[Draft] Freedom of Religion

[Keshvaria]

OOC: Hello everyone, for those of you unfamiliar I was formerly known as Jedinsto. Due to a combination of having trouble logging in to my old account, and given that there's nothing wrong with a fresh start, this is my new main nation.

This is my first draft in I don't even know how long, so please tear it apart and let me know if I've missed anything. I'm glad to be back!

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the absolute fundamental right for a person to hold their own religious beliefs without government interference,

Wishing to prevent religious persecution,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, "religious beliefs" include the lack of any religious beliefs, and all non-discrimination clauses and protections below shall apply not only to actual religious beliefs, but also perceived religious beliefs.
2. No person of any age shall be forced to hold any religious belief or to participate in any religious practice. The sole exception to this will be made for parents or guardians bringing their young children (under the age of majority, and whom cannot be left unsupervised safely) along to religious services or ceremonies so long as those services or ceremonies do not pose a threat of physical harm or other abuse towards the children.
3. All people shall have the fundamental right to hold any religious belief of their choosing, or choose to hold no religious belief. No person may face punishment under the law due to the holding of any religious belief.
4. No person will be denied equal protection under the law due to the holding of any religious belief. Further, public services may not be denied or restricted to an individual based on that individual's religious beliefs.
5. No law shall be made discriminating against any individual or group based on that individual or group's religious belief(s), nor shall any law be made to restrict the observance of any religious practice (including but not limited to days of rest, eating habits, ceremonies, prayer, etc.), except if one of the following circumstances applies;
   
   1. The religious practice is likely to cause significant harm to those willingly participating in it, or
   2. The practice is performed in a manner that is likely to cause physical harm of any kind, harassment, or significant disruption of the lives of people who are not willingly participating in the religious practice. A person simply being annoyed or uncomfortable with a religious practice does not amount to significant disruption, or
   3. The practice is likely to cause damage to property without the consent of its owner, or
   4. The practice may cause significant pain and suffering to an animal. States may restrict ritual sacrifice of animals as necessary to protect the environment and endangered species.
6. Should a law be made using one of the exceptions listed in clause 5, the law must be made with a clear and compelling interest in the safety and wellbeing of a state's residents, and must use the means least restrictive on religious freedom in order to achieve that clear and compelling interest. Strict scrutiny will be applied to any law restricting religious freedom made under the exceptions in clause 5; the compelling interest must be strong and the law narrowly tailored enough to achieve that interest with as little infringement upon religious freedom as possible to do so.
7. No person shall be deemed insane or forced into psychiatric or other treatment due to their religious beliefs, except where those beliefs are demonstrably related to a mental health condition and place that person at immediate risk of harm to themselves or other people.
8. No entity may discriminate in employment decisions or workplace decisions based on religious beliefs, except if that entity's primary purpose is religious in nature.
9. Secular educational institutions, secular businesses, and any public institution of any kind must make equitable accommodations for their students or employees, where such accommodations can be made without causing a significant disruption to the education of the student (or other students), or a significant disruption to the activities of others and general business operations.
10. No person may be barred from running for or assuming government elected positions due to their religious beliefs.
11. No service of any kind receiving a majority of its funds from the state may discriminate against a person based on their religious beliefs.
12. States shall, in good faith, oversee that the rights enumerated in this resolution are protected, and provide means of acquiring just compensation (in a manner consistent with its legal doctrine) if a person falls victim to a violation of this resolution.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the absolute fundamental right for a person to hold their own religious beliefs without government interference,

