[DEFEATED] Entheogens Legalization Act

[Krioval]

'Superstitious' is not a neutral phrase. Equating religious freedom with the ability to murder people is not a reasoned and helpful argument. You have been nothing but insulting this entire time.

- Dr. B. Castro

Well, Lord Odin commands that I lay waste to my enemies, but as a civilized individual living in a society of laws and culture, that's put on hold. I don't expect a hundred concessions to my particular religious beliefs just as I don't want to grant them to everybody else. And there's still the issue of whose religion is considered "real" - Your Excellency has admitted that "thinking drugs are neat is not a belief system". Yet if that were a pillar of some religious organization, somehow it is transformed into a crucial virtue that must be accommodated regardless of the society in which that view would be expressed? That is quite a failure of internal consistency, and it remains discriminatory as I have said repeatedly now.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Urgench]

'Superstitious' is not a neutral phrase. Equating religious freedom with the ability to murder people is not a reasoned and helpful argument. You have been nothing but insulting this entire time.

- Dr. B. Castro

Nonsense. Believing in the supernatural is superstitious belief, it is entirely neutral to describe something as it is. In dismissing intellectual justifications for wanting to use banned substances and seemingly prioritising the rights of superstitionists to use them Dr Castro merely proves our point that this resolution is entirely based on a prejudiced and unfairly discriminatory view which puts the rights of religious persons before those of non-religious persons.

Ritual murder is an intrinsic part of any number of faiths, according to Dr Castro such ritual murder (and indeed any other form of outrage which is a commandment of any recognised religion) must be allowed in the name of a non-existent right to freedom of religious practice. Dr Castro may now attempt to distance himself from having advocated for ritual murder in the name of superstition but that is indeed exactly what he has advocated.

Frankly Dr Castro will be rightly condemned by posterity for his advocacy.


Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

Nonsense. Believing in the supernatural is superstitious belief, it is entirely neutral to describe something as it is.

Since when has 'superstitious' been neutral? Since when has calling a religious belief a 'superstitious belief' been respectful? You're changing the meanings of words, here.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Urgench]

Nonsense. Believing in the supernatural is superstitious belief, it is entirely neutral to describe something as it is.

Since when has 'superstitious' been neutral? Since when has calling a religious belief a 'superstitious belief' been respectful? You're changing the meanings of words, here.

- Dr. B. Castro

Transparently this is a pathetic attempt at distraction, Dr Castro believes that women should be stoned to death for adultery or that homosexuals must be murdered in order to maintain the ritual purity of the community they live in or that whole castes of people must be forced to live in penury and servitude because someone's god commands that these appalling things must happen, all in the name of freedom of religious practice.


Again posterity will harshly judge Dr Castro.


Yours,

[Sionis Prioratus]

Again posterity will harshly judge Dr Castro.

Posterity is too far in the future. The time for harsh judgement has already come, with unanimous condemnation.

Damnatio memoriae!

Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

Again posterity will harshly judge Dr Castro.

Modern democratic norms has already judged the Urgenchi delegation.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Krioval]

Transparently this is a pathetic attempt at distraction, Dr Castro believes that women should be stoned to death for adultery or that homosexuals must be murdered in order to maintain the ritual purity of the community they live in or that whole castes of people must be forced to live in penury and servitude because someone's god commands that these appalling things must happen, all in the name of freedom of religious practice.

And they should be able to use PCP, heroin, and LSD if they can find scriptural "evidence" supporting the historical use of those substances. Because religion is special and cannot be criticized.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Krioval]

Modern democratic norms has already judged the Urgenchi delegation.

- Dr. B. Castro

...favorably. Honestly, Doctor Castro, "modern democratic norms"? There are democracies out there that look nothing like yours. Thank the Gods for that.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Urgench]

Again posterity will harshly judge Dr Castro.

Modern democratic norms has already judged the Urgenchi delegation.

