NationStates Jolt Archive

The "Religion and Free Will Act" (RaFWA) is a SET of government regulations that will ensure the right to believe or not believe in any religion (belief system around one, multiple or no deity or any entity).


CONSIDERING that one person's religious beliefs are to be decided by nobody but that person,
OBSERVING how religion is used in several countries as a tool of manipulation instead of a way towards enlightenment or moral values,
ASSUMING that a person who can not be held responsable in the eyes of the law for fellonies or other crimes has not formed a sense of right and wrong,
ASSUMING that the main reason behind religion-based hatered is lack of communication or understanding,
CONCLUDING that religion should not be legally responsable for one follower's actions,


WE PROPOSE THAT:

1. UN Member nations are REQUIRED to create a "Department of Beliefs and Religions" (DoBaR), that will be responsable for registering all religions. DoBaR will be required to:
- provide a full list of registered religions and their belief system summary to anybody who requests it
- provide a full, detailed information on the belief system of any registered religion to anybody who requests it, after charging a small fee covering expenses

2. To register a religion, the founder should submit to the DoBaR:
- a summary of the religion's belief system
- a complete set of copies of all texts or otherwise relevant items related to the religion
- a statement which will show all discrepancies between the State's legal system and the religion's belief system AND measures that are being taken to ensure compliance with the State laws
- a list containing at least one (legally responsable) follower of that religion besides the founder

3. DoBaR will register any religion that has succesfully submitted the documentation presented on point 2, after a thorough investigation of the submitted documents and after confirming their legality.

4. Governments should NOT act in support of any registered religion by making it mandatory to follow that religion's belief system, nor should it discriminate against any followers of any religion.

5. Governments should NOT act in detriment of any registered religion by forbidding it on their territory, UNLESS that religion's belief system contradicts the laws of the State.

6. Every legally "responsable" citizen has the right to communicate or not communicate to the DoBaR the apartenence to any registered religion. However, when communicating affiliation to a certain registered religion to DoBaR, a confirmation from an official representative of that religion is required to validate the follower status.

7. All citizens that are not of legal responsability age or have been declared irresponsable for their actions under the eyes of the law are FORBIDDEN (responsability of legal guardian) to attend the religious services of ONLY a single registered religion if more than one other exists that has at least 50% followers with the DoBaR compared to the other
AND has a site in which religious services are held within a reasonable distance from the home of the person in question.

9. Any religion that was found in breach of compliance with the registration documentation shall be erased from the records once such breach has been legally proven.

10. Any nation is free to implement RaFWA as it sees fit, within the bounds of its own law system, as long as it does not contradict any of the above points.

Religious Tolerance

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Athine

Description: Whereas, Freedom of Religion does not exist in all countries in the world. Whereas, Too many wars are started and fought because of religious differences. Whereas, There is a need for more religious tolerance on Earth. Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion. Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion.

This is a passed resolution regarding religion ... it my be of note to tack in the line " REMEMBERING Religious Tolerance, passed by U.N. majority on the .... " ...

I do wonder about this proposal, in regards to governments/nations which are avowadly atheist ... Also religions should have a set minimum number of proven followers before official recognition ... I know in Real Life Australia ... I think a religion must have itself recorded on the national census at least in 15 000 cases before it is recognised, and almost every census, the running joke in the news media is how many people will pick Jedi knight-hood, but fail to get it recognised again and again, ;)

NOTE: Religion = belief system around one, multiple or no deity or any entity -> that includes atheism, agnosticism, etc.


Note how the resolution separates :
a) REGISTERED religions (requiring one founder and at least one follower plus full info on religion)
b) PROTECTED religions (only those that are registered AND don't break the law in any way)
c) UNPROTECTED religions (any registered religions that DO break the laws in any form OR unregistered religions)
d) EXPOSURE (required) to multiple religions for "not yet responsable" citizens, based on relative *self-registered* followers amount and "preferred" religion

IMHO the resolution is a bit cumbersome... The original text was MUCH larger and more explicit, however due to size limitations I had to cut it down to this what you see above.

You can have a registered yet unprotected religion, but it could become protected once your local laws change.
I tried to make it as "flexible" as possible, so it will fit any government style, YET enhance the rights any person or group has (on one side), and minimise "fanaticism" by exposure of "unprepared minds" to at least two different major religions (or at least of comparable size to the one that person would have followed if left unattended). Note as it also says that ANY person can join ANY religion.

