[DRAFT]Repeal Family and Religion

[Eireann Fae]

Fred leaves a private note:
You'll be waiting quite awhile; the rational members of this Assembly seem to be agreeing with you.

Rowan writes a quick note, folds it into a paper airplane, and tosses it to Fred.

"Well, that's some comfort at least ☮+♥+☺"

[Krioval]

I'm a bit curious. How does one "spiritually whip" somebody? What about "spiritual rape"? I mean, I'm aware that people can be messed up with regard to religion, but comparing taking one's children to a religious service to forcibly penetrating another individual sexually against one's will isn't exactly reasonable or rational.

"Have you never heard of being mind-fucked? Bah! Why do I even bother..."

Episky asks Rowan to pull out a portable video game, which the two quietly start playing while awaiting rational debate.

While you're waiting, maybe you could actually answer my questions with something of substance. Moonbeams and fairy dust may be considered enough where you're from, but Kriovallers prefer our support to be a bit more concrete.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[The Halbetan Union]

That makes no sense. Authoritarians lead their children to religious services with authority, libertarians go to religious services and hope their children follow them or stay with the babysitter -- that's what we call liberty.

The leanings of the individual are rather immaterial in this respect, for governments have proven time and again that they will indubitably tend toward the former, primarily those who would so audaciously intrude upon parents' rights to raise their own children. And yet I wonder if atheist families, seeking to instill in their children the belief that God does not exist, are treated with as much scrutiny in nations that compel reports of "spiritual abuse"? ...Nah, of course not! Separate but unequal. That's how unreasonable nations roll.

Of course atheists would be treated the same as any other religious group; if their child is religious and they are not, they can not deny their child the right to practice their religion. Now crawl back under your bridge and stay there, troll.

[The Halbetan Union]

"Children can report spiritual abuse to school counselors, teachers, their own religious leaders, peace officers, etc themselves."

I'm going to hope that taking one's children to a religious service is not "spiritual abuse"? If it is, I'm wondering when the authoritarian left will finally be satisfied with their "progress".

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

Taking one's child to a religious service against their will would be, just as much as a a forcing an adult would be. Why you think young people are not deserving of the same rights you enjoy is beyond me, but you're backward way of thinking is really telling of your nations workings.

[The Halbetan Union]

"Not everybody is so flippant about the spiritual health of their children. We care a great deal about our children's health on all levels; physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual, and none of these needs supercedes the other. Spiritual abuse is very real to our culture, whether you care to recognise it or not."

I'm a bit curious. How does one "spiritually whip" somebody? What about "spiritual rape"? I mean, I'm aware that people can be messed up with regard to religion, but comparing taking one's children to a religious service to forcibly penetrating another individual sexually against one's will isn't exactly reasonable or rational.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

Hell is a very real thing to some people, reincarnation is a very real ordeal to some, same with karma, and various concepts of enlightenment and purity. YOU may not believe there are spiritual ramifications to forcing people to practice a religion against their will, but THEY do; for crying out loud there are people willing to die for their faiths, but you seem to shrug it off as if it were some little past time event like baseball or a trip to the movies.

If someone does not wish to take part in religious practices they should not be made to, if anything is authoritarian it's the use of coercion to force religion or lack there of on unwilling parties.

[Antarsia]

In Antarsia, your right to practice religion takes the backseat of almost every other right there is. If there is ever a conflict, say, where someone wishes to sacrifice an animal for their religion, the animal's right to fair and gentle practice overpowers your right to practice your religion.

[Bears Armed]

We feel that adding an emphasis clause would have sufficed: such as:

EMPHASISES that these rights shall not be so construed in any way as to deny children, who are able to make a decision, the right to participate in the religious, faith, belief, or philosophical practices different to their guardians.

"Hr'rmm, make that "those children who are mature enough to make a decision", deleting the comma after the latter word as well as the one after "children" -- because otherwise you would be claiming that ALL children are fully capable of making such a decision -- and I think that we would agree with you about the desirability of such a clause."

"Whipping and raping them spiritually"? Have you lost your mind? I don't even know where to begin when confronted with a wall of such dense irrationality that I can can practically *touch* it. "Whipping and raping them spiritually".

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

"Not everybody is so flippant about the spiritual health of their children. We care a great deal about our children's health on all levels; physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual, and none of these needs supercedes the other. Spiritual abuse is very real to our culture, whether you care to recognise it or not."

"According to many religions' beliefs participation in religious services -- even as children -- is necessary for spiritual health, and so it would be granting those children who are too young to know any better a right to abstain from partipating in their parents' religions that would -- if any of those beliefs are correct -- constitute 'spiritual abuse'."

Wow, this has got to be the most tacky thing I've ever seen in my time here in the WA and in its predecessor. Writing a repeal before the proposal is even up for vote.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

"Compared to ambassadors openly soliciting bribes before voting, or an ambassdor trying to silence their opponents by flinging faeces at them?"


