[PASSED] Protecting Sites of Religious Significance

[Byzconia]

This proposal is an unnecessary waste of the WA's time and resources. If a country wants to declare a site worthy of protecting due to religious significance then that's their prerogative, but it's no business of the World Assembly's and the Assembly should certainly not be involved in enforcing it.

As such, Byzconia is voting AGAINST this proposal.

[Marxist Germany]

"I would normally vote for this but list 1 is not specified as either an 'and' or 'or' list. I am thus voting against."

[Laka Strolistandiler]

While The Holy Ministry for the Protection of The True Faith is strongly in favor of defending the things that matter, we are, unfortunately alarmed by the fact that this resolution limits acces to some religious sites. The problem is that a lot, and by that I mean up to 36 percent of our religious... institutions are military research, manufacture and other... secret stuff objects.

[Verdant Haven]

"This proposal is utter drivel. Its failure to suitably define terms, and its overly broad and sweeping definitions where it does use them, are sheer madness."

"As written, it mandates protections of the highest order for literally any building associated with some alleged 'religion,' and also for literally any grave of any person who espoused religious belief. Museums gain protection by claiming to be religious (while other museums do not), and something like a backyard shrine slapped together with mud by a child literally couldn't be torn down by a home's new owner under this insane proposal. Even an organized congregation wishing to tear down their own facility in order to build a new one on its spot would be unable to do so."

"Given that it additionally offers no definition of religion, and mandates equal treatment of all, a single person in a bathrobe screaming from their balcony that they are the second coming of Dennis Rodman would gain the same protections on their apartment (foundational site of a religion) as would be offered to a millenium old cathedral or mosque that is the central focus for a billion active worshipers."

"This has naught to do with Civil Rights, and everything to do with madness. I cannot fathom that this proposal is anything other than a deliberate attempt to inflict some kind of anarcho-theocracy upon the nations of the World Assembly."

[Ardiveds]

"Ambassador, we agree with the concerns of the Verdant Haven's delegate. We shall have to vote against since there is nothing in this resolution stopping people from declaring themselves god/prophet and declaring random objects and places holy, since you never defined 'relgion'."

[Handiyan]

Opposed. My main concern lies with 2. The creation of an, "Office for the Protection of Religious Sites, hereafter noted as the OPRS..." This OPRS will only serve as a focal point for discrimination of minority religious groups. I wholeheartedly support the sentiments stated by my honourable colleague, "Whether any site ought to be treated as significant to any particular religion should be determined by the leaders of that religion, not a Big, Unwieldy Piece of WA."

[Verdant Haven]

"As has additionally been pointed out to me by one of my colleagues, this proposal utterly devalues historic, aesthetic, and cultural concerns, including those of traditionally under-represented groups like indigenous people, in favor of religious sentiment. It is a well-recorded fact that many a missionary organization has, at points in its history, made a concerted to effort to construct religious facilities atop spaces of cultural significance for groups they seek to convert or oppress. By the misguided policies of this proposal, such destructive and colonialist constructions would be protected as sacrosanct, maugre the wishes of any people or group that came before."

"Why should not this proposal instead have promoted the protection of places of outstanding cultural, historical, and aesthetic significance instead? Such a proposal would inherently protect important religious structures and sites, and would permit national and local authorities to consider the realities of their situation, as opposed to ham-handedly proclaiming the superiority and unique authority of faith-based entities. This smacks of being an attempt to force religious supremacy upon the world."

"I have added my voice to the legality challenge currently underway, and depending on response or procedures, may file my own as well on the basis that this proposal contradicts or overlaps with multiple extent resolutions."

[Legit Freedom]

“Clause 6a I have a few issues with, mainly because it doesn’t contain any exemptions. If a very religious ancient civilisation previously occupied the area in which a member state has recently grown, this clause could make it impossible for that member state to build virtually any large-scale building projects. Likewise, if a theocratic state invaded a member nation’s territory and placed a large religious monument there, the invaded country is forced to live with that monument in perpetuity.

Also, there’s no exception for a religious site on somebody’s private property, nor on top of a vast reserve of natural material, nor to remove something on a religious site that poses a significant security or health risk, nor for any other compelling purposes.”

I'd also like to point out that historical places such as ones in say Egypt had religious significance to someone at some point, and arguably could still to this day. Would this potentially exempt governmentally approved excavations that would later put religious relics in museums where they would be respected for?
if that is the case, this could be a big step towards preserving historical artifacts as well, since religious relics tend to also be historical in nature too

[Rothnia]

As the leader of a communist nation, I must vote against this resolution. Religion has no place in Rothnia.

[DetroitSmash]

"Clause 2A states nations would need to: 'Work with faith leaders to identify and designate sites of religious significance to presently practiced religions, especially those which have significant meaning to, or are are focuses of worship of, a presently practiced religion;'. While I understand religions should have the right to worship at religious sites, it is not my responsibility as a nation to protect the religious landmarks named by national or foreign religions. This can easily be abused by people claiming to be leaders of a faith to gain protection over land under religious pretenses. Religion is highly subjective, as it is a BELIEF system, not a system of facts, and as such anyone could claim a specific portion of land falls under importance in their religion."

