NationStates Jolt Archive

This would be under Human Rights...significant, I believe.
Religious Freedoms

The World Assembly,

(I) Regarding individual right to religious freedom:

1. DECLARES that each individual possesses an inherent right to practice religion according to his or her conscience without fear of criminal or economic punishment;

2. EXCLUDES from this right religious practices which would violate the rights of others;

3. THEREFORE PROHIBITS member governments from passing laws which would curtail the right defined in clauses 1 and 2; and

(II) Regarding right to theocratic government:

4. DECLARES that each individual possesses the inherent right to create and support a system of government that officially or practically aligns itself with a particular religion, church, belief system or set of religious principles or practices;

5. For the purposes of this legislation, DEFINES that type of national government described in clause 4 as a “theocracy”;

6. PROTECTS as a right exclusive to citizens of member nations the right to create and support a theocracy as their national government;

7. DECLARES and CLARIFIES that inhumane, discriminatory and oppressive laws and policies taken by any government are not protected by clause 4 and 6, even if these laws and policies are enacted in the name of religion, and as such DOES NOT PROTECT these laws and policies from World Assembly legislation.

We commend the authors of this resolution for their concern for the freedoms of the citizenry of the membership of this organisation. But we have to ask, is it absolutely necessary to protect Theocracies when w.a. constitutional law already does so?

your e.t.c. ,

This is ok. And I think clause 7 is clever. But can I ask why religious thought should be singled out for protection?

As it stands, this would protect my right to freedom of religious conscience, but not otherwise. It protects religious assembly, but not non-religious assembly. It protects the right of governments to endorse religious principles, but not other principles.

For example, have you ever tried to convince a Marxist that they are wrong? Or to reason with a hardcore libertarian? They are generally as unreflexively dogmatic as a born-again Christian or devout Muslim.

I just wonder whether this can be broadened to protect individual thought in general?

This is ok. And I think clause 7 is clever. But can I ask why religious thought should be singled out for protection?

As it stands, this would protect my right to freedom of religious conscience, but not otherwise. It protects religious assembly, but not non-religious assembly. It protects the right of governments to endorse religious principles, but not other principles.

For example, have you ever tried to convince a Marxist that they are wrong? Or to reason with a hardcore libertarian? They are generally as unreflexively dogmatic as a born-again Christian or devout Muslim.

I just wonder whether this can be broadened to protect individual thought in general?



We would support the kind of resolution the honoured Ambassador suggests.

yours e.t.c.,

4. DECLARES that each individual possesses the inherent right to create and support a system of government that officially or practically aligns itself with a particular religion, church, belief system or set of religious principles or practices;
I'm not quite sure why, but this reads a little weirdly. I think it's the idea of individuals as individuals creating a system of government, which sounds rather libertarian. I tend to think of individuals in the mass compromise we call a nation creating or coagulating some form of government.

I'm also not entirely clear on how being "without fear of [...] economic punishment" interacts with theocracies. Are they still allowed to say that you have to be their religion to get a civil service job, for instance?

This is ok. And I think clause 7 is clever. But can I ask why religious thought should be singled out for protection?

As it stands, this would protect my right to freedom of religious conscience, but not otherwise. It protects religious assembly, but not non-religious assembly. It protects the right of governments to endorse religious principles, but not other principles.

For example, have you ever tried to convince a Marxist that they are wrong? Or to reason with a hardcore libertarian? They are generally as unreflexively dogmatic as a born-again Christian or devout Muslim.

I just wonder whether this can be broadened to protect individual thought in general?I understand what you're saying, I believe, but I'd make an important distincion right off the bat. Religious thought in this proposal is something regarding one's personal life--an individual moral code based on a more or less organized set of principles concerning the worship of the divine.

"Marxism" and "Libertarianism" are political ideologies. They share much in common with religion because they are all ideologies (religious and political). But political ideologies are intrinsically geared toward a political belief system. Political thought is an individual political code on a more or less organized set of principles concerning the function and proper organization of government.

So religion is individual moral organized regarding worship of the divine

Whereas political ideology is individual political organized regarding the role and organization of government

Right to free religious practice concerns a person's right to seek happiness through a personal moral code and belief system. Right to political practice on the other hand concerns a person's right to participate in his government and change it according to his ideology. It's a fundamentally different freedom of thought. They can both be dogmatic in it...but so can sports fans and so can music fans. That doesn't mean the "right to sports thought" and "the right to entertainment" thought need to be enshrined together with "the right to religious thought".

