[ABANDONED] Religious Imperialism Proscription

[Imperium Anglorum]

How does this pass Freedom of Religion's strict scrutiny? This proposal also is not Moral Decency: Strong. Significant at most, probably Mild due to the lack of breadth.

[Daarwyrth]

How does this pass Freedom of Religion's strict scrutiny?

OOC: That is why this question was posed at the start of this thread

OOC: While I realise this is still a draft, I would like to direct the following question to the members of the GenSec: GAR #430 "Freedom of Religion" describes 'religious practice' as "any practice associated with a religion, be it practiced through rituals, prayer, or any other sort of activity, performed either individually or in a group". Would 'missionary work' fall under 'religious practice', and would, by extent, this proposal be illegal due to contradicting GAR #430?

The way I see it, the argument could be made that missionary work would be impacting a culture and societal identity by challenging the beliefs that community already holds. For example, the missionaries may preach that a community is blasphemous and condemned to hell. Individuals who then follow those beliefs within that community, aka the newly converted, may then proceed to oppose that group's existing cultural identity as they would similarly consider it sinful. This might lead to tension and subsequently disorder, due to the two groups being in conflict with one another. That is why the proposal mentioned the erasure or eradication of cultures several times.

However, Honeydew and I are highly interested in the opinion of the GenSec on this matter.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC. There exist religious groups like the Latter Day Saints (ie Mormons) who do lots of missionary work, which they relate to a biblical commandment, specifically "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations". Matt. 28:19–20. I wouldn't say it is implausible that this would be the case. Proceeding thereon, how does this policy fit strict scrutiny for your public order impact?

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

The way I see it, the argument could be made that missionary work would be impacting a culture and societal identity by challenging the beliefs that community already holds. For example, the missionaries may preach that a community is blasphemous and condemned to hell. Individuals who then follow those beliefs within that community, aka the newly converted, may then proceed to oppose that group's existing cultural identity as they would similarly consider it sinful. This might lead to tension and subsequently disorder, due to the two groups being in conflict with one another. That is why the proposal mentioned the erasure or eradication of cultures several times.

However, Honeydew and I are highly interested in the opinion of the GenSec on this matter.

OOC: I am not GenSec, but let us assume, for a moment that the above is valid (a point I am absolutely NOT conceding for a potential future legal challenge that I will make if this were to ever be submitted), how would a pre-emptive blanket complete ban on missionary work in all circumstances be the least restrictive means of achieving public order as opposed to, literally, any other method of maintaining public order, such as, say, through promoting education about the value of religious tolerance and pluralism, enforcing already existing laws, or any other method of conflict resolution and mutual accommodation one could think of?

[Barfleur]

"Barfleur, despite being a majority-irreligious nation, strongly opposes this proposal. We believe consenting adults--especially in nations which permit adults to engage in sex work, drug use, and alcohol use--have the maturity to decide for themselves what religion, or no religion, to practice. If, by hearing from a missionary, a person is convinced that one particular religion is 'true,' then that person should have the right to voluntarily adopt that religion as their own. It is quite infantilizing to tell people, especially from less-developed nations, that they are not really capable of thinking things through and making a deeply personal--and deeply meaningful--decision for themselves.

"In addition, this proposal makes the mistake of considering individuals to owe some spiritual allegiance to the religious group they happen to have been born into, rather than seeing individuals as individuals. If a person sincerely holds a faith, why does it matter whether they were born and raised (some might say indoctrinated) in that faith, or if they adopted it of their own free will as an adult? From my limited experience in this field, it is often the new converts who display the most zeal towards their new faith.

"Now, of course, I also assert the right of any nation, tribe, or individual to tell a missionary to piss off, as that is the other side of self-determination."

[Honeydewistania]

It is quite infantilizing to tell people, especially from less-developed nations, that they are not really capable of thinking things through and making a deeply personal--and deeply meaningful--decision for themselves.

It is deeply ironic to make this assertion about the proposal when this is the entire basis of missions. Missionaries have brought much pain, suffering and subjugation to the communities they claim to serve, not least through their cruel and coercive methods. Just like how it is perfectly normal and even better for people to practice religion outside of organised ones, people can and should convert without the influence of an imperialist.

-Benji

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

It is quite infantilizing to tell people, especially from less-developed nations, that they are not really capable of thinking things through and making a deeply personal--and deeply meaningful--decision for themselves.

It is deeply ironic to make this assertion about the proposal when this is the entire basis of missions. Missionaries have brought much pain, suffering and subjugation to the communities they claim to serve, not least through their cruel and coercive methods. Just like how it is perfectly normal and even better for people to practice religion outside of organised ones, people can and should convert without the influence of an imperialist.

-Benji

"Would it not be more efficient to ban coercive methods of conversion, as opposed to banning missionary work wholesale?"

[Morover]

"Although my nation supports repeal of Resolution 430, we cannot support this, which is all but a ban on all major religions from maintaining their membership. We understand what the sponsors are attempting to achieve, and find it to be nothing more than an attempt to shock member nations, from the most left-leaning to the most right-leaning, through its radicality. We find this proposal to be counter to the very purpose of the World Assembly to uphold basic freedoms, not restrict them. We see not the least practical interest in the passage of this proposal."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I don't see the so called "strict scrutiny" provision of GAR#430 as being all that cut and dried here. The relevant clause is:

"Asserts, furthermore, the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to engage in any religious practice, or to refuse to engage in said practices, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order,"

If proselytising is indeed a genuine religious practice covered by GAR#430, then the right of an individual not to engage is also protected.

