[DRAFT] Freedom of Religion

[Bears Armed]

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.

Is it currently legal under WA rules for WA member nations' governments to ban training for all religions' priesthoods, and people working in 'religious' jobs rather than as those governments direct? Yes, it is.

is it currently legal under WA rules for WA member nations' governments to ban, or at least place prohibitively high taxes on, the possession of holy books and of objects that are theologically required for rites? Yes, it is.

Is it currently legal under WA rules for nations' governments to prevent religious groups from owning (or, at least, running) churches and other religious buildings? Yes, it is.

Is it currently legal under WA law for WA member nations' governments to extend whatever laws they have against 'recreational' drugs to cover the sacramental use of those drugs too, even if nobody except [perhaps] the users would be harmed by those substances? Yes, it is.

And, in all of those cases, it shouldn't be.

'Freedom of Worship' is a fundamental Sapient Right*, and as such should be protected by the World Assembly. We do need a resolution that covers this matter properly. (The CoCR doesn't because nations that apply such restrictions to ALL religions aren't discriminating on the basis of religion, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly don't so because they still leave governments free to impose bans such as I've listed above and those can keep people from worshipping "properly" as their religions' rules specify.)


( * OOC: and was one of FDR's "Four Freedoms": Are the 'liberal' players here really going to contradict FDR?!? )

[Quelesh]

This proposal is definitely needed. It is the duty of the WA to compel states to grant at least a reasonable level of civil rights to their citizens, including the right to religious worship, or lack thereof.

[Glen-Rhodes]

'Freedom of Worship' is a fundamental Sapient Right*, and as such should be protected by the World Assembly. We do need a resolution that covers this matter properly. (The CoCR doesn't because nations that apply such restrictions to ALL religions aren't discriminating on the basis of religion, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly don't so because they still leave governments free to impose bans such as I've listed above and those can keep people from worshipping "properly" as their religions' rules specify.)

Hey, I don't disagree. The Secretariat does. I do, however, disagree with this proposal and would like to see Family and Religion be the resolution that does it.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Eireann Fae]

(Human Rights; mild)

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

"Surely you mean 'PRAISING the great 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,

"Is it your contention, Ambassador, that Freedom of Expression and the Charter of Civil Rights does not cover the practice of Religion, only the belief in such? I would disagree, but we will save looking up the relevant resolutions upon your confirmation of our suspicions."

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,

"Perhaps make it '...as the right of inhabitants of member states to hold and practice...', to discount the possibility that this 'right' is being given to the government to enforce as they will."

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,

"We like this. Keeps meddling parents out of their childrens' religious affairs. However, we would prefer it to be explicitly stated that others indeed lack such a privilege, not merely stating that this resolution would not grant it."

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

"We do wish to outlaw that abhorrent practice of circumcision (and other infant mutilation), but fear this may devastate support for the resolution. Perhaps add a clause where such practices are not explicitly outlawed, but do not explicitly grant the rights to do such, either. Leave it up to the member nations."

DECLARES all persons' religious choices to be equally valid.

"Perhaps you should declare them to be equally protected. It is not the WA's place to declare religions valid or invalid, but we can certainly protect the right to practice them."

(1057)

"What?"

At this point, Rowan takes a sip of water, while Episky speaks a conclusion. The girl sets her glass down and continues.

"We applaud the Ambassador for his benevolent intent inherent in this proposal, but at the same time we recognise that it could use some work. We hope that in the course of the ensuing debate that this resolution is strengthened to protect citizens' rights, and not weakened more than necessary to protect tyrannical states. We also ask that the points of our comrade from the Bears Armed be addressed."

[Linux and the X]

(Human Rights; mild)

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

"Surely you mean 'PRAISING the great progress that this Assembly has made towards improving human rights,'."

Of course. I'll be sure the intern who did that is appropriately disciplined.

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,

"Is it your contention, Ambassador, that Freedom of Expression and the Charter of Civil Rights does not cover the practice of Religion, only the belief in such? I would disagree, but we will save looking up the relevant resolutions upon your confirmation of our suspicions."

I'd say it implies the right to practice, but does not explicitly set out such a right.

