constitutional change proposal

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
The following shall be adopted as the new Article 7 of the Constitution, with renumbering of subsequent sections as appropriate.

ARTICLE 7: REGIONAL RELIGION

1. Flemingovianism shall be adopted as the Regional religion and church of the North pacific.
2. As per the Bill of Rights, section 2, all nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any or no religious belief, and this shall not be curtailed.
3. The Flemingovian religion shall receive no financial or tax advantages through being the state religion of The North Pacific.
3. Holidays of the Flemingovian religion shall be observed regionally, and all nations shall have the right to take a day off work, unpaid, on those holidays.
4. No Flemingovian official shall serve on the cabinet or any other appointed government position by virtue of their status in the Flemingovian religion.
5. Flemingovian officials shall participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions.
Click to expand...

I think I have built in enough protection, while at the same time allowing for some role play fun.

Remember fun? It's what NS is all about.
 
Rationale:

Having a state religion would, I believe, greatly enrich the cultural life of TNP. It would provide opportunities for roleplay, liturgy, poetic input etc. Lots of fun to be had, especially by the more creative folks.

I do not know if anyone has noticed, but the creative side of our regional life has waned somewhat. (any of you remember what Poe tried to kick-start?) This could, with imagination, give a boost to that side of things.

I have tried to build in as many safeguards as possible. There is no compulsion to become a Flemingovian, and freedoms are guaranteed. There is no advantage, as far as I can see, given to Flemingovianism by this.

It gives us sort of the situation we have in the UK. There is a state church which is called on for state functions, but nobody is penalised for not being part of it, and nobody is forced to support it in any way.

I have even done away with bishops in the house of Lords! or the NS equivalent.


I do not see a downside.
 
Do government positions include the position in the courts that you currently hold?
 
Good point. I would change 4 to read

4. No Flemingovian official shall serve on the cabinet, court or any other appointed government position by virtue of their status in the Flemingovian religion.

Please note, this does not prevent any Flemingovian from serving the region in the normal way, as now. It just prevents any advancement by virtue of being a priest of Flemingovianism (or God himself, of course).
 
a) Why does this have to be a constitutional change?

b) Why does this have to be enshrined in law at all? I understand the protections and such, and they're all fine and dandy, but RP and cultural stuff can happen /anyway/, and doesn't need this legislation to do that.

Unnecessary legislation is asking for trouble.
 
I see your point. Many things don't NEED to be in the constitution. It just gives some official protection and recognition if they are. It also prevents things being subject to the whim of changing administrations.

You might as well ask why our flag NEEDS to be in the legal code. Or our forum address in the constitution. the answer is in the protection and recognition it affords.

Same principle.

I would not be averse to putting this into the legal code, if the constitution is deemed an inappropriate place to put it.
 
They're different - they're things that are there in order to protect against abuse or change at the whims of the government at the time, and in case of regional crisis.

This is going in for the sake of encouraging some regional cultural activity...distinct difference.
 
Hmmm. the only difference I see is that they are things YOU want to see offered some legal recognition and protection. Flemingovianism is something *I* want to see offered some legal recognition and protection.

If you do not want to see that, feel free to vote against.
 
This is, of course, an undisguised effort to undermine the Bill of Rights in that it would put anyone who professes a different or no religious faith at a disadvantage or second class citizenship.

Not a good idea. Really isn't.
 
The bill of rights makes no value judgement on having, or not having, a state religion.

bill of rights provisions are expressly upheld by this bill. Nobody will be discriminated against should this bill pass, any more than a baptist is discriminated against in the uk because the Church of England is the state church.
 
flemingovia:
The bill of rights makes no value judgement on having, or not having, a state religion.

bill of rights provisions are expressly upheld by this bill. Nobody will be discriminated against should this bill pass, any more than a baptist is discriminated against in the uk because the Church of England is the state church.
Click to expand...
Maybe where you live in real life, but there are many of us who live in nations that do not have a state church of any form, and see no reason for one.

And the subtle inferences of the very establishment of a state church will create the conscious or subconscious inference of second class citizenship.

(And for edification sake, the real life Constitution of the United States even before its Bill of Rights was adopted as amendment, prohibited the use of any form of religious test to hold any office in the United States or any State. So many of us come from such a background where we don't support the inferential effect of anything that amounts to such a device.)
 
Then feel free to vote against. I understand your cultural antipathy. But you have come up with no cogent reason not to permit the regional assembly to have a say on this.
 
flemingovia:
Then feel free to vote against. I understand your cultural antipathy. But you have come up with no cogent reason not to permit the regional assembly to have a say on this.
Click to expand...
And you have come up with no good reason why we should support this. "Just vote no" isn't a substitute for actually debating.
 
Reasonable people can be reasoned with, people with their heads so far up their ass, metaphorically speaking, about what they view as the natural order of things are best left to their unfortunate position. I imagine it is very hard to listen to others, with a colon wrapped around their ears.
 
I suggest you read the "rationale" in the second post above for the reasons for this proposal.

