[TENTH DRAFT] On Religious Worship

[Vescia]

Thank you, Sanctaria and Melki for helping me solving the problem with the first line. The proposal seems to be nearing completion. Any other little niggly things I might have missed?

[Vescia]

Anything?

[Melki]

II. A monthly WA religious census to check that no member state revolts against this resolution,

What is the census called? World Bureau of Religion? Then it should say:

II. A monthly WA religious census to be named the World Bureau of Religion (WBR) that would check that no member state revolts against this resolution,

Just put it with your own census name. If not, then that's perfectly fine.

[Vescia]

II. A monthly WA religious census to check that no member state revolts against this resolution,

What is the census called? World Bureau of Religion? Then it should say:

II. A monthly WA religious census to be named the World Bureau of Religion (WBR) that would check that no member state revolts against this resolution,

Just put it with your own census name. If not, then that's perfectly fine.

Good name. It's got a ring to it!

[Vescia]

Done. Anything else?

[Sanctaria]

Personally, as the proposal stands, it's not pleasing to read (the syntax of some sentences is appalling), it is too broad (thereby providing a loophole) when defining when a member nation can outlaw a religion and finally, it's not well put together i.e. it looks disjointed and doesn't read like a proposal.

Needless to say this delegation cannot and will not support this proposal as it stands.

Yours.,

[Vescia]

Personally, as the proposal stands, it's not pleasing to read (the syntax of some sentences is appalling), it is too broad (thereby providing a loophole) when defining when a member nation can outlaw a religion and finally, it's not well put together i.e. it looks disjointed and doesn't read like a proposal.

Needless to say this delegation cannot and will not support this proposal as it stands.

Yours.,

Two points here. One, I've changed so it's a little more uptight, and two, don't judge a proposal's quality by it's grammar. But, if it really is bad grammar, I'd like someone to help me clear it up. Anyone?

[Melki]

Vescia, I think it is more "proper" to use commas at the end of sentences, not periods.

[Vescia]

Vescia, I think it is more "proper" to use commas at the end of sentences, not periods.

OK. Will do.

[Sanctaria]

Personally, as the proposal stands, it's not pleasing to read (the syntax of some sentences is appalling), it is too broad (thereby providing a loophole) when defining when a member nation can outlaw a religion and finally, it's not well put together i.e. it looks disjointed and doesn't read like a proposal.

Needless to say this delegation cannot and will not support this proposal as it stands.

Yours.,

Two points here. One, I've changed so it's a little more uptight, and two, don't judge a proposal's quality by it's grammar. But, if it really is bad grammar, I'd like someone to help me clear it up. Anyone?

Firstly:

c) Member states shall be allowed to outlaw religions or cults that incite: widespread lawlessness and disorder, or harrasment against non-believers (persons, groups or organizations), including but not limited to 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.

I've italicised one line and bolded specifically the part that would allow my government to outlaw any religion in my nation as they saw fit. Invasion of privacy? Many religions have in their doctrine, rules specifically targeted at how couples should act when in the bedroom, rules on family planning and rules on sexuality. Based on that one line alone, many nations who are against this proposal could let it pass because of that blatant loophole.

Secondly, while the grammar may be fine, the syntax (sentence structure), is not. One could get lost in some of the sentences you created in this proposal. Also, for the record, how else are we to judge this proposal if not by its style, its purpose and the way it is written.

Yours.,

[Sanctaria]

Vescia, I think it is more "proper" to use commas at the end of sentences, not periods.

I, myself, would have put a semicolon (;) at the end of each clause.

[Bears Armed]

Vescia, I think it is more "proper" to use commas at the end of sentences, not periods.

I, myself, would have put a semicolon (;) at the end of each clause.

OOC: Althought this obviously isn't binding, the longstanding NSUN WA GA custom has been commas to end preambulatory clauses (EDIT: apart from the last of these, which gets a semi-colon instead...) and then semi-colons to end 'operative' clauses (until, obviously, the final clause ends with a full stop instead).