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[Quelesh]

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.

Are you asking if it is a crime in Quelesh for a parent to carry, for example, a young infant into church? If so, the answer is no, it is not. Assuming the infant has not expressed any opposition to attending the parent's religious service, there is no crime involved. As regards attending a religious service, consent is assumed in cases where the individual is not capable of expressing consent or dissent. That doesn't matter and is not what we are talking about here; it is not what the Family and Religion proposal addresses.

So what? Isn't the right already implied, anyway? And even if in certain nations it isn't, however do you enforce such a mandate? Are the regimes really so totalitarian as to compel the parent's friends, neighbors and the children themselves to report any suspicious parental behavior, such as taking their children to church? If so, we will have won a tremendous victory against tyranny once the resolution passes. You will have won a victory too. For even though it's highly questionable that the law would apply to such unreasonable anti-Religion-Police States, if children can be dragged to church and still don't want to go, is that not a win for independent thought?

A "right" of parents to compel their offspring to practice a particular religion is not at all implied or granted in Quelesh. The "mandate" that parents not compel religion, or lack thereof, onto their children is enforced in the same manner in which the mandate that parents not beat or rape their children is enforced. "The parent's friends, neighbors and the children themselves" are not required by law to report religious coercion, but they are quite welcome to do so and our government will investigate all credible claims of abuse. In addition, children have one ability in Quelesh that they can use to protect themselves, that they often do not have in other nations: the ability to change or leave their guardians.

So all families in Eireann Fae have equal opportunity to taste the sweet, sweet nectar of overbearing totalitarianism? That's wonderful! And we can all mourn with you when the WA finally tells you to keep your grubby nose out of private families' business, for we all know that upholding "children's rights" is always worth a little government repression.

Well, it certainly makes it easier for rebellious teenagers. All they have to do is inform on their parents and then they can be free of their parents' overbearing presence once and for all. If they're really lucky, they'll be tapped to head a government agency as well.

*Interim Quelesian ambassador Alexandria Yadoru's initial reaction to this comment is to be angry, and she wrinkles her nose in protest. However, after pondering the Krioval ambassador's words for a few seconds, she laughs, a highly amusing image floating through her mind.*

Ambassador, I am glad that our fifteen-year-old Minister of Defense, who is quite competent at her job by the way, is not present in this chamber. Her reaction to your not-very-hidden slight would be explosive indeed. Responding only on behalf of myself, World Assembly ambassador at nineteen years old: shove your ageism where the sun doesn't shine.

Well, it certainly makes it easier for rebellious teenagers. All they have to do is inform on their parents and then they can be free of their parents' overbearing presence once and for all. If they're really lucky, they'll be tapped to head a government agency as well.

"rebellious teenagers" Are human beings with equal rights to that of their birth parents, and in many cases equal mental prowess. Let's see your argument with two words changed, and see if you agree:

Well, it certainly makes it easier for rebellious negroes. All they have to do is inform on their masters and then they can be free of their master's overbearing presence once and for all. If they're really lucky, they'll be tapped to head a government agency as well.

OOC: You, sir, win one internet.

"rebellious teenagers" Are human beings with equal rights to that of their birth parents, and in many cases equal mental prowess. Let's see your argument with two words changed, and see if you agree:

Well, it certainly makes it easier for rebellious negroes. All they have to do is inform on their masters and then they can be free of their master's overbearing presence once and for all. If they're really lucky, they'll be tapped to head a government agency as well.

Did you just compare parents raising their children to the enslavement of a race of people? At the very least, I could say that some of the enslaved were adults, and therefore should be equal to all other adults. If I were inclined to continue, I would go further to say that children are not slaves, and taking a child to a Kriovaller temple is not the same as whipping and raping them while forcing them to work until near death. But don't let that stop you from making false equivalencies.

Children are not slaves in Quelesh, but I would be willing to wager that they are, at least to an extent, slaves in Krioval. To quote a somewhat well-known educator, "No one is more helpless than he who can neither choose nor change nor escape his protectors."

Wow, this has got to be the most tacky thing I've ever seen in my time here in the WA and in its predecessor. Writing a repeal before the proposal is even up for vote.

That wasn't my decision; as I said, I don't think it's going to pass anyway. We are prepared to repeal it, however, should it pass.

"Not everybody is so flippant about the spiritual health of their children. We care a great deal about our children's health on all levels; physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual, and none of these needs supercedes the other. Spiritual abuse is very real to our culture, whether you care to recognise it or not."

I'm a bit curious. How does one "spiritually whip" somebody? What about "spiritual rape"? I mean, I'm aware that people can be messed up with regard to religion, but comparing taking one's children to a religious service to forcibly penetrating another individual sexually against one's will isn't exactly reasonable or rational.

