NationStates Jolt Archive

Updated: I'm removing the first portion on Religious Freedom since the Freedom of Expression contains Religious Freedom as well.

Right to Religious Education

Category: Education and Creativity

Area of Effect: Educational

The World Assembly

Recognizes that there are many different religions
Accepts that all individuals have a right to their own religious beliefs
Seeks to protect a religious group's right to educate their children in a manner that is deemed appropriate by their beliefs
and
Declares;
1. Religious schools may be set up to provide an alternative education to the national standard.

a) These schools must conform to the national or local curriculum, where it does not infringe upon religious beliefs.

b) Other classes may be decided upon by a board of education with members elected from the religious group's community.

c) No one may interfere with the curriculum of these schools provided they are in compliance with section 1a and the laws of the nation the school is located in.

2. Funding for these schools may come from multiple sources as long as they adhere to the following criteria.

a) Religious groups may choose to fund their own schools completely.

b) Governments may choose to set up a program to allow funding for religious schools as long as all religious groups have access to the program and are not disallowed access due to religious reasons.

c) Private corporations may fund a religious school, however, they may do so only with proper applications to the government to set up a not for profit charity organization which will then fund the religious school.

3. Urges all private schools to keep tuition costs to, at most, one half of the cost of educating the child.

4. When a child reaches adolescence, the parents or guardians no longer have the right to send the child to a religious school should the child demand to attend a different school as long as the child does not switch back and forth in different schools more than once in a school year for a period of two years.

Paula Jenner

4a-d would be a separate Education and Creativity(?) proposal, not part of a Human Rights resolution. What you have now is essentially a proposal without a category, because all the educational elements detract from and confuse the central HR part of it.

a) These schools cannot accept government funding and all funding must come from the religious group.
The Dominion of New Leicestershire would have a problem with this provision. The Church of New Leicestershire is partially tax supported and it maintains a system of schools. I'm certain that there are theocracies which would have a HUGE problem with it as well.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

2. All individuals shall have the right to religion, or lack of religion, without fear of discrimination.

As a nonbeliever myself I think it's good that you recognise explicitly the right not to belong to a religion, which is frequently overlooked in these types of proposals.


3. No nation may pass any laws which causes a religious group or groups to be harmed.

What do you mean by this exactly? Some religions might consider restrictions on preaching activity "harming" them by reducing their ability to expand through recruitment. Some religions might also consider themselves "harmed" if they aren't allowed to express faith by wearing religious symbols in school, or to practice polygamy, to come up with examples off the top of my head.

I also am not comfortable with the idea that parents have a right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs, mainly because the child is simply too young to genuinely have a free choice in the matter. In the same vein I don't like mandating the allowing of religious schools.

Furthermore, I think your definition of religions strays a bit too far from the common usage after the word "which". Just because a faith believes in human sacrifice doesn't mean it isn't a religion, it just means it's a particularly problematic one.

I'm going to respond to everyone in turn.

4a-d would be a separate Education and Creativity(?) proposal, not part of a Human Rights resolution. What you have now is essentially a proposal without a category, because all the educational elements detract from and confuse the central HR part of it.

You're right. I hadn't thought about that. I'm going to split them into two proposals. Freedom of Religion and The Right to Religious Education

The Dominion of New Leicestershire would have a problem with this provision. The Church of New Leicestershire is partially tax supported and it maintains a system of schools. I'm certain that there are theocracies which would have a HUGE problem with it as well.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

If your national educational curriculum includes religious classes based on your church, then there's no issue. I'm not legislating on whether or not church and state must be separated. Just that religions have a right to educate their children if they deviate from the national standard. I will make that clearer in the next edit.

I also placed section 5 in there to protect the state religion's right to public education for Theocracies and any other nation with a state religion.

What do you mean by this exactly? Some religions might consider restrictions on preaching activity "harming" them by reducing their ability to expand through recruitment. Some religions might also consider themselves "harmed" if they aren't allowed to express faith by wearing religious symbols in school, or to practice polygamy, to come up with examples off the top of my head.

Yes, you're right. I should clarify. With splitting the proposal into two different proposals, I'll work on this one. I was thinking along the lines of not allowing them to congregate (which may be covered already under Freedom of Assembly), not allowing them to purchase or rent a lot or building on which to create a church home, not extending tax breaks allowed to other religions, etc. As for religious symbols in school and polygamy, personally, I have no issues with this. Any ideas for a better definition of 'harm' in this case?

I also am not comfortable with the idea that parents have a right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs, mainly because the child is simply too young to genuinely have a free choice in the matter. In the same vein I don't like mandating the allowing of religious schools.

I'm not mandating that there must be religious schools. I'm saying that they have a right to set one up if they can fund it. I agree that children don't have much a free choice in the matter, but that will never stop a parent from indoctrinating their child to the parents religious views. I'm simply stating that religious schools can exist, but these schools cannot accept government funds because of their very nature of theocratic education.

Furthermore, I think your definition of religions strays a bit too far from the common usage after the word "which". Just because a faith believes in human sacrifice doesn't mean it isn't a religion, it just means it's a particularly problematic one.

I chose that because of the problematic religions. It's a human rights proposal. Am I to say that a faith who believes in human sacrifice can have that right to murder another human who has an inherent right to life?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

OOC: Going to be out of town for a couple days. May or may not be able to post tomorrow night (12-26). Depends on whether or not the hotel really offers free internet as they claim to. :p

Any ideas for a better definition of 'harm' in this case?

If I'm not wrong this is primarily a resolution for freedom of religious belief, or lack thereof. Thus the issue shouldn't be about harm to religious groups, but simply the right to be part of one without suffering undue discrimination or being targeted for that belief.

Thus, I would suggest clauses such as:

"Every one must be accorded equal rights and protection under national laws regardless of belief or opinion. No one may be subject to discriminatory treatment on the basis of their belief."

I chose that because of the problematic religions. It's a human rights proposal. Am I to say that a faith who believes in human sacrifice can have that right to murder another human who has an inherent right to life?

Yes, indeed. However, that kind of narrow definition of religion is clearly wrong. So how about something like:

"Every one has the right to the expression of their beliefs provided they do not unduly infringe on the rights of others or national law, provided that such laws are not discriminatory in nature."

You'll note that I have omitted the word "religious" in front of the word "belief" so as to cover non-believers/athiests who insist theirs is not a religious view; and if any of them are upset with the word "belief" please go back to the Richard Dawkins forums.

I'm not mandating that there must be religious schools. I'm saying that they have a right to set one up if they can fund it.