[Sremski okrug]

This bill is just appalling.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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,

This clause still looks clumsy. What about gobbling this clause to a simple "DECLARATION" that all inhabitants in member states have the right to hold belief in any religion of their choice, or none at all?

[Bears Armed]

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,

This clause still looks clumsy. What about gobbling this clause to a simple "DECLARATION" that all inhabitants in member states have the right to hold belief in any religion of their choice, or none at all?

How would a government affect people's beliefs anyway? It's their expression of & acting (where doing so wouldn't non-consensually harm anybody else) upon those beliefs that needs protecting, if the existing resolutions are deemed not to do that job already...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The example I have given is only suggestive. I am still concerned for the duplication of this draft, because I am not exactly sure what the draft is trying to do. Has the Convention on Genocide been taken into account? This resolution prohibits destruction of certain communities by brute force.

[Vescia]

The example I have given is only suggestive. I am still concerned for the duplication of this draft, because I am not exactly sure what the draft is trying to do. Has the Convention on Genocide been taken into account? This resolution prohibits destruction of certain communities by brute force.

This proposal is not taking in account genocide. This concerns the outlawing of religions and cults.

[Sanctaria]

The example I have given is only suggestive. I am still concerned for the duplication of this draft, because I am not exactly sure what the draft is trying to do. Has the Convention on Genocide been taken into account? This resolution prohibits destruction of certain communities by brute force.

This proposal is not taking in account genocide. This concerns the outlawing of religions and cults.

Ambassador, I believe the honourable Ms. Harper was asking a more general, almost rhetorical, question. Your proposal deals with, aside from the freedom to express religion, the prohibition of a group of people united by certain beliefs being eradicated. Such an act is already dealt with under the Convention on Genocide.

Now, as it appears to me, both the Convention on Genocide and the Freedom of Expression resolutions cover what is, essentially, the topic your proposal is seeking to address. While we in this delegation commend your authoring attempt, I believe that it is time you put this proposal to rest.

Yours.,

[Vescia]

The FoE covers religion in media, and CoG simply covers complete elimination, not banning. This proposal covers only that.

[Sanctaria]

The FoE covers religion in media, and CoG simply covers complete elimination, not banning. This proposal covers only that.

Ah my dear Ambassador, again you are incorrect.

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

There is no mention of the media in the above. The only mention of the media is the following line, which I have given earlier in this debate. Therefore the Freedom of Expression does cover what you are seeking to implement.

There is a clause in the CAG which could be interpreted, pretty loosely, in such a way that it covers the banning of the group, but it would depend on the severity of the banning in a country. If the banning included the death of anyone holding or practicing that belief, then it would fall under the aforementioned Act.

Yours.,

[CorruptDictators]

Even some people can show hearts, so I must say no, because that would infringe on a nations right to make national religions or ban them in general. Considering this is the tenth draft, you should know by now that it won't pass.

[Embolalia]

Even some people can show hearts, so I must say no, because that would infringe on a nations right to make national religions or ban them in general. Considering this is the tenth draft, you should know by now that it won't pass.

Most resolutions go through quite a number of drafts before passing, especially those on controversial issues. The number of drafts is irrelevant.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

In the tenth draft and still at it? My nations view is this is simply a poorly crafted end run, and a high transparent end run at that. We will never support this measure in any form. Perhaps it's time to move on to another issue.

[Sanctaria]

In the tenth draft and still at it? My nations view is this is simply a poorly crafted end run, and a high transparent end run at that. We will never support this measure in any form. Perhaps it's time to move on to another issue.

As stated before my another of my learned colleagues, it does not matter at what draft you are at. What matters is that your proposal is perfected and does not contain any mistakes.

I would be worried if your country, Ambassador, passed legislation without proof-reading and, if it's a democratic nation, without consultation.

Yours.,