Wishing to prevent religious persecution,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, "religious beliefs" include the lack of any religious beliefs, and all non-discrimination clauses and protections below shall apply not only to actual religious beliefs, but also perceived religious beliefs.
2. No person of any age shall be forced to hold any religious belief or to participate in any religious practice. The sole exception to this will be made for parents or guardians bringing their children (under the age of majority) along to religious services or ceremonies so long as those services or ceremonies do not pose a threat of harm to the children.
3. All people shall have the fundamental right to hold any religious belief of their choosing, or choose to hold no religious belief. No person may face punishment under the law due to the holding of any religious belief.
4. No person will be denied equal protection under the law due to the holding of any religious belief. Further, public services may not be denied or restricted to an individual based on that individual's religious beliefs.
5. Public educational institutions must make reasonable accommodations for students who may be absent from school for the observance of religious holidays or practices. Students may, at the discretion of school staff, be asked to make up for missed class time or school work due to their observances for religious holidays or practices.
6. No law shall be made discriminating against any individual or group based on that individual or group's religious belief(s), nor shall any law be made to restrict the observance of any religious practice (including but not limited to days of rest, eating habits, ceremonies, prayer, etc.), except in the following circumstances;
   
   1. The religious practice is likely to cause significant harm to those willingly participating in it, or
   2. The practice is performed in public, and in a manner that is likely to cause physical harm of any kind, harassment, or significant disruption of the lives of people who are not willingly participating in the religious practice. A person simply being annoyed or uncomfortable with a religious practice does not amount to significant disruption, or
   3. The practice is likely to cause damage to property without the consent of its owner, or
   4. The practice may cause significant pain and suffering to an animal.
   5. The law must be made with a clear and compelling interest in the safety and wellbeing of a state's residents, and must use the means least restrictive on religious freedom in order to achieve that clear and compelling interest. A standard of strict scrutiny will be applied in considering whether or not a law violates this clause.
7. No person shall be deemed insane or forced into psychiatric or other treatment due to their religious beliefs, except where those beliefs are demonstrably related to a mental health condition and place that person at immediate risk of harm to themselves or other people.
8. All people shall be free of persecution due to their religious beliefs.
9. No entity may discriminate in employment decisions or workplace decisions based on religious beliefs, except if that entity's primary purpose is religious in nature.
10. No person may be barred from running for or assuming government elected positions due to their religious beliefs.
11. No publicly funded service by any institution may discriminate against a person based on their religious beliefs.

[Kshemarashtram]

Hello. This has some of the same issues in principle due to which the previous proposal on freedom of religion failed.

Clause 11 just prevents the existence of publicly funded religious institutions, and clause 9 adds to it. This proposal essentially enforces secularism on all member states. While Kshemarashtram itself is a secular state abiding by the maxim "religion is no business of the state", I believe that an international cooperative organisation should respect the cultural and governmental traditions of other member states too, including religious states.

Countries shouldn't be prevented from having publicly funded or state-run religious institutions, and it would be reasonable for employment in such institutions to require adherence to that particular religion.

[Astrobolt]

This proposal essentially enforces secularism on all member states.

OOC: Based alert?!


Hey Jed, glad to see you back around here. This is probably the best attempt on religious protections so far in the new GA. I think that 6 is still too restrictive. For instance, member states are unable to ban ritual sacrifice of animals as one example.

[Keshvaria]

Hello. This has some of the same issues in principle due to which the previous proposal on freedom of religion failed.

Clause 11 just prevents the existence of publicly funded religious institutions, and clause 9 adds to it. This proposal essentially enforces secularism on all member states. While Kshemarashtram itself is a secular state abiding by the maxim "religion is no business of the state", I believe that an international cooperative organisation should respect the cultural and governmental traditions of other member states too, including religious states.

Countries shouldn't be prevented from having publicly funded or state-run religious institutions, and it would be reasonable for employment in such institutions to require adherence to that particular religion.

I will allow for religious institutions to receive public funding for services that are available to the general public and do not discriminate based on gender for those receiving the service. However, I don't see a compelling reason to not require a secular government.

This proposal essentially enforces secularism on all member states.

OOC: Based alert?!


Hey Jed, glad to see you back around here. This is probably the best attempt on religious protections so far in the new GA. I think that 6 is still too restrictive. For instance, member states are unable to ban ritual sacrifice of animals as one example.

Thanks for the kind words! I will revise clause 6.

[Lipizia]

member states are unable to ban ritual sacrifice of animals as one example.