(warning RL examples coming...) If one axis were political thought, religious thought would have to be a separate axis because one can be a "catholic" and be a "leftist", and also a "protestant" and a "leftist". I really don't want to confuse the two rights to thought.

It's an important issue, freedom of political thought, but it needs different and detailed treatment. Treatment I'm don't want to give with this proposal. I take this approach with the belief that the more focused this proposal is the more fair its treatment of the topic and the better the debate.

However, your point is very valid when applied to non-religious thought, or the right not to practice religion. One can’t be both “atheist” and “catholic”. Perhaps a rephrasing of clause 1 to this would be more broad:
1. DECLARES that each individual possesses an inherent right to practice or not to practice religion according to his or her conscience without fear of criminal or economic punishment;

4. DECLARES that each individual possesses the inherent right to create and support a system of government that officially or practically aligns itself with a particular religion, church, belief system or set of religious principles or practices;I'm not quite sure why, but this reads a little weirdly. I think it's the idea of individuals as individuals creating a system of government, which sounds rather libertarian. I tend to think of individuals in the mass compromise we call a nation creating or coagulating some form of government.It was one of the clunkier clauses that I chewed on and rewrote a couple times. I wanted to avoid the phrase "member nations have the right to be theocracies" because it...it just rubs me wrong I guess. On first read I wanted to think that rather than protecting the "state" of a theocracy it would be more valid to protect the "formation" of a theocracy. But maybe that's just me being a determinist. I agree that it should probably be changed...Though I would really like to put my finger on what exactly it is that makes it wrong before I try to fix it.
I'm also not entirely clear on how being "without fear of [...] economic punishment" interacts with theocracies. Are they still allowed to say that you have to be their religion to get a civil service job, for instance?Good point, it seems this could be a sticky overlap. What I was going for here were more tax disadvantaging, or even government-led commercial disadvantaging (e.g. kosher food producers are outlaws for just being kosher food producers). I would love to put that "without fear of discriminatory taxation", but it seems like a heavy ending to a fairly straightforward clause.

Perhaps a better way of stating it is "without fear of criminal punishment or government persecution;" Persecution is active, whereas the sort of "everyone in the government needs to be such and such religion" a theocracy might pursue is passive.

So religion is individual moral organized regarding worship of the divine

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We would respectfully disagree with the esteemed representative of Powerhungry Chipmunks on his definition of "religion". Religion as practiced in the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii is hardly an individual affair. It is a corporate state of being that binds all Kawaiians one to another.

Honoured Ambassador for the PowerhungryChipmunks we would also dissagree with your definitions of religion and politics, neither need be organised or individual, both could be either, neither has a monopoly on morality and both can be immoral. some religions have no concept of the divine and some politics abhor the notion of government.

The differences are more subtle, religion starts with the philosophical position that the metaphysical answers exist already to all questions , whereas politics usually starts with questions and then seeks a logic to answer them practically.

The first is metaphysical phylosophy, the second ideological exploration.

The difference is subtle but profound, however the right for human beings to use both, either or neither methods to order their lives according to their personal conscience should be that which is enshrined as universal.

yours e.t.c. ,

I would like to ask the Kawaiian delegate a question: Are all of your citizens members of the Diaspora Church, or do other religions/churches exist? If others do not exist, could they conceivably be created by citizens in the future?

Honoured Ambassador for the PowerhungryChipmunks we would also dissagree with your definitions of religion and politics, neither need be organised or individual, both could be either, neither has a monopoly on morality and both can be immoral. some religions have no concept of the divine and some politics abhor the notion of government.
I did not offer any "definitions" of religious and political ideology with the lists I presented. I presented the two lists to illustrate differences in parallel characteristics between religious and political ideology.

It's the same as me saying "A Dog has a tail, fur and barks; yet a Cat has a tail, fur and meows". I wouldn't say that to “define” a Dog as anything that has tail, fur and barks and “define” a Cat as anything that has tail, fur and meows. I say that with the intention of picking a few characteristics of one type of thing (or genre, if we're getting picky about terms) and contrasting them with parallel characteristics in a differing, yet related type of thing. I was “illustrating” or “contrasting” with the lists I made: not defining.

As such, I'll explain exactly what I meant with each "illustration" or "contrast".