My apologies to the Fae ambassador and her translator, but allow me to attempt to answer this question.

Imagine, Ambassador Søgård, that you are a devout Jew. Judaism is a fundamental part of your life. In essense, it is your life; your religion is the lens through which you see the world, and everything that happens is viewed with respect to both this life and the afterlife. It is thoroughly enmeshed with your very person; it is who you are.

As a Jew, you see pigs as unclean animals, unfit to be consumed. You have never eaten pork, and to do so would be a very serious sin against your God, the Master and Creator of all the universe, whom you have dedicated your entire life, and your afterlife, to loving, worshiping and serving.

Now imagine, Ambassador, that someone much bigger and stronger than you, someone who has a great deal of socially- and legally-sanctioned authority over you, someone whom you cannot legally escape, places a plate of pork chops in front of you and orders you to eat it. What would your reaction be? Disgust? Fear? Terror?

I imagine that you would refuse. After all, to sin in such a serious manner against your God is unthinkable. But imagine, Ambassador, that the bigger, stronger person picks up a chunk of the pork and shoves it into your mouth, holding your mouth and nose in order to force you to swallow it. Imagine your thoughts as the flesh of the unclean animal, which your God has commanded you to never eat, slides down your esophagus and into your stomach. How would you feel at that moment, Ambassador? Like you were spiritually raped?

The bigger, stronger person did not physically harm you. He didn't penetrate you sexually, he didn't beat you, he didn't cut you, he didn't burn you. But I submit that he raped you, Ambassador, as surely as if he had anally violated you.

[Krioval]

Let me just start out by saying that some representatives are making some ridiculous assumptions about Krioval, our society, and our culture. I get that the point of a debate is to win, but when it goes off into a contest to see who can make the most shocking accusations, evidence notwithstanding, it cheapens the debate significantly. It also reinforces my finding that arguments against our position are rooted in fear, hysteria, and xenophobia - all of which are unbecoming this Assembly, especially considering that the Imperial Chiefdom is being subjected to claims that we are insufficiently liberal or multicultural. With that in mind, I will not address the criticisms point-by-point.

Taking one's child to a religious service against their will would be, just as much as a a forcing an adult would be. Why you think young people are not deserving of the same rights you enjoy is beyond me, but you're backward way of thinking is really telling of your nations workings.

I have indicated repeatedly that yes, parents should be able to demonstrate their religious and cultural views to their children. Their children can sit there and sulk, and in Krioval, many do. What is not allowed is for the children to run the household. If there is abuse (child *or* elder), then the authorities can intervene. Otherwise, the child can apply for formal emancipation, and on demonstrating sufficient capacity for navigating the world on one's own, can then do as he or she pleases without any interference beyond that which any adult could reasonably expect - one still must follow the law, for example. Casting aspersions on our ways without even attempting to understand them is wholly inappropriate in any case.

Hell is a very real thing to some people, reincarnation is a very real ordeal to some, same with karma, and various concepts of enlightenment and purity. YOU may not believe there are spiritual ramifications to forcing people to practice a religion against their will, but THEY do; for crying out loud there are people willing to die for their faiths, but you seem to shrug it off as if it were some little past time event like baseball or a trip to the movies.

If someone does not wish to take part in religious practices they should not be made to, if anything is authoritarian it's the use of coercion to force religion or lack there of on unwilling parties.

Sitting in on a religious service and "practicing a religion" are two distinct actions. The first is passive: I routinely attend Christian services, including weddings, funerals, and holidays, at the request of friends. I do not, however, "practice Christianity". Admittedly, my example is fully voluntary, and I have attained adulthood in the Imperial Chiefdom. Seeing as how major worldwide religious figures frequently enter houses of worship of other faiths, there is separation between mere attendance and "practice".

And some families are more "authoritarian" than others. Providing that it doesn't result in outright abuse - which families are encouraged to report to the relevant legal authorities - it is acceptable.

*Interim Quelesian ambassador Alexandria Yadoru's initial reaction to this comment is to be angry, and she wrinkles her nose in protest. However, after pondering the Krioval ambassador's words for a few seconds, she laughs, a highly amusing image floating through her mind.*

Ambassador, I am glad that our fifteen-year-old Minister of Defense, who is quite competent at her job by the way, is not present in this chamber. Her reaction to your not-very-hidden slight would be explosive indeed. Responding only on behalf of myself, World Assembly ambassador at nineteen years old: shove your ageism where the sun doesn't shine.

A swing and a miss! Talk about knowing nothing about Kriovaller culture. I got my start on a whaling ship at the age of twelve; started university at sixteen. Krioval's youngest cleric is eleven, although she is currently at the rank of Initiate. Young teenagers can vote, fight, enter college, and even - shocking! - enter the workforce in the Imperial Chiefdom. You may have missed our comments on the ridiculousness of establishing a formal age of majority in Krioval, since one can currently do anything normally associated with "adulthood" by demonstrating basic competence. But don't let that get in the way of your snide ignorance.