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,

"Perhaps make it '...as the right of inhabitants of member states to hold and practice...', to discount the possibility that this 'right' is being given to the government to enforce as they will."

I've made the decision to separate the definition and grant of the right, though I may agree to change that.

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,

"We like this. Keeps meddling parents out of their childrens' religious affairs. However, we would prefer it to be explicitly stated that others indeed lack such a privilege, not merely stating that this resolution would not grant it."

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

"We do wish to outlaw that abhorrent practice of circumcision (and other infant mutilation), but fear this may devastate support for the resolution. Perhaps add a clause where such practices are not explicitly outlawed, but do not explicitly grant the rights to do such, either. Leave it up to the member nations."

Please contact us privately for discussion of these.

DECLARES all persons' religious choices to be equally valid.

"Perhaps you should declare them to be equally protected. It is not the WA's place to declare religions valid or invalid, but we can certainly protect the right to practice them."

An excellent suggestion.

(1057)

"What?"

Just a character count. I suppose that should be clarified.

[The Dourian Embassy]

To jump right back into the fray here. I've been given an explanation of why one would think all religious practices that don't directly harm others are to be protected.

One begins to see very serious cracks in such logic of course, when the religion in question has deeply ingrained prejudices, or traditions of self abuse. It's also a very serious reason why such religious practices, which do not serve to violently affect others can still harm a society as a whole. You do not have the right to teach your twelve year old to whip himself with metal chains simply because your religious says so. You do not have the right to refuse to serve women in your establishment because your religion says that's alright. The legislation of these nuances are best left up to each state. You want to enshrine the right to any number of terrible practices under the blanket term of religious freedom.

Belief should be protected. This is indeed a basic fundamental right that we should extend to all, and it has been. The acts themselves are not equally protected(and in some cases transmission of belief can be harmful if it translates into practices that harm you), and should not be in all cases.

[GeneralHaNor]

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.

Not this noise again
We already found a convenient method of doing so
We granted the right to bodily integrity to all our citizens, regardless of age
Bodily integrity cannot be violated for any reason other then "necessary" procedures.

infant circumcision is not covered under that clause, as it does not meet the qualification of "necessary"

I would praise the world assembly if it had the guts to ban the barbaric mutilation of the genital organs of infant boys.
But it doesn't.

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina applauds this resolution, and foresees its passage as a landmark achievement for civil rights and the common good.

That being said, we would like to clear up some loopholes, namely a clause that states something like "ENSURES that the right to practice religion includes the right of all persons in a member nation to build and use facilities of worship on private property." and another one that states something like "AFFIRMS the right of every member nation to establish and promote a state religion, so long as such establishment and promotion does not interfere with the rights granted by the World Assembly to all persons."

[Intellect and the Arts]

Having carefully reviewed the provisions of this proposal, I would like to pose a question to all involved in this discussion of its formation. Are those present of the collective opinion that the presence of true and legislated individual religious freedom would prevent an individual nation from successfully declaring a national faith due to lack of ability to enforce it?

[Eireann Fae]

Having carefully reviewed the provisions of this proposal, I would like to pose a question to all involved in this discussion of its formation. Are those present of the collective opinion that the presence of true and legislated individual religious freedom would prevent an individual nation from successfully declaring a national faith due to lack of ability to enforce it?

(OOC: Compliance is mandatory. The Gnomes make it so. 'Enforcement' isn't really an issue. You can always RP non-compliance, but as far as stats and such are concerned, your WA member nation complies with all WA resolutions.)

[Intellect and the Arts]

Having carefully reviewed the provisions of this proposal, I would like to pose a question to all involved in this discussion of its formation. Are those present of the collective opinion that the presence of true and legislated individual religious freedom would prevent an individual nation from successfully declaring a national faith due to lack of ability to enforce it?

(OOC: Compliance is mandatory. The Gnomes make it so. 'Enforcement' isn't really an issue. You can always RP non-compliance, but as far as stats and such are concerned, your WA member nation complies with all WA resolutions.)