So, some hunters could use the excuse to "sacrifice" animals for kill without restrictions animal and destroy the ecosystem? Maybe making so a lot of money, and making as example?
I won't give in my wildlife for a religion, sorry. To the author: please don't do it.
Anyway, this will make the diffrence for if I will vote For or Against.

[Akhaw]

member states are unable to ban ritual sacrifice of animals as one example.

So, some hunters could use the excuse to "sacrifice" animals for kill without restrictions animal and destroy the ecosystem? Maybe making so a lot of money, and making as example?
I won't give in my wildlife for a religion, sorry. To the author: please don't do it.
Anyway, this will make the diffrence for if I will vote For or Against.

I think there is a very obvious difference between sacrificing an animal and hunting. Just because there can't be a ban on animal sacrifice doesn't mean it can't be regulated or supervised in a way, especially if it harms the environment

[Keshvaria]

I've made some edits based on feedback from here and from discord.

[Velabruck]

The government of the Republic of Velabruck agrees with all of this proposal's clauses and has zero objections. For.

[Greater North-America]

I tentatively approve of this.

[Hesitant Dispatch 440]

OOC:

Annotated copy with my thoughts. Red = very bad; orange = kind of bad; green = add please; blue = my commentary; strikethrough = remove this.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the absolute fundamental right for a person to hold their own religious beliefs without government interference,

Wishing to prevent religious persecution,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, "religious beliefs" include the lack of any religious beliefs, and all non-discrimination clauses and protections below shall apply not only to actual religious beliefs, but also perceived religious beliefs.
2. No person of any age shall be forced to hold any religious belief or to participate in any religious practice. The sole exception to this will be made for parents or guardians bringing their children (under the age of majority) along to religious services or ceremonies so long as those services or ceremonies do not pose a threat of physical harm or other abuse towards the children. [I recommend adding, at the very least, a recommendation for member-states to differentiate between children and teenagers, and to grant teenagers a greater autonomy in deciding whether or not they wish to participate in religious ceremonies. Teenagers are capable of spending an hour or two alone at home if they really don't want to go to church, and that decision should be respected.]
3. All people shall have the fundamental right to hold any religious belief of their choosing, or choose to hold no religious belief. No person may face punishment under the law due to the holding of any religious belief.
4. No person will be denied equal protection under the law due to the holding of any religious belief. Further, public services may not be denied or restricted to an individual based on that individual's religious beliefs.
5. No law shall be made discriminating against any individual or group based on that individual or group's religious belief(s), nor shall any law be made to restrict the observance of any religious practice (including but not limited to days of rest, eating habits, ceremonies, prayer, etc.), except if one of the following circumstances applies;
   
   1. The religious practice is likely to cause significant harm to those willingly participating in it, or
   2. The practice is performed in public [If a practice is "likely to cause physical harm [...], harassment, or significant disruption", should it matter whether or not it was practiced in public? If you do something within your own home it's unlikely you'll trigger any of those qualifiers, but I can think of a number of ways to make that happen intentionally.], and in a manner that is likely to cause physical harm of any kind, harassment, or significant disruption of the lives of people who are not willingly participating in the religious practice. A person simply being annoyed or uncomfortable with a religious practice does not amount to significant disruption, or
   3. The practice is likely to cause damage to property without the consent of its owner, or
   4. The practice may cause significant pain and suffering to an animal. States may restrict ritual sacrifice of animals as necessary to protect the environment and endangered species.
6. Should a law be made using one of the exceptions listed in clause 5, the law must be made with a clear and compelling interest in the safety and wellbeing of a state's residents, and must use the means least restrictive on religious freedom in order to achieve that clear and compelling interest. A standard of strict scrutiny will be applied in considering whether or not a law violates this clause [What is this standard?].
7. No person shall be deemed insane or forced into psychiatric or other treatment due to their religious beliefs, except where those beliefs are demonstrably related to a mental health condition and place that person at immediate risk of harm to themselves or other people.
8. No entity may discriminate in employment decisions or workplace decisions based on religious beliefs, except if that entity's primary purpose is religious in nature.
9. Secular educational institutions and secular businesses must make equitable accommodations for their students or employees, where such accommodations can be made without causing a significant disruption to the education of the student (or other students), or a significant disruption to the activities of others and general business operations. [I recommend mandating that all public educational institutions and other entities operate under this clause as well. No State entity should refrain from accommodating as many citizens as possible, regardless of religious fundamentalism.]
10. No person may be barred from running for or assuming government elected positions due to their religious beliefs.
11. No publicly funded service [This needs some specificity. Fully funded? Mostly funded? Funded by any public dime at all? What counts as "publicly funded"? I'd certainly say that any amount of public funding would be enough! But a more reasonable approach would be to say "mostly funded".] by any institution may discriminate against a person based on their religious beliefs.
12. States shall, in good faith, oversee that the rights enumerated in this resolution are protected, and provide means of acquiring just compensation [Maybe add a "to the extent provided by their own legal doctrines" or some such here. It is conceivable that certain member-states do not have a compensatory system in their justice systems for immaterial damages.] if a person falls victim to a violation of this resolution.

