[DRAFT] Freedom of Religion

[Linux and the X]

(Human Rights; mild)

PRAISING the progress that this Assembly has made towards improving human rights,

NOTING WITH REGRET that such progress has only implicitly granted the freedom of religious practice, and

BELIEVING that the freedom of religious practice should be explicitly granted,

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

DEFINES Freedom of Religion as the right to hold and practice a belief system, or lack thereof, of their own choice, as well as the right to refuse to hold or practice the same,

CLARIFIES that the Freedom of Religion does not include the right to compel others to participate in one's beliefs or exercise of those beliefs,

GRANTS all people in all member States the Freedom of Religion as defined above,

ALLOWS member States to criminalise violent acts against people or property where the person or owner of the property does not consent, even if such acts are part of religious practice, provided that such laws and the enforcement thereof do not consider religion, and

DECLARES all persons' religious choices to be equally recognised.

(1047 characters)

[Erythrina]

ALLOWS member States to criminalise violent acts against people or property where the person or owner of the property does not consent, even if such acts are part of religious practice,

Could a nation declare infant circumcision to be considered violent? Could it be banned? If yes, I'm against.

[Linux and the X]

ALLOWS member States to criminalise violent acts against people or property where the person or owner of the property does not consent, even if such acts are part of religious practice,

Could a nation declare infant circumcision to be considered violent? Could it be banned? If yes, I'm against.

This would not affect a nation's ability to criminalise or allow infant circumcision. If you would like to propose your own resolution on the matter, you are welcome to, but know that it will likely be unsuccessful.

[Glen-Rhodes]

So, you're banking on the mods to reserve course after a day? Good luck. In case you didn't notice, the mods ruled that existing resolutions already protected a parent's right to bring their child to church. Therefore, under that ruling, this proposal is illegal for contradiction.

[Linux and the X]

So, you're banking on the mods to reserve course after a day? Good luck. In case you didn't notice, the mods ruled that existing resolutions already protected a parent's right to bring their child to church. Therefore, under that ruling, this proposal is illegal for contradiction.

Really? Can you produce a secretariat ruling that says such a thing?

[The Dourian Embassy]

Really? Can you produce a secretariat ruling that says such a thing?

Sure thing. You will sadly need to read the whole thing. Even if you were unwilling to look this up on your own(which was pretty easy), you can at least do that much.

As many of the esteemed delegates here are aware, there was a request for the Secretariat to review the proposal to determine the legality of it based on resolutions #30 and #35 to determine if there was a potential conflict or duplication. The Secretariat and their loyal lawyers have taken the time to carefully review the proposal and discuss it before reaching a conclusion. The Secretariat comes before the body today with the finding of our review and the fate of the Family and Religion proposal has achieved quorum and is about a day away from going to vote.

There has been a long battle between both sides to determine the necessity of this and the delegates overwhelmingly have demonstrated civility and respect for each other while still holding different opinions on the matter. However, in at the end of the day, the question of legality can only be settled by the Secretariat.

The fate of the proposal is this: it is illegal. Therefore, it will be removed from queue.

The proposal was determined to be too vague for the strength (significant) that it was given. For the strength to be justified, it would have had to contain stronger, more directed language to enforce the rights it would have been granting. That, however, is not the sole reason why it is illegal. It was further determined that it duplicates resolutions #30 and #35.

Collectively, the two resolutions effectively protect the religious rights of the citizens of member nations. The language of these resolutions implicitly allows for the transmission of religious knowledge (Freedom of Expression) and the right to practice and not be discriminated against (Charter of Civil Rights).

The notable provision from resolution #30--

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;

--already allows for people to express their religious views. In this way, the parents/guardians would be able to pass their religion down to their offspring, while allowing their offspring to be afforded the same rights to expressing their personal beliefs, even if those beliefs do not conform with the parents'/guardians'.

There is of course a clause that allows for reasonable restrictions and calls upon governments not to abuse those restrictions. In this way, parents would still be fully permitted to transmit (peacefully) their religion to their offspring.

Since resolution #35 was also a point of contention, we will demonstrate how it is covered. These clauses in particular are worth noting:

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

These two clauses cover ALL inhabitants of member nations, which include children. It also covers adults and their right to pass their religion onto their children. All creeds receive equal treatment under this law.

These points aside, we come to the last element of this proposal, the parents as the primary and foremost protectors of the interest of the child.

