Great Bights Mum:
The voting has started and I am surprised to see so many nay-sayers, since no one here has posited any opposition to the proposal.
(Fine fine... I'll be the heathen. Just don't throw rocks when I say that the world is indeed round and not flat.)
For centuries, we have made myths, stories, and tales from yonder of past prophets and beings with abilities that go beyond the technology of the modern day and are often referred to as supernatural. We listen to their beliefs (and misquote them), translate and interpret them (often in the way these beings do not intend), and follow those interpretations. I will not argue that Flemingovia is or is not a supernatural being. Perhaps he does hold the qualities that the plurality of society deem to be the requirements of the status of "deity" or "supernatural." Perhaps he can do all that he says he can do and more. Perhaps he can not and it is merely the advancement of modern science to new extremes at work. This is not the issue I wish to address, because it has no bearing on the act.
The problem is the consequences of this act, should it pass and should Flemingovia be realistically able to perform such actions.
We are on the edge of crossing the line between Secularist policies that have governed the regional government for years and Moralist policies which come close to the repression of other religions. By changing the motto of The North Pacific to be "In The Flemingingovia God We Trust, but with certain reasonable reservations," we are actively promoting one religion that recognizes Flemingovia as the sole god of importance. This is a dangerous step and can be considered in violation of Section Two of the Bill of Rights. By actively promoting a single religion, we are threatening a nation's right to the expression of its own religion. By allowing this motto to replace our current one, we risk the ire of other regions and the loss of prestige in our policies of secularism.
Another major concern is Section Two of the "Flemingovia-God Act." There is no definition of miracles in this sense and can easily be abused. For example, what one considers a miracle could be a flood that sweeps over a nation, erasing their industrial manufacturing in the name of "returning to nature." Not everyone would agree that would be a miracle, but Flemingovia would be theoretically allowed to perform such actions should someone deem such a horrendous action a "miracle." In this specific case, Section One of the Bill of Rights would be violated, as it would tamper with the domestic infrastructure of a nation and would force them to take different actions. It would also be a violation of Section Two because it would hypothetically force that nation to abandon its previous beliefs in favor of Flemingovia's, so as to appease Flemingovia and hopefully halt any further "miracles" upon their land. Perhaps my second reason is entirely debunked due to Flemingovia's nature. Perhaps, if he does have supernatural abilities, he will be merciful and not use them for evil. However, I wish not to attempt to take such a risk.
Finally, Section Three of the "Flemingovia-God Act" raises even further concern for educational purposes. The Section states that "The Flemingovia Gods offers no rewards for intellect." At the moment, this can be taken in a number of ways. Perhaps instead of reward, it is punishment for intellect. It is not clearly stated that this is the case, but the lack of clarity offers opportunities for destruction upon the educational system of other nations. This can violate Section One and Section Two of the Bill of Rights if the interpretation presented is indeed the correct one, as it forces nations to change their education system to match that of the will of Flemingovia. This will certainly violate the policies of nations who believe in the separation of church and state and will violate the freedom of religion that each nation holds dear.
I humbly beg you all to reconsider the ramifications of this act before voting upon this. There is major cause for concern and the wording of this act is very ambiguous. I suggest that perhaps this Act fail in its vote and be rewritten to address the possible concerns and possible violations of the Bill of Rights this Act comes with.
Anyone second?
