[Abandoned] Repeal "Ban On Ritual Sacrifice'

[New Keam]

I stand against this repeal on ethical and moral grounds.

[Vrijstaat Limburg]

d'Marchant et d'Ansembourg calmly replies: "It's not up to us to critique other nation's cultures, even if they are gruesome.

"Right. We should permit slavery, because it may be culturally important." Bell rolls his eyes. "Culture is a bad reason to protect bad acts."

To retain good relations with upcoming nations that still allow, and in some cases even organize, ritual sacrifices, and to not enforce this assembly's might, we should drop our ban on ritual sacrifices.

"We shouldn't ban genocide for nations that still engage in it, and refuse to enforce the Assembly's decree. See how dumb that sounds?"

We wouldn't want insurgents murdering ambassadors in nations that still permit the savage act.

"Why do you send your ambassadors to places they are likely to be murdered? Why is your response not sufficient to deter future attacks if you do? The last time the C.D.S.P.'s embassy was threatened, the ambassador ordered the evacuating naval craft to level the embassy property as soon as the protestors broke through the barrier. The late Ambassador Grenell's actions are well known, and he and the guards who stayed behind to secure the embassy all earned posthumous medals. Not the way I'd like to go, but to each their own."

We, as a globalist organisation, cannot enforce what we deem "culturally appropriate".

"Can. Do. This line of argument is intellectual and moral cowardice."

de Marchant readjusted his goggles. "Are you accusing me of cowardice?" "Religious sacrifice isn't slavery. As stated in the discussion about this subject before, religious sacrifice can be voluntary and consentual. Slavery is not. I fear that you have misunderstood what I meant, ambassador. My nation is not in the interest of getting between a religious organisation and a consenting adult. These matters are too delicate, and convincing the savage populace of these countries that religious sacrifice is evil will cost us loads of time and resources. Our funds could be invested elsewhere."

He continued: "I am not in favour of sending any diplomats to places where they will be in great risk of death or injury. The region that I represent has luckily not yet seen any deaths in any diplomatic missions. I do think that, to support nations who are actively fighting tribes that still engage in religious sacrifice, we should set up diplomatic missions, if not embassies, to support them in their fight. The problem with this would be that nations who support "anti-religious regimes" will be targeted by insurgents, and nations could be pressured into supporting "anti-religious regimes" through their allies, or maybe even their WA partners.

Now, closing my statement, dear colleague, I wish to inform you that we do not have a monolopy on ethics or morals. We do not have binding ethical codes or traditions that bind us. Ambassador Bell, are you religious? I am. The people in this hall have different philosophies considering the goal of life, humanity's destiny, and God. In order to respect this, we should minimalize our efforts to surpress cultures that we deem "unethical" or "immoral". We are in no position to extend our influences through cultural surpression. We're running a world assembly, not a new world order. You may call my scepticism of the influence of globalist organisations in violent isolationist societies cowardice, I call it pragmatism." de Marchant et d'Ansembourg moved his head away from the microphone, and wiped some sweat off his forehead.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...Aware that the resolution makes no exception for when the party being sacrificed are willing and legal adults;

Convinced from the comments of the drafting author of the resolution that this omission was made because it was felt that local culture would 'brainwash' its adherents;

Outraged that the World Assembly would denigrate the facilities of and try to control the decision making of sentient adults of sound mind to this extent;

Finding it distressingly ironic that the traditions of some cultures within the World Assembly would be deemed to control its adherents to the extent that they could not make rational decisions, while the traditions of other cultures would be held up as the whole and unquestioned truth for all member nations;

...

Hoping that a resolution could be put in place in the future that finds better balance between the need to prevent the unnecessary death of sentient species, while still treating the cultural traditions of all member states as valid...

