Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 7, 2016 14:32:45 GMT -6
WHEREAS A.13.12 gives religious organizations the power to "discipline their members," and
WHEREAS This power is very broad, and thus susceptible to abuse, and
WHEREAS Recent events have shown that punishments doled out by religious bodies are often extrajudicial, violent, and infringements upon human rights, no matter what religion it is, and
WHEREAS Because A.13.2 does not allow every Talossan to leave a religion they dissent, only "adult Talossans," there is the real potential for child abuse in the name of religion (see previous clause), and
WHEREAS Most religious activities are already protected by A.13.3, so we don't need a provision which gives religious authorities an excuse to contravene the laws of the Kingdom
THEREFORE A.13.2, which currently reads;
is amended to read;
Uréu q'estadra så; Ian Plätschisch (MC-MRPT)
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 8, 2016 21:42:37 GMT -6
I would prefer just eliminating the "free to discipline their members" to adding "within the limits of the law", personally.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 9, 2016 15:02:36 GMT -6
I would prefer just eliminating the "free to discipline their members" to adding "within the limits of the law", personally. Well, certain disciplinary actions (such as banishment from a particular sect) are fine from a legal standpoint. I guess that would still be allowed even if it wasn't explicitly protected.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 9, 2016 16:14:22 GMT -6
Personally - and this may come as a shock to some of you who've seen me putting down bigoted atheists - but I would prefer the question of special protection for religious orgs taken out of law altogether. Reason: this is PRECISELY the loophole that Scientology uses to have its own god-damned North Korea style gulag, the only difference being that the slaves are kept in by brainwashing rather than guns. Google "RPF" "the Hole" "Scientology".
I'm not having some cult set up in Talossa and declare religious protection for totalitarian bullshit.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 9, 2016 16:29:05 GMT -6
I would certainly be open to removing the phrase "free to discipline their members" altogether, especially given that most religious actions are already protected by A.13.3
EDIT; change made.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on May 9, 2016 23:37:08 GMT -6
Add something like "own rules and procedures under limitations of the law"
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on May 10, 2016 4:03:45 GMT -6
↑ Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 10, 2016 19:51:40 GMT -6
I would disagree that "under limits of law" is necessary. It's more of a redundancy.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on May 10, 2016 23:50:09 GMT -6
In this cade i think a redundancy is important: otherwise it could be interpreted as an absolute statement of freedom
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on May 11, 2016 4:01:53 GMT -6
Indeed, I think without it, the law might be construed as “not subject to any limitations whatsoever”.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 11, 2016 6:21:54 GMT -6
I think with the redundancy, it sounds like we're encouraging limits. Let's not forget that the only sections of our law that really matters when it comes to religious organizations are the First, Eighth, and Thirteenth Covenants.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 11, 2016 10:50:07 GMT -6
I think with the redundancy, it sounds like we're encouraging limits. Let's not forget that the only sections of our law that really matters when it comes to religious organizations are the First, Eighth, and Thirteenth Covenants. How would it be encouraging limits? The provision itself does not actually create limits, while any new limits would still need to comply with the Covenants
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 11, 2016 10:54:45 GMT -6
I think with the redundancy, it sounds like we're encouraging limits. Let's not forget that the only sections of our law that really matters when it comes to religious organizations are the First, Eighth, and Thirteenth Covenants. How would it be encouraging limits? The provision itself does not actually create limits, while any new limits would still need to comply with the Covenants What kind of limits would need to be applied other than the ones already set by the Thirteenth Covenant? There is no need for any limits, because the law itself is already superseded by the Covenants, and any limits we apply statutorily would either be redundant or in violation of the religious organization's First and Eighth freedoms.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on May 13, 2016 4:57:32 GMT -6
How would it be encouraging limits? The provision itself does not actually create limits, while any new limits would still need to comply with the Covenants What kind of limits would need to be applied other than the ones already set by the Thirteenth Covenant? There is no need for any limits, because the law itself is already superseded by the Covenants, and any limits we apply statutorily would either be redundant or in violation of the religious organization's First and Eighth freedoms. The Covenants only says: Talossa shall never tax nor purport to tax, unduly burden, outlaw or abridge for its citizens any right to acts of [...] religious worship or affiliation. Limitations can be organically established by law unless they "unduly burden" "abridge" or "outlaw" the internal organization: there's neither a prohibition on "limits" (they aren't necessarily limits, they could be simply rules put in the interest of our citizens or for all organisations) nor an absolute freedom to organise themselves as they want.ù We are simply saying "you have to respect the law of the Kingdom". That's not a redundancy.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 13, 2016 6:03:48 GMT -6
What kind of limits would need to be applied other than the ones already set by the Thirteenth Covenant? There is no need for any limits, because the law itself is already superseded by the Covenants, and any limits we apply statutorily would either be redundant or in violation of the religious organization's First and Eighth freedoms. The Covenants only says: Talossa shall never tax nor purport to tax, unduly burden, outlaw or abridge for its citizens any right to acts of [...] religious worship or affiliation. Limitations can be organically established by law unless they "unduly burden" "abridge" or "outlaw" the internal organization: there's neither a prohibition on "limits" (they aren't necessarily limits, they could be simply rules put in the interest of our citizens or for all organisations) nor an absolute freedom to organise themselves as they want.ù We are simply saying "you have to respect the law of the Kingdom". That's not a redundancy. With respect, writing a law that says you have to respect other laws is a redundancy. You quoted the Eighth Covenant which states "Talossa shall never... abridge for its citizens any right to acts of...religious worship or affiliation." The First Covenant states " No law shall exist abridging the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression..." Abridge: "To lessen the strength or effect of (something, such as a right)"
|
|