *objective* eyes that the WA is supposed to provide.

Is there any reason why you have to offload this task to a new committee rather than to a committee that already exists through previous legislation? Why do you believe that the WA's admittedly incorruptible gnomes will do a better job at religious site designation than faith leaders and/or government at lower levels?

Boston Castle wrote:7. I think some sort of a force majeure clause is necessary, but I don't think there's a WA Health Commission and therefore, I don't think there's an objective voice we can slough that responsibility on to (a la "In the event the [Health Commission] declares a pandemic...").

The Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center, itself a subset of the World Health Authority, already has authority to declare a serious disease through Rights of the Quarantined (and I assume has other responsibilities for disease declaration, albeit never using the P-word, elsewhere in WA law).

Boston Castle wrote:5. As for prohibiting religions from being recognized under the terms of this, I've been told that it's a rule violation to reference a Resolution already on the books, but I believe that's covered under GAR 430 in Clause 7 and thus, it's unnecessary to legislate it anew here.

From what I recall, you may mention previously passed resolutions in your preamble/prefatory clauses, but not your active clauses (see also Administrative Compliance Act and Repeal "International Criminal Court").

"Opposed. Religious travelers do not merit special treatment. They can face the same barriers as any other traveler. Nor should places of religious significance get any special treatment. If a cathedral is in the way of a parking lot, we have no qualms razing it any more than we would raze an old town hall or fort."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Opposed. Religious travelers do not merit special treatment. They can face the same barriers as any other traveler. Nor should places of religious significance get any special treatment. If a cathedral is in the way of a parking lot, we have no qualms razing it any more than we would raze an old town hall or fort."

I don't delineate IC vs. OOC (Partially because I've ~never~ RP'd, partially because that's just the way I'm wired), so I must ask because I do know you're a member of the Secretariat. Opposed as in you would vote no or opposed as in illegal as currently constructed?

Tinhampton wrote:

Boston Castle wrote:2. I created the WA Committee here not because this couldn't be decentralized to the national level, but due to the *objective* eyes that the WA is supposed to provide.

Is there any reason why you have to offload this task to a new committee rather than to a committee that already exists through previous legislation? Why do you believe that the WA's admittedly incorruptible gnomes will do a better job at religious site designation than faith leaders and/or government at lower levels?

Boston Castle wrote:7. I think some sort of a force majeure clause is necessary, but I don't think there's a WA Health Commission and therefore, I don't think there's an objective voice we can slough that responsibility on to (a la "In the event the [Health Commission] declares a pandemic...").

The Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center, itself a subset of the World Health Authority, already has authority to declare a serious disease through Rights of the Quarantined (and I assume has other responsibilities for disease declaration, albeit never using the P-word, elsewhere in WA law).

Boston Castle wrote:5. As for prohibiting religions from being recognized under the terms of this, I've been told that it's a rule violation to reference a Resolution already on the books, but I believe that's covered under GAR 430 in Clause 7 and thus, it's unnecessary to legislate it anew here.

From what I recall, you may mention previously passed resolutions in your preamble/prefatory clauses, but not your active clauses (see also Administrative Compliance Act and Repeal "International Criminal Court").

1. Yes, I offload to a new committee mostly because I don't necessarily believe in the impartiality of current structures and I think it would be better to use a new committee. I believe they would do a better job because there is no question of an outside conflict of interest coloring their perception of the importance of a religious site to their nation/to a religious community.

2. That's actually a good to know, I will add that into the resolution in Clause 7.

3. I don't even know if it would be worth it to mention it unless I did so in the terms of "Applauding the focus of GAR 430 on protecting the rights of religious people(s)..."

Boston Castle wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Opposed. Religious travelers do not merit special treatment. They can face the same barriers as any other traveler. Nor should places of religious significance get any special treatment. If a cathedral is in the way of a parking lot, we have no qualms razing it any more than we would raze an old town hall or fort."

I don't delineate IC vs. OOC (Partially because I've ~never~ RP'd, partially because that's just the way I'm wired), so I must ask because I do know you're a member of the Secretariat. Opposed as in you would vote no or opposed as in illegal as currently constructed?

OOC: The GA is an IC forum. The default expectation is IC. Were it illegal, I would say it was illegal, not that I was opposed.