- Dr. B. Castro

This from the man who thinks that tribal witchdoctors should be licensed to perform genital mutilations, and that heretics must be burnt at the stake for their apostasy and that eating the flesh of sacrificial human victims should be perfectly licit, and widows should be coerced into throwing themselves on their husband's pyre, and live children stuffed up in jars and left at the tops of mountains to die of starvation or hypothermia or suffocation or some combination of all three because superstitionists must be permitted to do exactly as they please in the name of freedom of religious practice.


Dr Castro's views are horrifying and we will take no lessons from him. Until now we suspected him of being little more than extraordinarily self-aggrandising, we now suspect him of being viciously and dangerously delusional.

Yours,

[Monikian WA Mission]

Modern democratic norms has already judged the Urgenchi delegation.

- Dr. B. Castro

...favorably. Honestly, Doctor Castro, "modern democratic norms"? There are democracies out there that look nothing like yours. Thank the Gods for that.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

"Monkiah is one of those democracies Ambassador Søgård." Faliksa said.

[Quelesh]

Once more: religious freedom does not imply freedom to practice your religion in whatever way you please.

Like hell it doesn't.

That's not entirely true. It is a traditional practice of some religious groups to perform clitoridectomies on infant girls, and yet the World Assembly requires member states to prohibit this practice, regardless of the practitioners' religious beliefs. When the exercise of religious beliefs violates the rights of others (in my example, the rights of the girls on whom the clitoridectomies are performed), it is legitimate and proper for the state to curtail the practice of those beliefs.

As the use of drugs, in itself, whether sacramental or purely recreational, does not violate the rights of others, I do believe that religious persons should be able to consume drugs as part of their religious practice. However, I also believe that non-religious persons have an equal right to consume the same drugs, and that this proposal is biased in favor of the religious.

I would prefer to see a proposal that simply outright requires the legalization of recreational drug use.

[Glen-Rhodes]

When the exercise of religious beliefs violates the rights of others (in my example, the rights of the girls on whom the clitoridectomies are performed), it is legitimate and proper for the state to curtail the practice of those beliefs.

There is quite a difference, however, in saying that religious freedom has exceptions when a practice harms others (not merely 'violating the rights of others,' given the number of things we call rights) and saying that religious freedom in no way implies the freedom to practice whatever way you please. Freedom of religion certainly implies a level of being free to practice whatever way you please. The latter is said with the full understanding that religious freedom is below other 'freedoms,' that it is not a full 'freedom.' And that's certainly the direction this debate has been going for quite some time.

The huge problem I see here is that the opposition approaches this debate from a completely inappropriate point of view. They see the process here as passing a law, then giving 'special rights' to religious people. They do not see the process as passing a law that inherently violates the rights of religious people, thus requiring that the law be corrected so that it doesn't violate those rights. They see this proposal in the former, as if Christian Democrats is saying, "Religious people get to use drugs." When in actuality, he is saying, "You cannot take away the right of religious people to use drugs in their rituals."

[Vocatus]

When the exercise of religious beliefs violates the rights of others (in my example, the rights of the girls on whom the clitoridectomies are performed), it is legitimate and proper for the state to curtail the practice of those beliefs.

There is quite a difference, however, in saying that religious freedom has exceptions when a practice harms others (not merely 'violating the rights of others,' given the number of things we call rights) and saying that religious freedom in no way implies the freedom to practice whatever way you please. Freedom of religion certainly implies a level of being free to practice whatever way you please. The latter is said with the full understanding that religious freedom is below other 'freedoms,' that it is not a full 'freedom.' And that's certainly the direction this debate has been going for quite some time.

The huge problem I see here is that the opposition approaches this debate from a completely inappropriate point of view. They see the process here as passing a law, then giving 'special rights' to religious people. They do not see the process as passing a law that inherently violates the rights of religious people, thus requiring that the law be corrected so that it doesn't violate those rights. They see this proposal in the former, as if Christian Democrats is saying, "Religious people get to use drugs." When in actuality, he is saying, "You cannot take away the right of religious people to use drugs in their rituals."

Well, there are two main arguments about that point. We will allow someone else to make the argument that this would make religious beliefs somehow weightier in the eyes of the law than 'mere' strong convictions.