Ironically, this resolution has the potential to interfere with religious freedom. The whole registration process seems unnecessary and article 6 might very well trample on it. For example, the Roman Catholic Church might want to exclude people who support abortion from its registry.

The more obvious issue is article 7, forcing parents to send their children to worship services of another religion. To put it lightly, this is insane and is likely to ignite HUGE religious unrest. Some religions believe anyone who attends a worship service of another religion should be branded a heretic or an apostate and punished. Parents who are members of such a religion would be compelled by law to make their children apostates in the eyes of their religion.

Even those religions which don't have laws to that effect are likely to strike out. For an example I can just point you to the Christian fundamentalism in the United States. Many people were upset by such a tiny thing as the ruling against prayer in schools, can you imagine what would happen if you forced their children to go to synagogues and mosques? If you tried to do this in the real world, I guarentee half the world will be engulfed in civil unrest involving firebombs, at the very least. I'm thinking multiple crusades/jihads and bombings of places of worship here. And what about athiests who don't want their children "indoctrinated" by the churches?

Yes, people should be exposed to different religions and different beliefs, but the answer is education, not forcing them to go to worship services.

The registration process is merely a formality, as it ONLY requires to make PUBLIC your religion's beliefs (as its representative of it, in the case of the "traditional" Roman Christian Church, the legal representative of the founder would be the Pope) and the "material" used to educate followers in the religion (that being "The Bible").
Article 6 requires the approval of the religion's (local) representative (the church priest in this example) to have you as follower of the religion. You can't be a *registered* follower of a religion if the priest doesn't accept you as one, now can you ? You can be, however, an *unregistered* follower, and that still protects your rights to believe what you want to believe... but not getting approval might mean you're not allowed in the church in the first place, now wouldn't it ?


However, you DO bring an interesting argument regarding point 7 :)
Let's review the formulation...

"All citizens that are not of legal responsability age or have been declared irresponsable for their actions under the eyes of the law are FORBIDDEN (responsability of legal guardian) to attend the religious services of ONLY a single registered religion if more than one other exists that has at least 50% followers with the DoBaR compared to the other AND has a site in which religious services are held within a reasonable distance from the home of the person in question."

NOTE: It only applies to persons that are NOT yet "legally responsable" for a fellony they commit. In most civilised states, that age is pretty low if you ask me ;)


Possible "ok with the resolution" scenarios, that circumvent that problem you just illustrated:

a) you don't attend ANY religious services at all as long as you are under "legally responsable" age (which can be anywhere from 0 to 21 depending on your Nation's laws).

b) your religion has over 67% of the total registered followers and you only attend that (there's not much of an escape there, right? the vast majority...)

c) depending on the implementation of the phrasing "reasonable distance from home", you might be able to move to a community where NO OTHER religions coming under the influence of the RoFWAct (at least half as many registered followers as your own) have a "site in which religious services are held", hence you are again not required to attend ;)

...and I'm sure there's a lot of other "escape gates" that will not force you to do anything against your religion.

You might argue that this brings further separation, and you are indeed right. HOWEVER, if one such religion is so "non-indulgent" with its followers as to not allow them to ASSIST to another religion's services, you might better have them separated physically to AVOID any direct conflicts in the first place... problem solved. Hehe.

I'm sure I overlooked a few details... but that's why we DO have these forums, to clear them... right ? ;)

a) you don't attend ANY religious services at all as long as you are under "legally responsable" age (which can be anywhere from 0 to 21 depending on your Nation's laws).

Many, many people will have problems with that. Religion is a very sensitive issue for many people. Laws of this kind also have the potential to create problems with constitutions which mandate secularity - religion shouldn't interfere with the government and vice versa.

b) your religion has over 67% of the total registered followers and you only attend that (there's not much of an escape there, right? the vast majority...)

Another thing this raises, this won't have any effect in theocracies which force 100% adherence to one religion in their law.

c) depending on the implementation of the phrasing "reasonable distance from home", you might be able to move to a community where NO OTHER religions coming under the influence of the RoFWAct (at least half as many registered followers as your own) have a "site in which religious services are held", hence you are again not required to attend.

Our issue is with anyone being forced to attend any religious service against their will just to comply with the law. I can see lots of problems with this happening. One, other religions will see an opportunity to gain converts and they can stick a church in a Muslim neighbourhood, for example, forcing children to attend their services.

