[Draft] Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations

[Kenmoria]

“Why? It is much better to provide reasoning, ambassador, so that this important proposal on discrimination can have a better chance of passing.”

"It is much better to provide reasoning, and I almost always do. Since we are a Libertarian state, our concern is ideological and hence we disagree with this proposal on a fundamental level. That being said, I should have clarified and phrased our position differently."

“That does make sense. One of the main oppositions to this proposal will be libertarian states and theocracies, both on a rather fundamental, if completely different, level. The author will have to target the average nation.”

[Dontriptia]

.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ideological ban isn't an IC construct. Even if it were, it doesn't apply here, see [2017] GAS 4.

[Kenmoria]

Our delegation is strongly opposed to this resolution and will contest it as an illegal Ideological Ban.

(OOC: It isn’t an ideological ban, and, though there is a question of illegality with GA #035, I personally view this as a legal proposal. Precedent states that you can make it difficult to be an ideology, such as recognising copyright for Communist nations, and the only thing you can’t do is restrict one entirely. No ideology has religious discrimination as a fundamental concept.)

[Dontriptia]

[

[Che Triumphant]

'You say it would be unfair to force a religious organisation to allow homosexuals to participate in religious activities. That's a pretty low standard for what constitutes 'unfair', ambassador - in fact, if you have your threshold set that low, I'm amazed you don't consider it unfair for this religious organisation to hold such a harsh stance against homosexuality.'

"All I am saying that religious organizations should have right to hold their atrociou laws and we shouldn't meddle with their worship. Of course as long as that doesn't hurt an individual. As I said before I still haven't chosen either to approve or go against the draft, ambassador"

Homophobic doctrine does hurt individuals though, there’s a reason Utah has 3x the national average for suicide

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: It isn’t an ideological ban, and, though there is a question of illegality with GA #035, I personally view this as a legal proposal. Precedent states that you can make it difficult to be an ideology, such as recognising copyright for Communist nations, and the only thing you can’t do is restrict one entirely. No ideology has religious discrimination as a fundamental concept.)

Religious discrimination is in fact a fundamental concept of all forms of theocracy, or religious-based government systems. Requiring religious organizations, including our government and state-sponsored churches, to allow anyone effectively eliminates this ideology, just like requiring that all nations hold completely democratic elections would be an ideological ban of autocracy, or requiring free markets would prohibit Communism and Socialism.

(OOC: All that theocracy requires is that a nation is led, at least nominally, by a deity. A proposal saying something like ‘PROHIBITS theocracies’ or ‘BANS the leasing of a state by religious figures’ will be illegal for ideological ban. However, a passed resolution has already banned discrimination on the matter of religion, GA #035. Almost anything apart from a direct prohibition is allowed in terms of ideological ban.)

[Maowi]

(OOC: It isn’t an ideological ban, and, though there is a question of illegality with GA #035, I personally view this as a legal proposal. Precedent states that you can make it difficult to be an ideology, such as recognising copyright for Communist nations, and the only thing you can’t do is restrict one entirely. No ideology has religious discrimination as a fundamental concept.)

Religious discrimination is in fact a fundamental concept of all forms of theocracy, or religious-based government systems. Requiring religious organizations, including our government and state-sponsored churches, to allow anyone effectively eliminates this ideology, just like requiring that all nations hold completely democratic elections would be an ideological ban of autocracy, or requiring free markets would prohibit Communism and Socialism.

OOC: I can't tell if, when you say 'religious discrimination', you mean discrimination based on a person's religion. This proposal, as written, would allow religious organisations to deny rights to those who do not follow their religion. It just prevents religious organisations discriminating against people on the basis of their gender, race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. But not religion, because, as you sort of seem to be saying, it would not make sense to force a Catholic priest to give communion to an atheist.

[Dontriptia]

[

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I can't tell if, when you say 'religious discrimination', you mean discrimination based on a person's religion. This proposal, as written, would allow religious organisations to deny rights to those who do not follow their religion. It just prevents religious organisations discriminating against people on the basis of their gender, race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. But not religion, because, as you sort of seem to be saying, it would not make sense to force a Catholic priest to give communion to an atheist.

Discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation is just as fundamental to many religious ideologies as well. For example, requring Catholics to ordain women, or allow homosexuals into leadership positions. But the main issue isn't just the fact that the practice is abolished, it's also that the authority which forms the basis of the religion is abolished. A Christian church that is forced to change its practices that it has had for hundreds of years is no longer a Christian church, it's a state-modified quasi-Christian church. This also is an ideological ban on separation of church and state, by the way, and free exercise of religion, which takes away two of the biggest components of classical liberalism and constitutionalism.

(OOC: I will repeat this: discrimination is already pretty much entirely banned, the only exception being for a compelling practical purpose. Precedent states that an ideological ban on theocracies must ban the idea of a theocracy itself. Going by it prohibiting any religious practice would be meaningless.

For example, suppose a religion forced its members to not obey traffic regulations. A proposal about safety limits on cars would then, under your logic, be rendered illegal. Since a lot of GA nations are not on Earth, and may have religions not existing on Earth, merely prohibiting any arbitrary law that may offend a religion would make almost every possible proposal irrevocably illegal.)

[Dontriptia]

[

[Separatist Peoples]

(OOC: I will repeat this: discrimination is already pretty much entirely banned, the only exception being for a compelling practical purpose. Precedent states that an ideological ban on theocracies must ban the idea of a theocracy itself. Going by it prohibiting any religious practice would be meaningless.

For example, suppose a religion forced its members to not obey traffic regulations. A proposal about safety limits on cars would then, under your logic, be rendered illegal. Since a lot of GA nations are not on Earth, and may have religions not existing on Earth, merely prohibiting any arbitrary law that may offend a religion would make almost every possible proposal irrevocably illegal.)

DIscrimination is banned in businesses and governments. There is no regulation which empowers, much less requires, governments to interfere in the internal practices of religious organizations, policing doctrines which in many case have been around for thousands of years. There also is no "right" to forcibly take a position in a religious organization against the beliefs of that organization, and the separation of church and state requires that the government not excessively entangle itself with religion.

Even if this were legal (which it isn't due to the ideological ban, freedom of assembly, and contradiction issues), it must be defeated as a tyrannical and arrogant effort to impose a secular, liberal theocracy.

OOC: This is not an ideological ban.

[Kenmoria]

“I’ve changed my mind again, and think that ‘representing’ would be a better word than ‘being’ in the second preambulatory clause.”

[Dontriptia]

[

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

EDIT: And either way, Maowi's proposal is illegal as of now. If it is amended to my satisfaction, I'm not opposed to the principle of an anti-discrimination bill specifically targeting religious intolerance.

(OOC: I don’t believe you are correct, as this proposal falls inside the specific exemption detailed by GA #430 of, ‘where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order,’. The preamble includes information on the possible mental harm to people denied religious services on the basis of characteristics, which would therefore be a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of health.)

I know it has been some time since this, put I really do not think this is adequate in regards to the point. Even if we accept arguendo that the refusal of the Church to ordain female priests somehow causes some sort of mental harm to women, it does not in any way follow that telling the Church it MUST commit a fundamental violation of its tenants is the least restrictive means available of maintaining women's mental health.

I think there needs to be a much stronger debate on just what "least restrictive" actually means. I personally hate the term since it seems to be American shorthand for "can you think of literally any other way to do X? Yes? Then your law is invalid." However, if that is what we go with, then why is not "here, make use of these mental health services we are arguably mandated to give you anyway" not a less restrictive means?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I don’t believe you are correct, as this proposal falls inside the specific exemption detailed by GA #430 of, ‘where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order,’. The preamble includes information on the possible mental harm to people denied religious services on the basis of characteristics, which would therefore be a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of health.)

I know it has been some time since this, put I really do not think this is adequate in regards to the point. Even if we accept arguendo that the refusal of the Church to ordain female priests somehow causes some sort of mental harm to women, it does not in any way follow that telling the Church it MUST commit a fundamental violation of its tenants is the least restrictive means available of maintaining women's mental health.

I think there needs to be a much stronger debate on just what "least restrictive" actually means. I personally hate the term since it seems to be American shorthand for "can you think of literally any other way to do X? Yes? Then your law is invalid." However, if that is what we go with, then why is not "here, make use of these mental health services we are arguably mandated to give you anyway" not a less restrictive means?

(OOC: This is a compelling argument that I will have to consider. Although it does follow that a religion’s refusal to give certain powers to certain grounds causes psychological harm, which is my argument, your point that mental health services could be used and are less restrictive is also true.

It could however be argued that the initial harm which will be always caused without anti-discrimination legislation will happen regardless of any restorative measures, so preventing this damage can only happen through this proposal.)