Children are not slaves in Quelesh, but I would be willing to wager that they are, at least to an extent, slaves in Krioval. To quote a somewhat well-known educator, "No one is more helpless than he who can neither choose nor change nor escape his protectors."

Really? Have you visited Krioval recently? Children, in Krioval, have next to no real requirements placed on them except to show up in school on a regular basis. They are not required to work to earn their keep; they are actually forbidden from work until (here we go again!) they demonstrate competence for the task they wish to undertake. But until they can demonstrate the ability to make certain decisions for themselves, somebody has to have the legal authority to make decisions for them. Since the Imperial Chiefdom does not see it as proper for the State to do this, barring extreme situations, that responsibility falls to the child's parents. Considering the strict meritocracy in Krioval, if the child is making good decisions, and the parents bad ones, the child tends to achieve legal separation from his or her parents very quickly.

Imagine, Ambassador Søgård, that you are a devout Jew. Judaism is a fundamental part of your life. In essense, it is your life; your religion is the lens through which you see the world, and everything that happens is viewed with respect to both this life and the afterlife. It is thoroughly enmeshed with your very person; it is who you are.

As a Jew, you see pigs as unclean animals, unfit to be consumed. You have never eaten pork, and to do so would be a very serious sin against your God, the Master and Creator of all the universe, whom you have dedicated your entire life, and your afterlife, to loving, worshiping and serving.

Now imagine, Ambassador, that someone much bigger and stronger than you, someone who has a great deal of socially- and legally-sanctioned authority over you, someone whom you cannot legally escape, places a plate of pork chops in front of you and orders you to eat it. What would your reaction be? Disgust? Fear? Terror?

I imagine that you would refuse. After all, to sin in such a serious manner against your God is unthinkable. But imagine, Ambassador, that the bigger, stronger person picks up a chunk of the pork and shoves it into your mouth, holding your mouth and nose in order to force you to swallow it. Imagine your thoughts as the flesh of the unclean animal, which your God has commanded you to never eat, slides down your esophagus and into your stomach. How would you feel at that moment, Ambassador? Like you were spiritually raped?

The bigger, stronger person did not physically harm you. He didn't penetrate you sexually, he didn't beat you, he didn't cut you, he didn't burn you. But I submit that he raped you, Ambassador, as surely as if he had anally violated you.

First, yes, in your scenario, I would have been physically assaulted, and rather obviously. Why you somehow claim that "shov[ing pork] into [one's] mouth, holding [one's] mouth and nose in order to force [one] to swallow it" is not physical assault tantamount to torture - and illegal by current WA legislation - is unclear. I mean, this scenario actually involves the forcible insertion of some object (edible, in this case, but still) into a bodily orifice against the will of the victim. This is not the same as making a child attend grandma's funeral in a Christian church, or making a child see a Muslim prayer service in a mosque as part of a program on multiculturalism.

The closest thing this resolution *might* allow is the placing of the pork chops in front of a child who professes Judaism, in which case the child can refuse to partake. The end. If the parents physically force the consumption, that would be abuse by WA law. If the parents refuse to allow the child any other food, that would also by abuse by international law. Thus, the histrionics and ridiculous analogies are readily deconstructed and answered.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[The Halbetan Union]

I have indicated repeatedly that yes, parents should be able to demonstrate their religious and cultural views to their children.

Wonderful, so have I. My only contention comes from forcing minors of a different faith than their parents to take part in religious services against their will. In fact, this is usually where my similarities end with many of the other opposing delegates; I'm not a fan of denying parents the ability to pass on religious beliefs to their children, nor is using coercion to force minors to attend religious services considered a legal abuse.

The method the Union takes in securing a minors right when their parents won't is not jailing or fining the parents, or relocating the minor to a different home (though that option is available for some extreme cases), rather we prefer to enable young people in their faith by providing a third party councilor to help the minor smooth over problems at home stemming from their religious differences, we provide them with religious materials should their family forbid it at home, we provide kosher, halal, or vegetarian meals if their parents wont, and so on and so on. We prefer to enable young people in their spiritual endeavors, but the delegate from the Eternal Kawaii apparently found this to be a gross overstep and a symptom of an authoritarian government and indicated that such activities would fall under her resolutions "Don't do that" list.

Their children can sit there and sulk, and in Krioval, many do. What is not allowed is for the children to run the household. If there is abuse (child *or* elder), then the authorities can intervene. Otherwise, the child can apply for formal emancipation, and on demonstrating sufficient capacity for navigating the world on one's own, can then do as he or she pleases without any interference beyond that which any adult could reasonably expect - one still must follow the law, for example. Casting aspersions on our ways without even attempting to understand them is wholly inappropriate in any case.