Another thing is that you create entire communities which are almost totally mono-religious, a ripe fermenting ground for extremism and intolerance. Not a good thing. Having diversity and a potluck of cultures and religions has worked wonderfully for us in terms of avoiding that. Physically seperating religious groups is likely to make a bad situation worse, like trying to put out a fire by pouring beer on it.

I think this really isn't a good idea.

Someone can just loophole and say they only have one religion. What then? (this is in the case of some idiot modding an entire nation w/ only one religion, haha)

Christian fundamentalism in the United States. Many people were upset by such a tiny thing as the ruling against prayer in schools, can you imagine what would happen if you forced their children to go to synagogues and mosques?
You can't even imagine. You should hear the extremists on teaching evolution. They even bomb abortion clinics. (ironicaly killing the baby they were "saving" but it's a separate issue...) If you forced them to practice a alternate religion, esp. ones that don't believe in their Christ... oh help me. Or even Jews in catholic churches. It's like telling a Polish family to have pork with Hitler.

Yes, people should be exposed to different religions and different beliefs, but the answer is education, not forcing them to go to worship services.
Agreed.

The "Religion and Free Will Act"
AND THEN READ CAPS.
7. All citizens that are not of legal responsability age or have been declared irresponsable for their actions under the eyes of the law are FORBIDDEN (responsability of legal guardian) TO ATTEND THE RELIGIOUS SERVICES OF ONLY A SINGLE REGISTERED RELIGION if more than one other exists that has at least 50% followers with the DoBaR compared to the other
AND has a site in which religious services are held within a reasonable distance from the home of the person in question.

<cough> "Give them choice by force. It is good for them, and while you're at it, ban them from their main religion" Ironic. I thought this was to free religions. Not force them. What if the child doesn't want to attend some other religion (I know so many kids who are devout catholics, etc.)? Oh, right. They aren't legally responsible. They're just stupid kids. And the whole thing where they might not want to. Like Jews and Hitler for bacon, right? And then the percentages. I'm up at 8 in the morning on summer break to look at statistic style PERCENTAGES! " AGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!You don't need math for fine print. Just say they should be taught in school about more than one religion. (This is beeter because you can teach about religions in other nations, increasing "diversity") As long as it's more than say, two religions which ARE NOT based on the same basic belief. EG. Catholicism and Presbyteriansm are both Christian sects, yet separate in a way. BAD. A GOOD would be Islam and Hinduism or something like that. And they can't take the religion of their parents.

It started good and then got stupid. Not to mention that its already been passed in the UN.

My first initial reaction is one based on fear ... my government normally doesn't like to see the word "REQUIRES" in a resolution, especially when the proposal talks about creating branches of government.

The Confederated City States of Mikitivity doesn't use the word "Department" for our administrative areas. We have Councils and Committees. I hope this illustrates that you are using this proposal not to deal with international problems, but a host of domestic ones ... and all of this could be easily scaled back by changing words like "REQUIRES" to "RECOMMENDS".

At least that is a starting point I'd like you to propose to your government.

Well, the sumbission of this resulution might have been a bit hasty.
If it fails to acheive quorum, please feel free to modify it to more "plausible" terms that will ensure that:
a) each person is allowed to have any religion he chooses to (even none), or for that matter start his own religion... as long he doesn't violate any OTHER national law as "this nation has only one religion".
and
b) no person should be subjected to religious indoctrination BEFORE his "legal responsability" age in that country from a SINGLE religion if adepts of different religions coexist in the same nation

The name of the "Department of Beliefs and Religions" (DoBaR) is merely a guideline, feel free to rename it however you see fit according to your own government's nomenclatory... as long as its function remains the same.


HOWEVER... as companion to this resolution, an issue could be generated that will appear as soon as this resolution is approved (if ever reaching vote), that will simply allow a LOWERING the "legal responsability" age for religion-related matters to 0 years of age (i.e. bypass application of point 7 of the resolution altogether for that nation).

b) no person should be subjected to religious indoctrination BEFORE his "legal responsability" age in that country from a SINGLE religion if adepts of different religions coexist in the same nation


Huh? Does this mean parents can't teach their children about religion? Because they are almost certainlky underage at some point, and I think some may consider it "indoctrination" (not me). But I think maybe a little more specification as to what sources are not allowed to religiously indoctrinate is in order. We need to take into account and protect the role of the family in this, as it is the fundamental unit of society.

