Statement on the discussion about flemingovianism

Greetings all,

As I am sure you have all noticed, discussion on our regional forum has, for the last two weeks, fixated on the establishment of flemingovianism as the state religion of The North Pacific. I would like to address three aspects of this discussion.

The first aspect is the various claims that have been made regarding the effects of having flemingovianism as the regional state religion. Most of these come from the private newspaper "Vox Populi - The North Pacific Free Press" and its publisher, Romanoffia. Going through the three published issues, I see the following claimed effects: conversion of The North Pacific into a totalitarian theocracy and/or a tyranny, persecution and suppression of non-believers, restriction of free speech through either censorship of non-believers or criminalization of statements against flemingovianism, and infringement or even complete removal of the religious rights of our members. Many of these actions are attributed directly to the regional government.

As head of this government, I can assure you that all of these claims are completely incorrect, and in fact absolutely ridiculous. Our region continues to be governed in the same way it was before the enactment of the flemingovianism act. All of our members remain free to subscribe to any religion they wish without any consequences. They can continue to freely express their opinions on religion, government, or any other matter, within of course the limits set by our Criminal Code and the forum Terms of Use and Terms of Service. The government has not treated any members in any way differently than it did before flemingovianism became the state religion.

The adoption of flemingovianism as state religion is no different to the adoption of a regional flag, a regional coat of arms, or a regional holiday. It is a roleplay element very distinct from anything analogous in real life. It is intended to enhance the regional identity and not to suppress our members' individual roleplay identity, let alone their real world one. Like the regional flag, the regional coat of arms, and the regional holidays, the state religion does not change the fact that the community of The North Pacific is one of the most open, democratic, and welcoming communities of NationStates, and the fact that members of The North Pacific enjoy broad and universal rights that are unique across NationStates.

The second aspect is the conduct of a conspicuous participant in this discussion, Romanoffia. What started as opposition to a state religion has very quickly escalated into a relentless attack against certain members of the region, and most prominently Flemingovia. For three weeks now, almost all of Romanoffia's posts are targeting Flemingovia. The posts have degenerated into condescending remarks, offensive name calling, nonsensical conspiracy theories, outright taunting, and overall a good subset of everything that defines inappropriate behavior.

Constructive criticism and healthy debate is something an open and democratic region such as ours nurtures. Everyone is free to express their disagreement with the religion of flemingovianism, or with its adoption as state religion, as long as they do so in a civilized manner respectful of others' rights. This is not what we are having here, at least not anymore. We have a member of our community singling out another member and harassing them incessantly. This abusive behavior pattern by Romanoffia needs to stop. While it is not within my prerogative as Delegate to take action to address this issue, it is within the prerogative of the forum administration and moderation team (of which I am a junior member) to do so, and I am glad to see that the team is now taking action.

The third and final aspect is the fixation itself of the region on this subject. It is a sign of disintegration of our forum community to see, for three weeks in a row, every single active thread be consumed by bickering around flemingovianism. In particular, it is making our forum very unattractive for new members, who join and try to get involved, only to discover that nobody is doing anything else but argue about some roleplay matter that to them seems trivial and alien.

Since the beginning of this term, I have been manually sending an average of 50 telegrams per day inviting members to join our forum. I know that a few others from the Cabinet and the Ministry of Home Affairs staff send similar amounts of telegrams. We are also sending, through automated scripts a few hundreds of telegrams per day, again encouraging members to join our forum. This massive recruitment campaign has worked wonders, and we have seen lately a surge in the number of nations that decide to come over to the forum. It is very discouraging to see all this effort go to waste, because we are turning the forum into an inhospitable place that turns away those new nations that seek to become members of our community.

The blame for this does not lie solely with Romanoffia, though he does have the lion's share. Romanoffia, to his credit, did limit his posts on the subject within a certain forum during this last week, after being warned about the effects of his behavior. It is a matter that needs to be addressed by the region as a whole, and we all need to move on from this subject.

