[DRAFT] Rights of Religious Travellers

[United Massachusetts]

---

Rights of Religious Travellers
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Recalling its longstanding commitment to the preservation of free expression and free worship,

Accepting then, a necessary corollary to those two fundamental rights -- that religious expression and missionary work ought to be legally protected as well,

Believing that when peaceful and non-coercive, missionary work does not pose a harm significant enough to justify its criminalisation,

Also aware that many religious travellers seek to engage in pilgrimage or visit holy sites,

Expressing its firm opinion that such travel, a fundamental aspect of religious freedom, also ought to be legalised,

The General Assembly, with the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the following terms:
   1. "missionary work" as the act of travelling to another country for the purposes of teaching about religious belief, engaging in faith-based charity work, or spreading a non-violent and otherwise permitted religious belief, including non-belief,
   2. "missionary" as an individual engaged in missionary work,
2. Prohibits any member-nation from criminalizing the act of non-coercive missionary work, provided that:
   1. the work is done non-violently and in accord with all other relevant national law,
   2. the work does not pose a risk of sparking significant lawlessness, civil unrest, or other significant threats to health or safety,
3. Declares that no member-nation shall:
   1. inhibit the rights of missionaries to enter a country, on sole account of their desire to engage in non-coercive missionary work,
   2. deny an individual the right to access and visit a public holy site of their faith tradition, except where a compelling practical purpose exists to do so in the name of public health, security, or good order, and where doing so is the least restrictive means of advancing said purpose, subject to reasonable operational and administrative restrictions,
   3. hamper the right of a traveller to possess, read, travel with, or distribute religious literature.

[Marilyn Manson Freaks]

I actually fully support this. Creative topic, nice work.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

Might want to toss maintenance in to that list of practical purposes. Even religious buildings need maintenance, and sometimes repair. Poor Notre Dame...

[United Massachusetts]

Might want to toss maintenance in to that list of practical purposes. Even religious buildings need maintenance, and sometimes repair. Poor Notre Dame...

Fixed.

[Kenmoria]

“I actually broadly support this. Your ‘also aware’ clause has two ‘also’s in quite close succession, which is mildly displeasing, but overall I support this measure.”

[United Massachusetts]

“I actually broadly support this. Your ‘also aware’ clause has two ‘also’s in quite close succession, which is mildly displeasing, but overall I support this measure.”

Fixed.

[United Massachusetts]

“I actually broadly support this. Your ‘also aware’ clause has two ‘also’s in quite close succession, which is mildly displeasing, but overall I support this measure.”

I actually fully support this. Creative topic, nice work.

What's with all this "actually" stuff? Do y'all worry about religious resolutions from my delegation or something?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. Nations have an overriding interest in managing their borders to control immigration. That the labor provided is charitable does not negate this overriding concern.

"Border control is one of the few aspects of national governance uniquely associated with the very notion of sovereignty. We have little desire to see it violated."

[East Meranopirus]

"As the ambassador from East Meranopirus, like my colleague from Separatist People, I am opposed to this bill, for much of the same reasons.

If a nation can control its borders and immigration in almost every other way, why should an exception be made for missionaries and religious people? Why should a nation allow religious literature to be distributed if it is fundamentally against religion?

Additionally, we would like to ask the ambassador if spreading atheist believes counts as "missionary work", as the resolution does not make it clear."

[Marxist Germany]

"As Marxist Germany is a religious nation I fully support this."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"...Additionally, we would like to ask the ambassador if spreading atheist believes counts as "missionary work", as the resolution does not make it clear."

"I see you've already heard the Good News, ambassador - what a wonderful universe we live in, that isn't presided over by a self-righteous, genocidal thug, in which death is followed only by peaceful oblivion!"

"As to the proposal: we're undecided at this point. Would a belief system that includes, say, blood libel be considered 'non-violent' if its priests refrain from actually spelling out '...and therefore we shouldn't tolerate them!'? This assembly's past law on freedom of religion isn't particularly helpful here - it's one thing to permit existing belief systems to continue, but something else entirely to mandate that we allow foreigners to come in and spread racist, sexist, or other bigoted belief systems."

[Separatist Peoples]

"3.b raises some concerns. If the holy site is on private property, should not the government be able to enforce private property rights to the exclusion of religious interests? I would perhaps clarify "holy site" with "public holy site" so as to avoid any interference with private property."

[United Massachusetts]

"As the ambassador from East Meranopirus, like my colleague from Separatist People, I am opposed to this bill, for much of the same reasons.

If a nation can control its borders and immigration in almost every other way, why should an exception be made for missionaries and religious people? Why should a nation allow religious literature to be distributed if it is fundamentally against religion?

Additionally, we would like to ask the ambassador if spreading atheist believes counts as "missionary work", as the resolution does not make it clear."

"As atheism is a religion itself, I believe it is fine to begin with. Having said that, since some atheists have particularly thin skin, and couldn't stand being called religious (heaven forbid!), the resolution has been clarified to include non-belief."

"As for your other points, permitting religious travel is a corollary of tolerance for political and religious freedom. If missionary work within a nation should be allowed, as it is, and foreign travellers are entitled to the same fundamental freedoms as citizens are with regard to speech and religion, it follows that missionary work should be legalized."

We will not engage with your objections to religious literature. Those who would seek to illegalize literature are authoritarians of the worst caliber."

"3.b raises some concerns. If the holy site is on private property, should not the government be able to enforce private property rights to the exclusion of religious interests? I would perhaps clarify "holy site" with "public holy site" so as to avoid any interference with private property."

"This has been fixed."