That point is only about religious indoctrination performed by an official representative of the religion (i.e. a priest, rabbi or symillar persons).
What the family choses to teach his own children is their own problem.
A curious exception might exist in the case of a father who IS an official representative of a religion, case that should be handled as any nation sees fit.

As you can see from the LAST point of the resolution (point 10), any nation is free to conform to the RaFWA as it sees fit and within the boundaries of its own legal system, AS LONG AS it doesn't directly contradict any of the other point's basic specifications.

That is like saying you can name your "DoBaR" in any way you like and symillar stuff... you can set a bare minimum of registered followers for registration to more than two (even as high as the current count of your population)... all you HAVE to do (basically) is allow religions to register according to the base rules set here which you will define more clearly for youself... and allow anybody to follow any of the registered religions, while not FORCING anybody to chose a certain religion as long as alternatives exist.

The name of the "Department of Beliefs and Religions" (DoBaR) is merely a guideline, feel free to rename it however you see fit according to your own government's nomenclatory... as long as its function remains the same.


Would you consider also changing the word "REQUIRES" to "RECOMMENDS" in connection with that clause? And when you say "Department of Beliefs and Religions" how about instead saying a department or office responsible for "Beliefs and Religions"?

It would should flexibility and bring the focus away from the office and more to the ideals of the proposal.

Having just read the 10 pages of proposals, I must say that I do honestly count yours as one of the better prepared ones we are seeing. There are a few proposals that the Mods need to delete (not yours), because I'm seeing people proposing things we've already passed as resolutions: example legalize prostitution. It is up there again?!!??

Maybe it's me, but I have NO IDEA what this resolution is supposed to be doing.

UN resolutions already have been passed about freedom of religion and preventing discrimination.

"Religion = belief system around one, multiple or no deity or any entity -> that includes atheism, agnosticism, etc."

Please explain to me how atheism is "belief system around one, multiple or no deity or any entity."

I am atheist and I have never been a part of any system around something I don't believe in. What system would that be?

As I see it, everyone has the freedom of believing what they want to. There is nothing wrong with people teaching children of what they believe in.
HOWEVER: there is a line between freedom of religion and violating the rights of others, be it children, women, homosexuals or whoever.
Religions that teach that men are superior to women, limit rights of women, spread hatred towards others (religious or simply individuals) or say that homosexuals are no better than pigs (and believe me, those religions exists) CAN BE OUTLAWED based on the fact that they violate disrcrimination laws, also passed by the UN.

I see no use for the registration system whatsoever. Based on existing legislation, you can arrest (and punish if you think you must) people who - with religious motives or not - violate the rights of others.

You should judge people on what they do, not on what they have written down 2000 years ago and not on what they listen to on Sundays (or whatever day is "their day"). It's not important which 'group' or 'club' they belong to. I see no use of registring any of that.
In my nation, any religious leader calling gays pigs will be arrested and charged with discrimination and promoting hatred towards gays. It's not important what religion he claims to be of, it won't make a difference in how we should judge him.

Freedom of religion ends where the hate or discrimination of others begin, no matter what they wrote down in so called holy scripts or whatever you want to call them.

The Confederacy of South Puyallup enthusiastically rejects this proposal, as it holds the right of freedom of religion in highest esteem. We reject any attempt to register people who belong to a certain religion and we believe such a registry could be used to persecute members of religious minorites. The Confederacy of South Puyallup will, in the name of freedom, actively work in opposition to this proposal.

The Council of Enn cannot support this resolution. We find this draconian in its scope, and believe that it will work against freedom of religion in United Nations member states.

We reject any attempt to register people who belong to a certain religion and we believe such a registry could be used to persecute members of religious minorites.
The registration of the RELIGION itself is mandatory, but only for its own benefit.
There is NO POINT that says you can or may not follow an UNREGISTERED religion... just you're not under any protective laws then.
Also, YOU and only you as a person have the right (BUT NOT OBLIGATION) to register yourself as follower of any religion. If you wish to be a follower of any religion without being registered as a follower, you can do that very well.

Also, the discrimination AGAINST a certain religion is clearly stated IN the act.
Therefore, I do not understand how can you be against it...