"We oppose this repeal, not least on the grounds that we don't believe the cultural traditions of all member states are valid. An adult of sound mind may volunteer to be sacrificed on the simple grounds that if she doesn't, a close friend or family member may 'volunteer' to be sacrificed in her place, assuming a culture in which tradition says one member of each generation must be given to the gods. That would fall squarely within the exception which you appear to want to carve, and it is unacceptable. Especially in cases where religious tradition is taught to children who are not given the opposing views and thus do not have the mental tools to think critically about what their elders are asking commanding them to believe, the 'brainwashing' argument is perfectly valid; and not only is it an unmitigated insult to victims to deny their victimhood, it also robs them of the psychological tools needed for recovery."

"In short, we find the repeal to be misguided at best, a capitulation which will re-assert the dominance of authoritarian culture over people who deserve to be free to fulfill their lives in the way they see fit. We will not stand for it."

[Separatist Peoples]

de Marchant readjusted his goggles. "Are you accusing me of cowardice?"

"Yes. Of the intellectual and moral variety."

"Religious sacrifice isn't slavery. As stated in the discussion about this subject before, religious sacrifice can be voluntary and consentual. Slavery is not.

"But the logic of your defense of religious sacrifice is equally applicable to a defense of slavery. Which reveals its moral weakness. An appeal to tradition is a pointless appeal, and culture is little more than mass tradition. If we accept this reasoning, we could handwave regulation on nearly any human rights breach as being a cultural cornerstone. 'Oh, we can't regulate bans on forced marriage, cuz muh culture,' 'Don't tread on my right to hate on gays and transgenders,' 'Muh culture demands I kill everybody who believes different, so leave off!'

"The question of consent here is merely tangential. There are forms of coercion which leave the nominal veneer of consent intact. To avoid incentivizing groups from using this kind of pressure, we do better to ban the practice outright."

I fear that you have misunderstood what I meant, ambassador. My nation is not in the interest of getting between a religious organisation and a consenting adult. These matters are too delicate, and convincing the savage populace of these countries that religious sacrifice is evil will cost us loads of time and resources. Our funds could be invested elsewhere."

"Fortunately for the World Assembly, the ones investing time and effort are the member states themselves. I wouldn't worry about GA funds. They are nearly bottomless."

He continued: "I am not in favour of sending any diplomats to places where they will be in great risk of death or injury. The region that I represent has luckily not yet seen any deaths in any diplomatic missions. I do think that, to support nations who are actively fighting tribes that still engage in religious sacrifice, we should set up diplomatic missions, if not embassies, to support them in their fight. The problem with this would be that nations who support "anti-religious regimes" will be targeted by insurgents, and nations could be pressured into supporting "anti-religious regimes" through their allies, or maybe even their WA partners.

"Let the savages kill each other or we'll be attacked? More moral weakness, I see. This is the worst form of slippery slope fallacy I've seen in some time."

Now, closing my statement, dear colleague, I wish to inform you that we do not have a monolopy on ethics or morals. We do not have binding ethical codes or traditions that bind us. Ambassador Bell, are you religious?

Bell laughs uproariously.

I am. The people in this hall have different philosophies considering the goal of life, humanity's destiny, and God.

"It is hardly my business if people in this hall want to waste their time with imaginary friends, ambassador. I'm here for results, not platitudes."

In order to respect this, we should minimalize our efforts to surpress cultures that we deem "unethical" or "immoral".

"Religious superstition is only as good as the results it grants. Killing people is not a normative benefit to religious belief. Ergo, the cultural richness is a secondary concern, since there is a greater harm involved."

We are in no position to extend our influences through cultural surpression.

"You may not be."

We're running a world assembly, not a new world order.

"An assembly which routinely kills cultural practices off in the name of progressive ideals. Try again."

[Vrijstaat Limburg]

"Would you stop bringing slavery into this argument? I don't support murder or genocide, ambassador. I don't support forced labour in forms such as slavery. We're strictly speaking about ritual sacrifice here, especially consensual sacrificing, which is banned by the WA right now. You raise the argument of religious groups pressuring the populace into voluntary sacrifice, and you bring up the fact that this could only be stoppable through the entrenched presence of WA-laws.

