The Northeastern Confederation wrote:Maybe because it is. The proposal could focus more in the ensurance of individuals' right to choose to participate in those rituals or even remain in the religion itself, but instead only focus on the banishment of the practice. Maybe, the proposal needs to be reestructured.
I would propose that:
1 - The text focus in "non-consensual cannibalism";
2 - The definition of "non-consensual cannibalism" is expressed right in the begining of the proposal in terms of "the consumption of the body of a sapient beign without previous agreement about it and/or who's death was caused exclusively for this purpose."
With this, religious cannibalism would be protected, since it would recquire the individual to vocalize its will to have its remains eaten before death, as long as the death itself is not for the sake of cannibalism.
Some people could forced to say that they consent to it, and that would create loopholes. There are already enough exceptions placed. I say that it should be left how it is.