NationStates

Heya.

On the off chance that Honeydew's repeal of GAR#522 is both submitted and passed, I would like to offer the following text as a replacement, since I personally believe it is good and necessary to have an active resolution on the subject. The goal being to have a law that has teeth and that targets nations who would be interested in burning down a minority's religious holy place when the sociopolitical conditions are convenient for doing so. As GAR#287 does NOT prevent such destruction from occurring, rather than living with the assumptions that it'll be fine, let's ensure it explicitly and with as little fluff as humanly possible.

What this resolution does:
• Governments cannot destroy buildings like the Vatican or structures like the Kaaba IF those sites are owned by religious orgs or entities who act as their caretakers.
• Governments can't destroy or move the relics of a building when those relics give the building protection - their owners have to do it themselves.
• Allows religious leaders to ask for help from the WA cultural thing if they can't maintain their sites or don't know how.
• Bans governments from becoming owners of religious sites through eminent domain.

Religious Site Preservation and Continuity
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.
Category: Education | Strength: Cultural Heritage

The General Assembly,

Recognising that the corporeal elements which compose a religion's history and practice are a fundamental part of the cultural heritage of the World Assembly as a whole,

Aware that, through the course of a nation's development and political changes, a religious structure, establishment, or point of interest may be neglected of care and maintenance, or may be targeted for destruction by their host's government,

Believing the purpose of this Chamber and its actions ought to be in the interest of member nations' inhabitants, including inhabitants whose religion a nation would find undesirable,

Resolves that an obligation then rests upon the World Assembly to expressly establish protections where they may have only been previously implied, and:

1. Defines the word "local" to mean any of the following:
   
   1. Within the area of the member nation's territory.
   2. Within a political subdivision of the member nation's territory which has a distinct ethnic identity.
2. Defines the word "religion" to mean a practicing association of individuals, whose shared belief in divine or supernatural entities or phenomena is of renown within the local area, and whose historical presence has been documented through written text, or long-standing oral tradition which is widely available in the local area.
3. Defines the term "religious site" to include any of the following which is owned by a religion's organisation, leadership, or delegated caretakers:
   
   1. The origin point of a religion.
   2. A structure, monument, or point of interest which is the target of worship in a local religion.
   3. A structure which stores the sacred relics or historical artefacts of a religion.
   4. A place of worship whose significance to the history of a religion is of local renown.
4. Forbids member nations from:
   
   1. Causing permanent damage or irreparable harm to any religious site.
   2. Destroying the sacred relics or historical artefacts which cause a structure to be designated for protection.
   3. Forcibly relocating a religious site, sacred relics, or historical artefacts against the wishes of their owners.
   4. Preventing or prohibiting the religious site from being accessed or attended, except while the World Health Authority identifies a contagious health crisis in or about the area of the religious site.
   5. Forcing the owners of religious sites, sacred relics, or historical artefacts to sell or surrender such property through legal compulsion.
5. Allows the leadership of a local religion, whose sites fall under the protection of this resolution, to receive assistance in funding and technical expertise from the World Assembly Trust for Cultural Heritage, provided:
   
   1. Such requests for aid are made for the purposes of maintaining or preserving a qualified religious site, and such resources are utilised to that end.
   2. The leadership lodging the request is able to demonstrate that neither they nor their religious organisation are able to maintain the site without intervention.
6. Clarifies that:
   
   1. Clause 5 and all of its subsections do not apply in the case there the religious site and its surrounding environment has been damaged or destroyed due to an ongoing war or environmental catastrophe.
   2. Should the conditions of war or environmental catastrophe subside, what of the site which remains or can be rebuilt shall be subject mandates of this resolution, and the exemption provided in 6(a) shall be terminated.
   3. No part of this legislation shall be interpreted as placing restrictions upon or limiting the rights of site owners.

Closing this thread. Had enough of getting yelled at for the time being thanks.