Sincerely,
r3naissanc3r
Delegate of The North Pacific

The adoption of flemingovianism as state religion is no different to the adoption of a regional flag, a regional coat of arms, or a regional holiday.

Click to expand...

I do not ever recall the adoption of a regional flag, coat of arms or holiday causing at least one RA member to resign over it.

There was also no large-scale, concentrated, and slanderous campaign against those elements of our RP government.

Putting that aside, the argument I am making is exactly a response to that. An RP religion is no more offensive to your RL religious beliefs than an RP flag is to your RL patriotism. Those resigning over the adoption of an RP religion appear to be oversensitive on this issue, potentially as a result of your overblown campaign against it.

The RL flag and religions offend me. It should be replaced with the TNP flag and Flemingovianism. Flem needs to make a RL hard copy of the book of Flemingovianism so I may practice IRL. Get in touch with your penal gland or something. (No not that one perv!)

Does the Delegate support the compromise I have proposed in the Regional Assembly over the issue?

I think supporting the compromise would be a sign of leadership to settle the dispute. And I do disagree with the Delegate contention that the current law has no impact of those who do not share a belief in Flemingovianism, it does have an impact -- intimidation -- which is something that does offend Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights Which is why I propose the compromise in order to put into law a middle ground that I believe all can live with.

Grosse, can you please point out to me how exactly the flemingovianism law results in intimidation? I see no such effect myself, nor any violation of Clause 2 or any other clause of the Bill of Rights.

As for your bill, at this point it is not compromise, it is appeasement: the bill attempts to stop the abusive behavior I condemned in my statement by rewarding it. I will not be supporting any measures that reconcile with this kind of behavior.

I wholeheartedly approve and support the Delegates statement. I feel frustrated that discussion continues to dominate the one subject across multiple areas of this forum, while excellent executive policy and the opportunity for a debate on other important issues have been almost ignored by RA members.

mcmasterdonia:

I wholeheartedly approve and support the Delegates statement. I feel frustrated that discussion continues to dominate the one subject across multiple areas of this forum, while excellent executive policy and the opportunity for a debate on other important issues have been almost ignored by RA members.

Click to expand...

I find the whole statement totally wishy-washy and limp as a bowl of fresh spaghetti.

The point is, Official State Religion is such a silly and stupid concept that it will always be a perennial matter even if I don't oppose official state religion.

When something so stupid as the existence of an 'official state religion' (an incident that came up in previous incarnations of this forum with equal resulting shenanigans) actually passes the RA, there should be no doubt that it will ruffle a few feathers on the birds who oppose such an idiotic institutionalisation of inequality and discrimination.

The opposition to State Religion will never go away as long as their is an Official State Religion no matter how much pressure or coercion is used to silence that opposition. In fact, the more you try to stamp out opposition, the more the rightness and moral correctness of that opposition is supported, strengthened and caused to grow.

Alunya resigned from the RA over having to comply with the governmental recognition of an Official State Religion. And then there is the growing number of people who choose to stand up and fight against the very idea of an Official State Religion. And as long as an Official State Religion continues to exist, that opposition will grow even more, and more so with any attempts to stamp out that opposition.

State Religions are the ultimate form of rogue behaviour on the part of any government because it extends the tentacles of government into the most private areas of the private lives of individuals - their minds.

Can we talk about something else? Apparently there is a WA treaty currently being ignored.

No, since a number of people have taken the active stance to make this all about me (and they have admitted as much in absolutely clear admissions), then I say since this is all about me, we continue to talk about me instead of the real issue of the idiocy and tyranny of official state religions!

Hey, they wanted to make this all about me (by their own admissions), why not continue to make this all about me?

Me, me, me. State Religion is irrelevant at this point. Now, if there was no official state religion, then none of this would have ever happened.

Roman for cheese minister!

I've read plenty of what you have to say Roman. You don't need to repeat it everytime I say something.

Romanoffia:

I find the whole statement totally wishy-washy and limp as a bowl of fresh spaghetti.