That does mandate that they must be allowed.

I agree that children don't have much a free choice in the matter, but that will never stop a parent from indoctrinating their child to the parents religious views.

It's true that in the home, a parent is probably going to impart their religious beliefs with some authority. However, I'm concerned that if they also send them to religious schools, that child could very well be "forced" into that particular religion because they likely will not be exposed to anything to challenge that faith. And I do think that a child who is being taught as fact that the planet is only 6000 years old, all life was created by a particular omnipotent deity, and all evidence to the contrary is fabricated by Satanic enemies of God (if you think I'm exaggerating, ever read one of those creationist pamphlets?), is having their religious freedom severely compromised.

I'm simply stating that religious schools can exist, but these schools cannot accept government funds because of their very nature of theocratic education.

Putting on another hat for a moment, why shouldn't a government in a very religious country which feels promoting religion X is a good use of money be able to fund theocratic schools for religion X? In my view this unduly infringes on national sovereignty without much benefit to the objectives of the resolution.

1. A religion shall be defined as belief in something metaphysical which does not result in harm to any other individual or place, or needless cruelty to animals that are in the direct possession of the religious group.
That's a rather discriminating definition of religion. What about religions that do worship something material, and not metaphysical? What about religions that include self-harm as a spiritual activity; body modification, for example? Or animal sacrifice? Who are we to tell people that the sheep they raise cannot be sacrificed to please their god or gods, even though it's been part of their religion for thousands of years?

In short, I am in agreement with the Ambassador of Kelssek.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

1. A religion shall be defined as belief in something metaphysical which does not result in harm to any other individual or place, or needless cruelty to animals that are in the direct possession of the religious group.

perhaps the word 'divine' might be better.

I also am not comfortable with the idea that parents have a right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs, mainly because the child is simply too young to genuinely have a free choice in the matter. In the same vein I don't like mandating the allowing of religious schools.

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

While we are reserving judgment on this proposal until a more focused draft appears, we simply must stand up and object to the opinions raised by the representative from Kelssek. The surest way to destroy a culture is to undermine the parents' right to impart that culture to their children. Any government that attempts to restrict the parents' right to religiously educate their offspring is committing an act of violence against that religion. We call upon this assembly to unconditionally reject such cultural imperialism!

In looking at the different responses, I'm going to incorporate a good deal.

Metaphysical will be replaced with divine.

I simply do not wish to extend freedom of religion to those who intentionally murder other sentient beings. I've still allowed for the ritual sacrifice of animals, as long as it is not needlessly cruel.

Many thanks to the delegation from the Eternal Kawaii for expressing so easily the reason why I wish to allow all religions as defined in the resolution to have religious schools set up. To stop a religion from allowing something so basic as a school is a form of discrimination that I am attempting to stop.

Again, the Education proposal will not mandate that every religion must open a school. It's only that they can if they can fund it. As I stated before, if there's a state religion or it's a theocracy, then the primary religion may offer religious classes in their government funded schools.

OOC: I'm currently on holiday. If I manage to get some time this evening to break the current proposal into two separate ones and incorporate the changes, I will. Otherwise, it'll be sunday before it happens. Going to a birthday party for a relative who's hit the Century mark tomorrow. :)

I simply do not wish to extend freedom of religion to those who intentionally murder other sentient beings. I've still allowed for the ritual sacrifice of animals, as long as it is not needlessly cruel.Who is to determine if it is 'needlessly cruel'? What constitutes 'needlessly cruel'? It's a shaky bridge your on, when you attempt to define what's acceptable and what's not acceptable, regarding religions.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

That's a rather discriminating definition of religion. What about religions that do worship something material, and not metaphysical? What about religions that include self-harm as a spiritual activity; body modification, for example? Or animal sacrifice? Who are we to tell people that the sheep they raise cannot be sacrificed to please their god or gods, even though it's been part of their religion for thousands of years?

In short, I am in agreement with the Ambassador of Kelssek.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

I am going to rewrite this to state that it is not acceptable to murder or be needlessly cruel to another sentient being. Once that is made clear, then the person can do whatever they want to themselves.

Animal sacrifice is still allowable, but the sacrifice cannot be in such a way that the animal is made to suffer needlessly. I'm wanting to show that 'beating an animal to death' is not an acceptable form of sacrifice. Granted, that was not clear. I will make sure it is in the next draft.

It was not my intent to rule out body-modification or animal sacrifice. Just to state that murder of other sentients would not be acceptable under freedom of religion and that cruelty to animals wouldn't be acceptable either.

Also, this is not going to stop those acts from continuing, just that if a religion practices ritual murder of sentients, or beating animals to a slow painful death, etc, they are not protected under the freedom of religion. This way they can't claim freedom of religion and win automatically.

I hope that makes it clearer as to what I'm attempting to do. Keep in mind that the next draft should be a little clearer.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Hmm... I don't really mind religious schools receiving government funding, provided the funding is available to schools of all religions. The way I see it, these schools are educating children who would otherwise be entitled to a state-funded education. Hence, I don't mind the government basically subcontracting some of the work to religious schools as long as the funded schools do a good job of educating the kids and roughly abide by the national curriculum. This isn't a huge issue though, but I think that religious school should get the funding for the part of their mission that is secular (e.g. reading, math skills, etc.).

...
Animal sacrifice is still allowable, but the sacrifice cannot be in such a way that the animal is made to suffer needlessly. I'm wanting to show that 'beating an animal to death' is not an acceptable form of sacrifice. Granted, that was not clear. I will make sure it is in the next draft.

...

Also, this is not going to stop those acts from continuing, just that if a religion practices ritual murder of sentients, or beating animals to a slow painful death, etc, they are not protected under the freedom of religion. This way they can't claim freedom of religion and win automatically.

...

Paula Jenner, Rutianas AmbassadorYes, it's been made more clear. I still disagree with it, but now I understand it in the way you intended.

What I disagree with is the fact that not all religions are going to be protected under the law. The only religions protected are the ones deemed acceptable, which isn't quite fair for a resolution about the freedom of religion. That's not to say that I endorse the practices of certain religions. The curbing of animal sacrifice, for example, could be done through animal protection laws (as it is in Glen-Rhodes). It's a shocker when legislation out-right says that the freedom of religion doesn't extend to all religions.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Again, the Education proposal will not mandate that every religion must open a school. It's only that they can if they can fund it.

Yes, I understand what you are trying to do, and that is exactly what I am taking issue with. I do not believe religions have a right to open or fund schools, any more than political ideologies would have. If political parties opened their own schools to indoctrinate young children in their beliefs, I hope you would agree that shouldn't be done, but here we are proposing privilege for religious beliefs.