"Civil rights again? I didn’t like how the original resolution successfully shoehorned itself into that category, and I’m pretty sure it was agreed that Education and Creativity | Cultural Heritage was a more suitable category."

"Also, 3d prevents member nations from restricting access during a pandemic. That ought to be rectified."

OOC: On the off chance? I’m almost certain it’d be a knockout victory on the voting floor

"Absolutely not. Nobody has yet demonstrated why religious "structures" should be held up above all others. What about eminent domain? Why should someone's residence and all sorts of other sites be fair game for having a motorway built through them but just because some deluded fool waffled on about their imaginary friend somewhere, that location should be exempt from encumbrances placed on all others in perpetuity?

"Also 2b is just as broad as all the requirements in the original that everyone complained about.

"GAR#287 goes as far as anything in this area needs to go. Anything further is pandering to one section of society at the expense of all others."

Honeydewistania wrote:"Civil rights again? I didn’t like how the original resolution successfully shoehorned itself into that category, and I’m pretty sure it was agreed that Education and Creativity | Cultural Heritage was a more suitable category."

"Also, 3d prevents member nations from restricting access during a pandemic. That ought to be rectified."

OOC: On the off chance? I’m almost certain it’d be a knockout victory on the voting floor

OOC: I was debating between the two. Although 4(b) does require a government to support funding of site preservation, most of the resolution is about preventing a government from destroying a facility or restricting access to it. In that regard, perhaps it is mostly a civil rights topic. I'm not committed to the idea, it just seems more fitting for the moment.

IC, all:

Bananaistan wrote:"Absolutely not. Nobody has yet demonstrated why religious "structures" should be held up above all others. What about eminent domain? Why should someone's residence and all sorts of other sites be fair game for having a motorway built through them but just because some deluded fool waffled on about their imaginary friend somewhere, that location should be exempt from encumbrances placed on all others in perpetuity?

"My treasured associate, eminent domain being invoked by a rogue Arch-Administrator to demolish the Cathedral of the Zyqxuwy, which has stood since the beginning of measurable time, is precisely the target of my concern. While the delegation from Bananaistan obviously enjoys support of militant atheists, it is my hope that more spiritual nations find their citizens' rights protected now and into the future.

Nations without such religious constructs need not be concerned, as restrictions cannot apply to that which does not exist."

Bananaistan wrote:"Also 2b is just as broad as all the requirements in the original that everyone complained about.

"Bananaistan must truly be impressive if it is so littered with such establishments and monuments which form the basis of a faith's worship."

Bananaistan wrote:"GAR#287 goes as far as anything in this area needs to go. Anything further is pandering to one section of society at the expense of all others."

"It must have escaped my colleague that GAR#287 does not provide for the protection of religious sites in the slightest. Come now! Let us read the document together as a bonding exercise."


"Fantastic and worthy of praise. Should any of the sites or relics come to destruction, we will at least have their photographic and literary likeness in a data vault."


"Recommendations have next to no legal function, alas."


"Pleased to see that, under my draft, the World Assembly General Fund can be called in if, and only if, a nation is unable to maintain their religion's sites after it is determined that the religion's relevant caretakers are also unable to do so."


"Additional recommendations without any substantial legal function or protections provided."


"What determines the weight of 'unnecessary'? If a nation's religion were to change, is removing the symbols and icons of one to replace it with another considered 'necessary'? Presumably a nation is not interested in causing accidental damage. Presumably a nation is not interested in actions that are not in the interest of their ruling powers. All damage is necessary if a nation wishes to carry it out with reason.

And so Ambassador, GAR#287 provides no religious sites protection from destruction in a way I am able to observe. I'm scarcely able to locate any protective clauses at all, for the resolution is primarily an archival one, which also provides informational brochures for maintenance tips."

"Ambassador, what can we say. After reading the replacement, we might as well oppose the repeal. This still doesn't differentiate between established relgions and fringe cults. Under this, one guy claiming to be a prophet/god and five guys claiming to be his followers is still a 'religion', not to mention political and commercial organizations and quack gurus making up religions."