We will, however, dispute the extent of the right of practice. We acknowledge the right of citizens to practice religion in any way that's safe, non-disruptive, and legal. We don't acknowledge that religious people somehow have the right to use drugs in their rituals.

Basically speaking, you seem to be saying that freedom of religious practice means that religious people may practice their rituals in any way that does not harm others while we say it means that religious people may practice their rituals in any way that does not violate laws instituted for valid, secular reasons. The difference is as simple and as profound as that.

[Embolalia]

I demand that the religious right not to wear a seat belt be recognized! If my religion bans devices that would restrain me from ascending to the afterlife in the event of apocalypse, the government can not infringe upon that! And I demand that my religious structure not be forced to comply with building codes! The force of Zeus alone is enough to make our structure stand! My religious freedom includes the right to experience every inch of the planet, including the middle of freeways and abandoned buildings! If the gods should flood my town, it is their will that I should stay. We must allow the religious to disobey evacuation orders!

This may sound like hyperbole, but it's simply following the argument to its rational end. You're making an exemption from public safety laws for (groups of) people who don't believe in them. Hyperbole would be saying that you're exempting (groups of) people from any law they disagree with. Maybe Christians render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but my religion believes paying taxes is a sin, and I must be exempted.

[Urgench]

When in actuality, he is saying, "You cannot take away the right of religious people to use drugs in their rituals."

Dancing on the head of a pin and playing word games does not hide the fact that if one group within a society is exempted from an otherwise indiscriminate prohibition that such a situation is discriminative (in this case unfairly so), and that there can be no justification that religious persons must be given rights which members of no other group may have.

The law does not recognise that religious persons have special rights which other persons do not have, and nor should it.

But Dr Castro believes that religious freedom of practice is paramount and that every possible horror committed in the name of god is acceptable. With such a position there is no rational argument.

The fact of the matter is that to be religious does not give one a priori rights which other members of society do not have. To suggest such a thing is to advocate that society should discriminate against non-religious persons. That, besides being morally reprehensible, is illegal under current WA law.


Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

I demand that the religious right not to wear a seat belt be recognized! If my religion bans devices that would restrain me from ascending to the afterlife in the event of apocalypse, the government can not infringe upon that!

Although it's clear that you're being totally unreasonable and yet again going for hyperbole, seat belts aren't designed to protect other people from you. They're designed to protect you and you only. If your religion, for some reason, prohibits you from constraining yourself, then I do not see why, in a democratic society that believes in the freedom of religion, you should not be exempted for those laws.

And I demand that my religious structure not be forced to comply with building codes!

When building codes are written to unnecessarily restrict religious structures -- like minarets -- then I believe that is a violation of the freedom of religion. If you claim that you shouldn't have to retrofit your building or not use asbestos, then your claim falls short, because those laws are designed to protect other people from being injured by your building.

My religious freedom includes the right to experience every inch of the planet, including the middle of freeways and abandoned buildings!

Not if you can get hit by cars, thus doing damage to other peoples' property and causing them to incur costs at your expense. As for abandonded buildings, it's not your property, therefore you're trespassing. Let's be reasonable. Try giving an example that actually happens in the real world, if that's not too difficult.

This may sound like hyperbole, but it's simply following the argument to its rational end.

No it's not. It's taking an argument, pretending it's unbounded, and using purposeful hyperbole to spread disinformation about the original argument.

Dancing on the head of a pin and playing word games does not hide the fact that if one group within a society is exempted from an otherwise indiscriminate prohibition that such a situation is discriminative (in this case unfairly so), and that there can be no justification that religious persons must be given rights which members of no other group may have.

It's not complex. A law is passed that inherently discriminates against a religion. For that law to be legal, it has to exempt religious persons. This is how it works in a democracy. Your bastardized ideas of equality are not right and they are certainly not democratic.

[Embolalia]

Although it's clear that you're being totally unreasonable and yet again going for hyperbole, seat belts aren't designed to protect other people from you. They're designed to protect you and you only. If your religion, for some reason, prohibits you from constraining yourself, then I do not see why, in a democratic society that believes in the freedom of religion, you should not be exempted for those laws.

