SirCedric: I'm not suggesting people be restrained from expressing themselves, or be forced to adopt ideas I deem acceptable - just restrained from their beliefs being imposed upon my personal space. That being the space in which I currently occupy. If they can express themselves thusly, then so can I - and here's where conflicts arise. Should they want to impose upon me their superstitions then they should not be afforded any protections from my opinions regarding. Of course, private residence and defined places of worship would not count as my personal space.

Please comprehent: Religion is the sharing of our highest emotional values.!.!.!

Its inherent individual and impossible to supress or X-change with dead stuff or BS. Its part of openess and grace/blessing functions as well the communal effects are what make individuals sane and stronger than "fanatix & priests", those religious values are paramount for sociopools to become healthy and intelligable (fruitfull), they are the basis for those science-fanatics to adhere to ethical/moral values as well.

The making fun of ones religion shall be the crashtest to the individual - GOD said! Hahah

The whole of each ones galaxy watches us bringing this into forms of expression... Grow!

I feel this discussion has, perhaps, gone a bit into the weeds and misses the larger points. As Asgardians we should be open to the free discussion of ideas and freedom of speech promotes this. However, also tantamount to any free society is the notion of free association and likewise disassociation. If you codify into our constitution the notions of self-determination, the right to well-being, and free association, there is no special need to include protections for religions. Those who wish to associate around a religious belief may do so and those who wish not to have this right as well. If a person of religious belief chooses to use their self-determination to proselytize and try and get others to associate with their religion they may do so, but should someone reject these entreatments their right of disassociation should protect them from being compelled and their right to well-being would restrict the individual proselytizing from pursuing further as harassment brings about a negative impact on mental well-being. By codifying protections of religion specifically as some western countries have, you inadvertently implicitly give an ideology/organizations special privileges over other organizations/ideologies. Notions of religions not being ideologies and being a pursuit of truth are subjective as clearly shown in the prior conversation and therefore cannot be used as criteria for determining freedoms.

Religião é um tema muito contundente, e obviamente temos acalorados defensores sobre qual deve ser ou não adotada, e muitos que preferem a liberdade de escolha (como eu).

Particularmente considero que todos sempre seremos livres para escolher nossa religião e isso nem mesmo deve ser debatido ou sofrer nenhum tipo de represália devendo sim ser garantido como um direito a liberdade, entretanto temos visto que diversas religiões são belicosas na Terra, sempre buscando imprimir que sua ideologia é a Salvadora, o que ao meu ver é um imenso erro, pois provoca segregação religiosa.

O que temo é a ruptura de nossa nação devido a valores religiosos, pois se sou A não sou B, nem C, nem D; e consequentemente tenho que converter B, C, e D; ou transformá-los em oponentes para que a minha de alguma forma seja superior aos que comigo compartilham da A. Desse modo há uma necessidade de liberdade condicionada visando o bem-estar de todos.

I'm completely agree with the rules awuori44 suggested, surely we will have to retouch and specify a few things more but it is a very good beginning.

Religion is a worldview, as so atheism. If someone is not allowed to share his worldview then the freedom of speech is just a farce. If someone wants to share his worldview (whether it is religios or atheist worldview) with me is his right, and my right is to say my opinion, to accept it or to refuse it. Judging someone is different thing which must not be tolerated, and that means for both sides. We must learn how to live together respecting different opinions and worldviews.

However, sharing methods have to be discussed, sharing methods can be friednly and respectfuly, but they can be agressive. So, freedom of expression - yes. Means and methods of expression - need to be disscused and defined.

Sharing is fine by me. In their own home, defined place of worship, or at the explicit request of the recipient.

A freedom of speech isn't a general right to say whatever you'd like, superceeding all other rights, or it'd be possible to weild this in an abusive fashion.

Agree with EyeR this time. Freedom of speech don't supersede other rights. One think is talk freely about your beliefs, one other thing is to impose your prayers or litanies to others at any place...

Remember that we are all from different countries. We have different customs and religion enters it. I am not religious but I agree that they should respect individual beliefs. I respect the religious, respect the atheists and respect those who do not practice any religion but believe in God.