Bananaistan wrote:"Absolutely not. Nobody has yet demonstrated why religious "structures" should be held up above all others. What about eminent domain? Why should someone's residence and all sorts of other sites be fair game for having a motorway built through them but just because some deluded fool waffled on about their imaginary friend somewhere, that location should be exempt from encumbrances placed on all others in perpetuity?

"Also 2b is just as broad as all the requirements in the original that everyone complained about.

"GAR#287 goes as far as anything in this area needs to go. Anything further is pandering to one section of society at the expense of all others."

"The Bananamen have articulated our position."

Bananaistan wrote:"Absolutely not. Nobody has yet demonstrated why religious "structures" should be held up above all others. What about eminent domain? Why should someone's residence and all sorts of other sites be fair game for having a motorway built through them but just because some deluded fool waffled on about their imaginary friend somewhere, that location should be exempt from encumbrances placed on all others in perpetuity?

Ambassador Hornwood, there is nothing stopping your nation from simply not violating the rights of any of its citizens if that is your concern. Or perhaps writing something it this body to properly protect the interests of all WA citizens in private property. We understand this may cause some cognitive dissonance given your nation's misguided and disastrous "Socialism for All" nonsense, but that is neither here nor there.

Bananaistan wrote:"Also 2b is just as broad as all the requirements in the original that everyone complained about.

Grudgingly, we must agree that 2b's language remains broad enough that this body is likely to see it as too far. Perhaps the author could amend the wording somewhat such that a simple house of worship with no significance beyond itself is not covered? A regular site of pilgrimage for a relgion's followers is a reasonable inclusion. The parish church of the cultus Christianus is not. Perhaps even the other sub-clauses suffice to include enough to prevent the worst abuses of the Bananamen and Tinfectian apparatchiks (amongst others) while leaving some flexibility for the rest of us.

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Grudgingly, we must agree that 2b's language remains broad enough that this body is likely to see it as too far. Perhaps the author could amend the wording somewhat such that a simple house of worship with no significance beyond itself is not covered?

A modification has been made to clarify 2(b)'s intent.

Ardiveds wrote:"Ambassador, what can we say. After reading the replacement, we might as well oppose the repeal. This still doesn't differentiate between established relgions and fringe cults. Under this, one guy claiming to be a prophet/god and five guys claiming to be his followers is still a 'religion', not to mention political and commercial organizations and quack gurus making up religions."

OOC:

"So then, I'm still here waiting for any of the supporters of this proposal to justify why religious sites should be given greater protection that literally everything else. Come on folks, at least try to convince the sceptics. What is so special about religious sites that they deserve more protection than all other significant sites?

"Also, why should the rest of us pay the price of having a coach and four driven through our reasonable planning practices just because the proposers happened to have a batshit insane leader in the past?

"And we can only imagine that the Burkeans have established some form of dystopian nightmare if the needs of society are never considered to outweigh private property rights. Have they no public highways or railways? I won't take any criticisms of the Party's Socialism in All Countries policy seriously when they can't even get the name of the policy right and they live in some sort of privatised nightmare."

Refuge Isle wrote:

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Grudgingly, we must agree that 2b's language remains broad enough that this body is likely to see it as too far. Perhaps the author could amend the wording somewhat such that a simple house of worship with no significance beyond itself is not covered?

A modification has been made to clarify 2(b)'s intent.

"I don't see any material change. You'd still have us paying for the upkeep of every fringe lunatic's religion's places of worship."

Honeydewistania wrote:"Also, 3d prevents member nations from restricting access during a pandemic. That ought to be rectified."

"An experimental provision has been added to the proposal to that end. Surely the infallible garden gnomes which accompany the desks of WHA employees may allow for no abuse in such a case."