I'm willing to allow schools specifically for the training of religious scholars and clergy, which can only be attended after a certain stage of secular education is completed, accepting that religions need them to perpetuate themselves (although that's not something I actually do want since as you may have gathered by now, I am against religion).

Please remember that if this becomes a resolution, it would establish minimum standards of rights. Not including this would not be detrimental to the continued existence of religious schools in most countries. If you restricted the education provision to be a right to train clergy, I would be fine with that. I'm not on some crusade to turn the world atheist, but I believe freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Another alternative, if the objective is to ensure equal treatment for all religions, is to mandate that either all religions are allowed to open religious schools, or none are.

The surest way to destroy a culture is to undermine the parents' right to impart that culture to their children.

We're talking religion, not culture; the two may sometimes be linked but they are not the same thing. Furthermore, parents are not prevented from imparting their religion to their children just because there are no religious schools. If they're doing a proper job they tend to have enormous influence over their child, even if they aren't sent to a school where the existence of particular deities is taught as fact.

I feel that you are giving too much weight to the rights of the parents over the rights of the child in this regard. Surely the child too is an individual who has religious freedom and a right not to be indoctrinated in a particular set of beliefs. That they probably aren't in a good position to exercise that right only indicates the importance of securing it.

Any government that attempts to restrict the parents' right to religiously educate their offspring is committing an act of violence against that religion. We call upon this assembly to unconditionally reject such cultural imperialism!

Isn't your determination that religious culture should be forced upon our secular culture also cultural imperialism? If you assert restricting religious education is violence against religion, then I would also assert that demanding religious education is violence against reason and logic.

What I disagree with is the fact that not all religions are going to be protected under the law. The only religions protected are the ones deemed acceptable, which isn't quite fair for a resolution about the freedom of religion. That's not to say that I endorse the practices of certain religions. The curbing of animal sacrifice, for example, could be done through animal protection laws (as it is in Glen-Rhodes). It's a shocker when legislation out-right says that the freedom of religion doesn't extend to all religions.

So the WA should say that it's okay to brutally murder people in the name of religion? Do you realise how hard that would be to ever convict someone of murder if their religion calls for human sacrifice and the accused claims religious freedom. Those people would get away with murder, literally. This proposal will state clearly that no religion may be discriminated against. So, someone murders someone, claims religious freedom, well, putting them in jail or sending them up for the death penalty may well be seen as discrimination against their freedom of religion. That is likely going to be the touchiest subject to this.

I can drop the animal portions easily enough. I agree, it could be done with animal protection laws.

To answer another response, I can easily amend to make government funding available to all religious schools, as long as it is all or none. That leaves a choice to the local governments to fund it or not.

Yet another, from the delegation of Kelssek. I'm not writing a proposal for political freedom, so, I'm not going to answer whether or not I'd approve of such schools.

I'm not going to mandate that all or none must open schools. That's discrimination against those that are able to open schools, just because another religion cannot do so.

Religion vs culture? Religious culture does exist. I believe the delegation from The Eternal Kawaii meant religious culture.

Being 'indocrinated' as you put it is not the be all and end all of what a person believes. I was raised in a budding Christian community and I was indeed 'indoctrinated' into the religion, but yet, as I grew up, I found myself turning more toward a pagan viewpoint. I wasn't raised that way. I tend to have the view that if an individual wants to learn more about other religions, they will. I can easily put in there that a child has the right to learn about other religions if they desire. I can also put in there that a child may petition the local courts to be allowed to attend public education rather than private religious education. However, parents and guardians have the right to religiously educate their children. Religious groups have the right to recruit, teach, and yes, even indoctrinate beliefs. You may be atheist, and that's fine. I really don't care what your beliefs, or lack of, are. You have just as much right to bring up any children you, or any other atheist, may have. That's also 'indoctrinating' those children to not have belief in the divine. So, please, quit crying 'indoctrination'. Everyone does it. Everyone is going to do it no matter what the WA passes.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

I'm not going to mandate that all or none must open schools. That's discrimination against those that are able to open schools, just because another religion cannot do so.

Now I think that reasoning's kind of iffy. You then could argue that you're discriminating against religions without the means to open schools if you don't give them money to do so.

The point I was trying to make is that if the objective is for religious freedom and religious equality, then the vital thing is that all religions must be treated equally by the law.

Religion vs culture? Religious culture does exist. I believe the delegation from The Eternal Kawaii meant religious culture.

But if the religious culture is so important to the nation they're hardly going to be outlawing religious schools anyway.

I am not arguing for the abolition of religious schooling. What I am arguing against is the mandatory imposition of it upon all WA members. I want WA nations to be able to place restrictions or bans applying to all religious schools - not some, because that would be discrimination - but all, whether for national unity policies in the case of religiously-divided nations (and there are some for which this is a very serious, even existential issue), a desire for secularism, or just to enforce education standards.

Being 'indocrinated' as you put it is not the be all and end all of what a person believes. I was raised in a budding Christian community and I was indeed 'indoctrinated' into the religion, but yet, as I grew up, I found myself turning more toward a pagan viewpoint. I wasn't raised that way.

My experience has been that most people tend to stick with whatever religious view they had when brought up, both because of the powerful effect any teaching has on young minds and because of societal pressure towards compliance even in adulthood, and if you keep them in a highly religious environment through their formative years, this becomes even more powerful. I have been both in a secular school and one teaching a national curriculum but with an explicit Methodist agenda, holding mandatory worship sessions once a week, daily prayer sessions, and actively seeking converts, using lesson time to preach during the Easter period.

I don't think it would be surprising if I tell you that about 80% of the people I know from the latter school were and remain deeply Methodist Christian, some to rather frightening degrees, while in the former school, most did retain the faith of their parents but usually to much more moderate levels. Yes, many people do break away from the faith of their childhood - I had to do that too - but I doubt it's a very large proportion and I'm sure you can share with my experience that doing so is not an easy process.

However, parents and guardians have the right to religiously educate their children. Religious groups have the right to recruit, teach, and yes, even indoctrinate beliefs.

Well, I simply don't agree and I suppose we'll have to leave it at that.

You have just as much right to bring up any children you, or any other atheist, may have. That's also 'indoctrinating' those children to not have belief in the divine. So, please, quit crying 'indoctrination'. Everyone does it. Everyone is going to do it no matter what the WA passes.