Is it though, ambassador Bell?

I don't support cultures that sacrifice human beings. I'm disgusted by the thought of murdering an individual in the name of God, but I just don't see this world assembly as an entity that could fix that problem. I think the current WA law banning ritual sacrifice is too idealistic, and difficult to uphold. I am up for stopping traditional sacrfice, but not by force, and certainly not on a globalist level. This new world order tasked with destroying the cultural identities of smaller nations that can't resist their influence is just as immoral as ritual sacrifice. Pushing for "progressive policies" instead of conservative or pro-cultural values is definitely not fair on nations with right-wing leadership, and the position of the World Assembly in these conservative nations is already deteriorating."

the count of Marchant et d'Ansembourg looked around the WA, hoping to find any nodding heads or smiling people.
"We should put up a nuanced approached to cultural entities like those who still permit ritual sacrifice, with us using military intervention as little as humanly possible. It's necessary that we send funds to nations combatting this disease of a religion, and that we swiftly send missionaries to fill the religious threshold. I'm up for the conversion of the people who used to believe in ritual sacrifice, but I strongly disagree in the fact that we, as a coalition of nations, should militarily intervene in the conflict or take out the religious rebels (by force). These tasks are up to the native government, and if we jump into the conflict, exterminate the churches that allow ritual sacrifice and pull out of the conflict shortly after, we'll only have more agression towards the WA, political regression, and extreme ideologies popping up to attack nations that align themselves with the WA. We cannot take this chance, and we should only try to stop the sacrifice if the adult does not consent to it."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Would you stop bringing slavery into this argument? I don't support murder or genocide, ambassador. I don't support forced labour in forms such as slavery. We're strictly speaking about ritual sacrifice here, especially consensual sacrificing, which is banned by the WA right now.

"I will happily leave it out of the conversation when you stop making arguments based on logical fallacies that apply without any regard for the atrocity you justify."

You raise the argument of religious groups pressuring the populace into voluntary sacrifice, and you bring up the fact that this could only be stoppable through the entrenched presence of WA-laws.

Is it though, ambassador Bell?

"Without the WA enforcing it, nations will do so freely. That is literally why we pass resolution here, ambassador."

I don't support cultures that sacrifice human beings.

"Then stop protecting them."

I'm disgusted by the thought of murdering an individual in the name of God, but I just don't see this world assembly as an entity that could fix that problem.

"Except for all the success the World Assembly has had at regulating it's members. You're right. These last four hundred resolutions must have been outright meaningless."

I think the current WA law banning ritual sacrifice is too idealistic, and difficult to uphold.

"Irrelevant, really, since past WA bans have proved fairly effective. No enforcement is perfect, but the benefits of WA membership generally outweigh the benefits of illicit practices."

I am up for stopping traditional sacrfice, but not by force, and certainly not on a globalist level.

"Moral cowardice. If you want to stop something, stop it. Don't draw arbitrary lines unless you're virtue-signalling."

This new world order tasked with destroying the cultural identities of smaller nations that can't resist their influence is just as immoral as ritual sacrifice.

"Ladies, gentlemen, and those who have yet to make up their minds, you heard it here first! If you want to stop ritual sacrifice, you're just as bad as the people who want to perpetrate it! Are you really willing to go there, ambassador?"

Pushing for "progressive policies" instead of conservative or pro-cultural values is definitely not fair on nations with right-wing leadership, and the position of the World Assembly in these conservative nations is already deteriorating."

"Ah, I see. Labels such as progressive or conservative should trump human lives. Well then, ambassador, prepare to be sorely disappointment."

"We should put up a nuanced approached to cultural entities like those who still permit ritual sacrifice, with us using military ntervention as little as humanly possible.

"Considering military intervention is currently illegal, ambassador, I'm not sure you've a full grasp on the legal landscape here."