[Bears Armed]

I know it has been some time since this, put I really do not think this is adequate in regards to the point. Even if we accept arguendo that the refusal of the Church to ordain female priests somehow causes some sort of mental harm to women, it does not in any way follow that telling the Church it MUST commit a fundamental violation of its tenants is the least restrictive means available of maintaining women's mental health.

I think there needs to be a much stronger debate on just what "least restrictive" actually means. I personally hate the term since it seems to be American shorthand for "can you think of literally any other way to do X? Yes? Then your law is invalid." However, if that is what we go with, then why is not "here, make use of these mental health services we are arguably mandated to give you anyway" not a less restrictive means?

(OOC: This is a compelling argument that I will have to consider. Although it does follow that a religion’s refusal to give certain powers to certain grounds causes psychological harm, which is my argument, your point that mental health services could be used and are less restrictive is also true.

It could however be argued that the initial harm which will be always caused without anti-discrimination legislation will happen regardless of any restorative measures, so preventing this damage can only happen through this proposal.)

It could however be argued that forcing the religious to accept acts seriously in contravention of their beliefs, such as the ordination of people whom theological doctrine says shouldn't qualify for the priesthood, also causes psychological harm... and that the number of people affected by this might be significantly greater.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: This is a compelling argument that I will have to consider. Although it does follow that a religion’s refusal to give certain powers to certain grounds causes psychological harm, which is my argument, your point that mental health services could be used and are less restrictive is also true.

It could however be argued that the initial harm which will be always caused without anti-discrimination legislation will happen regardless of any restorative measures, so preventing this damage can only happen through this proposal.)

It could however be argued that forcing the religious to accept acts seriously in contravention of their beliefs, such as the ordination of people whom theological doctrine says shouldn't qualify for the priesthood, also causes psychological harm... and that the number of people affected by this might be significantly greater.

(OOC: That doesn’t affect the initial harm. The legislative text allows for legislation contravening freedom of religion in order to avoid a psychological harm, provided that is the least restrictive way of achieving the reduction in mental damage. Whether this would have a net positive or negative effect, which is subjective and ambiguous enough that it should err on legality anyway, is irrelevant to the prevention of the initial psychological harm.

It shouldn’t be the place of legality to assess whether or not a proposed measure would have a good result for the World Assembly, merely whether it contravenes one of the rules. The rule here is contradiction of Freedom of Religion. That piece of legislation explicitly allows for a law that prevents a psychological harm, not that would affect the psychological health of society as a whole.)

[Maowi]

OOC: Possibly another way of looking at the issue of contradiction with Freedom of Religion, although I'm not entirely sure whether it could be considered a reasonable interpretation, would be drawing the distinction between individuals and organisations? Banning an organisation from discriminating wouldn't force any individual person to take part in the religious practice, as long as someone in the organisation takes part...

But in any case, this:

It could however be argued that forcing the religious to accept acts seriously in contravention of their beliefs, such as the ordination of people whom theological doctrine says shouldn't qualify for the priesthood, also causes psychological harm... and that the number of people affected by this might be significantly greater.

(OOC: That doesn’t affect the initial harm. The legislative text allows for legislation contravening freedom of religion in order to avoid a psychological harm, provided that is the least restrictive way of achieving the reduction in mental damage. Whether this would have a net positive or negative effect, which is subjective and ambiguous enough that it should err on legality anyway, is irrelevant to the prevention of the initial psychological harm.

It shouldn’t be the place of legality to assess whether or not a proposed measure would have a good result for the World Assembly, merely whether it contravenes one of the rules. The rule here is contradiction of Freedom of Religion. That piece of legislation explicitly allows for a law that prevents a psychological harm, not that would affect the psychological health of society as a whole.)

[Araraukar]

"Though I would like to know if "discrimination" based on ability is still allowed? Such as not choosing someone unable to communicate meaningfully to a spiritual role requiring communication."

OOC: ^This hasn't yet been answered.

[Maowi]

"Though I would like to know if "discrimination" based on ability is still allowed? Such as not choosing someone unable to communicate meaningfully to a spiritual role requiring communication."

OOC: ^This hasn't yet been answered.

OOC: Sorry, missed it ...

'I believe the use of 'innate' should be clear enough to allow 'discrimination' based on ability, although we'd be open to changing the wording accordingly in order to allow it.'

