[TENTH DRAFT] On Religious Worship

[Vescia]

This proposal will, if the quorum is reached and the resolution is passed, stop religion banning, and let citizens follow the way of life they want. All objections are welcome.

On Religious Worship
Human Rights
Significant

The World Assembly,

SHOCKED that many nations have outlawed religions of majority and minority or, indeed, the practising of any religion by their people,

RECOGNIZING that this is putting a strict limit on beliefs for the sapient beings of the multiverse,

DECLARING this as a brutal act against the rights and freedom of sapient beings, and a threat to their community as they are at the present time being,

DEFINES religion as the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs, and cult as a group whose beliefs or practices are reasonably considered strange

MANDATES that the following acts be performed in all member states;

a) Banning of a single religion may be combatted with;
I. A WA embassy regarding religion and secular activities in every member state;
II. A monthly WA religious census, to be conducted by the World Bureau of Religion (WBR), to check that no member state revolts against this resolution;
III. The fact that 'religion banning' may be considered a crime of religious persecution;

b) Banning of all religion may be combatted with;
I. A WA embassy regarding religion and secular activities in every member state;
II. A choice for leaders who violate this resolution to reinstate religion or face an impeachment;
III. Providing shelter for the excluded religions of a country, until religion is reinstated in the member state the situation concerns;

c) Member states shall be allowed to outlaw religions or cults that incite: widespread lawlessness and disorder, invasion of privacy, violence or defamation. Any other excuse for religious persecution shall be ignored. Other acts that it is possible to outlaw a religion by are; harmful religious protests, attempting Atheist genocide, attempts at overthrowing head of state(s), et cetera;

The World Assembly hereby,

INTENDS to reinstate religions that have been excluded in member states, provided they have not committed an act of violence,

PREVENTS other member states from repeating this brutal act,

HEREBY DECLARES the act of religious persecution a crime.

If you have any complaints, please don't hesitate to ask.

[The Ainocran Embassy]

show us the draft

I would guess that some states with a strong state religion would be opposed to this.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Blah blah blah. We will not support this in any way. The Nuclear Fist's ban on religion stands.

[Fern Prairie]

I've got an idea. This proposal will, if the quorum is reached and the resolution is passed, stop religion banning, and let citizens follow the way of life they want. All objections are welcome. A draft is in the works.

I like and support your idea, but aren't there already daily issues that allow you to ban religion? Wouldn't that make this illegal? But show us the proposal anyways.

[Flibbleites]

I've got an idea. This proposal will, if the quorum is reached and the resolution is passed, stop religion banning, and let citizens follow the way of life they want. All objections are welcome. A draft is in the works.

I like and support your idea, but aren't there already daily issues that allow you to ban religion? Wouldn't that make this illegal?

No, proposals can and have been written on abortion and euthanasia and those topics both have daily issues that deal with them.

[Freeoplis]

We request to see a draft before deciding on whether to offer our support to such an endevour.

[Bears Armed]

Blah blah blah. We will not support this in any way. The Nuclear Fist's ban on religion stands.

The WA already guarantees both 'Freedom of Expression' and 'Freedom of Assembly': Just how do you operate a ban on religion while remaining compliant with those two resolutions?

[The Nuclear Fist]

Blah blah blah. We will not support this in any way. The Nuclear Fist's ban on religion stands.

The WA already guarantees both 'Freedom of Expression' and 'Freedom of Assembly': Just how do you operate a ban on religion while remaining compliant with those two resolutions?

Meh. I don't participate much. Besides, those resolutions can suck my third testicle.

[Fern Prairie]

I've got an idea. This proposal will, if the quorum is reached and the resolution is passed, stop religion banning, and let citizens follow the way of life they want. All objections are welcome. A draft is in the works.

I like and support your idea, but aren't there already daily issues that allow you to ban religion? Wouldn't that make this illegal?

No, proposals can and have been written on abortion and euthanasia and those topics both have daily issues that deal with them.

So, then we just accept the contradiction? But then I would have to accept that it's just a game! Like I said though, I would probably support this if we could see the proposal.

[Embolalia]

Tried it. This wasn't the first, either. If you can come up with a way to get around the duplication issue, be my guest.

[Vescia]

For all those who want to see the propoal, please wait patiently. I'm doing it now.

[Vescia]

Done. It's on the OP.

[Vescia]

Anyone?

[Kryozerkia]

This proposal will, if the quorum is reached and the resolution is passed, stop religion banning, and let citizens follow the way of life they want. All objections are welcome.

The Right to Religion
Human Rights
Significant

The World Assembly,

SHOCKED that many nations have banned standard, everyday religions, and also that some have banned religion altogether.

RECOGNIZING that this is putting a strict limit on beliefs for the sapient beings of the multiverse, and is therefore an act of Fascism, a right-wing political party, whose name is used to demonstrate acts of brutality, in this case, to sapient religion and belief.

DECLARING this as a brutal act against the rights and freedom of sapient beings, and a threat to their community as they are at the present time being.

MANDATES that the following acts be performed in all member states and their puppet(s), if they have one;

a) Banning of a single religion may be combatted with;
I. A WA embassy regarding religion and secular activities in every member state,
II. A monthly WA religious census to check that no member state revolts against this resolution,
III. The fact that 'religion banning' may be considered a war crime, and that they be sentenced by the ICC.

b) Banning of all religion (excluding Atheism) may be combatted with;
I. A WA embassy regarding religion and secular activities in every member state,
II. A choice for leaders who violate this resolution to reinstate religion or face a sentence from the ICC,
III. Providing shelter for the excluded religions of a country, until religion is reinstated in the member state the situation concerns.