It's necessary that we send funds to nations combatting this disease of a religion,

"Right. Sending money will stop this. It won't line their leader's pockets at all. Just like when you throw money at any other problem without taking concurrent steps."

and that we swiftly send missionaries to fill the religious threshold.

"World Assembly proselytizing. That is the most disgusting suggestion I've heard thus far, ambassador."

I'm up for the conversion of the people who used to believe in ritual sacrifice, but I strongly disagree in the fact that we, as a coalition of nations, should militarily intervene in the conflict or take out the religious rebels (by force).

"Nobody has made that claim. Unless..." Bell looks around furtively, then whispers "Is it your god? Did your god say that part?"

These tasks are up to the native government,

"Yet unwilling to do so."

and if we jump into the conflict, exterminate the churches that allow ritual sacrifice and pull out of the conflict shortly after, we'll only have more agression towards the WA, political regression, and extreme ideologies popping up to attack nations that align themselves with the WA.

"Balderdash and poppycock."

We cannot take this chance, and we should only try to stop the sacrifice if the adult does not consent to it."

"Ambassador, I think you should get yourself a coffee. Most of us visit the Stranger's Bar after the debate."

[Vrijstaat Limburg]

"I think you misunderstand, ambassador. You used the term "progressive" first. You politically coloured your argument, and arguably politicized it to now have right vs. left instead of pro vs. anti. I think it is a grave accusation that I make arguments based on logical fallacies when the threat of anti-WA gangs after the law has been passed is a realistic thought. It's the kind of globalist mentality that allows you to set up laws and ideals based on your perception of a perfect soceity, while that perception may not work in developing nations, like those that allow religious sacrifice."

Johannes de Marchant laughingly remarked: "If you haven't noticed yet, your excellency, I'm not defending ultra religious groups that sacrifice human beings, I'm defending the people's right to believe in their god, and to practice their religion as long as all people involved are consenting. That the WA has passed legislation on multiple issues in the past does not mean that they will easen up the conflicts in this issue, and using that as an argument is intellectually false."

"I'm sure that we don't have religious sacrifice in our nation, but if there were people who consentually killed themselves in the name of god, who are we to stop them? If a national government isn't willing to step between a man's connection with god, then why should a globalist organisation do it? I say it's more cowardly to strip a people of their rights in the name of your own ideology, but that is just my humble opinion, ambassador."

"I think your statement, I quote: "Ladies, gentlemen, and those who have yet to make up their minds, you heard it here first! If you want to stop ritual sacrifice, you're just as bad as the people who want to perpetrate it! Are you really willing to go there, ambassador?" is in very bad taste, and I'd say that we best stick to what we say explicitly, so that we don't start shifting eachothers sentences to suit our agendas."

"Furthermore, I think that enforcing secularism on a nation is just as bad as forcefully converting it. Nations should keep to their own devices, and as long as they don't break any human rights, they shouldn't be tormented by international laws."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I think you misunderstand, ambassador. You used the term "progressive" first. You politically coloured your argument, and arguably politicized it to now have right vs. left instead of pro vs. anti.

"That's a pretty provincial view of the term, ambassador."

I think it is a grave accusation that I make arguments based on logical fallacies when the threat of anti-WA gangs after the law has been passed is a realistic thought.

"It isn't. This hasn't happened during any of the previous 400 resolutions passing, many of which were far more invasive. History shows this concern to be utterly idiotic at best, and more likely just obstructionist."

It's the kind of globalist mentality that allows you to set up laws and ideals based on your perception of a perfect soceity, while that perception may not work in developing nations, like those that allow religious sacrifice."

"Right, because religious sacrifice is the key to developing a nation. Its definitely where the line in the sand is."

Johannes de Marchant laughingly remarked: "If you haven't noticed yet, your excellency, I'm not defending ultra religious groups that sacrifice human beings, I'm defending the people's right to believe in their god, and to practice their religion as long as all people involved are consenting. That the WA has passed legislation on multiple issues in the past does not mean that they will easen up the conflicts in this issue, and using that as an argument is intellectually false."