1) Individual

Both religious and political ideology are individual because they are ideologies. Ideologies revolve around ideas. Ideas, strictly speaking, originate through the cooperation of a priori and a posteriori knowledge in the consciousness (rational and empirical knowledge working together to order what the apparatus connected to an individual consciousness observes to be going on outside of an individual consciousness). This is individual to each person, as each person is a separate consciousness.

In other words, religious thought is individual (as is political thought) because it is thought. My thought will always be my thought (barring mind control...which someone might tech-wank into the discussion). It is individual to me and it can exist without anyone in particular outside of me existing. Thus I stand by my statement that religious thought and political thought are individual insofar as they are thought, and thought is individual.

2) Moral/Political

You are mistaking "absolute morality" with "concerning morality". I am not saying all religion is absolutely moral. What I am saying, and I stand by it, is that religion must address the question of morality, or be “concerning morality”. By its very definition religion must engage in a moral code. If there is to be religion there is to be “the divine” (I’ll explain this idea more fully in #4). If there is “the divine”, there must be reconciliation with "the divine". If there is reconciliation with "the divine", there must be a path to such reconciliation. This path is what the religion defines as “moral behavior”. It is necessary for a religion to touch on the issue of morality. Religious ideology, thus, must be “concerning morality”.

Political ideology, oppositely, does not bear a natural necessity to touch on moral topics. The only thing that is incumbent upon a political ideology is to be “concerning politics”. A political ideology must present a certain way to view government. This government view may or may not be define morality, but it must define “correct” and “incorrect" government or there is no political ideology.

Whereas religious ideology requires a moral code to be developed, political ideology does not. The same is true, vice versa, that political ideology requires an idea of correct government be defined, religious ideology does not. There is no political ideology which does not define a “correct” way of governing, and no religious ideology which does not define a “moral” way of living (meaning: a way to attain transcending to something greater). It's the very definition of the respective ideologies.

3) Organized

I do not refer to interpersonal organization. I mean inter-terminal organization. Both religious and political ideology must provide an organized system for interpreting morality and politics respectively. They must define terms, and set up a network of terms with relationships between them in order to organize the world into an ideology. Without inter-terminal organization there is no ideology: political or religious. Ideology implies an “organizing” of terms, and thus both religious and political ideology must be “organized”.

4) Regarding the divine/regarding government

This is but a reiteration of the distinction already made in #2. Religion is inherently engaged in defining and directing individuals to some sort of transcendence. Most often this is with the identification of a greater being (or, if not a greater being, a greater power, greater realm or greater state of happiness--if there is nothing greater to be attained to, there is no motivation to adhere to the religious code and thus no religion). This greater thing I, for the sake of brevity, termed "the divine". Whatever the name, it is an exigency charged to religious ideology to define it and the way to get to it. This is something not charged political ideology.

Political ideology is not concerned inherently with "the divine". It is concerned with government. Every political ideology must have a theory of government. This includes anarchy. Even anarchy has a theory of government: that government is best held by each individual, completely free from external interference.



So, as the two ideological classes by their definitions touch on greatly contrasting concepts. It is better to treat them seperately. I will not be treating the general right to political thought in this proposal.

I would like to ask the Kawaiian delegate a question: Are all of your citizens members of the Diaspora Church, or do other religions/churches exist? If others do not exist, could they conceivably be created by citizens in the future?

In answer to the esteemed representative from Scotchpinestan's question: Membership in the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii is a necessary and sufficient condition for citizenship in our nation. Why would our people wish to stray from the path of their faith?

1. DECLARES that each individual possesses an inherent right to practice or not to practice religion according to his or her conscience without fear of criminal or economic punishment;

I see no reason to make that modification. All rights may be waived by the individual. If I do not wish to make use of my right to practice religion, I can simply waive it. One can always choose whether or not to make use of their rights.

However, the Peoples of Sasquatchwain are not sure whether they support this proposal. After all, a government should be allowed to decide and enforce its own national religion.

I did not offer any "definitions" of religious and political ideology with the lists I presented. I presented the two lists to illustrate differences in parallel characteristics between religious and political ideology.

It's the same as me saying "A Dog has a tail, fur and barks; yet a Cat has a tail, fur and meows". I wouldn't say that to “define” a Dog as anything that has tail, fur and barks and “define” a Cat as anything that has tail, fur and meows. I say that with the intention of picking a few characteristics of one type of thing (or genre, if we're getting picky about terms) and contrasting them with parallel characteristics in a differing, yet related type of thing. I was “illustrating” or “contrasting” with the lists I made: not defining.

As such, I'll explain exactly what I meant with each "illustration" or "contrast".

