[PASSED] Protection of Apostates

[Daarwyrth]

Yes indeed - see above. I will have some further minor suggestions but I don't have time for them today.

OOC: Comments and feedback are always welcome, so I'm looking forward to your suggestions!

[Waldenes]

“Waldenes is a nation that has a rather high percentage of religious practitioners. We highly value such customs, even within our government. Even so, we believe that everyone must have the freedom to practice their own religion, or choose not to. You have our full support, Ambassador.”

[Araraukar]

OOC: Isn't there already a freedom of religion resolution? Including lack of religion.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Isn't there already a freedom of religion resolution? Including lack of religion.

OOC: Yes, there is, as stated in the OP OOC section however, that resolution deals with repercussions from the state. This is meant to forbid repercussion from a religious community or group. It's an informal extension, if you will.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Isn't there already a freedom of religion resolution? Including lack of religion.

OOC: Yes, there is, as stated in the OP OOC section however, that resolution deals with repercussions from the state. This is meant to forbid repercussion from a religious community or group. It's an informal extension, if you will.

OOC: Then shouldn't the category be Moral Decency? If it's limiting what religious people can and can't do?

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Yes, there is, as stated in the OP OOC section however, that resolution deals with repercussions from the state. This is meant to forbid repercussion from a religious community or group. It's an informal extension, if you will.

OOC: Then shouldn't the category be Moral Decency? If it's limiting what religious people can and can't do?

OOC: It was initially, yet after discussion with other posters the category was changed to Civil Rights, and the text of the resolution was reworded to fit that category

[Araraukar]

OOC: "Clarifies that, as far as earlier resolutions that are presently in force allow, religious institutions are still allowed to bar apostates from employment in their service" creates a dangerous precedent for religious pro-discrimination and also undermines the credibi!ity of the proposal. If the point is "no shunning someone not wanting to believe in the flying spaghetti monster", then saying "except it's totally fine to do so when it comes to employment opportunitues" kinda makes to sense.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: "Clarifies that, as far as earlier resolutions that are presently in force allow, religious institutions are still allowed to bar apostates from employment in their service" creates a dangerous precedent for religious pro-discrimination and also undermines the credibi!ity of the proposal. If the point is "no shunning someone not wanting to believe in the flying spaghetti monster", then saying "except it's totally fine to do so when it comes to employment opportunitues" kinda makes to sense.

OOC: Saying that religions can't dismiss apostates from their clergy, and must let them take jobs teaching -- even teaching 'Religious Studies' -- in 'faith' schools, would be ridiculous.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: "Clarifies that, as far as earlier resolutions that are presently in force allow, religious institutions are still allowed to bar apostates from employment in their service" creates a dangerous precedent for religious pro-discrimination and also undermines the credibi!ity of the proposal. If the point is "no shunning someone not wanting to believe in the flying spaghetti monster", then saying "except it's totally fine to do so when it comes to employment opportunitues" kinda makes to sense.

OOC: But then you misunderstand the meaning behind that line. It is not saying all employment, it is saying employment in the service of clergy or that religious group. And just as Bears Armed just said:

OOC: Saying that religions can't dismiss apostates from their clergy, and must let them take jobs teaching -- even teaching 'Religious Studies' -- in 'faith' schools, would be ridiculous.

[Wallenburg]

I, for one, consider apostates generally better at teaching religious studies than anyone else.

[Daarwyrth]

I, for one, consider apostates generally better at teaching religious studies than anyone else.

OOC: As an apostate myself, I wholeheartedly agree yet I also see the point Bears Armed is making, and do see the merit of compromise in a proposal like this.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Actually, I now have some suggestions for altering that clause... The new version, here with struck-out material in red and the added material shown in green, would be

Clarifies that, as far as earlier GA resolutions that are presently in force allow, religious institutions are still allowed to bar apostates from employment in their service in roles for which faith can reasonably be considered relevant, such as priesthood or teaching about religious matters, and from access to their spremises places of worship (except as necessary for the proper performance of legitimate tasks by emergency services, official safety inspectorates, or armed forces, and except for any parts of those premises that are being used at the time for significant secular purposes, for example as polling stations or as emergency shelters) or participation in their religious & church-organised social activities;

Thus, apostasy would not affect the livelihoods of [e.g.] workers on church-owned farms or in church-owned factories, or even of non-teaching staff in 'faith' schools.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Actually, I now have some suggestions for altering that clause... The new version, here with struck-out material in red and the added material shown in green, would be

Clarifies that, as far as earlier GA resolutions that are presently in force allow, religious institutions are still allowed to bar apostates from employment in their service in roles for which faith can reasonably be considered relevant, such as priesthood or teaching about religious matters, and from access to their spremises places of worship (except as necessary for the proper performance of legitimate tasks by emergency services, official safety inspectorates, or armed forces, and except for any parts of those premises that are being used at the time for significant secular purposes, for example as polling stations or as emergency shelters) or participation in their religious & church-organised social activities;

Thus, apostasy would not affect the livelihoods of [e.g.] workers on church-owned farms or in church-owned factories, or even of non-teaching staff in 'faith' schools.