Whether missionary work is actually a religious practice at all is also far from clear.

[Daarwyrth]

"It is quite infantilizing to tell people, especially from less-developed nations, that they are not really capable of thinking things through and making a deeply personal--and deeply meaningful--decision for themselves.

Zylkoven: "I sincerely hope that "less-developed nations'" was not directed at us, Ambassador. I'd like to remind you that at no point did we treat your delegation disrespectfully. We have brought this proposal draft forward to have its merit and workability discussed, and to determine a course of action based upon the commentary and feedback it'll receive."

"Although my nation supports repeal of Resolution 430, we cannot support this, which is all but a ban on all major religions from maintaining their membership. We understand what the sponsors are attempting to achieve, and find it to be nothing more than an attempt to shock member nations, from the most left-leaning to the most right-leaning, through its radicality. We find this proposal to be counter to the very purpose of the World Assembly to uphold basic freedoms, not restrict them. We see not the least practical interest in the passage of this proposal."

"No, Ambassador, the intent here has not been to shock member nations or to cause any form of ruckus. We put forward an idea for a proposal, to have its content discussed by fellow delegations to determine its merit. The course of the discussion is making it clear to us what the general sentiment is and will be towards this proposal. Our delegation has not pressed forward in such situations in the past, and you can be assured of it that we won't start doing so now. We hoped that a potential discussion about this particular subject might inspire a basis for a repeal of GAR #430. Yet, as I have already said, the intent has not been to cause shock for any sort of amusement purposes."

[Tinhampton]

Smith: If you want to repeal a resolution, repeal a resolution. Don't write a completely unrelated resolution in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, you might be able to attract enough support for a repeal of the other resolution.

[Daarwyrth]

Smith: If you want to repeal a resolution, repeal a resolution. Don't write a completely unrelated resolution in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, you might be able to attract enough support for a repeal of the other resolution.

Zylkoven: "You seem to have misunderstood our words, Delegate-Ambassador. It was not support that we were hoping to attract, but discussion. Surely, discussion is not a bad thing, or am I alone in this conviction?

As it happens, our delegation does have a repeal draft of GAR #430 at the ready, yet we are unsure whether we wish to put it forward at this point in time."

[Lord Dominator]

I’m just going completely OOC here, but feel free to treat it as IC from an ambassador that I’ve left unnamed (or just OOC, or whatever)

In relation to IA’s points about religions with some degree of encouragement to proselytize, how would you expect this to interact with those religions that have some idea that at the very least, a priest/whatever will attempt such if someone comes up to them?

Similarly, do children count as a “group” by your thinking?

Have you considered the reverse side of this, wherein members of a given religious minority seek to reach out to those who have been forcibly converted in some manner? As written, such would also seem to fall afoul, as at least some intention is towards the idea of potentially bringing them back.

[Daarwyrth]

I’m just going completely OOC here, but feel free to treat it as IC from an ambassador that I’ve left unnamed (or just OOC, or whatever)

In relation to IA’s points about religions with some degree of encouragement to proselytize, how would you expect this to interact with those religions that have some idea that at the very least, a priest/whatever will attempt such if someone comes up to them?

Similarly, do children count as a “group” by your thinking?

Have you considered the reverse side of this, wherein members of a given religious minority seek to reach out to those who have been forcibly converted in some manner? As written, such would also seem to fall afoul, as at least some intention is towards the idea of potentially bringing them back.

OOC: Yes, those are very valid points that I hadn't considered yet. Children most certainly would constitute a "group of people", as they're a distinct group. And the reverse point that you bring up is also a very good point that I didn't consider prior to this, but which is quite obvious when you think about it.

As I said, I'm not going to force through an idea that receives commentary and feedback that clearly show and tell that it's not a good idea to go forward with it. That's why I put up the draft, to attract feedback and discussion. Had I hoped on a different turn of events? Sure, like with any project anyone has ever attempted, but if this is not workable or good enough, then that's that.

[Lord Dominator]

I’m just going completely OOC here, but feel free to treat it as IC from an ambassador that I’ve left unnamed (or just OOC, or whatever)

In relation to IA’s points about religions with some degree of encouragement to proselytize, how would you expect this to interact with those religions that have some idea that at the very least, a priest/whatever will attempt such if someone comes up to them?

Similarly, do children count as a “group” by your thinking?

Have you considered the reverse side of this, wherein members of a given religious minority seek to reach out to those who have been forcibly converted in some manner? As written, such would also seem to fall afoul, as at least some intention is towards the idea of potentially bringing them back.

OOC: Yes, those are very valid points that I hadn't considered yet. Children most certainly would constitute a "group of people", as they're a distinct group. And the reverse point that you bring up is also a very good point that I didn't consider prior to this, but which is quite obvious when you think about it.

As I said, I'm not going to force through an idea that receives commentary and feedback that clearly show and tell that it's not a good idea to go forward with it. That's why I put up the draft, to attract feedback and discussion.

Fair enough all around - at the very least you’ve inspired me to potentially write my own version (maybe). I do appreciate the interesting proposal at least, much as I dislike parts.

[Daarwyrth]

Fair enough all around - at the very least you’ve inspired me to potentially write my own version (maybe). I do appreciate the interesting proposal at least, much as I dislike parts.

OOC: Thank you, I did write a draft for a repeal of GAR #430 which is in part based on the discussion here, but I think it’s better to let it sit for a while at this moment.

And I'm glad to hear I inspired you to (maybe) write your own version

EDIT: Based upon the commentary and feedback, Honeydewistania and I have decided not to go forward with this draft. Thank you all for your candor and thoughts!