It's already implicit in existing proposals that the WA believes parents are generally better protectors than the State, because of this: on both health and education, and less directly in the child labour law, the WA has explicitly described the occasions when the State may intervene between parent and child or overrule a parental decision. All other health and education decisions are not defined; implicitly, the WA leaves parenting up to the parents, except when it says "thus far and no further".

Applying that precedent to another parenting decision, religion, the WA's role should be to say "these are the circumstances in which the State may intervene". The generalised opinion "parents are better protectors" is too broad for legislation that can be enacted and enforced. It belongs in the CoCR, or perhaps in a "Charter of Parental Rights". Essentially, all this proposal does is state "we are in favour of family values".

The Secretariat yields the floor.

[Linux and the X]

Really? Can you produce a secretariat ruling that says such a thing?

Sure thing. You will sadly need to read the whole thing. Even if you were unwilling to look this up on your own(which was pretty easy), you can at least do that much.

-snip-

Yeah, I thought it might be that one. My understanding, however, is that the ruling says that parents have a right to talk about their religion, not to force participation.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Yeah, I thought it might be that one. My understanding, however, is that the ruling says that parents have a right to talk about their religion, not to force participation.

I think you're wrong on that point, but if you prefer a direct ruling for yourself, I'm sure that will happen eventually.

Now, on to the thing that stuck out to me about your last statement. You're proposing something that permits the forced participation of minors in religious services and calling it "Freedom of Religion"?

Bravo sir. Bravo.

[Linux and the X]

Yeah, I thought it might be that one. My understanding, however, is that the ruling says that parents have a right to talk about their religion, not to force participation.

I think you're wrong on that point, but if you prefer a direct ruling for yourself, I'm sure that will happen eventually.

Now, on to the thing that stuck out to me about your last statement. You're proposing something that forces participation of minors in religious services and calling it "Freedom of Religion"?

Bravo sir. Bravo.

I think you have this confused with "Family and Religion".

[The Dourian Embassy]

Snip

Now I'm just confused as to why you'd mention forced participation in the first place.

[Mousebumples]

Snip

Now I'm just confused as to why you'd mention forced participation in the first place.

Now, now. You know that some ambassadors just like tilting at windmills - such as in this case when they were arguing against something that was not even written into the proposal's text.

This may be a call for a "Promotion of Windmills" proposal ...

[Linux and the X]

Snip

Now I'm just confused as to why you'd mention forced participation in the first place.

That ruling was from "Family and Religion" which (depending on one's interpretation) was about either allowing parents to talk about their religion or allowing them to force their religion on their children. The ruling (again, by my interpretation) was that it allowed parents to talk about their religion, which was already protected, and therefore was illegal.

Now I'm just confused as to why you'd mention forced participation in the first place.

Now, now. You know that some ambassadors just like tilting at windmills - such as in this case when they were arguing against something that was not even written into the proposal's text.

This may be a call for a "Promotion of Windmills" proposal ...

Erm, what? You do realise that just because "Family and Religion" did not include such text does not mean other proposals cannot, right?

[The Dourian Embassy]

The ruling thing can play out on it's own as can your confusion inducing comments on it, lets get down to brass tacks.

Why is freedom to practice religion a good thing?

[Mesogiria]

The ruling thing can play out on it's own as can your confusion inducing comments on it, lets get down to brass tacks.

Why is freedom to practice religion a good thing?

"In general," said Ambassador Rodriguez, looking up from her papers, "I'd say you're asking the question the wrong way around. The state should not be in the practice of granting the people the rights it deems good for them to have. It should be the role of the state to restrict only those activities that are so harmful as to be unacceptable to the general welfare, and guaranteeing all other rights not similarly harmful. It should be assumed that the people hold, and and should hold, any and all rights, until them can be demonstrated or determined to be harmful."

[The Dourian Embassy]

"In general," said Ambassador Rodriguez, looking up from her papers, "I'd say you're asking the question the wrong way around. The state should not be in the practice of granting the people the rights it deems good for them to have. It should be the role of the state to restrict only those activities that are so harmful as to be unacceptable to the general welfare, and guaranteeing all other rights not similarly harmful. It should be assumed that the people hold, and and should hold, any and all rights, until them can be demonstrated or determined to be harmful."

The WA is not a state, and a state's decision making on this is not at dispute, yet. We are discussing the enshrining of a right by the WA, and if we're going to do so, I want to examine why it would benefit member nations, rather than hurt them.

[Mesogiria]

The WA is not a state, and a state's decision making on this is not at dispute, yet. We are discussing the enshrining of a right by the WA, and if we're going to do so, I want to examine why it would benefit member nations, rather than hurt them.