The point is, Official State Religion is such a silly and stupid concept that it will always be a perennial matter even if I don't oppose official state religion.

When something so stupid as the existence of an 'official state religion' (an incident that came up in previous incarnations of this forum with equal resulting shenanigans) actually passes the RA, there should be no doubt that it will ruffle a few feathers on the birds who oppose such an idiotic institutionalisation of inequality and discrimination.

The opposition to State Religion will never go away as long as their is an Official State Religion no matter how much pressure or coercion is used to silence that opposition. In fact, the more you try to stamp out opposition, the more the rightness and moral correctness of that opposition is supported, strengthened and caused to grow.

Alunya resigned from the RA over having to comply with the governmental recognition of an Official State Religion. And then there is the growing number of people who choose to stand up and fight against the very idea of an Official State Religion. And as long as an Official State Religion continues to exist, that opposition will grow even more, and more so with any attempts to stamp out that opposition.

State Religions are the ultimate form of rogue behaviour on the part of any government because it extends the tentacles of government into the most private areas of the private lives of individuals - their minds.

Click to expand...

You're cooking your spaghetti wrong.

It is one thing to be against state religion (remember, I voted against the bill). It is another to demonize state religion as something that turned TNP into a theocratic tyranny where citizens have no rights, and to derail every single discussion on the forum with a ridiculous fearmongering campaign against state religion. And it is even worse if, in the process of doing so, you systematically harass other members of the community.

Your actions fall straight into the second and third categories, and my statement is a very appropriate response to them.

Romanoffia:

No, since a number of people have taken the active stance to make this all about me (and they have admitted as much in absolutely clear admissions), then I say since this is all about me, we continue to talk about me instead of the real issue of the idiocy and tyranny of official state religions!

Hey, they wanted to make this all about me (by their own admissions), why not continue to make this all about me?

Me, me, me. State Religion is irrelevant at this point. Now, if there was no official state religion, then none of this would have ever happened.

Click to expand...

It is only your fault that you alienated the majority of the community when you decided to systematically abuse members. People don't exactly tend to bullies, rather they isolate them, and rightly so.

r3naissanc3r:

Grosse, can you please point out to me how exactly the flemingovianism law results in intimidation? I see no such effect myself, nor any violation of Clause 2 or any other clause of the Bill of Rights.

As for your bill, at this point it is not compromise, it is appeasement: the bill attempts to stop the abusive behavior I condemned in my statement by rewarding it. I will not be supporting any measures that reconcile with this kind of behavior.

Click to expand...

R3N, you will be hard pressed to find anything I have said or done that in any way amounts to appeasement of Roman, and I should resent your comment having even been made because I am sure you know better than to say that.

I have no control over what Roman says or does, but I can only point out that I have long ago stated my belief that imposition of a state religion in and of itself creates an oppressive atmosphere for those who do not agree with or accept it. I did not approve of Roman's tactics as they have made my job of offering a middle ground more difficult. Your statement in the opening post of this thread did not help things either.

I know what it is like from first hand experience to live in a TNP with oppression of thought and belief, and it was one of those experiences that led to the original drafting of what was at first called "The Declaration of Rights," and what is now "The Bill of Rights."

You need to read Section 7.3 of the Legal Code with a much more careful eye with a view towards how it impacts those who do not agree with Flemingovianism. It ostracizes them, 9t favors the presence of Flemingovian religious officials at state events and functions. It grants one religion and its observances a favored legal and official status over any other religion and a favored status over those who may not profess or even wish to profess any religious belief.

I have posted a revised proposed compromise that fully reflects several things: First, it fulfills Flemingovia's request than there be no actual reference to "Flemingovianism" in the Legal Code. Second, it offers a framework that fully comports with Clause 2 of The Bill of Rights and its directive that religious observance be encouraged while preserving any and all choices as to religious observance. Third, it structures the governmental response in a way that avoids government entanglement with any particular religion, and assure even handed treatment of any and all religions in the process.

This is a true honorable compromise. And I hope you can be forward looking enough to recognize that fact, and support this compromise.