"Except that none of the more stringent limitations, like the mandatory access to abortion that the GA passed through GARs#128 and 286, have caused any such conflict. This is fearmongering. Plain and simple. And its insulting that you think your fellow ambassadors are so easily susceptible to fearmongering."

"I'm sure that we don't have religious sacrifice in our nation, but if there were people who consentually killed themselves in the name of god, who are we to stop them?

"Functional government officials?"

If a national government isn't willing to step between a man's connection with god, then why should a globalist organisation do it?

"Because the national government is not acting in the best interests of it's citizens if it permits such barbaric acts."

I say it's more cowardly to strip a people of their rights in the name of your own ideology, but that is just my humble opinion, ambassador."

"Its not often that an opinion is wrong, but you managed it. Permitting sacrificial rituals harms the fabric of society in the same manner that murder harms the fabric of society. Which is why societies go out of their ways to keep their people from dying."

"I think your statement, I quote: "Ladies, gentlemen, and those who have yet to make up their minds, you heard it here first! If you want to stop ritual sacrifice, you're just as bad as the people who want to perpetrate it! Are you really willing to go there, ambassador?" is in very bad taste, and I'd say that we best stick to what we say explicitly, so that we don't start shifting eachothers sentences to suit our agendas."

"You said:

This new world order tasked with destroying the cultural identities of smaller nations that can't resist their influence is just as immoral as ritual sacrifice.

"You are claiming moral equivalence between ritual sacrifice and efforts to end ritual murder. I'm not misstating anything. Those are your words, ambassador. I couldn't manage to exaggerate that beyond what you've said."

"Furthermore, I think that enforcing secularism on a nation is just as bad as forcefully converting it.

"You're in the minority, then."

Nations should keep to their own devices, and as long as they don't break any human rights, they shouldn't be tormented by international laws."

"Then why are you here?"

[Kenmoria]

"I think the word “Sentient” in the “Hoping” clause should be “Sapient” instead, as the resolution primarily addresses sapient beings."

[Vrijstaat Limburg]

"I am here, ambassador Bell, because I represent the interests of nation, and in this case, the interests of all free nations, as we all are. That we're part of an organization doesn't mean that we have to agree that the organization is helpful, especially not if it's necessary for modern nations to be in a global assembly. I think you're either willfully misunderstanding my position or you haven't actually listened to me, either way: I don't support the sacrificing of humans in the name of religion, nor do I think that it helps their society, or mankind in general. I do, however, support the right of a sovereign state to ban, or in this case, allow their citizes to murder themselves in the name of their religion. As long as the "sacrifice" is not murder, I am alright with suicide in the name of your religion, and I don't think it should be banned. There are no real ideological arguments for banning religious suicide. Citizens that are well-indoctrinated and ready to kill or be killed will break the law. A WA-resolution of making it illegal to kill yourself "religiously", a term which can't be properly legislated, will not help individuals or nations, but will simply be a token for nations to show how "civilized' they are, and "how much they helped the native populace". It will not change anything.

"You cannot say that stripping a right from adults who want to do things with their own body without physically hurting anybody is "a wrong opinion", do you? Seems tyrranical that such things are even infringed, and by a new world order like this one? I totally could not imagine any people revolting against that. That'd be highly shocking!"

"Now, stop accusing me of balancing "ritual murder" and "efforts to end it". We're not talking about murder here. I am fully opposed to a man killing another man in the name of religion."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I am here, ambassador Bell, because I represent the interests of nation, and in this case, the interests of all free nations, as we all are. That we're part of an organization doesn't mean that we have to agree that the organization is helpful, especially not if it's necessary for modern nations to be in a global assembly. I think you're either willfully misunderstanding my position or you haven't actually listened to me

"I'm taking what you say and applying it to the situation. You're an apologist for barbaric behavior."