In general, I'd like to say that this is a step in the right direction but I'd recommend you to ponder a way to truncate articles like 10, 11, 9, and 8 into a single, big clause that generically prohibits discriminatory practices by any individual or entity with a number of qualifiers and exceptions as needed. The issues here are that you only have so many characters to spend, the WA is vastly diverse, and our creativity as authors is limited. There will always be new and exciting ways to discriminate against people, and making the brunt of this resolution's mandates specific to certain kinds of discrimination would seem to limit its extent and effectiveness. If future resolutions want to be more specific about the ways through which member-states should combat a given kind of persecution or discrimination that can be a fine idea, but your proposal's introductory and generalist intent is wounded by the omnipresence of case-by-case prohibition or regulation rather than a systematised, generic approach.

Food for thought, as I don't have an answer to this myself.

[Keshvaria]

OOC:

Annotated copy with my thoughts. Red = very bad; orange = kind of bad; green = add please; blue = my commentary; strikethrough = remove this.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the absolute fundamental right for a person to hold their own religious beliefs without government interference,

Wishing to prevent religious persecution,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, "religious beliefs" include the lack of any religious beliefs, and all non-discrimination clauses and protections below shall apply not only to actual religious beliefs, but also perceived religious beliefs.
2. No person of any age shall be forced to hold any religious belief or to participate in any religious practice. The sole exception to this will be made for parents or guardians bringing their children (under the age of majority) along to religious services or ceremonies so long as those services or ceremonies do not pose a threat of physical harm or other abuse towards the children. [I recommend adding, at the very least, a recommendation for member-states to differentiate between children and teenagers, and to grant teenagers a greater autonomy in deciding whether or not they wish to participate in religious ceremonies. Teenagers are capable of spending an hour or two alone at home if they really don't want to go to church, and that decision should be respected.]
3. All people shall have the fundamental right to hold any religious belief of their choosing, or choose to hold no religious belief. No person may face punishment under the law due to the holding of any religious belief.
4. No person will be denied equal protection under the law due to the holding of any religious belief. Further, public services may not be denied or restricted to an individual based on that individual's religious beliefs.
5. No law shall be made discriminating against any individual or group based on that individual or group's religious belief(s), nor shall any law be made to restrict the observance of any religious practice (including but not limited to days of rest, eating habits, ceremonies, prayer, etc.), except if one of the following circumstances applies;
   