Bananaistan wrote:"So then, I'm still here waiting for any of the supporters of this proposal to justify why religious sites should be given greater protection that literally everything else. Come on folks, at least try to convince the sceptics. What is so special about religious sites that they deserve more protection than all other significant sites?

"Does such a crass argument also mean to suggest that nothing should be legislated on, given a multitude of topics which have not been legislated on yet? Creating protections on a topic does not imply that others are not worthy of protection. Were it up to me, I would also see an improved resolution developed for non-religious sites on the merits of their needs as well. Those needs, however, are different. Today, the concern is with sites of religions where the government over them would wish them destroyed. All-consuming omnibus legislation does not suit my political ideals."

Bananaistan wrote:"Also, why should the rest of us pay the price of having a coach and four driven through our reasonable planning practices just because the proposers happened to have a batshit insane leader in the past?

"The logic is lost on me. The protections regard sites which exist in the present, and are aimed at maintaining them into the future. I do not register the fleeting whims of whoever happens to control a nation's government, but to observe the personal agency of the individuals within the territory. The site owners and applicable religious leaders maintain the ability to destroy their own property and relocate it to any destination which it may be allowed. I aim to restrict only the state's ability to make the decision of destruction for them."

Bananaistan wrote:"I don't see any material change. You'd still have us paying for the upkeep of every fringe lunatic's religion's places of worship."

"The delegation from Bananaistan must think highly of Refugi literary exports in order to expect perfection within moments of proposal. Your concerns are registered."

“We’d like to see the definitions in this tightened. There is no cause to be including non-Christian ‘religions’ in these protections. Once that change is made, we will support this draft proposal.”

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

"Greetings. I have been instructed by my honourable colleagues in government to relay their firm opposition to this proposal in any form, along with their decision that it is 'an unacceptable imposition that unjustly affirms the superiority of the already self-righteous religious population over all others in the eyes of the World Assembly'." Feargal lowers his voice. "However, I would like to note that I would personally be far more inclined to favour a version of this with slightly less overreaching measures applying equally to all cultures requiring protection, whether religious or not ... perhaps a repeal and replacement of GAR 287, or otherwise something to complement it ... also for the love of god (or of no-one depending on your inclination) fix that definition of 'local'. You have defined using nouns a term you use adjectivally and this pains me."

Bananaistan wrote:"So then, I'm still here waiting for any of the supporters of this proposal to justify why religious sites should be given greater protection that literally everything else. Come on folks, at least try to convince the sceptics. What is so special about religious sites that they deserve more protection than all other significant sites?

"Also, why should the rest of us pay the price of having a coach and four driven through our reasonable planning practices just because the proposers happened to have a batshit insane leader in the past?

We wish to note particularly that religious beliefs and practices are defined broadly in "Freedom of Religion". It is not possible to "differentiate between established religions and fringe cults", to use the words of the ambassador from Ardiveds, without having two different definitions of religions that merit protection in two different resolutions. We do not believe this to be a wise approach to legislating. And even if it were, we would find it highly suspect for the World Assembly to pick and choose which religions it favors with broader protections.

Unfortunately, if we do not want to question whether our citizens profess a bone fide faith, under 2(b) a group of citizens can protect from redevelopment any building whatsoever by claiming that it is their basis of worship. There is not even a requirement that the group own the property in question. We fear that this will simply be a tool to freeze communities in amber, raising costs of living and homelessness when housing shortages inevitably so develop.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia

"We maintain that practical services are infinitely more useful to a society at a given time than any church or temple. The practical value of a hospital should invariably trump the nebulous value of a church, let alone an old manger, a wall, or a specific rock."

Refuge Isle wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:"So then, I'm still here waiting for any of the supporters of this proposal to justify why religious sites should be given greater protection that literally everything else. Come on folks, at least try to convince the sceptics. What is so special about religious sites that they deserve more protection than all other significant sites?

