"Equalize Freedom of Religion"
Please vote for it. If it fails, I am willing to rewrite it to get it passed. Just post your suggestions here.
We were wondering if a positive spin could be possible. Instead of restricting religious symbols and practice, why not liberalize it and allow all to demonstate their "religiousness"?
Restrictions should only be placed for activities occouring on Goverment property.
Just our 2 cents
Just so everyone knows this is the proposal:
Equalize Freedom of Religion
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Thousand Caves
Description: This is a quite simple corollary to freedom of religion. Simply put, this resolution prohibits the restriction of religious groups, icons, or monuments if the sole considerable complaint against them is that they are "offending" someone. Too often shrilly labeling a religion, its practices, or its icons as offensive is used to unduly restrict other people's basic rights.
Other terms:
- No public spaces will be forcibly purged of or protected from religious icons, monuments, or events except where other laws will be or are being broken by their presence. Government run religious centers and all private entities are exempt from this provision.
- Cases of this type are guaranteed a day in court, if desired by at least one party.
- If the judge or jury (as per local custom) decides against the party being banned under the provision "except where other laws will be or are being broken by their presence," an appeal is guaranteed to challenge the law itself, along with the ruling.
- This proposal supercedes "separation of church and state," if it exists, with the caveat that it has no effect on any state endorsed religion or lack thereof.
- "Other laws" may, at the rare decision of the judge, include such concerns of building administrators as traffic disruption, structural considerations, maintenence costs, and other such wholly practical concerns to prevent public spaces and services from being damaged or subjected to undue downtimes from an influx of monuments, events, and the like.
- This resolution does not work without an existing right to freedom of religion, and as such applies only to nations where freedom of religion exists. It is instated or removed automatically if freedom of religion is put in place or revoked at a later time. (You'd get the boost to your civil rights rating immediately upon passage of the bill either way, of course.)
Approvals: 1 (The Thousand Caves)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 139 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Thu Jan 15 2004
A agree and will add my name to the list of approvals. :P
I think it should be revised. The "This proposal supercedes "separation of church and state," " quote bothers me, because nothing should supercede that fundamental separation. I also do not believe that if a vast number of people are offended by something it should be left up. Should a Nazi flag be allowed to fly in a Jewish neighborhood?
Also, isn't "Cases of this type are guaranteed a day in court, if desired by at least one party. " a little bit contradictory to current laws? Everyone case gets it's day in court, why does this need to be written in?
Instead of restricting religious symbols and practice, why not liberalize it and allow all to demonstate their "religiousness"?
That's what this does, this just closes a couple loopholes by which some people are getting their rights circumvented while trying not to create too many more, unexpected, loopholes.
Also, isn't "Cases of this type are guaranteed a day in court, if desired by at least one party. " a little bit contradictory to current laws? Everyone case gets it's day in court, why does this need to be written in?"
Just an assurance, to prevent this kind of thing from being directed around the courts to some comittee or whatever. A lot of those extra notes are attempts at foreseeing whatever obstacles the law might face. I hope I caught most of them, but I probably didn't seeing as how this is my first ever proposal. (Yay!)
The "This proposal supercedes "separation of church and state," " quote bothers me, because nothing should supercede that fundamental separation. I also do not believe that if a vast number of people are offended by something it should be left up. Should a Nazi flag be allowed to fly in a Jewish neighborhood?
Don't forget that caveat I put in. It would have no practical effect on the operation of the government, whether you have a theocracy or a religiously sterile government; it is only there to prevent (for example and if I may bring real life into this) the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from a courtroom just because of those five little words (or the removal of all mention of Christmas from public schools, so on and so on, insert your favorite religious snub here). One still hangs in the US Supreme Court last I looked, but it really isn't affecting things.
If you are really worried about Nazi flags or whatever, you could (1)refuse to recognize Nazism as a religion using your existing laws for recognizing religions, or (2) just write a law banning *static* displays of hate in your country (not hate speech necessarily--let the idiots march if they want), then block their attempts under "except where other laws will be or are being broken by their presence." Then they would have to challenge in court, and no court will strike down that law. There you go.
Or (I just got this from a documentary on neo-nazis) just go up to them and ask what they would want in exchange for not pursuing that tactic, and try to meet them halfway. It worked once, could work again.