   1. The religious practice is likely to cause significant harm to those willingly participating in it, or
   2. The practice is performed in public [If a practice is "likely to cause physical harm [...], harassment, or significant disruption", should it matter whether or not it was practiced in public? If you do something within your own home it's unlikely you'll trigger any of those qualifiers, but I can think of a number of ways to make that happen intentionally.], and in a manner that is likely to cause physical harm of any kind, harassment, or significant disruption of the lives of people who are not willingly participating in the religious practice. A person simply being annoyed or uncomfortable with a religious practice does not amount to significant disruption, or
   3. The practice is likely to cause damage to property without the consent of its owner, or
   4. The practice may cause significant pain and suffering to an animal. States may restrict ritual sacrifice of animals as necessary to protect the environment and endangered species.
6. Should a law be made using one of the exceptions listed in clause 5, the law must be made with a clear and compelling interest in the safety and wellbeing of a state's residents, and must use the means least restrictive on religious freedom in order to achieve that clear and compelling interest. A standard of strict scrutiny will be applied in considering whether or not a law violates this clause [What is this standard?].
7. No person shall be deemed insane or forced into psychiatric or other treatment due to their religious beliefs, except where those beliefs are demonstrably related to a mental health condition and place that person at immediate risk of harm to themselves or other people.
8. No entity may discriminate in employment decisions or workplace decisions based on religious beliefs, except if that entity's primary purpose is religious in nature.
9. Secular educational institutions and secular businesses must make equitable accommodations for their students or employees, where such accommodations can be made without causing a significant disruption to the education of the student (or other students), or a significant disruption to the activities of others and general business operations. [I recommend mandating that all public educational institutions and other entities operate under this clause as well. No State entity should refrain from accommodating as many citizens as possible, regardless of religious fundamentalism.]
10. No person may be barred from running for or assuming government elected positions due to their religious beliefs.
11. No publicly funded service [This needs some specificity. Fully funded? Mostly funded? Funded by any public dime at all? What counts as "publicly funded"? I'd certainly say that any amount of public funding would be enough! But a more reasonable approach would be to say "mostly funded".] by any institution may discriminate against a person based on their religious beliefs.
12. States shall, in good faith, oversee that the rights enumerated in this resolution are protected, and provide means of acquiring just compensation [Maybe add a "to the extent provided by their own legal doctrines" or some such here. It is conceivable that certain member-states do not have a compensatory system in their justice systems for immaterial damages.] if a person falls victim to a violation of this resolution.

In general, I'd like to say that this is a step in the right direction but I'd recommend you to ponder a way to truncate articles like 10, 11, 9, and 8 into a single, big clause that generically prohibits discriminatory practices by any individual or entity with a number of qualifiers and exceptions as needed. The issues here are that you only have so many characters to spend, the WA is vastly diverse, and our creativity as authors is limited. There will always be new and exciting ways to discriminate against people, and making the brunt of this resolution's mandates specific to certain kinds of discrimination would seem to limit its extent and effectiveness. If future resolutions want to be more specific about the ways through which member-states should combat a given kind of persecution or discrimination that can be a fine idea, but your proposal's introductory and generalist intent is wounded by the omnipresence of case-by-case prohibition or regulation rather than a systematised, generic approach.

Food for thought, as I don't have an answer to this myself.

Thank you for the feedback, I adopted essentially everything, while I am a bit hesitant trying to be too specific on what the standard of strict scrutiny will actually look like. Indeed, I intend to take a generalist, basic approach and leave the excessive nuance for states themselves and future resolutions to deal with. Basic rights are always a good place to start.

[Lipizia]

So, some hunters could use the excuse to "sacrifice" animals for kill without restrictions animal and destroy the ecosystem? Maybe making so a lot of money, and making as example?
I won't give in my wildlife for a religion, sorry. To the author: please don't do it.
Anyway, this will make the diffrence for if I will vote For or Against.

I think there is a very obvious difference between sacrificing an animal and hunting. Just because there can't be a ban on animal sacrifice doesn't mean it can't be regulated or supervised in a way, especially if it harms the environment

Nah, how you can say that a shot of gun isn't a mood to sacrifice? And if later of "sacrifice", you eat It, what's the difference?

EDIT: After seen 6d, issue solved. Now I think I'm For.

[Keshvaria]

Bump.

[Kurgao]

Though our nation will likely never vote for any resolution that elevates religion above other, more rational forms of belief. We would like to point out that clause 10 will bring the same issues which caused the last resolution of this kind to fail.