There is a crucial difference between parents telling and raising you to believe certain things, and being completely immersed and schooled in that belief. But to repeat: I am not arguing for the abolition of religious schooling. What I am arguing against is the mandatory imposition of it upon all WA members, because I don't agree it's so integral to religious freedom that it is necessary.

So the WA should say that it's okay to brutally murder people in the name of religion?Yes.

Do you realise how hard that would be to ever convict someone of murder if their religion calls for human sacrifice and the accused claims religious freedom. Those people would get away with murder, literally. This proposal will state clearly that no religion may be discriminated against. So, someone murders someone, claims religious freedom, well, putting them in jail or sending them up for the death penalty may well be seen as discrimination against their freedom of religion. That is likely going to be the touchiest subject to this.
...

Paula Jenner, Rutianas AmbassadorYes. Let the different cultures deal with it. Nations themselves are more apt at dealing with these unique situations than the World Assembly is. Rutianas can claim that religions that practice human sacrifice are illegitimate, but who are you to tell other nations that the majority religion is no longer protected under their law?

For the delegation of Glen-Rhodes, it's either universal freedom, or no freedom at all. Bog down the unsightly practices with other laws, if you want to play our way.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The famous Quodite philosopher Ron Jawls defines liberty as (paraphrased) 'a freedom commensurate with an equal freedom for all other persons': maybe you could use that kind of construction? Human sacrifice does rather tread on the religious liberty of the person having their giblets whipped out in the name of the Great Owl Goddess, after all.

I think your definition also obscures the social element of religion a little. Someone who holds a set of beliefs on their own represents a different prospect to someone who joins in communion (small c, small c!) with others to hold a set of beliefs. That is, there is a difference between 'personal spirituality' (individual) and 'religious observance' (social).

I am also very, very uneasy at the inclusion of 'animal cruelty'. This is less because I absolutely love animal cruelty (I don't, and like any thinking person am of course a vegetarian) and more because once this passes, animal cruelty for non-religious reasons would still be legal. If we go smash up a kitten sanctuary, it's fine; if we do so in the name of the Great Owl Goddess, it's not. That seems to me to be itself instituting a kind of religious discrimination.

I would like to see a proposal on religious freedom passed, though. This was one previous attempt (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=566355) at such.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain stand with by the Nation of Kelssek.

We are a mostly secular people, and therefore are against the idea of religious schools. However, there is a solid minority within us which hold various different beliefs, and the remainder of the population is, for the most part, respectful of these individuals choice to believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny (especially since our leader has seen the latter). As an entire people, we have come to a near-consensus arrangement, which we believe satisfies both groups: there are no religious schools in Sasquatchewain. Some in the religious community were saddened by this decision, but it can be explained by the government's atheist-leaning views and it's disbelief that religious education is in any way an intellectual improvement for the student.

That, however, is not to say that Saturday Schools are not allowed. Most of the religions in Sasquatchewain are believed to have branched from the same ancient religion, in part due to their similar beliefs on the holiness of Saturdays. Due to the religious importance of this day and the fact that it, coincidentally, is also one of our days off, most of these religions have created Saturday Schools, places where children can join together in communion and be taught about the sacredness of the Yeti, the Tooth Fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

With such schools, the Peoples of Sasquatchewain have no qualms. We are simply against the creation of official schools, every weekday, from Tuesday to Friday, who also preach religious ideals. We believe it to be important to create two completely different settings: School, where the students are taught our language, mathematics and science, and the home/Saturday School, where they are taught their parents' ideals. We fear that, in the all-too-common conflict between observable fact and religious teachings, the latter will win due to it's greater psychological appeal and simply due to the larger presence it has in the child's life if it is found both in the school and in the home.

Should religions choose to educate their young in Sasquatchewain, they are in every way entitled to do so (though, of course, not with the aid of government funding or tax exemption)... at their own time.

If your national educational curriculum includes religious classes based on your church, then there's no issue. I'm not legislating on whether or not church and state must be separated. Just that religions have a right to educate their children if they deviate from the national standard. I will make that clearer in the next edit.

I also placed section 5 in there to protect the state religion's right to public education for Theocracies and any other nation with a state religion.
But due to the current wording I'm still not sure where we would stand:

4. Religious schools may be set up to provide an alternative education to the national standard, provided the religious group has satisfied the criteria set forth in section 1.

a) These schools cannot accept government funding and all funding must come from the religious group.

5. Nations with a state religion may offer religious classes in public government-funded schools.

A little background might be helpful.

New Leicestershire is not a theocracy (I would hope that would be obvious), but the Church of New Leicestershire is an officially established or "State" church. There is total religious freedom in New Leicestershire, of course, but the CoNL is the "official" church. [OOC: RL equivalents would be the Church of England, Church of Norway, Danish National Church, etc.]

The Church is state-funded currently at a rate of 3% of its operating budget. This is mostly to cover upkeep on older, historical church buildings which make up an important part of New Leicestershire's cultural heritage. The goal is for the Church to become financially self-sufficient eventually, but we're not there yet.

The schools operated by the Church and the national schools are separate systems with their own curricula, but the church schools are tax supported to a certain degree. So we would appear to be in violation of (4), but since we are not a theocracy we would appear to be ineligible for the exemption offered in (5).

We have a rather unusual relationship between church and state and I'm sorry to have to throw this into the discussion. Hopefully there will be an easy work-around.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Rutianas can claim that religions that practice human sacrifice are illegitimate, but who are you to tell other nations that the majority religion is no longer protected under their law?

Even if a religion involving human sacrifice were excluded from the internationally-mandated protection of this resolution due to the author's definition, there is nothing to stop individual member nations from allowing or even encouraging such religions and such practices within their own jurisdiction. I would suggest that unless you are demanding that people be allowed to practice human sacrifice in nations where it is illegal, yours is a moot point.

The famous Quodite philosopher Ron Jawls defines liberty as (paraphrased) 'a freedom commensurate with an equal freedom for all other persons': maybe you could use that kind of construction? Human sacrifice does rather tread on the religious liberty of the person having their giblets whipped out in the name of the Great Owl Goddess, after all.
OOC: But what if they actually volunteer for the role, to serve their people and/or in the belief that they would therefore get a better afterlife than would otherwise be the case? There are RL precedents for this posibility...

We believe it to be important to create two completely different settings: School, where the students are taught our language, mathematics and science, and the home/Saturday School, where they are taught their parents' ideals. We fear that, in the all-too-common conflict between observable fact and religious teachings, the latter will win due to it's greater psychological appeal and simply due to the larger presence it has in the child's life if it is found both in the school and in the home.OOC; And what of those nations where the reality of the religion's teachings is observable fact? Are you going to try telling the Narnians that Aslan doesn't exist, for example?

