[DRAFT]Repeal Family and Religion

[Eireann Fae]

"Perhaps," begins Rowan, speaking Episky's words to the Assembly "it would be better to change the first line to NOTING that Family and Religion disallows the state to defend children from religious indoctrination imposed upon them by their parents or guardians. This may be more appealing to those that want that atrocious law repealed, but do not want the State to be an indoctrinator themselves."

[Erythrina]

Prepare your anus, for insta-repeal.

The World Assembly notes that although the concept of allowing heated debates is a great one, one already upheld, the purpoted repeal of a resolution that doesn't even exist yet, nor is guaranteed ever to exist, works against said goal.

NOTING that The Canadian Pacific had the gall of actually saying out loud the word "anus", with an attached connotation of imminent unspecified anal violation;

SADDENED by the ignorance of a World Assembly Ambassador, actively shredding his decency regardless of his colleagues' mental capacity,

HORRIFIED that the precedent of a World Assembly Ambassador threatening other Ambassadors with anal rape diminishes parents' moral authority to teach a child that such a behavior is criminal and unacceptable,

ANGERED by such behavior insofar it insults every person, notwithstanding the religious, faith, belief, or philosophical identity of their homes with the blessing of the World Assembly pulpit; for infringing on a child's innocence simply because of their hearing such foul words,

DEFENESTRATES The Canadian Pacific.

[Linux and the X]

NOTING that The Canadian Pacific had the gall of actually saying out loud the word "anus", with an attached connotation of imminent unspecified anal violation

Anal threats are hardly notable in a historical context.

The World Assembly notes that although the concept of allowing heated debates is a great one, one already upheld, the purpoted repeal of a resolution that doesn't even exist yet, nor is guaranteed ever to exist, works against said goal.

Drafting a repeal takes time. It is reasonable to begin drafting as soon as possible.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Unfortunately for you, the rest of the world does not view simple religion as a form of child abuse, unless of course the child is subjected to other forms of abuse at the hands of said religion. The nation of Vitaphone Racing would also like to note that many children under the age of twelve will not be able to comprehend the meaning of religion, thus will not be able to make a choice on whether or not to attend choice.

Therefore, we reject this repeal based on the grounds that it is excessive.

[Unibot]

I'd recommend waiting till the vote is decided and instead, focus on lobbying delegates to get it to fail.

If the resolution is adopted, Unibot will assist in your drafting for a repeal.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Parents will inevitably raise their own child to follow their own religious beliefs. This repeal basically strips parents of their rights to bring up their own child how they want, which is far more of an infringement of human rights than being forced to attend a religious service. When a child reaches a mature age, he/she will decide whether or not to continue practicing a religion.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Apart from the glaring fault that the child might be female, the added clause doesn't take into account a child may be too young to make such a decision when faced with overwhelming pressure from parents and people that surround them. Having the state force children to decide which religion to practice is almost the same as compulsory democracy; nobody asked for it.

[Linux and the X]

Parents will inevitably raise their own child to follow their own religious beliefs. This repeal basically strips parents of their rights to bring up their own child how they want, which is far more of an infringement of human rights than being forced to attend a religious service. When a child reaches a mature age, he/she will decide whether or not to continue practicing a religion.

This repeal will do no such thing. The repeal will simply allow nations to prevent parents from forcing young citizens who happen to have popped out of the parent's vagina from choosing their own religion.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Parents will inevitably raise their own child to follow their own religious beliefs. This repeal basically strips parents of their rights to bring up their own child how they want, which is far more of an infringement of human rights than being forced to attend a religious service. When a child reaches a mature age, he/she will decide whether or not to continue practicing a religion.

This repeal will do no such thing. The repeal will simply allow nations to prevent parents from forcing young citizens who happen to have popped out of the parent's vagina from choosing their own religion.

Double negative, doesn't make sense.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Apart from the glaring fault that the child might be female, the added clause doesn't take into account a child may be too young to make such a decision when faced with overwhelming pressure from parents and people that surround them. Having the state force children to decide which religion to practice is almost the same as compulsory democracy; nobody asked for it.