"Does such a crass argument also mean to suggest that nothing should be legislated on, given a multitude of topics which have not been legislated on yet? Creating protections on a topic does not imply that others are not worthy of protection. Were it up to me, I would also see an improved resolution developed for non-religious sites on the merits of their needs as well. Those needs, however, are different. Today, the concern is with sites of religions where the government over them would wish them destroyed. All-consuming omnibus legislation does not suit my political ideals."

"This is not legislating on a topic. It is legislating on a tiny subset of a topic and putting one class of people, their beliefs and the places they gather on a pedestal not granted to any other class of people. It is wrong and unfair. Why are we not also concerned with all sorts of other culturally and historically important sites and writing that resolution? Oh wait, it's because it has already been done. If you think that legislation is ineffective, repeal it and replace it with something that covers all such sites.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:"Also, why should the rest of us pay the price of having a coach and four driven through our reasonable planning practices just because the proposers happened to have a batshit insane leader in the past?

"The logic is lost on me. The protections regard sites which exist in the present, and are aimed at maintaining them into the future. I do not register the fleeting whims of whoever happens to control a nation's government, but to observe the personal agency of the individuals within the territory. The site owners and applicable religious leaders maintain the ability to destroy their own property and relocate it to any destination which it may be allowed. I aim to restrict only the state's ability to make the decision of destruction for them."

"The logic here is that one of your arguments in favour of the WA taking action is that your nation had the bad sense to allow one leader the power to demolish a significant cathedral. That's a shame for your people. The rest of us don't gaf.

"What you are doing is giving special treatment to one class of people and you have yet to explain why every single place of worship, regardless of its significance or how many people worship there or how often, in all member nations of the WA should be forever exempted from eminent domain and placed outside the normal planning procedures that member states might use to cover such things.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:"I don't see any material change. You'd still have us paying for the upkeep of every fringe lunatic's religion's places of worship."

"The delegation from Bananaistan must think highly of Refugi literary exports in order to expect perfection within moments of proposal. Your concerns are registered."

"Well you did say you had made a change to the draft. :xshrug"

Maowi wrote:or otherwise something to complement it ... "

"Yes...that's...what's happening here."

Maowi wrote:also for the love of god (or of no-one depending on your inclination) fix that definition of 'local'. You have defined using nouns a term you use adjectivally and this pains me.

"Donezo."

Goobergunchia wrote:We wish to note particularly that religious beliefs and practices are defined broadly in "Freedom of Religion". It is not possible to "differentiate between established religions and fringe cults", to use the words of the ambassador from Ardiveds, without having two different definitions of religions that merit protection in two different resolutions. We do not believe this to be a wise approach to legislating. And even if it were, we would find it highly suspect for the World Assembly to pick and choose which religions it favors with broader protections.

"GAR#430 regards the ability to hold religious beliefs and values, and assemble to practice them, without fear of government retaliation or punishment. It does not protect their sites, and it does not forbid assigning a possible definition of what sites should be protected.

To that end, I've attached an experimental submission of such a definition, with respect to widespread hysteria over rapid fire religious startups."

Goobergunchia wrote:There is not even a requirement that the group own the property in question. We fear that this will simply be a tool to freeze communities in amber, raising costs of living and homelessness when housing shortages inevitably so develop.

"Agreed. Such a requirement has been added."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"We maintain that practical services are infinitely more useful to a society at a given time than any church or temple. The practical value of a hospital should invariably trump the nebulous value of a church, let alone an old manger, a wall, or a specific rock."

"It is a shame that the laws of your nation require such health services to only be constructed on top of buildings and monuments which your people worshipped. However, if a colonial power wishes to conquer some territory, I should like to think there would exist a law which stipulates the indigenous population may yet have their sacred grove protected. Not demolished for the purposes of building even a hospital. The hospital may be placed next door."

Bananaistan wrote:Oh wait, it's because it has already been done. If you think that legislation is ineffective, repeal it and replace it with something that covers all such sites.