I think you misunderstood my argument. I was arguing quite precisely that seat belts only protect the wearer, much like how laws against drug consumption protect, among others, the consumer. What I'm now coming to see is that you think any individual who doesn't believe in a law shouldn't have to follow it.

When building codes are written to unnecessarily restrict religious structures -- like minarets -- then I believe that is a violation of the freedom of religion. If you claim that you shouldn't have to retrofit your building or not use asbestos, then your claim falls short, because those laws are designed to protect other people from being injured by your building.

I wasn't talking about minarets; that's really more a zoning issue than a building code. (And are you really going to argue for the WA getting involved in local zoning? Because that's about as micro-managing as I think you can get.) What you most definitely are arguing here is that condemning a building for structural instability shouldn't be done, if the occupants disagree. If a religious institution is structurally unsound, and the attendees recognize this, yet use the building anyway, can the government condemn it? Let's presume this is in a suburban or rural situation, where a collapse wouldn't harm other buildings or infringe on other property. Bear in mind that, as you said, unauthorized access would already be illegal.

Not if you can get hit by cars, thus doing damage to other peoples' property and causing them to incur costs at your expense. As for abandonded buildings, it's not your property, therefore you're trespassing. Let's be reasonable. Try giving an example that actually happens in the real world, if that's not too difficult.

Not all abandoned buildings are on other people's property, ambassador. Growing up, there was an old house down the road that was owned by my family. It'd been abandoned for years, and had been condemned. My brother went through a bit of a Gothy phase, and used to bring his friends there to do... whatever creepy shit they did, I don't know details. All of them knew the building was unsafe (judging by the sign that said "CONDEMNED - STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND"), they weren't trespassing, and they were performing a religious ritual. So tell me: Should that have been legal? Even though he was knowingly putting his life in danger?
(Incidentally, trespassing isn't always illegal. Examples include where an individual has been granted access to land, and depending on the jurisdiction public lands and seized lands may also not be covered by trespass. Additionally, in some jurisdictions trespass is a civil law enforced at the will of the landowner, rather than a criminal law enforced at the will of the state. The difference being, in the former case the trespass itself isn't actually breaking a law, but merely opening one's self to possible legal action.)

It's taking an argument, pretending it's unbounded, and using purposeful hyperbole to spread disinformation about the original argument.

Oh, so it is bounded? Mind telling me where the bound is, then? Would that be the example I gave of an evacuation order?

It's not complex. A law is passed that inherently discriminates against a religion. For that law to be legal, it has to exempt religious persons. This is how it works in a democracy. Your bastardized ideas of equality are not right and they are certainly not democratic.

No, Ambassador. In a democracy, all are bound by the rule of law. All are treated equally under the law. Maybe your democracy likes to enact special rules for special people, but this is not the Glen-Rhodes Assembly. This is the World Assembly. And, would it be out of line to remind you that not all of the nations here are democracies?

[Urgench]

It's not complex. A law is passed that inherently discriminates against a religion. For that law to be legal, it has to exempt religious persons. This is how it works in a democracy. Your bastardized ideas of equality are not right and they are certainly not democratic.

No indeed it is perfectly simple. All are equal in law and under its actions. Not some are more equal than others, which is the formula Dr Castro uses.

Dr Castro is obscene and offensive, his view of how society should function is perverted and depraved. By the Founder! With what outrageous effrontery does this mouthpiece of injustice parade himself as a proponent of democracy and equality? The notion that this proposal would do anything but confer special rights on those it deems special persons is utterly ridiculous. Continued distortion of reality and abundant fact in this fashion is becoming a spectacle, Dr Castro is making himself a laughingstock.

Yours,

[NERVUN]

*Ahem* May I remind the representatives that the heating in the WA building works quite well and that they need not employ heated rhetoric in an effort to stay warm?

Modly OOC: Stay frosty gang and dial it back a bit.