We have a rather unusual relationship between church and state and I'm sorry to have to throw this into the discussion. Hopefully there will be an easy work-around.
OOC: It's probably not that unsuual, considering the number of British and ex-British nations around... and also, for that matter, nations that have elected governments but cultures that are built around certain RL faiths such as Roman Catholic Christianity. For that matter, the role of the Godwinnian Catholic Church not only in Godwinnia itself but also in that nation's former colonies such as St Edmund, is also very similar to the situation that you describe....
And then there's Bears Armed, where the nation as a whole lacks any 'official' religion but the separate Clans have a constitutional right to choose ones for themsleves and mostly have done so...

First of all I would like to thank you for helping me with the education act.

Religious Freedom and Education

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Religious Freedom and Education

First of all this is Religious freedom not education.

Declares;

1. A religion shall be defined as belief in something metaphysical which does not result in harm to any other individual or place, or needless cruelty to animals that are in the direct possession of the religious group.
I agree with this. Heer, Heer.

2. All individuals shall have the right to religion, or lack of religion, without fear of discrimination.
I Totally agree with this.

3. No nation may pass any laws which causes a religious group or groups to be harmed.

I agree that religious groups should be protected.

a) These schools cannot accept government funding and all funding must come from the religious group.

I am sure many people have said this but i'll say it anyway. Religion schools should be protected by goverment funding as with government schools. This piont itself is discrimination in my book.

b) These schools must conform to the national reading, writing, and mathematics curriculum.

Yes


5. Nations with a state religion may offer religious classes in public government-funded schools.

Now this I have a little problem with. Why can't all nations offer an optional I put that in bold because it needs to be an optional course not a mandatory course.

Other than the slightly negitive comments. This is a good resolution and make the changes I have outlined and you have my vote.

James Bluntus. The Nation named after the British Singer and Army Captain James Blunt.:D

Because the Freedom of Expression is at vote, if this passes, I will only be tackling the Religious Education portion of this proposal since the current resolution at vote ensures a right to Religious Beliefs.

I will be editing the proposal later this evening.

I have updated the proposal. Here is the current version.


Right to Religious Education

Category: Education and Creativity

Area of Effect: Educational

The World Assembly

Recognizes that there are many different religions
Accepts that all individuals have a right to their own religious beliefs
Seeks to protect a religious group's right to educate their children in a manner that is deemed appropriate by their beliefs
and
Declares;
1. Religious schools may be set up to provide an alternative education to the national standard.

a) These schools must conform to the national reading, writing, and mathematics curriculum.

b) Other classes may be decided upon by a board of education with members elected from the religious group's community.

c) No one may interfere with the curriculum of these schools provided they are in compliance with section 1a and the laws of the nation the school is located in.

2. Funding for these schools may come from multiple sources as long as they adhere to the following criteria.

a) Religious groups may choose to fund their own schools completely.

b) Governments may choose to set up a program to allow funding for religious schools as long as all religious groups have access to the program and are not disallowed access due to religious reasons.

c) Private corporations may fund a religious school, however, they may do so only with proper applications to the government to set up a not for profit charity organization which will then fund the religious school.

3. Urges all private schools to keep tuition costs, if necessary, to a minimum of one half the cost needed to

4. Nations with a state or official religion, or a theocratic form of government may offer religious classes as a part of the national curriculum, however, they must offer an alternative for students who are not part of the state or official religion.

5. When a child reaches adolescence, the parents or guardians no longer have the right to send the child to a religious school should the child demand to attend a different school as long as the child does not switch back and forth in different schools more than once in a school year for a period of two years.

This is better, but I must impress to change point 4. All schools must be able to offer an optional course if they wish. This is the point that will kill this proposal. However, I am intriged but delighted with the change in number 5.

a) These schools must conform to the national reading, writing, and mathematics curriculum.

Given that it doesn't cover religious freedom now, I can't see any reason I would support it, but adding science to that list, taught in a non-disparaging manner, might make it slightly more palatable. I still would be against the resolution, but, you know.

Also perhaps it would be clearer if "reading, writing" were changed to "language".

I'd go further. Religious schools should be subject to the same national curriculum requirements and restrictions as non-religious schools, except that they may provide additional classes in their specific religion.

OOC; And what of those nations where the reality of the religion's teachings is observable fact? Are you going to try telling the Narnians that Aslan doesn't exist, for example?

If it is observable fact then it is not religion. It might be a part of their religious traditions or whatnot, but it is not a religious belief because... well... it actually happens. People who own Newton's Principia Mathematica aren't Newtonians; they aren't believers and worshipers of Newton. They simply have a book that includes information on a real-world occurrence. And, regarding Aslan, well, he's also a scientific reality since he has been repeatedly observed in a few Blockbuster movies. Anyone worshiping him is as religious as one who worships Einstein.

As well, the People of Sasquatchewain feel the need to continue to fight against this resolution. While we are firm believers in the right for religious freedom and speech, we do not believe in the existence of a right to teach religion as being on an equal footing with school education. We express once more our complete acceptance of Saturday Schools as important tools for religious parents to teach their child their religious beliefs, however, we will not allow those beliefs to insult the child's education by imposing themselves and expressing themselves as equal to the important classes.

I have updated the proposal. Here is the current version.
Clause #3 appears to be incomplete...

I'd go further. Religious schools should be subject to the same national curriculum requirements and restrictions as non-religious schools, except that they may provide additional classes in their specific religion.
Make that "the same national or local curriculum" and we might be able to live with it: However the constitution of Bears Armed specifically includes educational policy amongst those matters that fall under within the jurisdictions of the separate Clans (and Free Septs, and other "primary" elements of the nation) rather than that of the national government, so any proposal requiring the imposition of a single 'national' curriculum (whether devised by the national government itself or designed by the WA...) would be constitutionally unacceptable to us.

If it is observable fact then it is not religion.
That has to be one of the daftest statements I've ever heard about religion.

Make that "the same national or local curriculum" and we might be able to live with it:
I wasn't intending to accidentally create a national curriculum, so I'll bow to that. Maybe "the same curriculum [...] as comparable non-religious schools..." or "...as non-religious schools in the same area" or some such?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary,
trying to find somewhere to store the Ambassador's hunting rifle.

Even though current events in Rutianas has forced us to leave the World Assembly, I have been given permission to stay on as an observer. I will continue to work on this proposal until it is in a format that is acceptable to the general floor and can be voted upon. At that point, someone else will have to take it from there.