1) Individual

Both religious and political ideology are individual because they are ideologies. Ideologies revolve around ideas. Ideas, strictly speaking, originate through the cooperation of a priori and a posteriori knowledge in the consciousness (rational and empirical knowledge working together to order what the apparatus connected to an individual consciousness observes to be going on outside of an individual consciousness). This is individual to each person, as each person is a separate consciousness.

In other words, religious thought is individual (as is political thought) because it is thought. My thought will always be my thought (barring mind control...which someone might tech-wank into the discussion). It is individual to me and it can exist without anyone in particular outside of me existing. Thus I stand by my statement that religious thought and political thought are individual insofar as they are thought, and thought is individual.

2) Moral/Political

You are mistaking "absolute morality" with "concerning morality". I am not saying all religion is absolutely moral. What I am saying, and I stand by it, is that religion must address the question of morality, or be “concerning morality”. By its very definition religion must engage in a moral code. If there is to be religion there is to be “the divine” (I’ll explain this idea more fully in #4). If there is “the divine”, there must be reconciliation with "the divine". If there is reconciliation with "the divine", there must be a path to such reconciliation. This path is what the religion defines as “moral behavior”. It is necessary for a religion to touch on the issue of morality. Religious ideology, thus, must be “concerning morality”.

Political ideology, oppositely, does not bear a natural necessity to touch on moral topics. The only thing that is incumbent upon a political ideology is to be “concerning politics”. A political ideology must present a certain way to view government. This government view may or may not be define morality, but it must define “correct” and “incorrect" government or there is no political ideology.

Whereas religious ideology requires a moral code to be developed, political ideology does not. The same is true, vice versa, that political ideology requires an idea of correct government be defined, religious ideology does not. There is no political ideology which does not define a “correct” way of governing, and no religious ideology which does not define a “moral” way of living (meaning: a way to attain transcending to something greater). It's the very definition of the respective ideologies.

3) Organized

I do not refer to interpersonal organization. I mean inter-terminal organization. Both religious and political ideology must provide an organized system for interpreting morality and politics respectively. They must define terms, and set up a network of terms with relationships between them in order to organize the world into an ideology. Without inter-terminal organization there is no ideology: political or religious. Ideology implies an “organizing” of terms, and thus both religious and political ideology must be “organized”.

4) Regarding the divine/regarding government

This is but a reiteration of the distinction already made in #2. Religion is inherently engaged in defining and directing individuals to some sort of transcendence. Most often this is with the identification of a greater being (or, if not a greater being, a greater power, greater realm or greater state of happiness--if there is nothing greater to be attained to, there is no motivation to adhere to the religious code and thus no religion). This greater thing I, for the sake of brevity, termed "the divine". Whatever the name, it is an exigency charged to religious ideology to define it and the way to get to it. This is something not charged political ideology.

Political ideology is not concerned inherently with "the divine". It is concerned with government. Every political ideology must have a theory of government. This includes anarchy. Even anarchy has a theory of government: that government is best held by each individual, completely free from external interference.



So, as the two ideological classes by their definitions touch on greatly contrasting concepts. It is better to treat them seperately. I will not be treating the general right to political thought in this proposal.








We thank the honoured Ambassador for taking the time to give us so exhaustive a reply outlining their view. And we apologise if we mistook their intent in this resolution. Clearly this resolution has nothing to do with freedom of conscience. We see now that the honoured Ambassador was not making a distinction between religion and politics per se, but rather between the ideological offspring of both.


So are the very light or more frequently entirely improvised forms and rituals of some primitive forms of ploytheism or even more primitive forms of animism still a concern with morality? Both of these forms of religion rarely conceive of an actual possibility of human reconciliation with the divine, they accept its existence and suggest that it is rarely possible to communicate with the divine, but imagine that human concerns or even human life is of no concern to the divine and that rarely can man ever hope to influence the relationship between himself and god/s or the spirits. In many cases the divine element in these religions is capricious and ineffable, and being beyond communication or influence the divine cannot expect to order the lives of those who are created by it or in the presence of it. Neither of these forms of religion require or indeed widely evidence any concept of human transcendence, some conceive of no after life and no way to influence or approach the divine to improve this life.

Is the celebration of infrequent even rare sacrifices or attempts at intercession still a concern with morality, especially where no set ritual form attends these attempts or where this activity is otherwise improvised or randomised, or more importantly where there is no serious hope of actually effecting the outcome of the decisions of the divine?