[Embersrico]

I support the principle of religious freedom.
it’s even in my nation’s constitution.
But if this proposal ends up forcing secularism on all WA member states (that adopt it of course), I’d have to reconsider my vote if it reaches voting.
Some nations are intentionally built around religion, and the WA shouldn’t unintentionally make those governments impossible.

So, my question is, does this force secularism on all nations or no?

[The Crusader Kings]

"No person may face punishment under the law due to the holding of any religious belief." Including Ritual Sacrifice, mass sacrifice, killing of heretics, etc.? Murder is murder is murder, be it Religiously motivated or not.

"No person shall be deemed insane or forced into psychiatric or other treatment due to their religious beliefs, except where those beliefs are demonstrably related to a mental health condition and place that person at immediate risk of harm to themselves or other people." I support this on a basis of basic rights, but in my nation, killing people because they don't follow your religion isn't called insanity, it's called murder...

"No person shall be deemed insane or forced into psychiatric or other treatment due to their religious beliefs, except where those beliefs are demonstrably related to a mental health condition and place that person at immediate risk of harm to themselves or other people." See my 1rst point.

"No person may be barred from running for or assuming government elected positions due to their religious beliefs." And if there is a religion who's beliefs are basically "All followers of X religion need to die", and most of my populace is of said religion ?

I WOULD be FOR, but this proposal has some serious problems with it.

Edit: Yes, Clause 5 regulates the practice of said beliefs, it also says in other parts of the proposal that people are protected from persecution due to religion(I think). Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Oh, and let's not forget that fact that TCK itself is a Theocracy. This proposal basically outlaws Theocracy. You forbit public funds from going into "discriminatory services". This would mean every Theocracy, or Religiously run nation is in violation of this proposal(If they do, in fact, adopt it). I myself cannot stand for this breach of my Sovereignty.

[Keshvaria]

I support the principle of religious freedom.
it’s even in my nation’s constitution.
But if this proposal ends up forcing secularism on all WA member states (that adopt it of course), I’d have to reconsider my vote if it reaches voting.
Some nations are intentionally built around religion, and the WA shouldn’t unintentionally make those governments impossible.

So, my question is, does this force secularism on all nations or no?

This does effectively enforce separation of church and state, correct.

[Keshvaria]

"No person may face punishment under the law due to the holding of any religious belief." Including Ritual Sacrifice, mass sacrifice, killing of heretics, etc.? Murder is murder is murder, be it Religiously motivated or not.

"Holding a religious belief" does not protect murder in any way, shape or form.

"No person shall be deemed insane or forced into psychiatric or other treatment due to their religious beliefs, except where those beliefs are demonstrably related to a mental health condition and place that person at immediate risk of harm to themselves or other people." I support this on a basis of basic rights, but in my nation, killing people because they don't follow your religion isn't called insanity, it's called murder...

Once again, killing somebody and believing in a religion that may lead you to think someone else deserves to die are two very different things. Following a religion that would actually likely lead someone to commit violence is actually not protected by this clause.

"No person may be barred from running for or assuming government elected positions due to their religious beliefs." And if there is a religion who's beliefs are basically "All followers of X religion need to die", and most of my populace is of said religion ?

If someone followed a religion with such a belief, they could not be barred solely for that purpose. If their platform is actively inciting violence, this resolution does not protect that at all. Also, why would your populace vote for someone who is open about wanting them dead?

Oh, and let's not forget that fact that TCK itself is a Theocracy. This proposal basically outlaws Theocracy. You forbit public funds from going into "discriminatory services". This would mean every Theocracy, or Religiously run nation is in violation of this proposal(If they do, in fact, adopt it). I myself cannot stand for this breach of my Sovereignty.

Your opposition is noted, but that's actually kind of the point.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what this proposal actually protects. This eliminates the possibility of religion being made a thought crime. Harmful actions due to those beliefs can absolutely be limited.