I'm perfectly aware of what "your ways" are, and I don't particularly like them; for nations that don't have a fluid age of majority like Krioval this resolution is rather damning to any young person under the age of majority. You don't have to go to the extreme that other delegates go in regards to preserving a minors religious freedoms, but you could at least acknowledge that they do exist.

Sitting in on a religious service and "practicing a religion" are two distinct actions. The first is passive: I routinely attend Christian services, including weddings, funerals, and holidays, at the request of friends. I do not, however, "practice Christianity". Admittedly, my example is fully voluntary, and I have attained adulthood in the Imperial Chiefdom.

As long as you recognize the difference.

Seeing as how major worldwide religious figures frequently enter houses of worship of other faiths, there is separation between mere attendance and "practice".

You mentioned having worked on a boat, may I ask you; would it have been fair for your employer to refuse to give you your paycheck unless you went to church? Would it have been right for your government to tax your pay extra lest you didn't attend? Do you not understand the difference between "mere attendance" and attendance through coercion? Further, do you honestly think there are no parents that would demand their child take communion, or pray during the service? When does it stop being "mere attendance" and start being practice?

I understand that their are children out there who don't want to go to church merely because they think it's boring, or because they'd rather go to a friends house, but these are not the children I'm speaking about. I'm talking about minors who have legitimately chosen a faith different from their parents, who take their new faith seriously, and desire to walk the path set out for them by their new god(s). These people deserve to be taken seriously, and we here in the Union will do so.

And some families are more "authoritarian" than others. Providing that it doesn't result in outright abuse - which families are encouraged to report to the relevant legal authorities - it is acceptable.

In Krioval maybe.

[The Halbetan Union]

OOC: Double post, sorry.

[Turtatalia]

Goodness, we're drafting a repeal before the subject resolution (the resolution to be repealed) is even at vote, let alone whether it will actually be passed or not. What if the resolution we are repealing is defeated by those members who are not falling under the spell of the Eternal Kawaii and have seen sense? Will this thread become redundant, or will it be used to write some other resolution?

[Darenjo]

Dr. Park sighs in dissapointment.

Perhaps, honored ambassadors, it would be better to consider a resolution regarding the rights of children to choose things such as religion, political ideology, and other such things, instead of repealing a well-written to-be-resolution that certainly, if nothing else, has its heart in the right place? Family and Relgion actually doesn't do much besides reaffirm the right that many parents already take for granted.

- Darenjon GA Ambassador Dr. Park Si-Jung

[Krioval]

I'm perfectly aware of what "your ways" are, and I don't particularly like them; for nations that don't have a fluid age of majority like Krioval this resolution is rather damning to any young person under the age of majority.

Krioval *does* have a fluid age of majority, at least in terms of any individual skill or right, which means that you most certainly are not "perfectly aware" of our ways. Perhaps you'd like to try again?

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[The Halbetan Union]

I'm perfectly aware of what "your ways" are, and I don't particularly like them; for nations that don't have a fluid age of majority like Krioval this resolution is rather damning to any young person under the age of majority.

Krioval *does* have a fluid age of majority, at least in terms of any individual skill or right, which means that you most certainly are not "perfectly aware" of our ways. Perhaps you'd like to try again?

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

What? Oh, you misinterpreted, likely due to my bad grammar, my apologies.

OOC:

for nations that don't have a fluid age of majority like Krioval

Was intended to mean nations that don't have a system like Krioval's; "like Krioval" was not intended to list you as a nation without a fluid age of majority but a nation with one. Probably my lack of a possessive 's at the end of your nation's name. My bad.

[Krioval]

What? Oh, you misinterpreted, likely due to my bad grammar, my apologies.

Translators acting up again? How irritating. I will have to take a closer look at your presented arguments when I have a chance.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Overherelandistan]

This is a blanket statment to all of those who are saying that this will restrict freedom. The fact is that the resolution this is to repeal is what really is restricting rights. This repeal dosn't stop parents from trying to teach their children about religion, it does however, stop parents from being able to force the child to do whatever they say in the name of religion. Even when the act may be detremental to the health and well being of the chld. We dont take rights from parents, we protect them for children. Also, I don't like goverments of any kind passing laws about religion.

[Intellect and the Arts]

The proposal you're proposing to repeal doesn't do what you're trying to stop... O.o

[Enn]

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.

Are you asking if it is a crime in Quelesh for a parent to carry, for example, a young infant into church? If so, the answer is no, it is not. Assuming the infant has not expressed any opposition to attending the parent's religious service, there is no crime involved. As regards attending a religious service, consent is assumed in cases where the individual is not capable of expressing consent or dissent. That doesn't matter and is not what we are talking about here; it is not what the Family and Religion proposal addresses.

And if the infant has expressed opposition? What do the parents do? Leave the infant at home alone? That strikes me as neglect, which is generally considered child abuse.