[NERVUN]

And here's the promised legal ruling:

*Ayawotenu Daneremackor, Acting Undersecretary for the Co-chair of the Acting Secretary General Pro-Tempore for the World Assembly, reads the following from the Secretariat’s desk*

The legal office for the SecGen has reviewed the submitted proposal and has found it legal within the current legislation and rules of the World Assembly. The question submitted was if it ran afoul of GA#35 (Charter of Civil Rights) which prevents the WA or member states from discrimination based on various grounds including religious ones.

However, the legal office notes that Article 1:c of CoCR states “All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, [/b]except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.[/b]” (Emphasis mine)

It is the viewpoint of the SecGen’s office that as “compelling practical purposes” was never fully defined and as a strong argument can be made that the current proposal falls into that area due to the impact religion has on various people, it is up to the General Assembly to decide if giving such an exception as this is of “compelling practical purposes”.

Modly OOC: In other words, the we have decided that there is enough legal wiggle room in the CoCR that it is indeed up to you guys to decide if this is an acceptable exception or not by your votes on this proposal (Assuming it reaches quorum). A note of warning though, this does NOT constitute a “Get out of the CoCR free card”. There is discrimination and then there is discrimination. To make an RL analogy, even with the 1st amendment to the US Constitution, it is perfectly legal for the government to censor the press in times of war to prevent troop movements or military secrets from being reported. It is not ok though for the president to censor a story that is unfavourable to him/her. Both are censorship, but the first is acceptable to most while the second is unacceptable to most (There are, of course, people on the far reaches who will disagree no matter what). We feel that this proposal falls in that area and that the WA itself needs to decide if it’s acceptable or not.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The Secretary-General?! Since when does she care about proposal legality? Wouldn't she be more concerned with using said entheogens in some evil scheme for global domination-through-hypnosis, or something equally screwy?

(Not trying to give the SecGen any ideas or anything; just verifying her office's somewhat irregular role in these proceedings...)

[NERVUN]

The Secretary-General?! Since when does she care about proposal legality? Wouldn't she be more concerned with using said entheogens in some evil scheme for global domination-through-hypnosis, or something equally screwy?

(Not trying to give the SecGen any ideas or anything; just verifying her office's somewhat irregular role in these proceedings...)

SecGen's office, Kenny, office. We would not dare to even think to have the possibility of presuming to even consider speaking as the Secretary-General, or for the estemed Catherine Gratwick, while we still search high and low for her.

Instead the lot of us are, very, very, very reluctantly, acting as part of the office of the SecGen and the legal team falls under that. It's a part of the budget...

er... the budget that would be a part of it should the SecGen wish to to be so and we didn't spend the money on a massive search effort leaving no stone unturned.

[The Rich Port]

The Secretary-General?! Since when does she care about proposal legality? Wouldn't she be more concerned with using said entheogens in some evil scheme for global domination-through-hypnosis, or something equally screwy?

(Not trying to give the SecGen any ideas or anything; just verifying her office's somewhat irregular role in these proceedings...)

Triumvirate #2: If such things were said by SecGen, I get the feeling they didn't need this proposal to pass to take "entheogens".

[Krioval]

The Temples of Krioval would like to announce a major discovery. Buried in the ruins of a monastery, archaeologists unearthed a codex and began to translate it. As such, we have incontrovertible proof that adherents to the Krivoaller faith used many different substances to reach ecstatic trance-like states, including coca, cannabis, opium, caffeine, nicotine, ethyl alcohol, and several hallucinogens originally thought to be first synthesized in the Terran twentieth century. We expect, should "Entheogens Legalization Act" pass, that all members of the WA will recognize the historicity of this claim, and we welcome any and all new converts, who will be afforded the right to practice their faith as allowed under the Charter of Civil Rights. Remember, it's perfectly fine if there is historical precedent.

Koro Vartek
High Priest, Temples of Krioval

[Bears Armed]

We would not dare to even think to have the possibility of presuming to even consider speaking as the Secretary-General, or for the estemed Catherine Gratwick, while we still search high and low for her.

Somebody claiming to be her was seen in the Strangers' Bar quite recently...