Then they become the parent's religion, and are able to convert away when they are still minors but old enough to decide for themselves. Something this resolution doesn't account for.

That is generally the widely accepted and unofficial practice around the world today, therefore why is a resolution necessary?

[Linux and the X]

Then they become the parent's religion, and are able to convert away when they are still minors but old enough to decide for themselves. Something this resolution doesn't account for.

That is generally the widely accepted and unofficial practice around the world today, therefore why is a resolution necessary?

"Family and Religion" is a proposal currently in line to be voted upon by the entirety of this Assembly. Should it pass, this practice would no longer be standard -- parents would be permitted to make the decision up to the age of majority. Therefore, some of the more reasonable nations in this assembly are writing this to repeal "Family and Religion" immediately after its passage (should it pass).

[Vitaphone Racing]

That is generally the widely accepted and unofficial practice around the world today, therefore why is a resolution necessary?

"Family and Religion" is a proposal currently in line to be voted upon by the entirety of this Assembly. Should it pass, this practice would no longer be standard -- parents would be permitted to make the decision up to the age of majority. Therefore, some of the more reasonable nations in this assembly are writing this to repeal "Family and Religion" immediately after its passage (should it pass).

Parents making the decision up to the age of majority is still, more or less, the widely accepted and unofficial practice around the world today. Again, parents have a right to bring up their child how they wish, the state does not deserve a say in this matter. This would be comparable to offering children the option of going to the dentist, or to school, or to any location for that matter.

[Linux and the X]

"Family and Religion" is a proposal currently in line to be voted upon by the entirety of this Assembly. Should it pass, this practice would no longer be standard -- parents would be permitted to make the decision up to the age of majority. Therefore, some of the more reasonable nations in this assembly are writing this to repeal "Family and Religion" immediately after its passage (should it pass).

Parents making the decision up to the age of majority is still, more or less, the widely accepted and unofficial practice around the world today. Again, parents have a right to bring up their child how they wish, the state does not deserve a say in this matter. This would be comparable to offering children the option of going to the dentist, or to school, or to any location for that matter.

So a very good idea, then?

[Eireann Fae]

Parents making the decision up to the age of majority is still, more or less, the widely accepted and unofficial practice around the world today. Again, parents have a right to bring up their child how they wish, the state does not deserve a say in this matter. This would be comparable to offering children the option of going to the dentist, or to school, or to any location for that matter.

"It is not accepted or the practice of Eireann Fae, Unibot, or Linux and the X to allow parents to shove religion down their children's throats. What is 'widely accepted' and 'unofficial practice' in other nations, such as yours, is not relevant to us. Please stop trying to force your personal habits onto everyone else. It is not necessary or welcome."

[Wakinton]

If the resolution is adopted, Unibot will assist in your drafting for a repeal.

As will Wakinton.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Parents making the decision up to the age of majority is still, more or less, the widely accepted and unofficial practice around the world today. Again, parents have a right to bring up their child how they wish, the state does not deserve a say in this matter. This would be comparable to offering children the option of going to the dentist, or to school, or to any location for that matter.

"It is not accepted or the practice of Eireann Fae, Unibot, or Linux and the X to allow parents to shove religion down their children's throats. What is 'widely accepted' and 'unofficial practice' in other nations, such as yours, is not relevant to us. Please stop trying to force your personal habits onto everyone else. It is not necessary or welcome."

Then we express our disgust at a nation who seeks to prohibit parents from raising their children how they so desire. The World Assembly does not need to give children the right to stay home instead of attending a church, or a mosque. This is simply appalling micro-management.

[Linux and the X]

"It is not accepted or the practice of Eireann Fae, Unibot, or Linux and the X to allow parents to shove religion down their children's throats. What is 'widely accepted' and 'unofficial practice' in other nations, such as yours, is not relevant to us. Please stop trying to force your personal habits onto everyone else. It is not necessary or welcome."

Then we express our disgust at a nation who seeks to prohibit parents from raising their children how they so desire. The World Assembly does not need to give children the right to stay home instead of attending a church, or a mosque. This is simply appalling micro-management.

While we believe that it is the World Assembly's place to do exactly that, this does not do that. This simply allows nations to make the decision for themselves.