"If, after having gone through the resolution you're referring to line by line, you're still of the mind that it accomplishes anything at all, then your opinion is not one to be valued. As I said before, I'm not against having GAR#287 removed and replaced with more effective legislation. I do not see the reasoning to have this topic separated from that one simply because of your distaste for religious individuals. Such militancy has already influenced me as much as it ever will."

Bananaistan wrote:"The logic here is that one of your arguments in favour of the WA taking action is that your nation had the bad sense to allow one leader the power to demolish a significant cathedral. That's a shame for your people. The rest of us don't gaf.

"I would advise re-reading that line to learn that such a thing never occurred. However, it is within the realm of possibility that nations among the WA's 22,000 members may have experienced such destruction or would in the future.

If a nation committing attrocities against its people is not of the concern of the General Assembly, then surely there is no need to create any legislation ever. If you feel the topic isn't worthy of recognition in law or isn't perhaps an atrocity, vote against. That is how a democracy functions."

Bananaistan wrote:"and you have yet to explain why every single place of worship, regardless of its significance"

"That is not the intent of the law, nor is it its legal effect. My reasoning for doing something that I haven't done will not be forthcoming."

Refuge Isle wrote:
"It is a shame that the laws of your nation require such health services to only be constructed on top of buildings and monuments which your people worshipped. However, if a colonial power wishes to conquer some territory, I should like to think there would exist a law which stipulates the indigenous population may yet have their sacred grove protected. Not demolished for the purposes of building even a hospital. The hospital may be placed next door."

"Should the C.D.S.P. so fall, it would improve the lives of the locals a great deal to have a productive farm where the sacred grove is, regardless of the cultural loss. Our people would get over it.

"Prime real estate should be utilized efficiently, not saved for inefficient use. If a hospital is best situated where there is currently a wall, it should go there. Not at a less efficient space. The C.D.S.P. does not require hospitals atop sacred groves, merely efficiency. Religious sites are not efficient. Worship is not useful."

If a nation committing attrocities against its people is not of the concern of the General Assembly, then surely there is no need to create any legislation ever. If you feel the topic isn't worthy of recognition in law or isn't perhaps an atrocity, vote against. That is how a democracy functions."

"Efficient public resource use is not an atrocity."

This resolution has my full support and will likely achieve significant support from the New West Indies should it get to the voting floor.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:"and you have yet to explain why every single place of worship, regardless of its significance"

"That is not the intent of the law, nor is it its legal effect. My reasoning for doing something that I haven't done will not be forthcoming."

"It is the legal effect as it's currently stated:



"All churches, private houses and buildings of any class where people regularly attend religious services are "a structure ... which forms the basis of worship in a local religion."

"And then, in complete violation of the principle of separation of church and state, you'd have us pay for the upkeep of all such houses of worship under section 5.

"Also I will not stand for the concerns of the Bananamen people about rising religion above all other concerns written off as mere "distaste for religious individuals".

"I would advise re-reading that line to learn that such a thing never occurred. However, it is within the realm of possibility that nations among the WA's 22,000 members may have experienced such destruction or would in the future.

If a nation committing attrocities against its people is not of the concern of the General Assembly, then surely there is no need to create any legislation ever. If you feel the topic isn't worthy of recognition in law or isn't perhaps an atrocity, vote against. That is how a democracy functions."

"The GA has several times acted against atrocities against a nation's people, including on religious grounds. And come off it, the occasional use of eminent domain to demolish an insignificant local house of worship, is not an atrocity. Such hyperbole will not serve you well I think. And furthermore, under existing GA legislation, a nation could not use eminent domain to unfairly and discriminatively target religious institutions.

"The upshot of the whole thing here is a hard and fast rule that only religious buildings must never be touched without the consent of the owners, the upkeep of these buildings must be paid for by the rest of society, and there can never be any exception for any reason whether or not it could be of great benefit to the rest of society. You can insultingly write this off as militancy. It's not. It's pointing out that this is awfully bad law.

"In fact the only militancy I see here is your own militant religiosity which demands to have the rest of society pay for the upkeep of churches etc."