[The Crusader Kings]

""Holding a religious belief" does not protect murder in any way, shape or form." Then say that in the proposal. Oh, and also, are they allowed to PREACH "Kill X"? If so, then that could spur people into acting on said belief, which makes said preacher an Accomplice to Murder(presuming said person DOES, in fact, Murder X), also being charged with Incitement to Illegal/Lawless Action, and Threatening Murder. Does this count against the "Thou cannot be prosecuted for thinking/preaching your beliefs?"

Alright. Thanks for the clarification. Add that to the proposal, please.

I fundamentally can't stand by this. If I give my Minister of Justice position to a person who thinks everybody who follows X religion, they can EASILY manipulate the system. And they can make excuses that they didn't DELIBERATLEY rig the trial...

"Also, why would your populace vote for someone who is open about wanting them dead?" Not the question. It could happen. I might be remembering wrong, but I believe the GA Repealed "Human Rights" a few years back because it cost too much money. Anybody else remember this, or am I just an amnesiac?

I'm quite sure I can read thank you. I know what the Proposal does, on a basis. I can misunderstand things(Despite what of my friends think, I'm not an Alien. I'm a human, and I make mistakes."

The fact that this proposal effectively outlaws Theocracy is a massive Sovereignty overreach.

I will say, you really are making a lot of proposals on VERY controversial topics... I would tell you to tread carefully, but I think you've already Baize'd straight into the Minefield that is Religion and Capital Punishment. Jesus Christ(Who I will still be preaching, and who, if you do not follow, you will NOT be getting a Government post) help you, as you're going to need it.

[Keshvaria]

""Holding a religious belief" does not protect murder in any way, shape or form." Then say that in the proposal. Oh, and also, are they allowed to PREACH "Kill X"? If so, then that could spur people into acting on said belief, which makes said preacher an Accomplice to Murder(presuming said person DOES, in fact, Murder X), also being charged with Incitement to Illegal/Lawless Action, and Threatening Murder. Does this count against the "Thou cannot be prosecuted for thinking/preaching your beliefs?"

Alright. Thanks for the clarification. Add that to the proposal, please.

I fundamentally can't stand by this. If I give my Minister of Justice position to a person who thinks everybody who follows X religion, they can EASILY manipulate the system. And they can make excuses that they didn't DELIBERATLEY rig the trial...

"Also, why would your populace vote for someone who is open about wanting them dead?" Not the question. It could happen. I might be remembering wrong, but I believe the GA Repealed "Human Rights" a few years back because it cost too much money. Anybody else remember this, or am I just an amnesiac?

I'm quite sure I can read thank you. I know what the Proposal does, on a basis. I can misunderstand things(Despite what of my friends think, I'm not an Alien. I'm a human, and I make mistakes."

The fact that this proposal effectively outlaws Theocracy is a massive Sovereignty overreach.

I will say, you really are making a lot of proposals on VERY controversial topics... I would tell you to tread carefully, but I think you've already Baize'd straight into the Minefield that is Religion and Capital Punishment. Jesus Christ(Who I will still be preaching, and who, if you do not follow, you will NOT be getting a Government post) help you, as you're going to need it.

The protections for religious belief say nothing about protecting preaching. The clarification of the distinction between a belief and murder is unnecessary when there are already regulations for the practicing of those beliefs.

[Keshvaria]

Bump

[Zetaopalatopia]

By equitable accommodations do you mean allowing the observation of holy days for that religion by the individual? Or does it go further as to, for example, require the institution provide Kosher options for religions that have strict food beliefs?

If a religion has a very strong duty to evangelize, can institutions ban the the passing of literature as per a no solicitation style law on their active property? (This would not prevent public area evangelism, only private.)

[Keshvaria]

I'm going to leave the equitable accommodations intentionally vague, this is primarily just to establish basic religious freedom. Unfortunately, a topic as nuanced as accommodations will never be adequately covered in a resolution like this. For now, I think a standard of providing whatever they can within reason will suffice. I am still open to suggestions on this if anyone has a specific way they think I should handle that issue. And yes, I would think businesses could limit the evangelism as it would interfere significantly with others' activities.

[Keshvaria]

Bumping again.

[Northern Slatavia]

Support, obviously.