I believe it will enhance our regional life to have a national religion, and I think Flemingovianism is the best developed belief system we have in the region at the moment. Added to which our priests dress in lilac, which will nicely offset the green spandex that McMasterdonia usually wears at official functions.

Is it a life or death matter? No.

neither is our regional flag, regional forum, regional holidays or many other things that we have legislated on.

Might it enhance our regional life? Yes.
 
While the Salty Dogs of Great Bights Mum could be characterized more as free-thinkers rather than adherants to any single religious belief, I think this is an idea whose time has come.
 
3. Holidays of the Flemingovian religion shall be observed regionally, and all nations shall have the right to take a day off work, unpaid, on those holidays.
Click to expand...
This could be problematic, if it's interpreted as giving government officials a day off from their duties. Holidays could be added to the Flemingovian calendar for political benefit - delaying a vote another day, for example.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
3. Holidays of the Flemingovian religion shall be observed regionally, and all nations shall have the right to take a day off work, unpaid, on those holidays.
Click to expand...
This could be problematic, if it's interpreted as giving government officials a day off from their duties. Holidays could be added to the Flemingovian calendar for political benefit - delaying a vote another day, for example.
Click to expand...
heh. that had not occurred to me.

I will edit that into something that closes that loophole.

How about

Holidays of the Flemingovian religion shall be marked regionally, but shall not be observed as civic holidays unless so decided by the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...

Would that work?
 
flemingovia:
Then feel free to vote against. I understand your cultural antipathy. But you have come up with no cogent reason not to permit the regional assembly to have a say on this.
Click to expand...
I too must voice my opposition to this bill, not only out of preference and cultural opposition, but also out of the very real possibility that it violates §2 of the Bill of Rights. And such a constitutional objection should be considered a serious reason not to bring this to the floor for a vote.
 
Can you explain how this breaks clause 2? Clause 2 is quite specific: To quote it in full it says this:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Now you may wish it went further and spoke of separation of church and state, but all it says concerning religion is that a nation's free expression of religion shall not be infringed. That right is specifically and explicitly protected by my proposal.

So you can rest easy, Ator People. Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights remains virgo intacta.
 
flemingovia:
Can you explain how this breaks clause 2? Clause 2 is quite specific: To quote it in full it says this:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Now you may wish it went further and spoke of separation of church and state, but all it says concerning religion is that a nation's free expression of religion shall not be infringed. That right is specifically and explicitly protected by my proposal.

So you can rest easy, Ator People. Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights remains virgo intacta.
Click to expand...
Not only does it require that free expression of religion not be infringed, it also requires that the aforementioned expression "be encouraged". It seems to me that it's a valid point to suggest that the establishment of an official religion might discourage expression of another religion, even if it is still, "protected."
 
Doesn't formal debate need to be scheduled, or was all that considered formal debate?
 
Ator People:
flemingovia:
Can you explain how this breaks clause 2? Clause 2 is quite specific: To quote it in full it says this:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Now you may wish it went further and spoke of separation of church and state, but all it says concerning religion is that a nation's free expression of religion shall not be infringed. That right is specifically and explicitly protected by my proposal.

So you can rest easy, Ator People. Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights remains virgo intacta.
Click to expand...
Not only does it require that free expression of religion not be infringed, it also requires that the aforementioned expression "be encouraged". It seems to me that it's a valid point to suggest that the establishment of an official religion might discourage expression of another religion, even if it is still, "protected."
Click to expand...
The Anti-Pope will encourage the expression of any and all religions counter to Flemgovianism.
 
Romanoffia:
Official State Religions are archaic and outmoded, like monarchies and titles like Lord Poofity-Poof.
Click to expand...
Outmoded? That's good to know, as I was considering the title "Lady Bight Me."

I second and/or agree to moving this proposal along.
 
I have never quite understood: what is the difference between formal and informal debate? On the ground it does not seem any different at all.
 
Formal debate is time limited and once it ends the Speaker is obligated to schedule a vote, also, while the motion to vote which caused a proposal to enter formal debate may be withdrawn in order to reset formal debate, once formal debate ends the proposal may no longer be amended and will move to vote unless objected to before the commencement of said vote.
 
since during the formal debate the motion cannot be amended, it is worth reminding people how the motion looks at the end of informal debate:

ARTICLE 7: REGIONAL RELIGION

1. Flemingovianism shall be adopted as the Regional religion and church of the North pacific.

2. As per the Bill of Rights, section 2, all nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any or no religious belief, and this shall not be curtailed.

3. The Flemingovian religion shall receive no financial or tax advantages through being the state religion of The North Pacific.

4. Holidays of the Flemingovian religion shall be marked regionally, but shall not be observed as civic holidays unless so decided by the Regional Assembly.

5. No Flemingovian official shall serve on the cabinet, court or any other appointed government position by virtue of their status in the Flemingovian religion.

6. Flemingovian officials shall participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions.
Click to expand...
 
I would invite people to please note article 6

Flemingovian priests could only take part in official events at the invitation of the delegate. If the delegate decides not to include flemingovian priests, they would not take part.
 
flemingovia, is there a specific name you would like to call your amendment? (For thread topic name purposes)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top