Not all parents can afford babysitters.

As mentioned in the debate thread on the proposal itself, I would ask that ambassadors keep in mind their class privilege.

So what? Isn't the right already implied, anyway? And even if in certain nations it isn't, however do you enforce such a mandate? Are the regimes really so totalitarian as to compel the parent's friends, neighbors and the children themselves to report any suspicious parental behavior, such as taking their children to church? If so, we will have won a tremendous victory against tyranny once the resolution passes. You will have won a victory too. For even though it's highly questionable that the law would apply to such unreasonable anti-Religion-Police States, if children can be dragged to church and still don't want to go, is that not a win for independent thought?

A "right" of parents to compel their offspring to practice a particular religion is not at all implied or granted in Quelesh.

Interestingly, nor is it part of the proposal you're attacking. All that is mentioned is the right for parents to pass on religious practices. no-one can control another's thoughts of beliefs. That you think the proposal seeks to strikes me as quite bizarre, and leads me to doubt your ability to comprehend information.

Well, it certainly makes it easier for rebellious teenagers. All they have to do is inform on their parents and then they can be free of their parents' overbearing presence once and for all. If they're really lucky, they'll be tapped to head a government agency as well.

"rebellious teenagers" Are human beings with equal rights to that of their birth parents, and in many cases equal mental prowess. Let's see your argument with two words changed, and see if you agree:

Well, it certainly makes it easier for rebellious negroes. All they have to do is inform on their masters and then they can be free of their master's overbearing presence once and for all. If they're really lucky, they'll be tapped to head a government agency as well.

That you would compare the act of parenting to slavery is truly disgusting. It belittles the horror of slavery. I find it difficult to accept you as a rational person that you would even consider making such an assertion.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Co-Ambassador for Enn

[Krioval]

How does an infant register disapproval with a religious service? Does he or she suddenly projectile defecate, rending the diaper and spraying liquid feces everywhere? Or is it more subtle, with the baby whispering, "Mother, you know how I disdain these dreary religious services"? I feel that this may be an important aspect of international legislation long overlooked.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Intellect and the Arts]

How does an infant register disapproval with a religious service? Does he or she suddenly projectile defecate, rending the diaper and spraying liquid feces everywhere? Or is it more subtle, with the baby whispering, "Mother, you know how I disdain these dreary religious services"? I feel that this may be an important aspect of international legislation long overlooked.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

Again, you assume that any human being under a arbitrary age threshold is an infant and should be treated as such. Again, you are wrong.

Actually, he was addressing Quelesh's assertion that an infant could express objection to being carried along to a religious service. Please read the debate before calling someone out for misinformation, for you may yourself be misinformed if you do not.

[Quelesh]

*Interim Quelesian ambassador Alexandria Yadoru's initial reaction to this comment is to be angry, and she wrinkles her nose in protest. However, after pondering the Krioval ambassador's words for a few seconds, she laughs, a highly amusing image floating through her mind.*

Ambassador, I am glad that our fifteen-year-old Minister of Defense, who is quite competent at her job by the way, is not present in this chamber. Her reaction to your not-very-hidden slight would be explosive indeed. Responding only on behalf of myself, World Assembly ambassador at nineteen years old: shove your ageism where the sun doesn't shine.

A swing and a miss! Talk about knowing nothing about Kriovaller culture. I got my start on a whaling ship at the age of twelve; started university at sixteen. Krioval's youngest cleric is eleven, although she is currently at the rank of Initiate. Young teenagers can vote, fight, enter college, and even - shocking! - enter the workforce in the Imperial Chiefdom. You may have missed our comments on the ridiculousness of establishing a formal age of majority in Krioval, since one can currently do anything normally associated with "adulthood" by demonstrating basic competence. But don't let that get in the way of your snide ignorance.

I was not addressing Kriovaller culture with that comment, but rather your own attitude of seeming derision towards teenagers.

Children are not slaves in Quelesh, but I would be willing to wager that they are, at least to an extent, slaves in Krioval. To quote a somewhat well-known educator, "No one is more helpless than he who can neither choose nor change nor escape his protectors."

Really? Have you visited Krioval recently? Children, in Krioval, have next to no real requirements placed on them except to show up in school on a regular basis. They are not required to work to earn their keep; they are actually forbidden from work until (here we go again!) they demonstrate competence for the task they wish to undertake. But until they can demonstrate the ability to make certain decisions for themselves, somebody has to have the legal authority to make decisions for them. Since the Imperial Chiefdom does not see it as proper for the State to do this, barring extreme situations, that responsibility falls to the child's parents. Considering the strict meritocracy in Krioval, if the child is making good decisions, and the parents bad ones, the child tends to achieve legal separation from his or her parents very quickly.

OK, that's all well and good for your culture. Perhaps we should refrain from analyzing each other's societies and discuss what this proposal does and does not do. I am guilty of this as well.