Both these forms of religion have been used to guide temporal politics, in as much as they could be expected to do so, producing either highly individualised societies where self actualisation and personal success are prioritised and coporeal concerns for this life and this life only are paramount, to counteract the influence of a capricious divine element. Or alternatively a highly collectivised but essentially tribal society in which cooperation within the clan is vital to obviate the destabilising effects of a wild and unbiddable spiritual universe which rages all around in the invisible interstices.

Both are self preservatory in spight of the divine.


We must point out our dissagreement with the honoured Ambassador, on the matter of (individualist) Anarchism containing a theory of government, even philosophically individualist anarchism represents the negation of the very concept of government. True individualist anarchism as opposd to syndicalist or other forms, suggests that no governing principal exists, and that there need be no placing of even self will above the exigencies of moment to moment self satisfaction in all decision making. Even in self will there is a heiracrchical principal, therefore it is unnecessary in this conception. Instinct, animal and personal self satisfaction need only prevail in the moment and may be controverted in the next moment by contrary actions based essentially on whims of the individual.


In both of these seemingly contrasting conceptions of the (dis)ordering of the human universe are infact seen the seed thoughts which animate both political thought and religious thought, the fear of dissorder and chaos having been used to formulate both constructivist religious and political ideologies.

But religious and political ideologies exist which take no such constructivist approach to the universe or the ordering of human affairs,which temporaly influence the world simply because this is the only theatre of human action organised or otherwise. The divine, the moral, the governmental all become superfluous and imaterial, survival and personal entrenchement against the whims of fate/the divine being the only guiding notion.

This twin nature of political or practical ideology and religious or supernatural ideology is what makes them coequal in regard to treatment by the law.

yours e.t.c. ,

I see no reason to make that modification. All rights may be waived by the individual. If I do not wish to make use of my right to practice religion, I can simply waive it. One can always choose whether or not to make use of their rights.

I disagree. The right not to practice religion is not the same as waiving the right to practice religion. It is a positive right to avoid (say) a state religion if you choose, regardless of what the religious or secular authorities or even your neighbours might think.

In answer to the esteemed representative from Scotchpinestan's question: Membership in the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii is a necessary and sufficient condition for citizenship in our nation. Why would our people wish to stray from the path of their faith?

I'm not necessarily saying they would. This proposal, however, would give them the right to, in a clear contradiction of the citizenship condition you refer to.

Your answer has confirmed my suspicion that this proposal amounts to an illegal ideological ban. It would not ban all theocracies, but it would ban those theocracies like Kawaii's in which the national religion not only guides governmental policies, but also permeates the nation's laws and everyday life.

Of course I do not wish to appear that I am unfairly singling out Kawaii here. I am sure that there are many other theocracies that would be affected by this proposal. I simply wanted to gain additional understanding of Kawaiian culture before I couild feel comfortable claiming the illegality of this proposal.

So are the very light or more frequently entirely improvised forms and rituals of some primitive forms of ploytheism or even more primitive forms of animism still a concern with morality?Yes. They must, if they are engaging in rituals and are forms of polytheism or animism since these religious ideologies are involving a ritual--a formal procedure--regardless of how primitive or improvised it may be. This organization of a proper way to live (again, they've created rituals) constitutes these religions defining "morality". It is "moral", according to these, to engage in such and such ritual and "immoral" not to.
Both of these forms of religion rarely conceive of an actual possibility of human reconciliation with the divine, they accept its existence and suggest that it is rarely possible to communicate with the divine, but imagine that human concerns or even human life is of no concern to the divine and that rarely can man ever hope to influence the relationship between himself and god/s or the spirits. In many cases the divine element in these religions is capricious and ineffable, and being beyond communication or influence the divine cannot expect to order the lives of those who are created by it or in the presence of it. Neither of these forms of religion require or indeed widely evidence any concept of human transcendence, some conceive of no after life and no way to influence or approach the divine to improve this life.Did I say the divine element is always benevolent? Did I say that human reconciliation involves an eventual meeting with the divine?

The problem we're having is a semiotic one. I am attempting to construct a lexicon for ideologies so I can compare political ideology and religious ideology and you are bleeding other lexicons into mine, which gives room for examples of polytheism and animalism as being somehow "not concerning morality" and "not concerned with the divine". If you go back and look at the exact, limited definition I'm using for "concerning morality" and "the divine", these counter-examples-turned-objections would resolve themselves.

