Title: The Doctrine opposing Religious Extremism, a fundamental policy of the Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA) and INTERPOL

[Sole] Author: Shawn Dexter John, Master of Arts

Universities of Affiliation: Howard University (Washington, DC) and Saint Thomas University
College of Law (Miami Gardens, FL)

Sole Location of the Author's [Agency] Employment: Florida, United States

Indefinite stature: author not under legal/audit inquiry or penalty (with none required by law or
employment)

Date of Updated Transcription: 10/27/2023

Central Intelligence Agency (Work Paper)

_______________________________________

There is no position of mine which supports, situationally or generally, the imposition of any
policy purposed with protecting, appreciating, or promoting religious extremism, that related to
the depreciation or inhibition of fundamental human development prerogative(s) due to the
conduct of a religious practice, in the operation of religious institution(s), or in representing the
interest(s) and/or value(s) of communit(ies) of faith (meaning faith-based communit[ies]). The
Central Intelligence Agency, now revised (in policy makeup) within a continuum anticipated from
its earliest days, has not for decades and, in moving forward, won't support the protection,
appreciation, or promotion of [bonafide] religious or cultural extremism.

The following tenets enumerated provide the communication of related [legal] principles,
concentration of affairs, and activist creeds sanctioned as operable in meeting the fundamental
and complimentary demands of human development prerogatives, those constitutional in
modern society, communicated as a template of law here:

(1) There shall be condoned no religious practice, within the respective jurisdiction, which
breaches the fundamental right(s) of humanity; in corresponding with modern terms and
discourse, it is worth noting the prioritization of women and girls as protectees,
(2) No religious community shall practice any conduct which is prohibited by the government
of the respective country (of [contemplated/intended] activity), as recognized in
accordance with legislative terms duly enacted by authentic representatives of the
democratic electorate (meaning of constituential correspondence); any referendum, in
this sort of situation or any other, shall not serve to diminish, inhibit, prohibit, or
depreciate the existence or positive effect of human rights protection(s), those ratified by
the General Assembly of the United Nations (UNGA), those protected by the Charter of
the United Nations, and those enumerated via the constitutional and other directive laws
of the respective State of presence,
(3) The legal prohibition of a traditional, contemptuous, or unique religious activity has to be
correctly cited, per judicious assessment(s), as being consistently in violation of
fundamental human right(s); no instance of prohibition, concerning any practice or
liturgy, (1) shall aim to disqualify the corresponding religion from being engaged as
fundamental or complimentary to modern human society, (2) should depreciate the value
of the religion to its subject, as an intent, or the culture of humanity, or (3) should
disavow the religion in its totality (or negligently),
(4) No religious tenet, its practice, should lead to the infrastructural destruction of any
segment of any society, meaning territory (dependency, [abroad] province, or constituent
state), nation-state, continental union, league of States operating under an ethical or
imperfect charter, or global institution (of governance) or should direct the fatality or harm
of any segment of the respective civilian or non-combative population,
(5) No religious minister or official, within his faith-based community of institution(s), as a
politician, as a social activist, or as a secondary vessel, should actively instruct the
practice of any unethical activity or conduct whether communicated via explicit
correspondence(s), via vocalization, via publication, via unique lingual attribute(s), via
social interaction, or via media broadcast,
(6) No territory (dependency, [abroad] province, or constituent state), nation-state,
continental union, league of States operating under an ethical or imperfect charter, or
global institution (of governance) should be prohibited from enjoying infrastructural or
human development due to the non-clinical existence of religious practices deemed
extreme, though the United Nations (UN) and the contracted intelligence and security
community being evolved have mandated, via resolution and adherent policy, [member]
governments to be responsive to the matter and to refrain from barring discreet
international intervention for assisting the prohibition, abolition, or regression of the
respective unethical practice without abusing human rights, civil liberties, and sovereign
integrity; where legal order(s) condemning institution(s) and/or formal communit(ies)
within a political State or such are issued by competent authority judiciously, there shall
be immediate measure(s) installed to ensure that there is no prohibition or inhibition of
either infrastructural or human development while rectifying the identified flaw(s),
(7) Though we shall refrain from condoning any religious practice which breaches human
rights provision(s), we shall not bar the existence or cultivation of religious faith(s) merely
un-identified as popular or as being of one of the major religions of the world,
(8) No territory (dependency, [abroad] province, or constituent state), nation-state,
continental union, league of States operating under an ethical or imperfect charter, or
global institution (of governance) should be targeted for disqualification as a prospective
participant within regional, continental, or other international project(s) and/or
communit(ies) due to its under, standard, or over representation of any spectrum of
religious faiths; no such State or its extent shall be condemned from increasing or
decreasing (or shall be mandated to unethically increase or decrease) the spectrum of
religious faiths within; however, it remains a fundamental priority of the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) and INTERPOL to endorse having all faiths represented in
every segment of the globe, in every concept of political State with time, and
 (9) The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is in the process of negotiating with the
international and security community being developed to evolve existent theocratic
governments toward representing democratic and pluralistic values (constitutionally) in
coherence with the charter, constitutive, and human rights documents of the United
Nations (UN) without having to remove any non-abusive affiliation between such
contemporary governments and their founding/adopted religions; however, we will
preserve throughout the Americas, including the United States, today and under its
political constitution as the future Union of the Americas, the effectual and [implicit]
perpetual separation of State and Religion (detailed within mandates and doctrines).