Boston Castle wrote:[*]Mandates that member nations allow for people undertaking pilgrimages for reasons of faith to travel with minimal impediment and with the least possible barriers towards their freedom of movement, within the bounds of their broader border control policies,

"The Imperium sees no reason to allow primitivists special privilege over other foreigners simply because of their beliefs; indeed, with certain groups, the Imperium would prefer quite the opposite. Whether or not you share the views of the Imperium, I do hope you have some kind of justification for allowing effectively random foreigners special transit privilege for entirely arbitrary reasons?"

Boston Castle wrote:Creates the Office for the Protection of Religious Groups, hereafter noted as the OPRG, which shall:
[list=a][*]Work to identify areas of religious significance to presently practiced religions which attract a significant (defined as more than 10,000 visitors in a single year for the purposes of religious ) number of religious adherents on pilgrimage;

"Ten-thousand? That isn't significant at all. Moreover, 'presently practiced', does not equate to national or even international significance; Marrov is still practiced within the Imperium, yet it is considered, for all intents and purposes, defunct; little more than a historical artifact practiced by maybe some few hundred people with little to no connection to it. It's not worth Imperial law, much less the attentions World Assembly. Incidentally, does the practice need to be within one's borders? Or are foreigners allowed to simply declare the Imperial Archive centers to be critical religious sites for the Church of Gigantic Toad?"

Boston Castle wrote:Work with member nations with the aim of reducing barriers to the movement of religiously motivated tourists; and

"The Imperium does not allow foreigners within our borders at all, and especially not tourists; religious or otherwise. The Imperium is not a foreigner's vacation site - or 'pilgrimage', or whatever nonsense you choose to call it."

Boston Castle wrote:[list=a][*]Desecrating sites of religious significance such as places of worship, the burial, death, and birth sites of figures of religious significance, desecration shall be defined as;

[list=i][*]Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to sites of religious significance;

"How is this defined? The Tower of the Stars in the East has been a museum for centuries, and there's countless sites on New Harron that have been lost to history or destroyed - often not even by the Imperium, for the record."

Boston Castle wrote:Destroying artefacts or materials contained at said sites which are of religious importance;

"Again, how is this defined? If some site were to be declared 'holy ground' would digging a hole for a signpost be considered desecration?"

Boston Castle wrote:Altering the religious nature of said spaces as defined by the OPRG in an attempt to make them no longer significant; though

"Again, all religious sites in the Imperium have long become defunct. Simply because there's some pocket of twenty or so practitioners of some extinct Talkonite primitivism, you would have the Imperium demolish city blocks simply on the basis that they once held some kind of temple?

Simply, Ambassador, this legislation is unnecessary, and fundamentally misguided. The Imperium is opposed."

Tinfect wrote:

Boston Castle wrote:[*]Mandates that member nations allow for people undertaking pilgrimages for reasons of faith to travel with minimal impediment and with the least possible barriers towards their freedom of movement, within the bounds of their broader border control policies,

"The Imperium sees no reason to allow primitivists special privilege over other foreigners simply because of their beliefs; indeed, with certain groups, the Imperium would prefer quite the opposite. Whether or not you share the views of the Imperium, I do hope you have some kind of justification for allowing effectively random foreigners special transit privilege for entirely arbitrary reasons?"

Boston Castle wrote:Creates the Office for the Protection of Religious Groups, hereafter noted as the OPRG, which shall:
[list=a][*]Work to identify areas of religious significance to presently practiced religions which attract a significant (defined as more than 10,000 visitors in a single year for the purposes of religious ) number of religious adherents on pilgrimage;

"Ten-thousand? That isn't significant at all. Moreover, 'presently practiced', does not equate to national or even international significance; Marrov is still practiced within the Imperium, yet it is considered, for all intents and purposes, defunct; little more than a historical artifact practiced by maybe some few hundred people with little to no connection to it. It's not worth Imperial law, much less the attentions World Assembly. Incidentally, does the practice need to be within one's borders? Or are foreigners allowed to simply declare the Imperial Archive centers to be critical religious sites for the Church of Gigantic Toad?"

Boston Castle wrote:Work with member nations with the aim of reducing barriers to the movement of religiously motivated tourists; and

"The Imperium does not allow foreigners within our borders at all, and especially not tourists; religious or otherwise. The Imperium is not a foreigner's vacation site - or 'pilgrimage', or whatever nonsense you choose to call it."

Boston Castle wrote:[list=a][*]Desecrating sites of religious significance such as places of worship, the burial, death, and birth sites of figures of religious significance, desecration shall be defined as;

[list=i][*]Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to sites of religious significance;

"How is this defined? The Tower of the Stars in the East has been a museum for centuries, and there's countless sites on New Harron that have been lost to history or destroyed - often not even by the Imperium, for the record."