Perhaps the confusion is on a lack of definition of what I mean when I say "transcendence". I will define it, as I'm using it, more explicitly. I don't see much need beyond that to answer the counter-examples raised as I consider them thoroughly treated already.

I refer to "transcendence" in the form of change brought about by connection to something beyond our physical and empirical reality. We are born with, arguably, a clean slate of a brain: tabula rasa. We grow in knowledge by experience. Our minds organize the empirical data from experiences we've already had to form concepts--abstract ideas which are used to interpret present and future situations. We experience "burning" for the first time when we touch a hot frying pan. Our mind, pushed to do so by the pain involved, begins to create the abstract concept of "burning" in our minds. We, in the future, see a hot pan (be it the same pan that we touched or not) and our mind interprets this data in view of the abstract concept of "burning" we interpret the pan as something we won't be touching.

This is how the physical world, physical reality, is viewed to each individual: via the huge network of abstract ideas in our minds--each abstract idea spawned and refined constantly by the empirical data our minds collect through our experiences. This is the balance between rationalism (the abstract ideas) and empiricism (the experiences) that is necessary for us to interact with the physical world around us.

My point is that religion must believe in something beyond this empirical and rational framework, and must define a path for our lives to be progressed (in some way not normally possible through the empirical and rational framework with which we view the physical reality around us) by following that "extra-physical-reality-thing". "Transcendence" in this case refers to the progress in our lives based on that something outside of the physical reality we view. It is not referring to a literal transcendence of our bodies, raptured away to dwell again with God...which you seem to assume is what I meant.

I use "transcendence" here to refer to any change brought about in our physical realities through subscription to a belief of something outside of the terms of physical reality.

Before you go there, even a religion which worships a physical object (like, for example, an office chair) is believing in something extra-physical. In the example, the "Office Chair Religion" is ascribing to the office chair something beyond what it is physically able to do (i.e. be sat upon) that makes it worthy of worship. We don't worship a chair, unless we believe it will somehow better our lives. Or, in the lexicon I'm constructing, we wouldn’t worship it if we didn't believe it would help us "transcend" in life in some way--some way beyond what the normal office chair would do for us (i.e. offer our derriere cushy accommodations).

In the case of "primitive polytheism" and "animalism", there is most definitely a belief in "transcendence", in the way I'm using the term. There is most definitely a belief that flame, The Flame God, the wolf, Zues--whoever or whatever it is, will help us better our lives in some way. In animalism we are ascribing to the animal capabilities to benefit us beyond that the animal would have on a strictly empirical basis (meat, bones for tools, skin for clothes, companionship, etc.).

Even if we worship Löge--the feisty fire God whose liable to burn down the summer cottage we’ve filled with dead warriors--we worship him in the hope that he won't hurt us as much--in the belief (however vain) that somehow worshiping him or respecting him will produce a positive net effect in our lives.

Political ideology, however, does not inherently require us to believe anything is not what it seems in the physical, empirical reality we perceive it in. Thus, it is not required to define “morality”, which again, I define as a pathway--a prescribed set of rituals actions, principles, thoughts, words, or whatever which would provide us transcendence through the extra-physical thing we believe in.

***

I've strayed way off the point. The point is that this proposal is not to protect people's right to think anything. The point of the proposal is to address the right to practice religion according to one's personal fancies. This is a right separate enough from right to subscribe to political ideology so as to require separate treatment. This is illustrated by the fact that there are both dictatorial (those that would suppress political thought) and democratic states (those that would permit free political thought) that permit religious freedom. If the two freedoms were so inseperably connected there would be no dictatorial states with religious freedoms. The two freedoms are at least separate enough to be treated separately in the WA.

Our ability to communicate with the w.a. is hampered at the moment, and our first response to the honoured Ambassador for Powerhungry Chipmunks was errased. But suffice it to say we completely understood the reasoning the honoured Ambasador was using and were pointing out its fault.

We made no mention of "Animalism" Ambassador, Animism being the belief system in object for our point.

In any event the disquisition on the semiotics which motivate this resolution still fail to elucidate the utility of a resolution which essentially puts beyond reach the perogative of theocracy in isolation.

This should be a resolution of freedom of conscience or it should not exist. It would function to block needfull w.a. reforms and would give priveledge to specific set of governments at the exspense of others.

As such we would find it hard to support this resolution

yours e.t.c. ,

We made no mention of "Animalism" Ambassador, Animism being the belief system in object for our point.And I misread it. That, or the WA gnomes have been busy hacking into PC's monitor so it displays additional characters...