Bananaistan wrote:"All churches, private houses and buildings of any class where people regularly attend religious services are "a structure ... which forms the basis of worship in a local religion."

"And then, in complete violation of the principle of separation of church and state, you'd have us pay for the upkeep of all such houses of worship under section 5.

"Unless you mean to imply that churches are often what is being worshipped, they do not qualify for protection or maintenance. Clause 5(b) also requires that the religious site pay for their own maintenance primarily, and may only request aid when they are unable to do so. A nation may request aid if it is also unable to do so.

There are such contingencies for funding that the financial hysteria is grossly overdone."

Bananaistan wrote:"In fact the only militancy I see here is your own militant religiosity which demands to have the rest of society pay for the upkeep of churches etc."

"Surely the delegation would be opposed to a General Assembly resolution composed of only "Recognises that religion exists", where it is not accompanied by the phrase "and should be destroyed."

One wonders what has given the Bananamen such motivation to oppose this legislation, while allowing the resolution it is replacing to pass without much comment from them."

---

OOC: Asphyxiatingly tight definitions further tightened.

"I note the most recent change. Within the context of the clause in question, "a structure ... which forms the target of worship" is a materially different phrase altogether to "a structure ... which forms the basis of worship". The latter includes all churches, the former does not. I note that this significantly reduces the scope of the whole thing and makes it far less objectionable.

"However, we remain opposed due to the lack of reasonable flexibility and the requirement for public funds to spent on private religious sites, still a violation of the separation of church and state.

"I would also point the proposers to the transcript of the debate of the original resolution. Our opposition is noted there.

"I would also like to inform the ambassador that the Bananamen government fully guarantees and protects freedom of conscience and assembly and is fully compliant with all our obligations arising from international law in respect of those who believe in imaginary friends."

Bananaistan wrote:"I note the most recent change. Within the context of the clause in question, "a structure ... which forms the target of worship" is a materially different phrase altogether to "a structure ... which forms the basis of worship". The latter includes all churches, the former does not. I note that this significantly reduces the scope of the whole thing and makes it far less objectionable.

"I suspect that this shall be as much praise as the administration will be receiving from the Bananamen. The sentiment is appreciated.

Bananaistan wrote:"However, we remain opposed due to the lack of reasonable flexibility and the requirement for public funds to spent on private religious sites, still a violation of the separation of church and state.

"I've spent the last several days thinking about this, and I will compromise my goals to meet the concern half way. As a result, I've written a new version of the proposal with some notable changes. Primarily, a nation will not need to legislate on a rescue package for a religious site. A religion's leadership may solicit aid from the World Assembly after means testing."

"Hopefully this update now encompasses solutions or compromises for all of the concerns raised about the proposal thus far."

Refuge Isle wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:"I note the most recent change. Within the context of the clause in question, "a structure ... which forms the target of worship" is a materially different phrase altogether to "a structure ... which forms the basis of worship". The latter includes all churches, the former does not. I note that this significantly reduces the scope of the whole thing and makes it far less objectionable.

"I suspect that this shall be as much praise as the administration will be receiving from the Bananamen. The sentiment is appreciated.

Bananaistan wrote:"However, we remain opposed due to the lack of reasonable flexibility and the requirement for public funds to spent on private religious sites, still a violation of the separation of church and state.

"I've spent the last several days thinking about this, and I will compromise my goals to meet the concern half way. As a result, I've written a new version of the proposal with some notable changes. Primarily, a nation will not need to legislate on a rescue package for a religious site. A religion's leadership may solicit aid from the World Assembly after means testing."

"Hopefully this update now encompasses solutions or compromises for all of the concerns raised about the proposal thus far."

"This is not an improvement. WA contributions are essentially a tax on national governments. You've replaced one tax with a slightly more roundabout tax. Money appropriated by government is funding religious protections. If a religious organization cannot pony up, why on earth should taxpayers bear that burden?"