"You cannot say that stripping a right from adults who want to do things with their own body without physically hurting anybody is "a wrong opinion", do you? Seems tyrranical that such things are even infringed, and by a new world order like this one? I totally could not imagine any people revolting against that. That'd be highly shocking!"

"Have you read the target resolution? Suicide for religious purpose isn't illegal, and not at issue. GAR#416 states:

Defining "ritual sacrifice" as the intentional and ritualistic act of killing one or more other beings (a) as an offering to a god or spirit, (b) as an effort to control sapient population growth, or (c) as a method by which a ruling class or regime creates or perpetuates social hierarchy;

Clarifying that such "ritual sacrifice" does not include capital punishment, assisted suicide or euthanasia of a terminally ill patient or other medical procedures, or any acts of war including insurgency and counterinsurgency;

"Now, stop accusing me of balancing "ritual murder" and "efforts to end it". We're not talking about murder here. I am fully opposed to a man killing another man in the name of religion."

"You are talking about ritual murder, though. The resolution in question permits suicide. It does not permit ritual killing. This isn't a question about individuals offing themselves, but of granting some individuals the power to kill others in a non-medical or non-emergency context. That is not compatible with a modern society, and is repugnant. This whole debate hinges on what GAR#416 defined as impermissible."

[Terra Voltera]

Queen Kagawi Yuuki, ruler of the Lenlyvitian Colony of Terra Voltera and the WA Ambassador of Lenlyvit, walks into the World Assembly Headquarters to see if anything new had popped up. Seeing a draft for a repeal of "Ban On Ritual Sacrifice" she couldn't help but make her, and her Empires, opinion known on the subject.

"The Empire of Lenlyvit, and its territorial Colonies, all stand opposed to this WA legislation," She began. "The legislation this draft would repeal is an upstanding law aimed at curbing vile atrocious behaviour between sentient beings, and should stay as law. We, the Empire of Lenlyvit and its colonies, will make sure to vote against this if it ever reaches the floor of voting and will endeavor to get our allies to do the same."

OOC: Eh, first time posting so I hope its okay XD

[Christian Democrats]

Aware that the resolution makes no exception for when the party being sacrificed are willing and legal adults;

Convinced from the comments of the drafting author of the resolution that this omission was made because it was felt that local culture would 'brainwash' its adherents;

Outraged that the World Assembly would denigrate the facilities of and try to control the decision making of sentient adults of sound mind to this extent;

Finding it distressingly ironic that the traditions of some cultures within the World Assembly would be deemed to control its adherents to the extent that they could not make rational decisions, while the traditions of other cultures would be held up as the whole and unquestioned truth for all member nations;

Given that ritual sacrifice is never rational, the target resolution ought to stay. We plan to vote against this repeal proposal.

[Ransium]

Ambassador Tañe crawls out form behind the podium he's been hiding behind for the past couple days. "After listening to the debates here and getting the opinions of various other sources I have become convinced that although submitting this would make for a fun four days of debate, it would ultimately fail. I'm therefore withdrawing this legislation."

[Imperial Polk County]

After an all-night preparatory session, Ambassador Drane enters the debate hall. His eyes, though bloodshot, are wide open, his gait sprightly and his demeanor outwardly enthusiastic; no doubt the consumption of several quarts of southern style sweet tea have offset some of the effects of a sleepless night. He steps toward the podium, a small stack of papers in his hand, preparing to debate against Repeal Attempt #27 of Resolution #416. Before he can take his place, the ambassador from Ransium crawls in his general direction. "What the...." Drane thinks as he looks down then watches the ambassador rise. His thoughts are soon supplanted as he hears the announcement.

"After listening to the debates here and getting the opinions of various other sources I have become convinced that although submitting this would make for a fun four days of debate, it would ultimately fail. I'm therefore withdrawing this legislation."

Drane places his hands on his hips and stares for a moment, then shakes his head and slowly exits from the room, mumbling incoherently.