"...Additionally, we would like to ask the ambassador if spreading atheist believes counts as "missionary work", as the resolution does not make it clear."

"I see you've already heard the Good News, ambassador - what a wonderful universe we live in, that isn't presided over by a self-righteous, genocidal thug, in which death is followed only by peaceful oblivion!"

"As to the proposal: we're undecided at this point. Would a belief system that includes, say, blood libel be considered 'non-violent' if its priests refrain from actually spelling out '...and therefore we shouldn't tolerate them!'? This assembly's past law on freedom of religion isn't particularly helpful here - it's one thing to permit existing belief systems to continue, but something else entirely to mandate that we allow foreigners to come in and spread racist, sexist, or other bigoted belief systems."

"The spread of blood libel and similar abhorrent beliefs 'poses a risk of sparking significant lawlessness, civil unrest, or another significant threat to health or safety.' For that reason, it would seem that nations retain the right to regulate fundamentally hateful views."

[Bananaistan]

"Mere non-violence is insufficient. Our government rightfully prevents religious bigots who wish to preach intolerance from entering and spreading their bile in Bananaistan. We will not entertain those who say that teh gays will burn in hell or women should be tied to the kitchen sink."

[Aclion]

Prohibits any member-nation from criminalizing the act of non-coercive missionary work, provided that:

1. the work is done non-violently and in accord with all other relevant national law,

"nations shall not criminalize things unless they are illegal".

"Mere non-violence is insufficient. Our government rightfully prevents religious bigots who wish to preach intolerance from entering and spreading their bile in Bananaistan. We will not entertain those who say that teh gays will burn in hell or women should be tied to the kitchen sink."

These guys will use 2.a or 2.b to criminalize missionary work. In fact this resolution would not protect missionaries in this nation.

[Marxist Germany]

"Mere non-violence is insufficient. Our government rightfully prevents religious bigots who wish to preach intolerance from entering and spreading their bile in Bananaistan. We will not entertain those who say that teh gays will burn in hell or women should be tied to the kitchen sink."

"Your free speech laws are not very liberal, ambassador."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Mere non-violence is insufficient. Our government rightfully prevents religious bigots who wish to preach intolerance from entering and spreading their bile in Bananaistan. We will not entertain those who say that teh gays will burn in hell or women should be tied to the kitchen sink."

"Your free speech laws are not very liberal, ambassador."

"Not all nations believe that unlimited freedom of speech is the best way to effectuate exchange on the marketplace of ideas."

[United Massachusetts]

"Mere non-violence is insufficient. Our government rightfully prevents religious bigots who wish to preach intolerance from entering and spreading their bile in Bananaistan. We will not entertain those who say that teh gays will burn in hell or women should be tied to the kitchen sink."

"We wouldn't be surprised if the delegation from Bananaistan classified religion itself as being fundamentally intolerant. Of course, bigots will be bigots. The vast majority of religious belief is not fundamentally hateful."

[Umpus]

Drop the "relevant".

[Tinfect]

"Absolutely not. The Imperium has no desire to field foreign primitivists for any reason. The fact alone of such beliefs is legitimate grounds to bar entry; the desire to spread such beliefs is very nearly a criminal act inof itself."

OOC:
No. Missionaries have, historically, and in modernity, done damage on near inconceivable scales, "non-coercive" or otherwise, with what a meaningless term that is.

[Bears Armed]

"The fact alone of such beliefs is legitimate grounds to bar entry."

OOC
Belief would be an "arbitrary and divisive categorisation" according to GAR #35. Do you claim a 'compelling practical purpose' for this policy?

[Tinfect]

"The fact alone of such beliefs is legitimate grounds to bar entry."

OOC
Belief would be an "arbitrary and divisive categorisation" according to GAR #35. Do you claim a 'compelling practical purpose' for this policy?

OOC:
Do note that the Imperium is a fascist state, and most distinctly does not reflect my actual beliefs on the subject. The Imperium considers religiosity itself a predilection towards criminal activities, and while obviously it can't do much to the quiet, common religious person, a particularly devout and/or outspoken individual would probably be denied entry as a security risk.

Of course, this all assumes that foreigners are allowed to enter the Imperium at all, which isn't allowed.

[Kardashev III Civilization]

"Religion is in of itself a threat to public health and safety, ambassador," warns the obelisk, floating just inside the doors to the debate hall.

[Bananaistan]

"Mere non-violence is insufficient. Our government rightfully prevents religious bigots who wish to preach intolerance from entering and spreading their bile in Bananaistan. We will not entertain those who say that teh gays will burn in hell or women should be tied to the kitchen sink."

"We wouldn't be surprised if the delegation from Bananaistan classified religion itself as being fundamentally intolerant. Of course, bigots will be bigots. The vast majority of religious belief is not fundamentally hateful."

"We wouldn't. Some religions are fundamentally intolerant. Whether it's a vast majority or not is irrelevant. It's one thing to allow domestic dingbats a platform, it's quite another to allow it to foreign cultural imperialists seeking to impose their immoral values on the Bananamen people.

"Also regarding section 3c, we note national governments are already empowered to restrict expression in certain circumstances. This proposal does not appear to take account of this."

- Ted

[New Bremerton]

While we regard free speech as sacrosanct and would never deny our fellow countrymen the right to proselytize, even if what they promote is considered hateful, we also hold firm in our belief that as a sovereign nation, foreigners do not have an automatic right to simply waltz in no matter what their beliefs or reasons for entering the country, even if they pose no security risk. This nation objects to any attempt by the WA to enforce an open borders policy, and we will make no exception for peaceful, non-coercive missionary activities.

AGAINST.