"In clause 2B it mandates us to 'Work with member nations to develop an effective plan to protect designated sites of religious significance;'. DetroitSmash should not be responsible for the upkeeping of sites of religious significance which we have no needed involvement with. Freedom of religion is important to us, but there is a quite clear divide between the separation of religion and state. The restoration and protection of sites should be dependent on a nation to nation basis, and religious upkeeping shouldn't be imposed on the members of the WA."

"I do not want to waste my taxpayers' money on religious endeavors which could be highly abused.
DetroitSmash is opposed to this resolution."

[JC Cavs]

While I would normally agree with protecting various religious locations and aspects, I do not see the need for the World Assembly in this instance. I believe that if a state wanted to deem a religious site of needing protection, that should involve that state and its local governments. In my opinion, this issue does not require the attention or resources from the World Assembly, so because of that, I am against this. However, that does not mean I’m against this idea if it were to be implemented at a smaller level, like at individual state and locally within a state.

[American Pere Housh]

"While this proposal has some flaws, I have decided to vote for it. If you have a problem with my vote then contact Chancellor Jones about it."

[Tamrielic States]

I personally think matters of religious significance should be left up to leaders and how they view religious sites in their own country.

[The Greater Soviet North America]

Recipient(s): The Republic of Boston Castle Encryption: Diplomatic- Level 10 Sender(s): Secretary of the Department for Ecclesiastical Affairs Subject: Protecting Sites Of Religious Significance To whom it may concern, After having analyzed the text and wording of the proposed legislation which your country has written and submitted, the Department for Ecclesiastical Affairs of the People's Republic of the Greater Soviet North America continues to question on how this resolution would affect the Greater Soviet North America's stance on what it appears to be an effort to advance international religious freedom. Our country recognizes, respects and guarantees religious freedom. Religious institutions are separated from the State and all have the same rights and duties, where different beliefs and religions are given equal consideration. But while we acknowledge the purpose of the State to protect the natural, historical and cultural heritage of the nation, the resolution does not ensure the preservation of sites and structures that possess a special significance (whether natural, historical or cultural) for the people as a whole. Instead, the resolution appears to only prioritize the protection of landmarks and areas considered by a religious community as sacred or to possess special sanctity. As representative of the interests of the people and of the Office of the Eternal President Isaac Rutherford, we lament that this resolution appears to undermine our country's aspiration for the mutual respect between States for the independence and sovereignty of peoples and their right to self determination, which is expressed in the freedom to chose their social and cultural system. We believe that this resolution is an attempt to intervene with the integrity of States and the cultural elements of nations. Kindest Regards Rudolf Clinton, Secretary of the Department for Ecclesiastical Affairs

[San Guglielmo]

Finding the proposal virtually acceptable, with the exception of 4 b, i.e., "private property rights" vs "a site of religious significance". What about indigenous peoples' sacred grounds where a dominant culture had built residences or businesses? 4 b holds (in so many words) that any legal right to a native people in reclaiming their sacred site is "in violation of [the] resolution".

[Kenmoria]

“I find myself fully in agreement with the ambassador from Verdant Haven, so shan’t repeat the points raised; they should be easily viewable in the transcript. I will add, however, that this is a shame, because protecting sites of important to cultural groups seems like exactly the sort of thing the GA should be doing more of. With a broader focus and a bit more refinement, this would be an excellent piece of legislation. At the moment, however. I am sadly against the proposal.”

[Tarturous]

You want us to allow our citizens to be indoctrinated in false ways, to earns Gods burning flame for all eternity?

[Tarturous]

You think we should protect sites where people worship the devil in his minions? You want unholy shrines to lead people to eternal torment?

[Tinfect]

You want us to allow our citizens to be indoctrinated in false ways, to earns Gods burning flame for all eternity?

You think we should protect sites where people worship the devil in his minions? You want unholy shrines to lead people to eternal torment?

OOC:
Yes on both counts. Personally I cannot wait to see the lake of fire; I hear you get a good char going after the first thousand lifetimes.

[Eluney]

“Eluney will accompany this proposal with the total conviction that it is an initiative that is consistent with our historical values and commitments in favor of religious tolerance and the protection of all the diversity of beliefs in our Nation”.

Mr. Carlos Alejandro Herrera.
Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Eluney to the World Assembly.

[Kenmoria]

Protecting Sites of Religious Significance was passed 9,548 votes to 5,263.

(OOC: Congratulations, Boston Castle.)

[Honeydewistania]

Protecting Sites of Religious Significance was passed 9,548 votes to 5,263.

(OOC: Congratulations, Boston Castle.)

Let the repeals begin