Addendum (to the above):

*(10) Even in countries protected as maintaining an official affiliation between the State and the
respective founding/adopted religion into the future, the Equality of Religion principle explained
by me within publications will be applied in every Member State of (1) the five continental
Unions being negotiated for constituting the totality of the global system of future Unions and (2)
the future World Government (the United Nations [UN] under [revolutionary] reformation in half a
century per negotiated plans of the international intelligence and security community being
evolved) - there shall be no devolution of this policy.

*No foreign country outside, Associate State of, territory (constituent state, [abroad] province, or
dependency) of, or external jurisdiction affiliated with a State or government convicted or judged
as having conducted terrorist activity or other violation(s) of human rights provisions shall be
selected by the respective government or the sanctioned authority issuing the Judgement to be
the immediate subject of the respective penalt(ies) not immediately and incontestably relatable -
there shall be no unfair sacrifice in the practice of government or restitution.

*I should note that I am not physically disabled or handicapped, of any deficiency in mental
qualifications, or inhibited by any flaw in condition which would deny me the competent or
productive acknowledgement/utility of my published works.
_______________________________________

Name of [Work Paper] Series Author: Shawn John

Highest Level of Degree Earned: Master of Arts
Institution Issuing Degree: Howard University
Degree being prepared: Juris Doctorate (J.D)
Preparing New Degree: Yale School of Law
Position Being Prepared: [Inaugural] President of Yale Law Journal
Agency of Contracting: Central Intelligence Agency
Institution of Agency Affiliation: Howard University
New Agency Identity Being Assumed: Khaled Hassan
Agency Position: Chief Manager of the CIA and INTERPOL
Last four digits of [U.S.] Social Security Number: 6640
Religion of Shawn Dexter John: Roman Catholicism (Christianity)
Purpose of Publication: Public Briefing

Race/ethnicity: Black/African-American of Caribbean heritage

Citizenship and Nationality: the United States of America (USA)
Sole country of Residence and Location: the United States of America (USA)
Country of Allegiance and Loyalty: the United States of America (USA)
Language of Direct Communication: American English

Author of Communicated Re-transcriptions: Shawn John (also identified as Shawn Dexter John
and Shawn D. John)
Sole conceptualist and author of all original, re-transcribed, and revised publications of
[immediate] relation: Shawn Dexter John

Re-incorporating and Revised Organization: ARSI International Research Policy Institute

President: Shawn Dexter John (also known as "Khaled Hassan" for lawful Agency purposes)

Nature of the Series of Publications: Non-fictional

Professional blog-site hosting the [series] publications: www.shawndexterjohn.wordpress.com