OOC: I know that. I'm talking about lack of ability to enforce the declared national religion. I apologize if my phrasing rolled high on its ambiguity check. I'm wondering if people are of the opinion that an international mandate to allow freedom of religion would get in the way of having a nationally declared religion. I'm not going after the theocracy angle previously mentioned, just to be clear. I have a different difficulty in mind.

[Eireann Fae]

OOC: I know that. I'm talking about lack of ability to enforce the declared national religion. I apologize if my phrasing rolled high on its ambiguity check. I'm wondering if people are of the opinion that an international mandate to allow freedom of religion would get in the way of having a nationally declared religion. I'm not going after the theocracy angle previously mentioned, just to be clear. I have a different difficulty in mind.

(OOC: Ah, I see. Personally, I wouldn't mind a ban on theocracies, but that being against the rules and all... :-)

[Intellect and the Arts]

OOC: I know that. I'm talking about lack of ability to enforce the declared national religion. I apologize if my phrasing rolled high on its ambiguity check. I'm wondering if people are of the opinion that an international mandate to allow freedom of religion would get in the way of having a nationally declared religion. I'm not going after the theocracy angle previously mentioned, just to be clear. I have a different difficulty in mind.

(OOC: Ah, I see. Personally, I wouldn't mind a ban on theocracies, but that being against the rules and all... :-)

OOC: Even de facto theocracies where everyone just happens to have the same religion because the place was just founded by religious refugees?

[Eireann Fae]

OOC: Even de facto theocracies where everyone just happens to have the same religion because the place was just founded by religious refugees?

(OOC: If they all "just happen to have the same religion", that's not really a theocracy as I understand it. The Vatican is a Roman Catholic theocracy; Mexico, even with its many Roman Catholics, is not.)

[Intellect and the Arts]

OOC: Even de facto theocracies where everyone just happens to have the same religion because the place was just founded by religious refugees?

(OOC: If they all "just happen to have the same religion", that's not really a theocracy as I understand it. The Vatican is a Roman Catholic theocracy; Mexico, even with its many Roman Catholics, is not.)

OOC: Religious refugees creating a new nation in which to shelter themselves from their previous oppression may declare an official theocracy and rule over the land using the laws of their faith, believing themselves to be in the right due to everyone in the nation having the same beliefs anyway. Such a system may, though it is rare, continue for generations with no alteration in overlying governing policy, no internal resistance, and in fact everyone thinking this is just dandy for them to be in a theocracy because nobody really disagrees with the policies being put into place. Indeed, a nation may be literally governed by a living god who literally creates every occupant of that nation, disallows immigration of anyone they didn't create (and therefore anyone of a differing faith) due to perfectly legit concerns of pathological immunity and the safety of their citizenry, and due to the nature of their godhood only ever does things that will benefit their people, and it would be a theocracy. I don't see why either of those should be barred from existing inside the WA.

[Quelesh]

You do not have the right to refuse to serve women in your establishment because your religion says that's alright.

This does make an interesting point. I don't think it would be necessary to explicitly prohibit that kind of thing in this proposal, though, since that's already covered by CoCR.

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

Not this noise again
We already found a convenient method of doing so
We granted the right to bodily integrity to all our citizens, regardless of age
Bodily integrity cannot be violated for any reason other then "necessary" procedures.

infant circumcision is not covered under that clause, as it does not meet the qualification of "necessary"

I would praise the world assembly if it had the guts to ban the barbaric mutilation of the genital organs of infant boys.
But it doesn't.

The circimcision of male infants is not currently regulated in international law. Nations can allow or prohibit it as they see fit. I would likely vote in favor of a proposal banning it, but the relevant clause of this proposal doesn't ban it at all.

Having carefully reviewed the provisions of this proposal, I would like to pose a question to all involved in this discussion of its formation. Are those present of the collective opinion that the presence of true and legislated individual religious freedom would prevent an individual nation from successfully declaring a national faith due to lack of ability to enforce it?

I wouldn't say that it would prevent a nation from declaring a national religion, no. A nation could still have an official religion and base its laws on that religion, as long as individual residents of that nation are free to practice a different religion if they so choose. It would prevent a nation from requiring all residents to practice the state religion and no other.