[Vitaphone Racing]

While we believe that it is the World Assembly's place to do exactly that, this does not do that.

It is not the World Assembly's place to adopt an anti-religious stance. A resolution would be wasted on allowing young children the choice to attend a religious service.
a) It is a breach of the parents' right to raise their child how they wish.
b) A young child would be easily influenced by other factors and wouldn't be able to reach an independent decision.
c) There already is a freedom of religion resolution in place.
So please, give this a rest.

This simply allows nations to make the decision for themselves.

Thus allowing nations to strip parents of their rights.

[Eireann Fae]

c) There already is a freedom of religion resolution in place.

"It is the opinion of the Eireann Fae that this should be enough. The proposed Family and Religion law places unnecessary restrictions on children who would otherwise be free to practice (or not) whatever religion they wish."

[Erythrina]

No, it does not. Why? Because after it is repealed I'd be happy to draft a resolution with a simple added clause:

Allows the child final say in matters concerning his personal belief.

"- Look, Mommy! I believe I can fly! I'm gonna jump from the window! And *smirk* you cannot stop me!"

*waves a printed WA resolution before jumping, while WA Gnomes hold a desperate mother still*

[Erythrina]

Look mommy, I can sacrifice humans!

I'm sure he already can (sacrifice humans), followed by due, lawful, and hopefully exemplary punishment. But, getting on topic, what does that have to do with belief?

You see, sensible limits would sensibly be in place

You're saying that now. Better late than never, I guess.

Now please, enough AdHom arguments.

Thankfully, I made none. But it's a good idea not to start, indeed,

[Erythrina]

A parent my indoctrinate a child into believing that human sacrifice is acceptable in the name of religion and with this proposal in place no state would be able to step in and rehabilitate.

You know, we're witches and warlocks in my nation. We have quite a... let's say, "history" with Christians. But that was long ago. We know they center their faith around a singular guy who "believ[ed] that human sacrifice is acceptable in the name of religion". Is that wrong? Should we ban Christianity?

[Erythrina]

You know, we're witches and warlocks in my nation. We have quite a... let's say, "history" with Christians. But that was long ago. We know they center their faith around a singular guy who "believ[ed] that human sacrifice is acceptable in the name of religion". Is that wrong? Should we ban Christianity?

No, did I say anything of the sort? No. Stay on topic.

Rephrasing, still using your own words: Should it be permissible for a nation to forbid "[a] parent [to] "indoctrinate" a child into believing that [a] human sacrifice is acceptable in the name of religion", like the central tenet of Christianity?

Yes or no?

If yes, it should be permissible, how exactly would the "state [...] be able to step in and rehabilitate" Christians? "Rehabilitat[ion]" camps?

Our ancestors have been burned at the stake, ages ago. Never again. Not even our former oppressors deserve that. We believe in the Balance Of All Things.

[Quelesh]

Despite the high number of delegate approvals, due to Kawaii's TG campaign, I honestly do not think that Family and Religion is going to pass. However, if it does somehow pass, we will strongly support any repeal, and will assist in drafting it.

"Family and Religion" is a proposal currently in line to be voted upon by the entirety of this Assembly. Should it pass, this practice would no longer be standard -- parents would be permitted to make the decision up to the age of majority. Therefore, some of the more reasonable nations in this assembly are writing this to repeal "Family and Religion" immediately after its passage (should it pass).

Parents making the decision up to the age of majority is still, more or less, the widely accepted and unofficial practice around the world today. Again, parents have a right to bring up their child how they wish, the state does not deserve a say in this matter. This would be comparable to offering children the option of going to the dentist, or to school, or to any location for that matter.

This is not the "accepted practice" in Quelesh, and I thank you to not make assumptions about cultures that you do not understand.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This is not the "accepted practice" in Quelesh, and I thank you to not make assumptions about cultures that you do not understand.

Unless your nation punishes parents who dare bring their child to church, I would suggest that the 'accepted practice' of 'parents bringing the child until they are old enough to say no' would still hold true in Quelesh. Of course if that is not the case, we sympathize with the many parents who are denied a right to their own child.