Now, on to the comments.

As for national or local curriculum, I have no issue with this alteration. I also have no issue with stating that these schools must conform to the national or local curriculum where it does not infringe upon their religious beliefs.

If that will be acceptable, I'll update the proposal.

Paula Jenner

That has to be one of the daftest statements I've ever heard about religion.

Well, one word that crops up in almost all the definitions of religion I looked up contain the word "supernatural". Thus, if your "belief" is in something which is not supernatural, it cannot be considered religion. My belief that I am communicating with the representative of Gobbannium cannot be a religious belief unless the hon. ambassador is a supernatural entity, which based on available evidence, I strongly doubt. Likewise, if the Narnia books were real, then Aslan would be real, and the belief in Aslan's existence could not then in any meaningful way be considered religion.

I would thus agree that the definition of what constitutes religion would exclude anything based primarily on observable facts, and hence that the hon. representative from Sasquatchewain is correct in this regard.

Maybe "the same curriculum [...] as comparable non-religious schools..." or "...as non-religious schools in the same area" or some such?

Yes, that would work better. In the whole debate over the religion issue, I forgot that Kelssek doesn't have a national curriculum either; as education is a provincial responsibility.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the WA

Well, one word that crops up in almost all the definitions of religion I looked up contain the word "supernatural".

If we might be so bold as to suggest it, Ambassador Lattener, your contemplations might be improved by a more careful choice of definition. Our experience is that those definitions which required or emphasise supernatural aspects in religion tend to be very superficial, and come about because of the nature of the religions that they are being drawn from. We suspect a great deal of their popularity derives from the way in which they easily permit atheists to characterise their belief system as not a religion. However, if we may present a counter-example, it is a fundamental tenet of Strict Druidism that properly applied, it cannot be anything but exactly and precisely "natural".

If we are to go down this route, the definition of "religion" then becomes highly dependent on what one is culturally familiar with. I would also suggest that atheists, who by definition reject religion, have little need or indeed ability to tinker with the commonly accepted definition of the word "religion" as would be found in dictionaries. I had earlier consulted the Internet, but in regards to this question I have consulted two rather thick dictionaries, both published by two different extremely well-esteemed institutions of higher learning in the English world, and both agree on a stricter definition than I have allowed - "the belief in a god or gods".

It is problematic to be too general with this term, particularly when the enforcement and applicability of this proposal could well hinge on it. With respect to your example, it can be argued that Druidism is not properly a religion but a set of traditions or philosophies. It is perhaps worth noting that many adherents of Buddhism likewise reject the classification of it as a religion in favour of the description I have just mentioned.

If we are to consider that "belief systems" such as Druidism, which I admit my general ignorance of, count as religions, then we would not only have to, paradoxically, include atheism which is based on the denial of all religion, but also political and socioeconomic belief systems like democracy, socialism, capitalism, nationalism, communism, fascism, and the variants thereof (I think I've used a similar point before). While there are some ways in which they do resemble the types of beliefs based around worshipping a deity or deities, it would be very hard to accept that these belief systems can properly be considered religions, and even harder to accept that they should all have the right to instruct and immerse young children in these beliefs.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the WA

[OOC: The two dictionaries I was able to get my hands on were published by Oxford and Cambridge universities.]

re*li*gion.
Pronunciation: ri-`li-j&n
Function: n
Etymology: ME religioun, fr. AF religiun, L religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perh. fr. religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13c
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of ——>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness.
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Definition is also from an esteemed published dictionary. I hope that it is sufficient for our discussion of this resolution.

If a definition of religion can be agreed upon, then I'll add it to the resolution. Here's the updated version.

Right to Religious Education

Category: Education and Creativity

Area of Effect: Educational

The World Assembly

Recognizes that there are many different religions
Accepts that all individuals have a right to their own religious beliefs
Seeks to protect a religious group's right to educate their children in a manner that is deemed appropriate by their beliefs
and
Declares;
1. Religious schools may be set up to provide an alternative education to the national standard.

a) These schools must conform to the national or local curriculum, where it does not infringe upon religious beliefs.

b) Other classes may be decided upon by a board of education with members elected from the religious group's community.

c) No one may interfere with the curriculum of these schools provided they are in compliance with section 1a and the laws of the nation the school is located in.

2. Funding for these schools may come from multiple sources as long as they adhere to the following criteria.

a) Religious groups may choose to fund their own schools completely.

b) Governments may choose to set up a program to allow funding for religious schools as long as all religious groups have access to the program and are not disallowed access due to religious reasons.

c) Private corporations may fund a religious school, however, they may do so only with proper applications to the government to set up a not for profit charity organization which will then fund the religious school.

3. Urges all private schools to keep tuition costs, if necessary, to a minimum of one half the cost needed to educate the child.

4. Nations with a state or official religion, or a theocratic form of government may offer religious classes as a part of the national curriculum, however, they must offer an alternative for students who are not part of the state or official religion.

5. When a child reaches adolescence, the parents or guardians no longer have the right to send the child to a religious school should the child demand to attend a different school as long as the child does not switch back and forth in different schools more than once in a school year for a period of two years.

You still haven't explained why a parent's right to 'educate' a child in a way compatible with their beliefs takes precedence over a nation's right to have its people grow up in freedom. Indeed, your preamble strikes an ominous note by talking, not of individual rights, but 'a religious group's right'. This would be the first time in the history of the WA it has acknowledged group rights, and it sets a disturbing precedent.

Another consideration is why religion is given such exclusive precedence. Whether or not a school is religious is but one aspect of its character: is it co-educational or not, have mandatory uniforms, have compulsory sports classes, have a wide provision of extra-curricular activities, have academic specialisations? Why are parental preferences in these regards inferior to parental preferences for weak-minded teaching?

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

3. Urges all private schools to keep tuition costs, if necessary, to a minimum of one half the cost needed to educate the child.

We urge clarification, ambassador. The literal meaning of this statement is that private schools must charge at least this amount; is that what is intended? Or is this meant to be a cap on how high tuition can be?

4. Nations with a state or official religion, or a theocratic form of government may offer religious classes as a part of the national curriculum, however, they must offer an alternative for students who are not part of the state or official religion.

We strongly urge the removal of the second part: "however, they must offer an alternative for students who are not part of the state or official religion." What is the point of having this statement? If a nation feels that religion should not be given dominance of the educational system, then in that nation they can offer any alternative to religious education they want. And a nation that deems that religion cannot be extracted from education must not be forced to cobble together an "alternative" education for a demographic that may not even exist.