*grabs hammer and peeks under desk...

Nope. Don't see any.
This should be a resolution of freedom of conscience or it should not exist. It would function to block needfull w.a. reforms and would give priveledge to specific set of governments at the exspense of others.

As such we would find it hard to support this resolution
Your sentiments are noted, though I don't see how this would block any future proposals granting freedom of political thought. Unless the proposal were attempting to outlaw theocracies in the interest of free political thought...which as you already pointed out is illegal.

With regard to clause 44. DECLARES that each individual possesses the inherent right to create and support a system of government that officially or practically aligns itself with a particular religion, church, belief system or set of religious principles or practices;I remember the reason I wrote the clause this way--with the right being given to citizens "creating" and "supporting" a government that is religious leaning or religious in its entirety. It was so the WA would only be supporting democratic theocracies. Because the right is vested in the citizens it doesn't give the thumbs-up to dictators who would impose a theocracy through force.

I fear that if it were written that governments had the “right to be theocracies”, governments would fight any future democratic reforms with the reasoning that it meddled with their “right to be a theocracy”.

Granted, the WA can't really outlaw a dictatorial theocracy (ideological bans), but it would hurt any efforts to reform them even slightly if the right were for governments "to be theocracies"

I keep coming back to that...that it's either giving the individual "the right to create a government that's a theocracy" or giving the "government the right to be a theocracy". Is there some other way to phrase it that I'm overlooking?

Please also note that the definition of theocracy is, in this proposal, any "system of government that officially or practically aligns itself with a particular religion, church, belief system or set of religious principles or practices". This is very inclusive wording. "Theocracy" is being used in this proposal beyond how we tend to use it normally.

I mean, usually "theocracy" is used to describe a government that is essentially run by a national religion. But in this proposal I grouped all governments that incorporate into their government any religious material (any practice, belief, or official endorsement that is religious in any portion of the government) into "theocracies", and I protected their right to do so. That is, I protected it so long as this practice is not "inhumane, discriminatory [or] oppressive", as per clause 6.

Your answer has confirmed my suspicion that this proposal amounts to an illegal ideological ban. It would not ban all theocracies, but it would ban those theocracies like Kawaii's in which the national religion not only guides governmental policies, but also permeates the nation's laws and everyday life.

Of course I do not wish to appear that I am unfairly singling out Kawaii here. I am sure that there are many other theocracies that would be affected by this proposal. I simply wanted to gain additional understanding of Kawaiian culture before I couild feel comfortable claiming the illegality of this proposal.

We whole-heartedly agree with the esteemed representative from Scotchpinestan's reasoning here. The "religious freedoms" argued for in this proposal simply don't make sense in the context of Kawaiian culture, because our religion defines our nationality. Were this proposal to be submitted and come to a vote, our delegation would argue against it on essentially the same grounds as the esteemed representative has stated.

The "religious freedoms" argued for in this proposal simply don't make sense in the context of Kawaiian culture, because our religion defines our nationality.
Is that because the religion is the sole religion among all the people (as in part of the heritage of 100% or near 100% of the citizens)? I'm interested in understanding the context to the concern being raised, that lets me better react and helps the drafting process.

Allow me to attempt to clarify my reasoning. One could say that there are two types of theocracies.

Type A theocracies (for lack of a better term) have a national religion, and the members of government all follow that religion, and that religion guides the government's policies. Certainly this is true in all theocracies.

But in type B theocracies, the concept of "national religion" is taken a step further. Belief in and practice of the religion is basically a condition of citizenship, or at the very least a condition of being any sort of important person in the nation. One would be hard-pressed to successfully introduce a different religion in such a nation. (Of course, it's quite possible no one would want to, but that's beside the point.)

This proposal would guarantee that any citizen of any nation (including theocracies) would have the right to practice any religion, even if it's not the national religion. That would effectively ban type B theocracies in the WA, since the whole idea behind those theocracies is to have everyone practice the same religion.

So that's why this proposal, as written, is illegal. I can't say for certain if there's a way around this, but my knowledge of theocracies is not nearly broad enough to be able to assist in this endeavor.

Type A theocracies (for lack of a better term) have a national religion, and the members of government all follow that religion, and that religion guides the government's policies. Certainly this is true in all theocracies.