"The WA certainly spends enough time masquerading as a state to fool even the most dedicated of observers," snorts Rodriguez. "And the point remains the same. The proposal should go forward unless significant reasons can be given for the harmfulness of allowing freedom or religious practice. The argument runs thusly: there is no good reason to deny religious freedom, so it should be protected. End of story, no need for positive arguments unless negative ones are put forth, and thus positives are needed to counteract them."

[Mousebumples]

"The WA certainly spends enough time masquerading as a state to fool even the most dedicated of observers," snorts Rodriguez. "And the point remains the same. The proposal should go forward unless significant reasons can be given for the harmfulness of allowing freedom or religious practice. The argument runs thusly: there is no good reason to deny religious freedom, so it should be protected. End of story, no need for positive arguments unless negative ones are put forth, and thus positives are needed to counteract them."

My, my - if that isn't the most boggled piece of hogwash I've ever seen.

So, to boil down your point - you can make any statement, and I (or another ambassador) am unable to question it's merits unless we can state why it would be a bad thing. You do not need to make arguments in favor, except to counter whatever negative points we may come up with. I've had a few drinks tonight, so I don't know that I can come up with a classic counter-example at this point. However, I'm sure some of my creative colleagues can come up with something.

So far as to why this is bad - isn't this an ideological ban? How would a theocracy be compliant within the confines of this proposal? As such, illegal.

[The Dourian Embassy]

"The WA certainly spends enough time masquerading as a state to fool even the most dedicated of observers," snorts Rodriguez. "And the point remains the same. The proposal should go forward unless significant reasons can be given for the harmfulness of allowing freedom or religious practice. The argument runs thusly: there is no good reason to deny religious freedom, so it should be protected. End of story, no need for positive arguments unless negative ones are put forth, and thus positives are needed to counteract them."

Perhaps for you, but you've no right to expect me to defend an opposition until you define your reason for support. You can't go around saying "Everyone knows why I'm right, so I don't have to explain it to you,". Obviously some people think you're wrong, or else we wouldn't be having this very discussion.

Again I ask, why is the freedom to practice any religion one wishes inherently good?

[Mesogiria]

My, my - if that isn't the most boggled piece of hogwash I've ever seen.

So, to boil down your point - you can make any statement, and I (or another ambassador) is unable to question it's merits unless we can state why it would be a bad thing. I've had a few drinks tonight, so I don't know that I can come up with much of counter-example at this point. However, I'm sure some of my colleagues can come up with something.

"Uhh, no, not at all. I am speaking of rights, and not of statements. A statement can be questioned, debated, argued for or against, and so on, without any judgement upon its being good or bad. But a right, a right is somewhat different. Arguments concerning a right should, in the first order, focus upon why allowing it to be exercised would have an unacceptable negative effect or impact, not upon why it would be a good thing to allow it."

"By way of example, a government following this idea would handle the matter of proposed curfews thusly: 'We shall not enact curfews because there is no compelling reason to restrict the freedom of the citizenry in this manner,' as opposed to saying 'We shall not enact curfews because people need to travel to night-time jobs, take late-night walks, take out the garbage, etc etc.'"

"I also seem to have consumed more than a prudent amount of intoxicants lately, and suspect that my point is not translating well. I suppose the best short form for the idea is that the people ought to have absolute freedom in all areas, except where that freedom is limited by government for compelling reasons, as opposed to people only having those rights the government thinks it is good for them to have. It may seem like six of one, half a dozen of the other, but the key difference is in the approach."

[Mousebumples]

"Uhh, no, not at all. I am speaking of rights, and not of statements. A statement can be questioned, debated, argued for or against, and so on, without any judgement upon its being good or bad. But a right, a right is somewhat different. Arguments concerning a right should, in the first order, focus upon why allowing it to be exercised would have an unacceptable negative effect or impact, not upon why it would be a good thing to allow it."

Please note that I am questioning your statement that rights should not be questioned. And, certainly, (that all rights should be given) is the prerogative of your nation and your nation's leaders. However, not all nations within the WA allow a great deal of civil rights to their citizens. Just because you do so does not mean that all other nations are obligated to do the same. As such, I reject your assertion that rights do not require arguments in favor. So, again, pray tell ... Why is freedom of religion so essential? And, once more, how does establishment of Freedom of Religion - as laid out in the proposal text above - not directly conflict with the running of a theocratic state?