Why are parental preferences in these regards inferior to parental preferences for weak-minded teaching?

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria
"Your prejudices are showing, Ambassador: The implication that any teaching which involves religious belief must automatically be considered 'weak-minded' is deeply insulting to everybody -- whether or not they are a teacher -- who holds any religious beliefs."


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Your prejudices are showing, Ambassador: The implication that any teaching which involves religious belief must automatically be considered 'weak-minded' is deeply insulting to everybody -- whether or not they are a teacher -- who holds any religious beliefs.
Not at all. Many people hold religious beliefs and are capable of holding such in the context of a secular society. Weak-minded are those so afraid of their beliefs being unable to stand up to any kind of challenge that they spirit them away into a padded, cushioned world of fluffy isolation.

-- Samantha Benson

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

We have some concerns about article 5 here:

5. When a child reaches adolescence, the parents or guardians no longer have the right to send the child to a religious school should the child demand to attend a different school as long as the child does not switch back and forth in different schools more than once in a school year for a period of two years.

For reasons which we've explained earlier, the only public schools available in our nation are religious ones. Does the author expect Kawaiian parents to comply with an adolescent child's demand to be sent to a foreign school smiply because that child may not like the school his or her parents picked out for them?

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

We have some concerns about article 5 here:



For reasons which we've explained earlier, the only public schools available in our nation are religious ones. Does the author expect Kawaiian parents to comply with an adolescent child's demand to be sent to a foreign school smiply because that child may not like the school his or her parents picked out for them?

Ahh, thank you for pointing that out. I need to alter that. I meant that a child couldn't be forced to attend a private religious school once the child reaches adolescence. Sorry for the confusion. I'll update that one on the next go. I could also state that the child cannot make unreasonable demands as to the location of the school, including but not limited to, foreign locations, out of locality, etc. so that the parents or guardians are not put through undue expense to send the child to school.

Paula Jenner

We urge clarification, ambassador. The literal meaning of this statement is that private schools must charge at least this amount; is that what is intended? Or is this meant to be a cap on how high tuition can be?

It is intended to be a suggested cap on how high the tuition can be. I will reword in the next update for clarity. If you have any suggestions for wording, I'm open to them.

We strongly urge the removal of the second part: "however, they must offer an alternative for students who are not part of the state or official religion." What is the point of having this statement? If a nation feels that religion should not be given dominance of the educational system, then in that nation they can offer any alternative to religious education they want. And a nation that deems that religion cannot be extracted from education must not be forced to cobble together an "alternative" education for a demographic that may not even exist.

I hear what you are saying and I agree, however, should I remove that, I fear there will be an uproar of those who feel strongly that children should not be forced to learn religion. I can, however, reword it slightly to state that they must offer an alternative to the specific religious classes for students who are not part of the state or official religion as this is what I had originally intended for this to do. This could be as easy as offering philosophy, something that Rutianas does regularly for those who do not wish to take our many different theology classes we offer in order to satisfy our theology requirement.

Paula Jenner

How about this wording for part 3:

3. Urges all private schools to keep tuition costs to, at most, one half of the cost of educating the child.

I hear what you are saying and I agree, however, should I remove that, I fear there will be an uproar of those who feel strongly that children should not be forced to learn religion. I can, however, reword it slightly to state that they must offer an alternative to the specific religious classes for students who are not part of the state or official religion as this is what I had originally intended for this to do. This could be as easy as offering philosophy, something that Rutianas does regularly for those who do not wish to take our many different theology classes we offer in order to satisfy our theology requirement.

Hmm...that is more palatable, and much more clear. We are still not certain that this part is necessary, as religion is not easily distinguishable from non-religion, especially in a theocracy like our own. Meaning, all of the classes in our education system could be considered religious classes, although few of them teach religion alone.

We are not convinced that this section needs to be in this resolution. This is perhaps too complicated to be handled at the WA level and should be a national-level issue.

Not at all. Many people hold religious beliefs and are capable of holding such in the context of a secular society. Weak-minded are those so afraid of their beliefs being unable to stand up to any kind of challenge that they spirit them away into a padded, cushioned world of fluffy isolation.

-- Samantha Benson

"Bah, nonsense! When the members of a faith are being pushed to conform to some other system of belief instead, through social pressure or legal discrimination or outright persecution, whether that rival system is actually another religion or is outright atheism, it is strong minds that are needed to resist that 'challenge'..."

Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

"Bah, nonsense! When the members of a faith are being pushed to conform to some other system of belief instead, through social pressure or legal discrimination or outright persecution, whether that rival system is actually another religion or is outright atheism, it is strong minds that are needed to resist that 'challenge'..."
Given this is totally unrelated to my initial statement, I am going to respond with a sentence I believe to be of approximately equivalent relevance:

Electric blue is very much in fashion this season.

This narrowly beat out 'ham and mustard are the best flavour sandwiches', 'lemurs are cuter than monkeys', and 'gibble gibble brrr thunk mooo kaa-kaa!'.

Our school system does not push anyone to conform to 'some other system of belief'. Having a secular school system does not 'pressure' members of a religion to join another one. You also seem to be omitting to mention that if, indeed, the societies protesting here are as strongly religious as is being claimed, it is difficult to see exactly who is going to be exerting this 'pressure'.

Besides, I am not so sure that being pressured into thinking clearly about one's beliefs is such a bad thing, anyway. I seem to recall someone having a long, critical think in the Garden of Gethsemane.

-- Samantha Benson

Now, as I see it, from my atheist eyes, having a specific private school devoted to a religion is a, more or less, harmful idea. It is wrong in mine and my Nation of Karaktih's opinion to have these permitted schools. It is wrong to enforce a religion upon a child or another other person in the Nation of Karakith!

I do indeed believe that forcing a religion, or any almost anything in fact, onto a child is immoral and can cause harm. Although the parents may believe, do to their religious beliefs, that having their child be put into a school of their (the parent's) religion, it can cause the child to turn it's head. It would be like forcing your child to starve if he/she did not eat a specific food that only you liked.

Besides that, it would separate the entire community. How so? Since there is obvious clue's that most religions hate each other, it would separate the children from possible friends from other religions, and the Christians would discriminate the others. Since communities should not be divided, this education proposal would be defying many freedoms.

Which brings me to another complaint. Freedom. Although children in most Nations do not have many rights until they turn to the legal age of 18 (21 in some places...), it would be denying their freedom of religion if their parents are able to force them (the children) to go into the religion of their (The parents...) choice. It is to my concern that denying the children of one of their most important freedoms would be sending Nations downhill, and may bring up crime rates due to unhappy little children.