Imagine, Ambassador Søgård, that you are a devout Jew. Judaism is a fundamental part of your life. In essense, it is your life; your religion is the lens through which you see the world, and everything that happens is viewed with respect to both this life and the afterlife. It is thoroughly enmeshed with your very person; it is who you are.

As a Jew, you see pigs as unclean animals, unfit to be consumed. You have never eaten pork, and to do so would be a very serious sin against your God, the Master and Creator of all the universe, whom you have dedicated your entire life, and your afterlife, to loving, worshiping and serving.

Now imagine, Ambassador, that someone much bigger and stronger than you, someone who has a great deal of socially- and legally-sanctioned authority over you, someone whom you cannot legally escape, places a plate of pork chops in front of you and orders you to eat it. What would your reaction be? Disgust? Fear? Terror?

I imagine that you would refuse. After all, to sin in such a serious manner against your God is unthinkable. But imagine, Ambassador, that the bigger, stronger person picks up a chunk of the pork and shoves it into your mouth, holding your mouth and nose in order to force you to swallow it. Imagine your thoughts as the flesh of the unclean animal, which your God has commanded you to never eat, slides down your esophagus and into your stomach. How would you feel at that moment, Ambassador? Like you were spiritually raped?

The bigger, stronger person did not physically harm you. He didn't penetrate you sexually, he didn't beat you, he didn't cut you, he didn't burn you. But I submit that he raped you, Ambassador, as surely as if he had anally violated you.

First, yes, in your scenario, I would have been physically assaulted, and rather obviously. Why you somehow claim that "shov[ing pork] into [one's] mouth, holding [one's] mouth and nose in order to force [one] to swallow it" is not physical assault tantamount to torture - and illegal by current WA legislation - is unclear. I mean, this scenario actually involves the forcible insertion of some object (edible, in this case, but still) into a bodily orifice against the will of the victim. This is not the same as making a child attend grandma's funeral in a Christian church, or making a child see a Muslim prayer service in a mosque as part of a program on multiculturalism.

The closest thing this resolution *might* allow is the placing of the pork chops in front of a child who professes Judaism, in which case the child can refuse to partake. The end. If the parents physically force the consumption, that would be abuse by WA law. If the parents refuse to allow the child any other food, that would also by abuse by international law. Thus, the histrionics and ridiculous analogies are readily deconstructed and answered.

I used this example to illustrate the concept of "spiritual rape" and how someone who devoutly follows a religion can feel deeply, profoundly and fundamentally violated by being compelled to violate the tenets of that religion. Forcing one to attend a religious service that violate's ones beliefs, compelling one to take communion or to bow one's head in prayer and worship to what one believes is a false god may not seem as severe, but the violation can be just as real to one who holds her beliefs strongly.

Dr. Park sighs in dissapointment.

Perhaps, honored ambassadors, it would be better to consider a resolution regarding the rights of children to choose things such as religion, political ideology, and other such things, instead of repealing a well-written to-be-resolution that certainly, if nothing else, has its heart in the right place? Family and Relgion actually doesn't do much besides reaffirm the right that many parents already take for granted.

I am not at all confident that the heart of the Kawaiian delegate is in the "right place" here. The very premise of Family and Religion is that children do not deserve freedom of religion. I don't think anything good at all can come from such an odious premise.

Are you asking if it is a crime in Quelesh for a parent to carry, for example, a young infant into church? If so, the answer is no, it is not. Assuming the infant has not expressed any opposition to attending the parent's religious service, there is no crime involved. As regards attending a religious service, consent is assumed in cases where the individual is not capable of expressing consent or dissent. That doesn't matter and is not what we are talking about here; it is not what the Family and Religion proposal addresses.

And if the infant has expressed opposition? What do the parents do? Leave the infant at home alone? That strikes me as neglect, which is generally considered child abuse.

Not all parents can afford babysitters.

As mentioned in the debate thread on the proposal itself, I would ask that ambassadors keep in mind their class privilege.

Realistically, is an infant going to express opposition? An older child perhaps, but a baby? And in the case of an older child who does not wish to go, then the parents have no legal way to force her to go. Households generally find alternative solutions when faced with an issue like this, and it is not a serious problem. Perhaps the child can be convinced to go, or perhaps someone can be found to watch her. Perhaps, since she is at least old enough to elucidate her feelings in opposition to this religious service, she can go somewhere else herself where someone can watch her. Children in Quelesh often have multiple homes that they can go to. Or perhaps the adults can even leave her at home by herself for a short time. She's very unlikely to be harmed, and that in itself is not a crime. Quelesian communities tend to be small, open, trusting places, being on small islands.

A "right" of parents to compel their offspring to practice a particular religion is not at all implied or granted in Quelesh.