I believe anyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe. it is a personal freedom of THOUGHT. I don't believe that people should be drones or clones of each other, individuality is what makes a specific person THAT person. As I said, you are free to think whatever you want.... herein lies the problem... there is not a single religion that I know of - in the world currently; that doesn't try to change how other people think, how other people believe or not believe.

A LONG time ago, a friend (in the US) summed up "freedom" perfectly. You are free to do what you want as long as your freedom to do what you want has NO effect on anyone else

That said. I don't believe there should be any mention at ALL about religion in the constitution...

I didn't say that freedom of speech should supersede other rights. On the contrary, I agree with you. Maybe I didn't expressed myself on the best way (language barrier). I said "So, freedom of expression - yes. Means and methods of expression - need to be disscused and defined."

Have fun defining religion, where people are religion will spring up. You cant be so ignorant to think that there will be no "organised religion" in asgardia? Its human nature, best we can do is expect it and limit its damages threw correct constitution / bill of rights construction. Regardless of the above if ASGARDIA was to go ahead it needs the sanction of the UN, there are rules to be followed and one of them is tolerance. No one can preach tolerance while not allowing others to express there religion, matter of fact the UN wouldn't even allow asgardia to exist if that was its plan. No new nation will escape the cannons and cannons of law, let alone the magna carta, we already fought for certain things, common law still exists...

This question shouldn't really need to exist, for Asgardia to exist it needs UN sanction, to get UN sanction it must follow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.... http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Case closed.

Asgardia will have a society based on science,technology and engineering, topics Which do not mix very well with religion and looking at what ALL religions have done to humanity in our history and still doing to us, I would really suggest to leave religion as a personal issue. In our private moments and spaces, anyone can believe anything but in order to have an healty society, it has to be religion free, based on human rights as living beings and not following the inheritance of a sick world like the earth and of mankind's history, it would be a complete disaster. Religions split people, divides society, tntroduces reasons of conflict and diversity. Let's learn from the past. Let's be smarter.

I do not think it necessary to define a chapter that properly refers to the field of religion. In everyday reality, everything that is included in this concept is limited to a set of customs and traditions that each individual adopts in his particular way (a Catholic / Christian / Jew / Muslim goes to war to kill, something that is usually Others drink alcohol, consume or sell hallucinogenic substances, live for wealth, while others die poor, lie, steal). There are people who do not believe in anything, but who assume the characteristics of the people who founded those religions.

It is not possible to nullify the beliefs, we all believe in something, philosophy of life, ideology of coexistence, religion, nature, politics, sports ... whatever. What should be considered is a respect for each identity of each person, should not be coerced. But if you protect yourself from aggression and respect the other in how you express your individuality, what you believe you can bring to the community so that it grows and improves, for a common good.

I could assure that at some point we will find ourselves in the dilemma of breaking with anthropocentrism; Because we could realize that our planetary companions (animals, plants, etc) are not far from having the same abilities as ours (not improbable), only that they are handled with different codes; So we will also get to the sigularity with the technology, certain type of machines will have our same capacities. And if we are lucky (or bad luck) we are not alone in the universe. In either case many certainties that centuries ago between us would collapse

Well there is an observation I hear from the Kyril Orthodox, which impresses me, because it is quite accurate (only a fragment of it, LOL). In some countries the "secular / lay government (without religion)" (I believe that in the end almost none is, since in the laws appear many sections that seem religious) are created laws of religious equity that end up causing more friction between the Different confessions (like Christians against Muslims in Europe), and some end up not having the same freedoms as the other for example: bathing clothes (europe, australia), Christmas festivities (near east); But there are other places where there are 10 religious expressions and live in respect, animists, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and so on.

Going to the idea. Is inappropriate to use the term religion/feith/ideology/cult, it should be: Personal cultural-ideological expression, and it must be protected and limited in all the terms of reason and coexistence. The nation should not submit to repressing expressions, but believers should not impose their beliefs, in that case restrictions may be placed on individuals who do not respect others (not the profession of religion, nor an ethnic community); Must participate under the ambit of logical-practical reasoning and complete fraternity with the community