So, in any case, there would be the possibility of a small uprising from the children, and the community being separated. Would that be good? (Rhetorical question)

When it comes to it, you are welcome to oppose this proposal, given your rather vehement dislike for religion and it's schooling. However, several of us, such as my own home, are theocratic states. Religion is a way of life among us, and, indeed, no one may live in Karianis unless they are a member of our faith, and all schooling is religious in nature.

However, I understand if this is incomprehensible to you. Few who hate religion can understand why we behave and believe the way we do.

As a matter of fact, my only problem with this proposal is that it requires an alternative schooling in a theocratic state, such as Karianis... when all people who live in my home must be of the faith, it makes no sense to have an alternative school at all. It would simply be a waste of money. Although the sole teacher that got the job would certainly have a wonderful life of idleness.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the WA
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

How about this wording for part 3:

3. Urges all private schools to keep tuition costs to, at most, one half of the cost of educating the child.



Hmm...that is more palatable, and much more clear. We are still not certain that this part is necessary, as religion is not easily distinguishable from non-religion, especially in a theocracy like our own. Meaning, all of the classes in our education system could be considered religious classes, although few of them teach religion alone.

We are not convinced that this section needs to be in this resolution. This is perhaps too complicated to be handled at the WA level and should be a national-level issue.

Agreed and agreed. I'll update the proposal to make those changes.

I have to respectably disagree with the proposal, I know where you're going with it, I get it, and I understand the movement, but I'm still against it. Really, its because I'm against faith based schooling, teach spirituality on your own time, be it sunday school or animal sacrificing hour, but leave academic education alone. Its segregation, public schools allow for different faiths to be under the same roof. Children learn to get along, and this nurtures acceptance and eases xenophobic tension. If you segregate kids from one another because of their religion they don't learn to accept others, and that leads to problems that I don't think this resolution and its maker intended at all. Suddenly nations will be divided with districts for this- and that religion, and nation's will be in constant civil unrest, generation after generation passing down cold and angry feelings for other religions (and they're people) in all reality because they just don't understand them, people fear most what they don't understand.

I hope you can understand my government's position on the matter, and further hope we don't seem too unreasonable.

Honored Ambassador from Karakith: You make some good points. The resolution does provide for the fact that a child may choose to switch schools--he or she is not permanently bound by parental decision. The initial decision is of course made by the parents, but who else should have the right to make that decision? The parents make the decision because the children are not mature enough to do so from birth.

Honored Ambassador Karin: Our own Theocracy of Harmonious Treefolk is in a very similar circumstance! But Rutianas is removing the clause that would force us to cobble together unnecessary alternative education. There will be no idle teachers on our watch!

Honored Ambassador from Rutianas: Thank you for making those changes!

Honored Ambassador Eduard Heir: You have a valid viewpoint. Of course a nation united under a common culture enforced by common schooling would be ideal. But what will the curriculum be? Ask any school administrator or education official in any nation and they will tell you they are constantly plagued by parents, politicians, and scholars to include X in the curriculum and exclude Y. The problem is bad enough in nations where different types of schools exist; how much more complicated would it be when all schools of the nation are the same? Anything that could be considered necessary to be taught must be prioritized; things will be left out and many will be unhappy.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve, while sympathetic to the intent behind this Proposal, has a number of issues. Namely:

1. It assumes that national laws permit a private schooling system outside the nationally established system, or at least creates one for "religious schools" while not dealing with non-religious private schools for those who would wish for an alternative schooling system without religious beliefs being taught.

Question: if there are no provisions in place for the creation of private schools in a nation, is it the intention of this Proposal to create, by virtue of this Proposal, such a possibility? If so: this Proposal is insufficient in providing the neccessary regulations for creating a new form of schooling with what is contained in the Proposal. If not: this should be explicity stated in some form.

2. With the lack of any kind of definition of "religion" - however vague - such phrases as "deemed appropriate by their beliefs" and "does not infringe upon religious beliefs" could become problematic. Even without resorting to theoretical religious beliefs that would provoke the "think of the children!" response, one can be worried about those religious beliefs that would bring in the "spare the rod and spoil the child" forms of education that a nation has found unnacceptable and outlawed. Or requiring immunizations for schooling.

Question: as we are dealing with children, who generally do not enjoy full and complete rights and priveleges that adults do, how are the needs of society (public health, integrating with the outside community, knowledge considered necessary to be a full, participating member of society, etc.) going to be balanced against the needs as expressed in "religious beliefs".

3. There is an inherent tension in Articles 1a "... does not infringe upon religious beliefs" and 1c "... in compliance with section 1a and the laws of the nation". It is more than possible that the educational curriculum is set in national law, or that this is passed on, by law, to another organization. And it is more than possible that that curriculum would infringe upon the religious beliefs. Think, for example, on how to regard abortion or gender roles, or the relationship c.q. primacy between science and religion on various topics.

Question: how will conflicts between the religious beliefs and national laws be dealt with?

4. Article 1a needs to be clarified, in that it does not specify whose religious beliefs. In context, it means the religious beliefs of the religious school, but even then it is still unclear (especially since an organization cannot itself hold beliefs while the members can). However, it can legitimately be read otherwise.

Question: Are you referring to the educators? The parents? The pupils? The community? Another religious groups?

Submitted for your consideration.

Honored Ambassador Eduard Heir: You have a valid viewpoint. Of course a nation united under a common culture enforced by common schooling would be ideal. But what will the curriculum be? Ask any school administrator or education official in any nation and they will tell you they are constantly plagued by parents, politicians, and scholars to include X in the curriculum and exclude Y. The problem is bad enough in nations where different types of schools exist; how much more complicated would it be when all schools of the nation are the same? Anything that could be considered necessary to be taught must be prioritized; things will be left out and many will be unhappy.

Unibot believes in universal academic studies that do not infringe on anyone's spirituality. Mathematics, English, Science, The Arts, are notable subjects as long as the teacher continues to minimize religion in the classroom. Do not take those words wrong, our schools are not blindly spewing atheism (as we consider it to be another "religion"), they just do not see biasedness towards one religion or another as having a home in our academic classrooms. Kids need to learn under the same roof, and to have more multicultural communities. We are not saying our schools and culture is a melting pot, it is a mosaic of different religions and cultures. Faith-based schools are deterrents of progress, they encourage religious segregation and are a backwards step towards a more peaceful and accepting world.

We are saying it is important for families to educate their younglings on their family's religion and culture, but their is a time and place for it. Our academic teachers should not be doing it for them.