The World Assembly hereby,

INTENDS to reinstate religions that have been excluded in member states,

PREVENTS other member states from repeating this brutal act,

HEREBY DECLARES the act of religion-banning a war crime.

If you have any complaints, please don't hesitate to ask.

Firstly, about the underlined bit, on what grounds is this based? It seems to be targeting a specific ideology when there are leftist ones which may very well commit the same acts.

Secondly, about the underlined -- that automatically renders your proposal illegal. World Assembly proposals can only affect MEMBER nations. 'Puppets' may exist but those puppets are separate entities; nations for the most part and attempting to force this legislation on them would be meta-gaming. Therefore they are non-members being affected by WA legislation.

Thirdly, by saying "excluding Atheism", you are first implying that it is indeed a religion and then that it is NOT worthy of the same protection as others. This would bring your proposal into contradiction with others which protect the right to freedom of expression.

You do realise that your proposal has a gaping hole in it. Theocratic nations can get around this by simpling stifling information or distorting information about other religions if this is forced to go through, effectively rendering this useless. Why would they need to ban a religion when they can just simply demonize it?

[Vescia]

I think I've fixed it. Is this better:

The Right to Religion
Human Rights
Significant

The World Assembly,

SHOCKED that many nations have banned standard, everyday religions, and also that some have banned religion altogether.

RECOGNIZING that this is putting a strict limit on beliefs for the sapient beings of the multiverse, forcing them to believe in religions against their will.

DECLARING this as a brutal act against the rights and freedom of sapient beings, and a threat to their community as they are at the present time being.

NOTING that nations may be allowed to demonize religions, as long as the people who follow them are treated equally and fairly, and not segregated.


MANDATES that the following acts be performed in all member states;

a) Banning of a single religion may be combatted with;
I. A WA embassy regarding religion and secular activities in every member state,
II. A monthly WA religious census to check that no member state revolts against this resolution,
III. The fact that 'religion banning' may be considered a crime of religious persecution, and that they be sentenced by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

b) Banning of all religion may be combatted with;
I. A WA embassy regarding religion and secular activities in every member state,
II. A choice for leaders who violate this resolution to reinstate religion or face a sentence from the International Criminal Court,
III. Providing shelter for the excluded religions of a country, until religion is reinstated in the member state the situation concerns.

DEFINES the International Criminal Court as a court for war crimes and the like, committed by important political figures, and also terrorism.

The World Assembly hereby,

INTENDS to reinstate religions that have been excluded in member states,

PREVENTS other member states from repeating this brutal act,

HEREBY DECLARES the act of religious persecution a crime.

[New Illuve]

This proposal also refers to the ICC. To avoid the "house of cards" problem, then this reference needs to be defined within this proposal (which it isn't) in order to make any sense.

And why is banning religion a "war crime"? Especially if there isn't any war going on?

[Vescia]

Ok. Flibbleites, I've noted demonization, and New Iluve, I've given the ICC it's full title, to avoid confusion with the International Cream Company. I've not mentioned it as the resolution itself. Is it still violating the House of Cards rule?

[Vescia]

Is it?

[Linux and the X]

Generally, a committee that is created in one resolution can be used by a later resolution, and will only have the powers it is granted in the later resolution should the first be repealed. There is, IMO, no reason not to consider the ICC a committee for these rules.

[Vescia]

bump

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper vehemently opposes this proposal because it duplicates the Freedom of Expression resolution, and it lacks any provision to allow for reasonable restrictions to combat lawlessness or terror. In one high-profile example, Charlotte Ryberg has already banned Scientology (under the Status of Scientology Act 2029) for persistent violence against individuals, group or organization, and constant risks of a massacre had it remained unfettered.

[Vescia]

Ms. Harper vehemently opposes this proposal because it duplicates the Freedom of Expression resolution, and it lacks any provision to allow for reasonable restrictions to combat lawlessness or terror. In one high-profile example, Charlotte Ryberg has already banned Scientology (under the Status of Scientology Act 2029) for persistent violence against individuals, group or organization, and constant risks of a massacre had it remained unfettered.

The Vescian WA Embassy requests the demonization of Scientology should this resolution pass. Plus, the Right of the Orphaned proposal also duplicates the Freedom of Expression.

[Sanctaria]

Ms. Harper vehemently opposes this proposal because it duplicates the Freedom of Expression resolution, and it lacks any provision to allow for reasonable restrictions to combat lawlessness or terror. In one high-profile example, Charlotte Ryberg has already banned Scientology (under the Status of Scientology Act 2029) for persistent violence against individuals, group or organization, and constant risks of a massacre had it remained unfettered.

The Vescian WA Embassy requests the demonization of Scientology should this resolution pass. Plus, the Right of the Orphaned proposal also duplicates the Freedom of Expression.

Excuse me, my proposal does not duplicate the Freedom of Expression. I suggest you read the Freedom of Expression, read my proposal and then read the defintion of duplication.

Yours.,

[Vescia]

We apologize for the inconvenience, Sanctaria.

Charlotte Ryberg, where in this proposal does it duplicate the Freedom of Expression. If you find it, please the send the section of the Freedom of Expression the other section duplicates.

[Sanctaria]

We apologize for the inconvenience, Sanctaria.

Charlotte Ryberg, where in this proposal does it duplicate the Freedom of Expression. If you find it, please the send the section of the Freedom of Expression the other section duplicates.

Apology accepted, yet I can do what you request of Ms. Harper to do.

The Freedom of Expression states:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

Basically, honourable Ambassador, your proposal duplicates what is said above in the bolded segments.

Yours.,