But in type B theocracies, the concept of "national religion" is taken a step further. Belief in and practice of the religion is basically a condition of citizenship, or at the very least a condition of being any sort of important person in the nation. One would be hard-pressed to successfully introduce a different religion in such a nation. (Of course, it's quite possible no one would want to, but that's beside the point.)

We concur with the esteemed representative from Scotchpinestan. The "type B" theocracy he describes here is a fairly accurate description of our nation. Note that we call ourselves, "The Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii". For Kawaiians, Church and State are the same thing.

OOC: Whether this would make the proposal illegal is up to the mods to decide, obviously, although the Kawaiians would almost certainly make that claim were it to come up to vote as written.

Allow me to attempt to clarify my reasoning. One could say that there are two types of theocracies.

Type A theocracies (for lack of a better term) have a national religion, and the members of government all follow that religion, and that religion guides the government's policies. Certainly this is true in all theocracies.

But in type B theocracies, the concept of "national religion" is taken a step further. Belief in and practice of the religion is basically a condition of citizenship, or at the very least a condition of being any sort of important person in the nation. One would be hard-pressed to successfully introduce a different religion in such a nation. (Of course, it's quite possible no one would want to, but that's beside the point.)

This proposal would guarantee that any citizen of any nation (including theocracies) would have the right to practice any religion, even if it's not the national religion. That would effectively ban type B theocracies in the WA, since the whole idea behind those theocracies is to have everyone practice the same religion.

So that's why this proposal, as written, is illegal. I can't say for certain if there's a way around this, but my knowledge of theocracies is not nearly broad enough to be able to assist in this endeavor.Would a revised wording of Clauses 4-7, resolve your objection? 4. DECLARES that each individual possesses the inherent right to surrender religious freedom as defined in Clauses 1 and 2 in support of a national government that officially or practically aligns itself with a particular religion, church, belief system or set of religious principles or practices;

5. For the purposes of this legislation, DEFINES the type of government described in clause 4 as a 'religion-influenced government';

6. PROTECTS as a right exclusive to citizens of member nations the right to uphold and support a 'religion-influenced government' as their national government;

7. DECLARES and CLARIFIES that inhumane, discriminatory and oppressive laws and policies taken by any government are not protected by clause 4 and 6, even if these laws and policies are enacted in the name of religion, and as such DOES NOT PROTECT these laws and policies from World Assembly legislation.The changes were the word 'theocracy' was ejected, 'religion-influenced government' replaced it #4 changes the definition as 'the right to surrender religious freedom of a national government' Quotation marks in clauses 5 and 6 replaced with less attention calling apostrophes

If there were interest, we'd be willing to help work on a general resolution on freedom of thought elsewhere, so as to avoid dragging PC's drafting off-topic.

More on-topic:
I keep coming back to that...that it's either giving the individual "the right to create a government that's a theocracy" or giving the "government the right to be a theocracy". Is there some other way to phrase it that I'm overlooking?
Maybe an alternative route would be to say '...the right to express their religion through organized political activity'. That way, you're not exactly protecting the right of states to be theocrats - but you are protecting the rights of individuals to introduce laws based on religious principles or to form religiously-oriented political parties, and hence the effect is roughly the same.

If there were interest, we'd be willing to help work on a general resolution on freedom of thought elsewhere, so as to avoid dragging PC's drafting off-topic.I think at least the nation of Urgench is interested in it...and if there's to be work on it, I would suggest a look at the excellent resolution passed by Ecopoeia in the old UN. It's one way you could approach the topic. Maybe you could mine some ideas from it.

More on-topic:

Maybe an alternative route would be to say '...the right to express their religion through organized political activity'. That way, you're not exactly protecting the right of states to be theocrats - but you are protecting the rights of individuals to introduce laws based on religious principles or to form religiously-oriented political parties, and hence the effect is roughly the same.I like that.

We would be interested in helping the honoured Ambassador for Quitessence of dust write a resolution such as they suggest.

We would strongly oppose the protection of the right of individuals to introduce laws based on religious principles unless this right is qualified by the right of individuals who do not practice this religion to consider themselves immune to these laws.

yours e.t.c. ,

1. DECLARES that each individual possesses an inherent right to practice religion according to his or her conscience without fear of criminal or economic punishment

After carefully reviewing the proposal, I have been instructed by His Royal Highness to issue our support.

I myself believe this to be a good proposal and it is because of the above clause that I believe it to be so. The right to practice religion is in my opinion to be an essential part of a person.

Therefore respected Ambassadors, the Kingdom of Sanctaria will continue to support this proposal.