Registering religious beliefs may, during the reign of a tyrannical leader, lead to the outlawing of those beliefs, or an organized persecution of believers before there is a chance to stop such a persecution. People should be able to believe in whatever religious system they want to without fear of govenmental instrusion, including the registration of religious beliefs.

I personally fear any legislation that would require registration of religion or its members. Religious freedom is already addressed and guaranteed in the Universal Bill of Rights, and we see no reason to expand on the simple and well put guarantee that has already been given to every NS UN member nation citizen.

"Religion = belief system around one, multiple or no deity or any entity -> that includes atheism, agnosticism, etc."

Please explain to me how atheism is "belief system around one, multiple or no deity or any entity."

I am atheist and I have never been a part of any system around something I don't believe in. What system would that be?


Well, you believe a set of things correct? Is not the definition of atheism something like: the belief in no deity or the belief that there is none?

Then that is the system of beliefs you have. I think the distinction between a "system of beliefs" and just "beliefs" is minor, but still somewhat important. The phrase a "system of beliefs" suggests much more a formed and calculated opinion from one person, which is what this is trying to protect. Otherwise, it becomes kind of vague as to what or who this is serving.


HOWEVER: there is a line between freedom of religion and violating the rights of others, be it children, women, homosexuals or whoever.
Religions that teach that men are superior to women, limit rights of women, spread hatred towards others (religious or simply individuals) or say that homosexuals are no better than pigs (and believe me, those religions exists) CAN BE OUTLAWED based on the fact that they violate disrcrimination laws, also passed by the UN.

I'm not sure I see anything in the legislation that prohibits this. Especially as doing so would be a form of amendment to a past resolution. If there is part of the proposal that does violate previous UN resolutions, as Mikivity is good to point out, this can overlooked through a more liberal and forgiving reading of this proposal.


I see no use for the registration system whatsoever. Based on existing legislation, you can arrest (and punish if you think you must) people who - with religious motives or not - violate the rights of others.

Okay, but has it been established in the UN that religion (or more accurately the maintenance of your own set of beliefs) is a right inherent in people? If it has then just post that and sound the "been there, done that" alarm and this proposal will be deemed moot.


You should judge people on what they do, not on what they have written down 2000 years ago and not on what they listen to on Sundays (or whatever day is "their day"). It's not important which 'group' or 'club' they belong to. I see no use of registring any of that.
In my nation, any religious leader calling gays pigs will be arrested and charged with discrimination and promoting hatred towards gays. It's not important what religion he claims to be of, it won't make a difference in how we should judge him.

I don't see how this proves your point. This is not the focus of the proposal (how we should judge one's devotion to a religion) and isn't really fitting into the discussion. I understand the argument that registering your religion is akin to wearing a star on your arm to identify you. And that's no good. But I think registration in this case has a much more legitimate, clerical use here.


Freedom of religion ends where the hate or discrimination of others begin, no matter what they wrote down in so called holy scripts or whatever you want to call them.

I agree...I guess. I think the scripture you're looking for (if you were to continue with a sermon) is James 2:16-17 which states that faith without works is dead. In other words you have to do what you believe or you don't really believe it. But to the point, this belief that you have (and which is shown through the above reference) is part of a system of beliefs, the thing that this proposal is attempting to protect. Not something to be implemented across the whole UN (which would itself be a violation of others’ rights)

Maybe I should start posting on this thread more often. It's been a while since I've read the proposal and I seem to forget the particulars.

I personally fear any legislation that would require registration of religion or its members. Religious freedom is already addressed and guaranteed in the Universal Bill of Rights, and we see no reason to expand on the simple and well put guarantee that has already been given to every NS UN member nation citizen.

Here's the part of the resolution you cite:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state
I can't personally say whether this is a necessary add-on or not. It certainly explains things with a little more thoroughness. But I don't know if there's any pressing need for it to be added. The registration idea is new, as is the idea of a minimum number of members. I don't know if these are improvemnts or not.

"...we see no reason to expand on the simple and well put guarantee".

I FULLY see this proposal as a form of amendment to the original guarantee already passed. In my mind, religious freedom is already dealt with appropriately and any proposals that seek to define and legislate this would only serve to hinder that guarantee.

I've been looking over the proposal again and I agree with you. I don't see anything specifically in it which isn't
A) a form of redundancy
B) superfluous, only in the way of the previous resolution's execution,
or C) something that, if necessary to be acted upon, cannot be addressed on a national level.