Advertisement
by Kowani » Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:29 pm
by Artsotska » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:07 am
United Massachusetts wrote:(Image)
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:
- Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the following terms:
- "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,
- "missionary" as an individual engaged in missionary work,
- Prohibits any member-nation from criminalizing the act of non-coercive missionary work, provided that:
- the work is done non-violently and in accord with all other relevant national law,
- the work does not pose a risk of sparking significant lawlessness, civil unrest, or other significant threats to health or safety,
- Declares that no member-nation shall:
- inhibit the rights of missionaries to enter a country, on sole account of their desire to engage in non-coercive missionary work,
- 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,
- hamper the right of a traveller to possess, read, travel with, or distribute religious literature.
by Kenmoria » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:15 am
United Massachusetts wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“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.”Marilyn Manson Freaks wrote: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?
by Araraukar » Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:56 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Arachkya » Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:44 am
by United Massachusetts » Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:17 am
Arachkya wrote:If this passes we will leave the WA, our government can not allow this evangelical nonsense into our great nation to poison our people with that hippie nonsense.
by Marxist Germany » Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:52 am
Arachkya wrote:If this passes we will leave the WA, our government can not allow this evangelical nonsense into our great nation to poison our people with that hippie nonsense.
by Arachkya » Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:57 am
by Marxist Germany » Sat Oct 26, 2019 12:00 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Oct 26, 2019 12:02 pm
by Arachkya » Sat Oct 26, 2019 12:03 pm
by Marxist Germany » Sat Oct 26, 2019 12:26 pm
Arachkya wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:"I myself am one of those idiots, and Germany is mostly Christian and religious."
"Really?, interesting combination I must say, but regardless, my nation will ignore this resolution if it passes, just like the industrial one"
OOC: I feel like Moammar al-Qadhafi. LOL
by Arachkya » Sat Oct 26, 2019 12:28 pm
by Bananaistan » Sat Oct 26, 2019 12:34 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Oct 26, 2019 1:35 pm
Bananaistan wrote:"Bananaistan remains opposed on the principle of being opposed to a) cultural imperialism (the natives do not need to hear about the "good news"), and b) allowing non-national bigots spew bile and harass minorities.
"Although in practice it is unlikely that the safety of any such "religious traveller" (IE the homophobic, transphobic and misgynist ones) could be guaranteed and admittance would be refused on that basis."
by Marxist Germany » Sat Oct 26, 2019 1:44 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Bananaistan wrote:"Bananaistan remains opposed on the principle of being opposed to a) cultural imperialism (the natives do not need to hear about the "good news"), and b) allowing non-national bigots spew bile and harass minorities.
"Although in practice it is unlikely that the safety of any such "religious traveller" (IE the homophobic, transphobic and misgynist ones) could be guaranteed and admittance would be refused on that basis."
"Likewise. The C.D.S.P. doesn't see any reason we should permit missionaries to enter when their very goal is to spread a message at odds with our societal values of egalitarianism, secularism, and inclusivity.
Also, it was hard enough clearing the Catholic diocese out of our nation. We're not altogether interested in giving them another foothold."
by Kenmoria » Sat Oct 26, 2019 2:03 pm
Bananaistan wrote:"Bananaistan remains opposed on the principle of being opposed to a) cultural imperialism (the natives do not need to hear about the "good news"), and b) allowing non-national bigots spew bile and harass minorities.
"Although in practice it is unlikely that the safety of any such "religious traveller" (IE the homophobic, transphobic and misgynist ones) could be guaranteed and admittance would be refused on that basis."
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Oct 26, 2019 2:09 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
"Likewise. The C.D.S.P. doesn't see any reason we should permit missionaries to enter when their very goal is to spread a message at odds with our societal values of egalitarianism, secularism, and inclusivity.
Also, it was hard enough clearing the Catholic diocese out of our nation. We're not altogether interested in giving them another foothold."
"Ambassador, I imagine state-enforced atheism is noncompliance with Freedom of Religion."
by Bananaistan » Sat Oct 26, 2019 3:15 pm
Kenmoria wrote:Bananaistan wrote:"Bananaistan remains opposed on the principle of being opposed to a) cultural imperialism (the natives do not need to hear about the "good news"), and b) allowing non-national bigots spew bile and harass minorities.
"Although in practice it is unlikely that the safety of any such "religious traveller" (IE the homophobic, transphobic and misgynist ones) could be guaranteed and admittance would be refused on that basis."
“Perhaps ambassador Pierce could include an exception for religions that preach hatred or discrimination. I would also like to see an exception granted for when uncontacted peoples have persistently refused contact with the outside world, since this means that they would not wish to be proselytised.”
by Maowi » Sat Oct 26, 2019 4:41 pm
Kenmoria wrote:“Perhaps ambassador Pierce could include an exception for religions that preach hatred or discrimination.
by Ard al Islam » Sat Oct 26, 2019 4:47 pm
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:36 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"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."
by Litauengrad » Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:13 pm
by United Massachusetts » Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:58 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"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."
"I don't see in the debate transcript any answer to this question, besides the frankly hand-wavy reply to the Bananamen about 'the vast majority' of religious belief being peaceful and tolerant. If that's the best you've got, Ambassador, we'll have to oppose this resolution."
Kenmoria wrote:Bananaistan wrote:"Bananaistan remains opposed on the principle of being opposed to a) cultural imperialism (the natives do not need to hear about the "good news"), and b) allowing non-national bigots spew bile and harass minorities.
"Although in practice it is unlikely that the safety of any such "religious traveller" (IE the homophobic, transphobic and misgynist ones) could be guaranteed and admittance would be refused on that basis."
“Perhaps ambassador Pierce could include an exception for religions that preach hatred or discrimination. I would also like to see an exception granted for when uncontacted peoples have persistently refused contact with the outside world, since this means that they would not wish to be proselytised.”
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement