[Draft] Freedom of Religious Exemption

[Attancia]

OOC: This is a draft, feedback is welcome.

Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Significant

Attancian Department of World Assembly Conundrums

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that throughout the Universe, many religious practitioners feel obliged to abstain from activities that conflict with their beliefs; but

Sadly noting that many nations force these activities upon religious practitioners;

Stating that this noble assembly has made persistent progress in the field of Human Rights, and that allowing Religious Practitioners the freedom to abide by their views would be a significant addition to the World Assembly's Human Rights streak;

The General Assembly Hereby;

1. Creates the World Assembly Religious Registry (WARR) to individually investigate every available native and international religions to maintain a publicly available registrar of them;

2. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:

1. Official Religion as a registered religion within the WARR registrar,
2. Religious Practitioner as a citizen of a member-state that practices an official religion,
3. Activity as a ritual, career, or action;

3. Affirms the right to abstain from activities that will unquestionably conflict with a Religious Practitioners religious beliefs; unless

1. The activity will result in a mutually beneficial outcome,
2. The activity will benefit the state as a whole,
3. The activity will benefit the international community;

I'm fairly sure that this doesn't contradict GA#430 Clause 3, as it states that a person may be free from religious practices even if the state mandates it, NOT that a person may be free to abstain from an activity that conflicts with their beliefs.

[Tinhampton]

1. The category was renamed Civil Rights a couple of years ago.
2. Why do you need to go to the lengths of creating a big, unwieldy piece of WA (with apologies to Araraukar) that records the name of every single religion in the multiverse solely to guarantee their practitioners freedom of belief?
3. The army of Bigtopia, a WA member state, believes that it is "benefi[cial to] the state as a whole" to engage in a war against Smalltopia which is intended to result in the mass genocide of the Smalltopian population. David, a lowly private in the Bigtopian army, cites his religious beliefs as a reason to abstain from this war. Why should he be compelled to engage in genocide when doing so would contravene both his own beliefs and international law?

Suggested rewording (yes, that's all of it; please credit Tinhampton as a co-author if you do choose to use the below):

The General Assembly hereby forbids member states from compelling any person to engage in an activity that unquestioningly conflicts with their religious beliefs; unless such compulsion is required to ensure compliance with international law, or is otherwise deemed to be absolutely necessary in the interests of public order or health.

[Alba and Cymru]

"The ambassadors from Alba and Cymru are willing to help you 100% with the shaping of this proposal. We believe that this will coincide with the Military Identification Tag Act to resolve the concerns that a minority of nations have been voicing."

[Kenmoria]

"The ambassadors from Alba and Cymru are willing to help you 100% with the shaping of this proposal. We believe that this will coincide with the Military Identification Tag Act to resolve the concerns that a minority of nations have been voicing."

(OOC: This raises a crucial flaw with this proposal. Proposals cannot contradict past resolutions, no matter what. This means that any passed resolution that mandates a certain course of action will contradict this proposal.)

[Alba and Cymru]

"The ambassadors from Alba and Cymru are willing to help you 100% with the shaping of this proposal. We believe that this will coincide with the Military Identification Tag Act to resolve the concerns that a minority of nations have been voicing."

(OOC: This raises a crucial flaw with this proposal. Proposals cannot contradict past resolutions, no matter what. This means that any passed resolution that mandates a certain course of action will contradict this proposal.)

OOC: This will not "contradict" the Military Identification Act. The resolution which this could cause friction with is GA resolution 430. Even then, this is tackling a separate issue.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: This raises a crucial flaw with this proposal. Proposals cannot contradict past resolutions, no matter what. This means that any passed resolution that mandates a certain course of action will contradict this proposal.)

OOC: This will not "contradict" the Military Identification Act. The resolution which this could cause friction with is GA resolution 430. Even then, this is tackling a separate issue.

(OOC: If the Military Identification Act mandates that all soldiers do X, and this allows soldiers not to do X, then there is a contradiction.)

[Alba and Cymru]

OOC: This will not "contradict" the Military Identification Act. The resolution which this could cause friction with is GA resolution 430. Even then, this is tackling a separate issue.

(OOC: If the Military Identification Act mandates that all soldiers do X, and this allows soldiers not to do X, then there is a contradiction.)

OOC: I'm under the impression that this bill aims to allow peoples of varying religions to forgo military service and other activities based on religious reasons.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: If the Military Identification Act mandates that all soldiers do X, and this allows soldiers not to do X, then there is a contradiction.)

OOC: I'm under the impression that this bill aims to allow peoples of varying religions to forgo military service and other activities based on religious reasons.

(OOC: Are you saying that this bill would allow people to opt out of national military service, as opposed to opting out of wearing tags? If so, then I apologise for the misunderstanding, but that doesn’t solve the issue of this proposal contradicting a lot of passed resolutions.)

[Alba and Cymru]

OOC: I'm under the impression that this bill aims to allow peoples of varying religions to forgo military service and other activities based on religious reasons.

(OOC: Are you saying that this bill would allow people to opt out of national military service, as opposed to opting out of wearing tags? If so, then I apologise for the misunderstanding, but that doesn’t solve the issue of this proposal contradicting a lot of passed resolutions.)

OOC: Yes, that was the notion I was going for. And I am aware of the inherent flaws in this primordial bill, which is why I'm offering to help the author amend this proposal so that it is effective and compliant with all resolutions.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Are you saying that this bill would allow people to opt out of national military service, as opposed to opting out of wearing tags? If so, then I apologise for the misunderstanding, but that doesn’t solve the issue of this proposal contradicting a lot of passed resolutions.)

OOC: Yes, that was the notion I was going for. And I am aware of the inherent flaws in this primordial bill, which is why I'm offering to help the author amend this proposal so that it is effective and compliant with all resolutions.

(OOC: That’s good to hear. Adding ‘pursuant with existing World Assembly legislation’, or wording to that effect, somewhere in the proposal should fix that issue.)

[Attempted Socialism]

"Why should we ever credit religion with an exemption that is not also given to any other citizen? Why should we give religious practitioners increased rights, just because they are deluded? I don't get what this draft attempts to solve."

[Alba and Cymru]

"Why should we ever credit religion with an exemption that is not also given to any other citizen? Why should we give religious practitioners increased rights, just because they are deluded? I don't get what this draft attempts to solve."

"My fellow ambassador, I'm appalled at what I'm hearing. Faith is a matter of individual freedom. Calling a religious adherent "deluded" for his or her beliefs is quite derogatory and equates to speaking maliciously of other demographics.

"I believe this proposal is very well-meaning. It aims to allow people of pacifist beliefs to abstain from violent affairs, such as the military. With time, this draft will be amended and updated to specify which institutions this will apply to as well as who this applies to."

[Tinhampton]

(OOC: If the Military Identification Act mandates that all soldiers do X, and this allows soldiers not to do X, then there is a contradiction.)

OOC: I'm under the impression that this bill aims to allow peoples of varying religions to forgo military service and other activities based on religious reasons.

GA#132 "Military Freedom Act."

[Alba and Cymru]

OOC: I'm under the impression that this bill aims to allow peoples of varying religions to forgo military service and other activities based on religious reasons.

GA#132 "Military Freedom Act."

OOC: It seems I have overlooked this. Honest mistake.

IC: "Very well, then. With this issue already resolved, I must withdraw my support from this proposal."

[Attempted Socialism]

"Why should we ever credit religion with an exemption that is not also given to any other citizen? Why should we give religious practitioners increased rights, just because they are deluded? I don't get what this draft attempts to solve."

"My fellow ambassador, I'm appalled at what I'm hearing. Faith is a matter of individual freedom. Calling a religious adherent "deluded" for his or her beliefs is quite derogatory and equates to speaking maliciously of other demographics.

"I believe this proposal is very well-meaning. It aims to allow people of pacifist beliefs to abstain from violent affairs, such as the military. With time, this draft will be amended and updated to specify which institutions this will apply to as well as who this applies to."

"If it aims to give people of pacifist beliefs that option, why not give that option to everyone? Or even give it on the basis of pacifism? Just because someone has a false belief in something entirely fictional is no reason to gain an exemption that is not offered to everyone else. Again, I don't see the problem that is solved here, and I can easily imagine several new problems that are created."

[Ardiveds]

"Ambassador, does this allow the government or an organisation to terminate an individual's employment if they refuse to do what their job requires of them? For instance, a waiter who refuses to serve customers of a certain group because their religion discriminates against said group or a person in a abortion clinics refusing to do his/her job because their religion prohibits abortion."
--- Kaiser