As stated by my colleague from Douria, you will be expected to defend your arguments and statements in this forum - even if you feel that they should be so clear as to not need an explanation. I suspect that if you continue to respond to questions about your arguments in such an uncooperative manner that you may find a number of Ignore Cannons fired in the direction of your nation.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That ruling was from "Family and Religion" which (depending on one's interpretation) was about either allowing parents to talk about their religion or allowing them to force their religion on their children. The ruling (again, by my interpretation) was that it allowed parents to talk about their religion, which was already protected, and therefore was illegal.

There's no interpretation needed. Family and Religion was about both passing of knowledge and participation. It was ruled illegal for contradicting two existing resolutions. That means that parents already have the 'right' to drag their kids to church. Thus, your clause (and thus purpose of this proposal) is moot: it's illegal for contradiction.

If you don't like that, go and argue in favor of Family and Religion's legality.

[Mousebumples]

The WA has defined slavery-ism and rape-ism illegal then. Almost all proposals are illegal under your loose definition of ideological ban.

I'm sorry, but what the hell is "slavery-ism" ? Or "rape-ism" ? Google them, Wiki them, use a goddammed dictionary. You won't find them.

However, you will find "theocracy" in all of those places. (Please note that I'm not citing Google as both of the following can be found using Google. But I can find another source, if you need further evidence that theocracy is a real thing)

Theocracy is one form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler, or in a higher sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In Common Greek, "theocracy" means a rule [kra′tos] by God [the.os′]. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government. Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws.

the·oc·ra·cy – noun
1. a form of government in which god or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

Further, let's have a look at the Rules for GA Proposals, shall we?

Ideological Bans
Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

I certainly won't claim to be a game mod by any stretch of the imagination, but one would think that "political ideologies" would include things such as parties (i.e. Republican/Democrat, Whig/Tory, etc.) or types of government (i.e. democracy, monarchy, or theocracy). In case you're uncertain as to the definition of ideology, feel free to check out this page from Dictionary.com. It's helpful enough to even mention "fascism" as an example of an ideology, which further proves my point.

Additionally, given your lack of arguments disputing the fact that this proposal essentially outlaws theocracies, I appreciate your concession to this proposal's illegality.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples

[Mesogiria]

Please note that I am questioning your statement that rights should not be questioned. And, certainly, (that all rights should be given) is the prerogative of your nation and your nation's leaders. However, not all nations within the WA allow a great deal of civil rights to their citizens. Just because you do so does not mean that all other nations are obligated to do the same. As such, I reject your assertion that rights do not require arguments in favor. So, again, pray tell ... Why is freedom of religion so essential? And, once more, how does establishment of Freedom of Religion - as laid out in the proposal text above - not directly conflict with the running of a theocratic state?

"In short, denying the people the right to freely practice religion would be an unwarranted intrusion into their personal freedom. A state getting into the business of deciding which religions are acceptable and which are not is a tried-and-proven formula for a mess. Those who's religions have been found wanting may face violent persecution when their theological beliefs force them into conflict with the state, they having reckoned their God as greater than their President. Authoritarian states can use religious conformity to stifle other freedoms, perhaps enshrining leader-worship in a state religion, and so on. Economic freedom could also be curtailed, with a state permitting only members of certain religions to own businesses or engage in commerce."

"Forcing people to believe in a particular god, goddess, gods, or no god at all, violates a person's right to chose for themselves what they do or do not believe."

"If it is to be contended that people have no such rights, then the argument grinds to a halt, and becomes a silly 'yes-no' back and forth, with others scrabbling about for WA legislation that might shed light on the matter."

"As to theocracies, there is an argument against this proposal that fits well within my above outlined position. Permitting the right to freedom of religion to be enshrined by the WA would be an unacceptable imposition upon the government and practices of a theocracy, their right to self-determine in the matter having been over-ruled. Now, that, in and of itself, may well not be sufficient grounds for turning this proposal down, and I likely think it is."

"If any of this is unclear or contradictory, I offer my humblest apologies. The hour is late, the Liberal Democrats have just come into power in my nation and are sending all manner of confusing and contradictory directives to my office, and I'm very, very far away from the people I'd rather be close to right now."

[Glen-Rhodes]

A theocracy is a rule by religious authority. It does not, as far as the World Assembly is concerned, depend upon the absence of religious freedom. Why you're arguing this, I don't know -- we already protect religious expression.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. S. Harper appreciates the intents and purposes of this draft but she is still convinced that GA #30 has reasonably ddressed the topic of freedom of religion.