OOC: (Edit - mistyped)

[Kenmoria]

OOC: ^This hasn't yet been answered.

OOC: Sorry, missed it ...

'I believe the use of 'innate' should be clear enough to allow 'discrimination' based on ability, although we'd be open to changing the wording accordingly in order to allow it.'

OOC: (Edit - mistyped)

“If you do chance the wording, make sure not to allow something like a religion claiming that only those with certain characteristics can communicate with a deity, which would just serve as a backdoor to discrimination.”

[Divine Unity]

"Ambassadors,

Simply calling yourself an adherent to a faith does not make you one.
This proposal, in our eyes, effectively removes an organised religion's ability to decide whether or not an individual actually is an adherent.

Before we can perform a sacrament such as marriage or holy orders we are obligated to ensure that the individuals entering into these rites understand what they mean. A couple goes through classes on the purpose and life-long effects of a sacramental marriage before they are permitted to have one. Even a heterosexual couple that disagrees with the doctrines of sex would be refused the sacrament. We presume that a homosexual couple would necessarily also disagree with the doctrines on sex, and would be denied the sacrament, because of belief and independently of the matter of their biological sex.

Further, for marriage, a couple must have the ability to consummate the marriage. We are unsure whether this current proposal would consider such an impediment (impotence, not to be confused with infertility) to be innate, and our doctrine discriminatory.


Likewise, a priest goes through nearly a decade of school before ordination, being assessed continually along the way as to whether or not they understand and will teach orthodoxy. It is safe to assume that a woman pursuing the priesthood would necessarily not believe in the doctrines of the fundamentally different but equally necessary-holy differences between the types of ministry within the clergy. She would then be removed from priestly formation, because of the belief and independent of her biological sex.

And, for ordination, the candidate has physical and psychological requirements that must be met, including having certain fingers on each hand for the sacraments. We are unsure whether this current proposal would consider such an impediment to be innate, and our doctrine discriminatory.

Finally, as has been said before, sacraments are not rights. They are gifts. Gifts to and gifts through the Church.
We recognise that not everyone believes this to be true, but those who do not believe this are not truly Catholic.


We must reject this proposal, without hostility or weakness.

Pray for us, and know we pray for you,

+Sean Cardinal Kilpatrick,
Sovereign Primate"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassadors,

Simply calling yourself an adherent to a faith does not make you one.
This proposal, in our eyes, effectively removes an organised religion's ability to decide whether or not an individual actually is an adherent.

Before we can perform a sacrament such as marriage or holy orders we are obligated to ensure that the individuals entering into these rites understand what they mean. A couple goes through classes on the purpose and life-long effects of a sacramental marriage before they are permitted to have one. Even a heterosexual couple that disagrees with the doctrines of sex would be refused the sacrament. We presume that a homosexual couple would necessarily also disagree with the doctrines on sex, and would be denied the sacrament, because of belief and independently of the matter of their biological sex.

Further, for marriage, a couple must have the ability to consummate the marriage. We are unsure whether this current proposal would consider such an impediment (impotence, not to be confused with infertility) to be innate, and our doctrine discriminatory.


Likewise, a priest goes through nearly a decade of school before ordination, being assessed continually along the way as to whether or not they understand and will teach orthodoxy. It is safe to assume that a woman pursuing the priesthood would necessarily not believe in the doctrines of the fundamentally different but equally necessary-holy differences between the types of ministry within the clergy. She would then be removed from priestly formation, because of the belief and independent of her biological sex.

And, for ordination, the candidate has physical and psychological requirements that must be met, including having certain fingers on each hand for the sacraments. We are unsure whether this current proposal would consider such an impediment to be innate, and our doctrine discriminatory.

Finally, as has been said before, sacraments are not rights. They are gifts. Gifts to and gifts through the Church.
We recognise that not everyone believes this to be true, but those who do not believe this are not truly Catholic.


We must reject this proposal, without hostility or weakness.

Pray for us, and know we pray for you,

+Sean Cardinal Kilpatrick,
Sovereign Primate"

"If your god's gift requires blind acceptance of invidious discrimination, then we are all better off without those 'gifts'."

[Divine Unity]

"If your god's gift requires blind acceptance of invidious discrimination, then we are all better off without those 'gifts'."

"Your grace, it isn't blind, and you aren't required to receive these sacraments. That you don't believe is absolutely your prerogative. That we retain the power to discern whether or not someone understands them enough to receive them is a wholly different matter."