Recent content by The Church of Satan

I resign my citizenship.

Court Justice: 1. < Pallaith > 2. < Lord Dominator > 3. < Attempted Socialism > Would you like to reopen nominations? < No >

Court Justice: < St George > Would you like to reopen nominations? < No >

Application for Admission to the Bar Applicant name: The Church of Satan Part One: Experience as a Justice or counsel 1. Have you served as a Justice (including as a Temporary Hearing Officer)? <Yes|No> (if No, move to question 5) Not in this region. Several years ago, I served as Judicial...

I don't even know why this is a thing. This is a waste of the Assembly's time.

I'm not saying The North Pacific should be letting them become citizens. In the matter of Venico's citizenship application being rejected, I supported the decision (note that I said as much in the thread about it.) I am just stating that not allowing residents to attend cultural events where...

And yet some of them had aligned themselves with The North Pacific as well. Doesn't that count for something?

Because the assumption that everyone in it is the same way is a terrible way of thinking. It's a fearmongering tactic used to dupe people via an extreme form of patriotism. It should be approached sensibly in order to ensure that justice isn't obscured by militarism.

Who's to say one is automatically a bad faith individual? Are they guilty by association? In my experience, that point of view is always flawed, and never 100% correct 100% of the time. And sure, Venico's was reasonable, but they're not all Venico. They're not all "out to get you" like some...

It's a slight exaggeration, but the notion isn't exactly inaccurate. And something tells me the executive intends to legislate around the ruling as much as they can get away with, for the sanctions only. I disagree with the sanctions on general principle, because I've been on the receiving end...

It certainly seems to be the kind of atmosphere the executive is attempting to create, by infringing on fundamental, unalienable rights in order to combat an enemy that could be anywhere at any time. Associating with them in any way calls one's loyalty to the state into question, and meeting...

What's unreasonable about it? Should The North Pacific really be a place where treason and your loyalty are defined by who's at the same party as you? That doesn't sound democratic at all.

Since there was no North Pacific case law that defined the freedom of assembly, there was nothing else I could base it on.

I'm merely suggesting that some of TNP's Bill of Rights borrows from or is influenced by, America's constitution. It certainly seems apparent in the wording of some areas, especially with regard to articles 2, 7, 9, and 11. So it isn't unreasonable to interpret some of it in the same manner.

I mean, it wasn't rewritten. The North Pacific's court merely reiterated what American history and judicial precedent have affirmed after the decline of McCarthyism in The Second Red Scare during the Cold War.