OOC: Done! I have amended the Clause accordingly thanks for the addition, great call!

[Kenmoria]

“Overall, I support this proposal’s idea. Apostasy should be protected to as high a degree of remaining within a faith is, and thus the filling of the currently-existent legislative gap can only be a good thing. Nonetheless, I have some concerns. Clause 6 doesn’t appear to be much of an active clause. The WA recognising something, which is the effect of the clause due to the structure, doesn’t have any impact on Member States, so this clause appears to require either a move to the preamble or rewording.”

“Additionally, clauses 7 and 8, when considered together, seem to require consent for conversation. While this is a social norm that should be respect, I do not think it belongs in international law. For a start, it is generally-recognised that those intoxicated cannot give full consent, but I can see no issue with engaging drunkards in debate, apart from possible annoyance on both parties’ parts. Lastly, clause 9, though entirely reasonable, does much the same function as the Administrative Compliance Act.”

[Daarwyrth]

“Overall, I support this proposal’s idea. Apostasy should be protected to as high a degree of remaining within a faith is, and thus the filling of the currently-existent legislative gap can only be a good thing. Nonetheless, I have some concerns. Clause 6 doesn’t appear to be much of an active clause. The WA recognising something, which is the effect of the clause due to the structure, doesn’t have any impact on Member States, so this clause appears to require either a move to the preamble or rewording.”

“Additionally, clauses 7 and 8, when considered together, seem to require consent for conversation. While this is a social norm that should be respect, I do not think it belongs in international law. For a start, it is generally-recognised that those intoxicated cannot give full consent, but I can see no issue with engaging drunkards in debate, apart from possible annoyance on both parties’ parts. Lastly, clause 9, though entirely reasonable, does much the same function as the Administrative Compliance Act.”

Vyn Nysen: "Very valid remarks, Ambassador. Regarding Clause 6, if the wording was changed to "Grants apostates, and individuals contemplating apostasy, the right to privacy...", would that solve the issue in your opinion?

Regarding your remark about Clauses 7 and 8, would the removal of Clause 8 solve the issue? Personally, I had the idea of perhaps changing Clause 8 along the lines of "forbids religious leaderships from tying negative consequences to an apostate's refusal to engage in a conversation as specified in Clause 7"? Of course, it would be worded a bit better, yet it's mainly to convey the general idea of what I mean."

[Kenmoria]

“Overall, I support this proposal’s idea. Apostasy should be protected to as high a degree of remaining within a faith is, and thus the filling of the currently-existent legislative gap can only be a good thing. Nonetheless, I have some concerns. Clause 6 doesn’t appear to be much of an active clause. The WA recognising something, which is the effect of the clause due to the structure, doesn’t have any impact on Member States, so this clause appears to require either a move to the preamble or rewording.”

“Additionally, clauses 7 and 8, when considered together, seem to require consent for conversation. While this is a social norm that should be respect, I do not think it belongs in international law. For a start, it is generally-recognised that those intoxicated cannot give full consent, but I can see no issue with engaging drunkards in debate, apart from possible annoyance on both parties’ parts. Lastly, clause 9, though entirely reasonable, does much the same function as the Administrative Compliance Act.”

Vyn Nysen: "Very valid remarks, Ambassador. Regarding Clause 6, if the wording was changed to "Grants apostates, and individuals contemplating apostasy, the right to privacy...", would that solve the issue in your opinion?

Regarding your remark about Clauses 7 and 8, would the removal of Clause 8 solve the issue? Personally, I had the idea of perhaps changing Clause 8 along the lines of "forbids religious leaderships from tying negative consequences to an apostate's refusal to engage in a conversation as specified in Clause 7"? Of course, it would be worded a bit better, yet it's mainly to convey the general idea of what I mean."

“Yes, I believe that such a change to clause 6 would be far better at directing the clause to member states. With regards to clause 8, a removal would of course solve the concern I had. However, your proposed addition also seems reasonable, as a way to prevent coerced debate, which I can see was the point of your clause. Because of this, I believe that a replacement rather than a removal would better serve your legislative goals.”

[Daarwyrth]

“Yes, I believe that such a change to clause 6 would be far better at directing the clause to member states. With regards to clause 8, a removal would of course solve the concern I had. However, your proposed addition also seems reasonable, as a way to prevent coerced debate, which I can see was the point of your clause. Because of this, I believe that a replacement rather than a removal would better serve your legislative goals.”

Vyn Nysen: "Thank you, Ambassador. Our delegation has amended the clauses in question accordingly."

[Bears Armed]

“Clause 6 doesn’t appear to be much of an active clause. The WA recognising something, which is the effect of the clause due to the structure, doesn’t have any impact on Member States, so this clause appears to require either a move to the preamble or rewording.”

OOC: As I interpret it, "Recognise" places those rights among those that clause 9 requires the member nations to protect... whereas "Grants" [for example] would imply that prior to this the apostates didn't legally have those rights, which isn't necessarily the case everywhere.
(Admittedly this is a point on which some other GenSec members might disagree with me...)

