[GA - Passed] Freedom Of Religion [Complete]

TlomzKrano

TlomzKrano

Just a blob chasing cars
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Kranostav
Discord
Tlomz

ga.jpg

Freedom Of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: United Massachusetts | Onsite Topic​

Lauding this Assembly's previous efforts to protect a plethora of rights and liberties, ranging from freedom of speech to healthcare access,

Concerned, however, that the esteemed ambassadors of the world have to this point been unable to pass legislation guaranteeing the fundamental right of sapient creatures to freely practice religion, leading to an odd situation where international legislation legalising circumcision exists, but not guaranteeing freedom of religion,

Again asserting that foremost among the rights entitled to creatures is the right to peacefully worship any deity one pleases, or to refrain from doing so,

Understanding that due to the complexities and intricacies an religious practice, legislation in regards to the topic of religion ought to be careful, straightforward, and respectful,

The General Assembly, finally transcribing the freedom of religion into international law, hereby:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the following terms:

"religious belief" as any set of spiritual beliefs regarding the nature and origins of the universe involving a concept of the divine or supernatural,

"religious practice" as any practice associated with a religion, be it practiced through rituals, prayer, or any other sort of activity, performed either individually or in a group,

Asserts the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to hold any religious belief, including a lack of religious beliefs, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution,

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

Asserts the right of all individuals to gather into groups, organisations, and institutions associated with religious belief without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, subject to the same restrictions established in Clause 3,

Strongly urges member nations to adopt a secular policy towards religious practice,

Strongly urges all member nations to refrain from criminalising victimless crimes when performed out of a genuinely-held religious belief,

Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as preventing member nations from taking action against those groups whose religious beliefs manifest themselves in violence or coercive action.
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
The current proposal is an earnest attempt at securing religious rights and freedoms for citizens of WA member nations who may otherwise be forced to worship or not worship specific deities. The proposal allows member nations freedom over the specific criminalization of acts that may threaten the safety, health, or good order when brought upon by religion or persecution thereof. It is important to mention that this proposal protects the rights of citizens to legally practice religion in groups and fear no repercussions as well as the right of citizens to refuse specific religious practices that may have formerly been prescribed by the member nation. Should future application of this resolution be abused, the ministry will seek a repeal and replacement for the abused piece of legislation.

In accordance with the aforementioned reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For this proposal.
 
I was onboard until they "urged" a secular position towards religion in governance. I think state religions can be observed without having to automatically criminalize or persecute minority religions.

I vote Against.
 
I vote for; despite a flawed clause "Strongly urges member nations to adopt a secular policy towards religious practice". My support outweighs my criticism, upon second look-over.
 
Against.

For starters, the author has stated: 'Again asserting that foremost among the rights entitled to creatures is the right to peacefully worship any deity one pleases, or to refrain from doing so.
I'm curious to know where the author feels this 'entitled right' comes from, if there is, in fact, no current legislation?
One can only assume that the author feels that this right is entitled by some sort of deity. It's pure sophistry. As is the statement 'leading to an odd situation where international legislation legalizing circumcision exists, but not guaranteeing freedom of religion.' There is significant medical consensus on the benefits of circumcision that have absolutely nothing to do with the religious origins of the practice. Essentially, the author is saying: Hey, this quasi religious medical practice is legal, so why shouldn't we throw open the doors on freedom of religion? It's a complete non-sequitur. The language of this proposal is misleading and the logic is deeply flawed.

The obvious bias in the open statement shows that this proposal has little to do with entrenching to law the ability for free thought on the matter of religion, but rather, to advance the causes of religious belief. Throwing in statements like 'including a lack of religious beliefs' looks like a means to make the proposal seem more neutral than it actually is, simply as a means to get votes. Pretty obvious that the author doesn't even understand what it means to exist without religion.

The reality is that all sentient beings, by way of consciousness, already have an inherent and natural ability to think freely on the subject of the origins of life, the universe, and everything. That is, unless they are coerced into a preconceived belief structure and told that this is the only way to think. Then there's a problem. The notion that indoctrinating impressionable children with anti-science fairy tales, stunting intellectual and emotional growth, is 'victimless', is absurd. Religion is, in my opinion, the ultimate affront to free thought, and is anti-intellectual and anti-scientific in its nature. When the answer to every question is (insert deity here) the possibility for an extended understanding of the natural world in its true form, is destroyed. That's the true contravention of human and existential rights.
 
Voting For.

If the majority vote changes, I will edit my vote accordingly in the morning.
 
For. my criticisms are for the two 'strongly urges' clauses but overall it is pretty good.
 
Just as a heads up to those voting "For": I hope you're ready to justify every law on your books, including having employers provide contraceptives, or not discriminate based on religion, or not discriminate based on gender, etc. because that's what the strict scrutiny here requires. This is why just taking poorly written USA legislation and slapping a part of it into a GA resolution is usually a bad idea.
 
Mall:
Just as a heads up to those voting "For": I hope you're ready to justify every law on your books, including having employers provide contraceptives, or not discriminate based on religion, or not discriminate based on gender, etc. because that's what the strict scrutiny here requires. This is why just taking poorly written USA legislation and slapping a part of it into a GA resolution is usually a bad idea.
Click to expand...
This. I discussed this in private on discord, but I haven't been able to decide on the proposal until now.

In the US Supreme Court Docket there is a case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v Becerra, where the State of California thought that nonprofit Christian pregnancy crisis centers were purposely targeting vulnerable pregnant women and giving them deceptive and misleading information about abortion, contraception, etc. In response, the legislature of California required that these centers a. disclaim that they are not licensed medical centers if they aren't, and b. provide information about other available abortion options if they were licensed medical centers, regardless of the their view of abortion.

California says they are advancing a public health interest, i.e making sure women aren't deceived. The Institute claims they are being targeted for their legitimate activism, and interfering with their religious actions and expressive conduct. Whatever your view on the case, and the thousands of other cases like it, these questions should be up to the member states to decide in the WA. Depending on one's interpretation of "religious practices", I was skeptical that this proposal, in this instance, would take the side of the NIFL, and prevent the state from interfering with religious conduct more broadly in general, even if the state has reasonable interest.

The heavy protections given to collective religious organizations and institutions to engage in "any religious practice, or to refuse to engage in said practices, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution" is suppose to be checked on line 3, allowing the states to curtail a practice if the restriction "...on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order,". This is an extremely high burden to overcome, and, as said by Mall, you will at the very least have to scrutinize every law that touches upon religious conduct in this view.

I am sure that there are other ways to protect freedom of worship. With these reservations in mind I will be voting against.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top