Interestingly, nor is it part of the proposal you're attacking. All that is mentioned is the right for parents to pass on religious practices. no-one can control another's thoughts of beliefs. That you think the proposal seeks to strikes me as quite bizarre, and leads me to doubt your ability to comprehend information.

No one can compel anyone to believe a certain religion (short of brainwashing), but it is certainly possible to compel the practice, the rituals and outward signs that demonstrate belief in a particular god or gods, even if those practices and rituals run counter to the beliefs that make the core of one's being. The Fae ambassador has pointed out that the proposal in question requires us to allow parents to "transmit" the practice of a religion, but not necessarily to "compel" that practice, and that is an interesting and useful interpretation. Still, the proposal is based upon a premise that children should be denied their rights, do not deserve their rights. Even though we are able to find an interpretation (a few, in fact) that allow us to completely ignore the proposal were it to pass, other nations may not be so perceptive.

[Quelesh]

Again, you assume that any human being under a arbitrary age threshold is an infant and should be treated as such. Again, you are wrong.

Actually, he was addressing Quelesh's assertion that an infant could express objection to being carried along to a religious service. Please read the debate before calling someone out for misinformation, for you may yourself be misinformed if you do not.

As you'll see in my response to Enn above, I do not assert that an infant would object to religious attendance. I assumed that she would not, being an infant. Of course, if she were a highly unusual infant that could and did object, then that would be another matter, but I'm assuming that she could not.

[Enn]

And if the infant has expressed opposition? What do the parents do? Leave the infant at home alone? That strikes me as neglect, which is generally considered child abuse.

Not all parents can afford babysitters.

As mentioned in the debate thread on the proposal itself, I would ask that ambassadors keep in mind their class privilege.

Realistically, is an infant going to express opposition? An older child perhaps, but a baby? And in the case of an older child who does not wish to go, then the parents have no legal way to force her to go. Households generally find alternative solutions when faced with an issue like this, and it is not a serious problem. Perhaps the child can be convinced to go, or perhaps someone can be found to watch her. Perhaps, since she is at least old enough to elucidate her feelings in opposition to this religious service, she can go somewhere else herself where someone can watch her. Children in Quelesh often have multiple homes that they can go to. Or perhaps the adults can even leave her at home by herself for a short time. She's very unlikely to be harmed, and that in itself is not a crime. Quelesian communities tend to be small, open, trusting places, being on small islands.

Please stop changing your own goalposts. You referred to the infant. That was your inclusion into this debate. Deal with it.

Interestingly, nor is it part of the proposal you're attacking. All that is mentioned is the right for parents to pass on religious practices. no-one can control another's thoughts of beliefs. That you think the proposal seeks to strikes me as quite bizarre, and leads me to doubt your ability to comprehend information.

No one can compel anyone to believe a certain religion (short of brainwashing), but it is certainly possible to compel the practice, the rituals and outward signs that demonstrate belief in a particular god or gods, even if those practices and rituals run counter to the beliefs that make the core of one's being. The Fae ambassador has pointed out that the proposal in question requires us to allow parents to "transmit" the practice of a religion, but not necessarily to "compel" that practice, and that is an interesting and useful interpretation. Still, the proposal is based upon a premise that children should be denied their rights, do not deserve their rights. Even though we are able to find an interpretation (a few, in fact) that allow us to completely ignore the proposal were it to pass, other nations may not be so perceptive.

The law means what the law says. The proposal in question would recognise the rights of parents to transmit knowledge of their religions to their children.

That. is. all.

That you need to create other issues, that are not referred to in the proposal itself, suggests that you do not actually have a problem with this specific proposal. Perhaps it even suggests that you do not care about the text of the proposal, in which case I suspect you would find yourself better placed away from the halls of power.

You suggest a premise to the proposal - but a premise is not a law. All that becomes law is the text of the proposal. One cannot argue a repeal based on things not present in the proposal itself.

I also find it quite bizarre that this discussion, here, in this repeal thread, is happening now. What, you're so self-important you need your own thread, rather than the debate thread itself for the proposal? If all that's happening is that we're repeating ourselves, in two threads, then it's quite ridiculous.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Co-Ambassador for Enn

[Intellect and the Arts]

I do not assert that an infant would object to religious attendance.

Maybe you don't now, but you did. Let me show you your words from the transcript since you apparently have forgotten:

Are you asking if it is a crime in Quelesh for a parent to carry, for example, a young infant into church? If so, the answer is no, it is not. Assuming the infant has not expressed any opposition to attending the parent's religious service, there is no crime involved. As regards attending a religious service, consent is assumed in cases where the individual is not capable of expressing consent or dissent. That doesn't matter and is not what we are talking about here; it is not what the Family and Religion proposal addresses.

The implication of the wording in bold is that the infant CAN object, but as of yet has chosen not to. Whether you literally meant this or not, you brought it into the conversation.