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 6 doesn’t appear to be much of an active clause. The WA recognising something, which is the effect of the clause due to the structure, doesn’t have any impact on Member States, so this clause appears to require either a move to the preamble or rewording.”

OOC: As I interpret it, "Recognise" places those rights among those that clause 9 requires the member nations to protect... whereas "Grants", for example, implies that prior to this the apostates didn't legally have those rights which isn't necessarily the case everywhere.

(OOC: I understand what you mean, but because it is the World Assembly recognising those rights due to the proposal structure, I don’t believe that member states would be under an obligation to do anything, since clause 6 doesn’t apply to them. Even with clause 9, a member nation cannot fulfil something that wasn’t their mandate. Perhaps ‘Mandates that member nations recognise...’, or similar wording, would work better?)

[Bears Armed]

OOC: As I interpret it, "Recognise" places those rights among those that clause 9 requires the member nations to protect... whereas "Grants", for example, implies that prior to this the apostates didn't legally have those rights which isn't necessarily the case everywhere.

(OOC: I understand what you mean, but because it is the World Assembly recognising those rights due to the proposal structure, I don’t believe that member states would be under an obligation to do anything, since clause 6 doesn’t apply to them. Even with clause 9, a member nation cannot fulfil something that wasn’t their mandate. Perhaps ‘Mandates that member nations recognise...’, or similar wording, would work better?)

Something like that would be clearer, yes.

[Daarwyrth]

(OOC: I understand what you mean, but because it is the World Assembly recognising those rights due to the proposal structure, I don’t believe that member states would be under an obligation to do anything, since clause 6 doesn’t apply to them. Even with clause 9, a member nation cannot fulfil something that wasn’t their mandate. Perhaps ‘Mandates that member nations recognise...’, or similar wording, would work better?)

Something like that would be clearer, yes.

OOC: I've worked it (hopefully correctly) into the current draft

[Blessed Ukraine]

The ambassador for Ukraine stands, pulling out a copy of the Bible. He is a tall and bearded man, his beard mostly black but stained with the growing of gray hairs near his face.

"Thank you for letting me speak. As a member of the Church, and dedicated to spreading the word of the good Lord, it would only make sense that Ukraine would stand in opposition to this proposal. Apostasy is a sin under our doctrine. However - is it not said that Lord Jesus died for our sins? I am a baptized member of the Church, and I believe that His sacrifice covers everything - including apostasy. When I was baptized, I accepted the Savior's atonement, which means that I now also bear His death for the sins of this world. The Book of Hebrews says, in chapter 3, verse 12; 'Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.' But the Lord Christ said thusly, in the Book of John, chapter 8, verse 7: 'Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone.'

"Therefore, it is not the place for the kingdoms of Man on Earth to judge those who turn away from the doctrine of God, but for the Father Himself to judge them, as each man is with sin. As such, Ukraine sees no reason to oppose such a proposal."

[Daarwyrth]

The ambassador for Ukraine stands, pulling out a copy of the Bible. He is a tall and bearded man, his beard mostly black but stained with the growing of gray hairs near his face.

"Thank you for letting me speak. As a member of the Church, and dedicated to spreading the word of the good Lord, it would only make sense that Ukraine would stand in opposition to this proposal. Apostasy is a sin under our doctrine. However - is it not said that Lord Jesus died for our sins? I am a baptized member of the Church, and I believe that His sacrifice covers everything - including apostasy. When I was baptized, I accepted the Savior's atonement, which means that I now also bear His death for the sins of this world. The Book of Hebrews says, in chapter 3, verse 12; 'Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.' But the Lord Christ said thusly, in the Book of John, chapter 8, verse 7: 'Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone.'

"Therefore, it is not the place for the kingdoms of Man on Earth to judge those who turn away from the doctrine of God, but for the Father Himself to judge them, as each man is with sin. As such, Ukraine sees no reason to oppose such a proposal."

Maria vyn Nysen: "Well, sin is a subjective concept after all, wholly dependent on the dogma of an individual religion. One religion's deity will demand unrelenting faithfulness while another's will really not care at all if people believe in that deity or any deities at all. Mareism is an example of that, as for example the Seas don't care who believes in their divinity or not, they exist regardless. Apostasy is not really that big of a deal in the Mareist Church, nor is the concept of sin really a thing. As I said, wholly subjective and dependent of the religion in question.

Either way, it is our delegation's belief that apostates need to be protected from religions with a more strict dogma regarding apostasy. A state should be wholly secular after all, and it would not do to have religious communities enact vindictive measures against individuals who choose to no longer believe in the divine. We are glad to hear that your delegation is willing to support this endeavour, Ambassador."

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Any new thoughts on this proposal?

[Araraukar]

'Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone.'

kingdoms of Man on Earth ... as each man is with sin."

IC: Linda threw a stone at the pompus ambassador. "Not a man, not from a kingdom, and I don't believe in sin," she added with a grin.

OOC: Exceptions in clause 4 need words "such as" added, as currently would not allow police in, if they were not "armed forces" which usually means guns. Using "such as" would allow authorities of many kinds that would in RL be required to be allowed into a church but which would be too long a list to put in the proposal.