General Toleration Proclamation
The Proclamation of General Toleration was issued by the Monarchy of Themiclesia on June 1, 1849 and has been understood as the initial and basic legislation concerning a general freedom of religion in Themiclesia.
Text
The text of the proclamation:
Being commanded to attend His Majesty personally, we in the House of Peers reverently seal and publish His Majesty's command concerning his peers and subjects, for the Chancellor's Most Serene Highness.
For the Peace of our Realm and the Establishment of the Law relative to several Religions, our imperial Progenitors and Ourself tolerating and who do pray and worship Us and our loving Subjects to benefit, We do by the general Assent and Petition of our Court declare for Ourself and our Successors we shall do no Thing to compel a Confession to any spiritual Power or Belief or do any Worship thereof, and also strictly commanding and enjoining that none whosoever of our Prelates, Bishops, Priests, etc. of any Church, Monastery, Convent, or any similar Place or Thing, or any Person annexed thereto, do no Thing to compel a Confession to any spiritual Power or Belief or do any Worship thereof, confiding freely and believing earnestly in the Conscience of our loving and good Subjects, each to be his own competent and sole Judge what Power or Belief shall best benefit himself and Us his liege Lord.
Legal effects of the proclamation
Generally, the proclamation, which is written in a very personal tone, unconventional for the time, is held to have two effects:
- Neither the Government nor any religious body can compel anyone, including their own members, to profess verbally any religion or to perform any act of worship.
- All subjects have the complete and personal liberty to believe in any religion they prefer, and the Government cannot encourage any religious belief over another. Religious dogmata no longer require official toleration to be held in Themiclesia and may be held at will.
It has been rather questioned over the years why such a document is passed as a proclamation and not as an act of parliament, with no accepted answer thus far.
Analysis
When the proclamation passed the great seal, the major organized religions active in Themiclesia each had their own edicts of toleration of various dates. These edicts of toleration had various terms and conditions that were different from each other, setting forth such things as places where the religious body may erect places of worship, the time and manner in which they may worship, and what sort of public activities they may undertake. These edicts were valid against local authorities who seek to restrain their actions for one reason or another, for example the displeasure of the local population. By the start of the 19th century, modifications to the edicts of toleration were no longer managed by the Crown but through Parliament, which granted amendments to previous edicts.
It was not an explicit requirement that religious bodies in Themiclesia seek toleration, as there was no established church in Themiclesia, but for various activities that tend to gain public attention, an edict of toleration would keep the authorities "at a distance" so that the religious activities would not be interrupted by magistrates. On the legal level, the Themiclesian penal law did punish the establishment of "licentious worship" (淫設祀), but prosecutions are rare unless public order was disturbed. A "licentious worship" prosecution never stemmed from official disapproval of its doctrine, but rather the public actions of its adherents. Thus, the grant of toleration was, to an extent, an explicit permission to affect public order in some minor way that did not otherwise violate other laws.
It seems most edicts of toleration were granted without many onera on the adherents of the religious body tolerated, and most monarchs were happy to re-iterate edicts that had fallen into doubt by other officials. Most edicts, however, did contain language referencing a desire to serve their god on behalf of the Crown and his realm. This was not questioned unless the religious body became implicated in a treasonable conspiracy, in which case religious worship undertaken in favour of the treason was considered a case of black magic (為邪祝), which was a crime until 1825. This monarchist language was restated in the proclamation, though here the monarch passively believes all religious individuals would intercede on his and the nation's behalf out of their altruism.
By its letter, the proclamation restrains the monarch and any religious official holding office from him from compelling anyone, including members of their institutions, to profess a religious dogma verbally or perform worship physically, thus precluding the establishment of a state church. But it has been inquired whether a self-appointed religious leader may compel his followers to profess or worship in a certain way against their will; the answer seems to be provided implicitly in various court cases before and after the proclamation that a person cannot be compelled to say or do things in general, except by lawful power.