Boston Castle wrote:Destroying artefacts or materials contained at said sites which are of religious importance;

"Again, how is this defined? If some site were to be declared 'holy ground' would digging a hole for a signpost be considered desecration?"

Boston Castle wrote:Altering the religious nature of said spaces as defined by the OPRG in an attempt to make them no longer significant; though

"Again, all religious sites in the Imperium have long become defunct. Simply because there's some pocket of twenty or so practitioners of some extinct Talkonite primitivism, you would have the Imperium demolish city blocks simply on the basis that they once held some kind of temple?

Simply, Ambassador, this legislation is unnecessary, and fundamentally misguided. The Imperium is opposed."

1. I almost view it as a bit of a cultural thing. For instance, if one had a piece of great art and hundreds of thousands flocked each year to come see it, we probably wouldn't view that as an arbitrary reason. Millions go to the Louvre every year, many to see the Venus de Milo or the Mona Lisa, would we say that their trips to their arbitrary? I don't see this as being any different, or less valid a reason, to travel as religion.

2. The national sovereignty/question of the borders is an interesting one. In the real world, the Hagia Sophia is an excellent example of this. Again, I don't there would be a reason to change the wording of the resolution, so as for it to have the maximum possible effect, and I definitely don't see the argument you make regarding religion needing to be practiced in a state in order for sites needing to come under the terms of this resolution. Quite the opposite, I think this would be a perfect time to legislate that sites of minority religions retain the same protections as those of majority faiths.

3. Also, I should note here that the 10,000 lower limit was chosen rather arbitrarily-see above for why I chose that (I know I explained it).

4. Nowhere in the resolution does it say that non-existent sites or sites that have ceased to exist are fit under the terms of the treaty and if there is effective "grandfathering", point it out, because that wasn't my intent at all.

[edit]
5. Sorry for not noticing this, but I would define "artefacts and materials" as any significant item which gives a religious site its religious character. So, for instance, a Torah scroll at a synagogue, the Western Wall, the footprints of Muhammad at Al-Aqsa.

"So-called pilgrims can apply for a tourist visa like everyone else. Religions and the religious generally need help, not rights that are denied the rest of the population. Care to convince us why a singular psychotic belief should qualify as a reason for ease of tourism?"

"Opposed. Religious pilgrims should be treated like tourists, and not be granted any special rights or privileges."

“Religious pilgrims should granted the right of citizenship as low they say my nation as a full commitment of our nation and they won’t be legally allowed to leave.”

Boston Castle wrote:1. I almost view it as a bit of a cultural thing. For instance, if one had a piece of great art and hundreds of thousands flocked each year to come see it, we probably wouldn't view that as an arbitrary reason. Millions go to the Louvre every year, many to see the Venus de Milo or the Mona Lisa, would we say that their trips to their arbitrary? I don't see this as being any different, or less valid a reason, to travel as religion.

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?

Ardiveds wrote:

Boston Castle wrote:1. I almost view it as a bit of a cultural thing. For instance, if one had a piece of great art and hundreds of thousands flocked each year to come see it, we probably wouldn't view that as an arbitrary reason. Millions go to the Louvre every year, many to see the Venus de Milo or the Mona Lisa, would we say that their trips to their arbitrary? I don't see this as being any different, or less valid a reason, to travel as religion.

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?

OOC: Agreed, I see no reason why a religious pilgrim should be treated as someone more important than an average tourist. If this was something to give special protection to tourists in general, I might have been supportive of it. But religious pilgrims should not be treated any different than regular tourists.

OOC: Also, to add to my comment before on clause 2, your insistance on special treatment of pilgrims also could compromise security checks so any suicide bomber wishing to blow up a packed pilgrimage site can move with 'minimal impediment' and this is further worsened by the fact that there is no distinction between pilgrims from member and non member nations, non members where terrorism might be a perfectly legal thing.

Ardiveds wrote:

Boston Castle wrote:1. I almost view it as a bit of a cultural thing. For instance, if one had a piece of great art and hundreds of thousands flocked each year to come see it, we probably wouldn't view that as an arbitrary reason. Millions go to the Louvre every year, many to see the Venus de Milo or the Mona Lisa, would we say that their trips to their arbitrary? I don't see this as being any different, or less valid a reason, to travel as religion.

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.

"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.