The state religion act 2014

I disagree with the implied intimidation that has been built into the bill, that has the bottom line affect of enshrining one particular religion and point of view over all others. Passing this as a bill does not make it constitutional or respectful of the rights of all to freedom of religious expression without intimidation or fear or discrimination.

All of which would be the result of this bill. It's wrong, and I will continue to stand for the protection of all of our liberties under the Bill of Rights whether its sponsor likes it or not. This bill, as I said before, is a bad bill. And the fact that its sponsor has no real response to this weakness in the current bill ony demonstrates my point.
 
flemingovia:
The whole idea is disgusting and will eventually disintegrate into a truly Fascist system where anyone who does not comply will be marginalized and ultimated expelled.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole much?

This proposal will lead to fascism just as much as the resignation or removal of a justice will lead to the crumbling of the entire constitution.

Echoing DD, this is an online game. It is good to remember this from time to time.
Click to expand...
I'm just being a wise-ass. Yes, I know it's a game. A little hyperbole from time to time livens things up. Gets some peoples knickers in a twist, but that is also entertaining. :P

Just for the record, Grosseschnauzer hits the nail on the head about this bill. Nothing more needs to be said about it.


Now, for the funny part about the bill - should it pass, someone will surely file a Review with the Court as to the constitutionality of the contents of the bill as per the comments made by Grosse...

Then, any justice who voted for the Bill would have to recuse themselves from deliberating on the constitutionality of the Bill; they will have to appoint THO's which, by the way, would have to be someone who abstained from the vote so as to avoid any clear prejudicial bias on the part of the Justices or THO's...

But, of course, what would really happen is that the Court would simply ignore the Review or simply find that what Baby (Fleminingovia) wants, Baby gets. :lol:

So, for the sake of fun and entertainment,

I will third this to go to a vote. I can't wait to see if people who actually think about what they are voting for outnumber the sheeple who vote with the loudest bleating in the herd. :cheese:
 
I have thought about this since I voted on it last time and I have decided should it go forward I will vote in favour this time.
 
@ Roman - I do not see your concern. You have repeatedly stated that your removal from the office of Chief Justice will cause the complete collapse of the entire constitutional system. even though we have survived this far, you believe doom is inevitable. therefore why does it matter whether we have a state religion or not, since it will all be swept away?

@ Grosse - I have repeatedly responded to your concerns. In fact, some of the wording of the current bill is in direct response to your concerns. However, to go over the issue one more time:

1. The Bill of Rights does not guarantee separation of church and region. it guarantees freedom of religious expression. Provided nobody is FORCED to believe or practice flemingovianism, the BOR is not broken. And the bill restates the freedoms given by the BOR.

2. Even in real life, the presence of a state religion or church does not NECESSARILY mean suppression of other faiths, even implicitly. Here in the UK, I am not an Anglican (the state church). Yet in no way am I disadvantaged by the fact that the Anglican church is the state church. In TNP nobody will be denied any freedom of religious practice or expression.

3. I will repeat again, this is a game. In real life I am a disestablismentarian. But I am perfectly willing in a game context to see the possibilities for regional role play in having a state church in this region. Really, Grosse, this is not real. it does not matter. it's for fun.
 
flemingovia:
@ Roman - I do not see your concern. You have repeatedly stated that your removal from the office of Chief Justice will cause the complete collapse of the entire constitutional system. even though we have survived this far, you believe doom is inevitable. therefore why does it matter whether we have a state religion or not, since it will all be swept away?

@ Grosse - I have repeatedly responded to your concerns. In fact, some of the wording of the current bill is in direct response to your concerns. However, to go over the issue one more time:

1. The Bill of Rights does not guarantee separation of church and region. it guarantees freedom of religious expression. Provided nobody is FORCED to believe or practice flemingovianism, the BOR is not broken. And the bill restates the freedoms given by the BOR.

2. Even in real life, the presence of a state religion or church does not NECESSARILY mean suppression of other faiths, even implicitly. Here in the UK, I am not an Anglican (the state church). Yet in no way am I disadvantaged by the fact that the Anglican church is the state church. In TNP nobody will be denied any freedom of religious practice or expression.

3. I will repeat again, this is a game. In real life I am a disestablismentarian. But I am perfectly willing in a game context to see the possibilities for regional role play in having a state church in this region. Really, Grosse, this is not real. it does not matter. it's for fun.
Click to expand...
Actually, Flem, I do have to admit you make a really good IC argument on this subject, and, inadvertently, an even better argument in OOC matters.

To wit:

US Constitution, Amendments:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

This means that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a 'State Religion", etc.

It does not in any way mean that there is a separation of Church and State (which would violate the free exercise of religion by individuals who are in the government).

Hence, in practice, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence recognizes 'God' and hence, in the proper historical context, 'Judeo-Christian Ethic' as the founding principle of our government in the US, but does so without recognizing a specific sect of Christianity and therefore, in the proper historical context, recognizes that Judeo-Christian religious ethic is the founding order of everything according to the founding documents (the US Supreme Court has upheld this item/concept historically).

Of course, the idea of "God" the founders had in mind was in keeping with the "Architect of The Universe" (a sort of generic 'Creator') as promoted by the Freemasons.

Now, back to the IC issues of getting your bill passed (and you should consider this wisely), you should remove the sectarian items (mainly the "Flemingovian" references), make it generic (I mean, after all, God is God and there is no real need to mention the Flem God and offend anyone).

And that way, you could remove any sectarian issues that might prevent any adherent to any 'Deity' from occupying government positions.

Think about it.

Now, modified as such, that is a bill I could support in the RA (mainly because it creates a by-play between different 'sects' that could be really fun.


I have to add this as an afterthought:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
------- John Adams
Click to expand...
 
I thought the fact that we are not in the US was settled a pretty long time ago?

Either way, I am in full support of this bill.
 
I have thought about it and decided to include the, Oxford, Comma. On reflection, i do not feel Romanoffia's suggestion has merit.

therefore the proposal now reads:

1. The following clauses shall be appended to Chapter 7 of the Legal Code as a new section, entitled Section 7.3:

Religious Observance:
Flemingovianism shall be adopted as the religion and church of The North Pacific.

All nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any, or no religious belief, and that freedom shall not be curtailed.

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

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. Government officials are excluded from the effects of this clause.

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

Flemingovian officials may participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions.
Click to expand...
 
I know our community will be truly enriched through the passage of this bill. The hymns and the scriptures are so glorious! For a long time I have believed this region could make great strides in the name of Flemingovianism. I expect much rejoicing in TNP when this passes. I've a ship full of rum needing a blessing.
 
flemingovia:
I have thought about it and decided to include the, Oxford, Comma. On reflection, i do not feel Romanoffia's suggestion has merit.

therefore the proposal now reads:

1. The following clauses shall be appended to Chapter 7 of the Legal Code as a new section, entitled Section 7.3:

Religious Observance:
Flemingovianism shall be adopted as the religion and church of The North Pacific.

All nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any, or no religious belief, and that freedom shall not be curtailed.

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

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. Government officials are excluded from the effects of this clause.

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

Flemingovian officials may participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well, then, the feeling is mutual. Your bill and religions has absolutely no merits as a 'State Religion'.
 
You know what?

Given the level of stark, raving lunacy in TNP, I will support this bill as long as Flemingovianism is mandatory.

There, have fun with that. ;)
 
It is a infringement of that right to dictate or favor any one religion over any other. And to include a requirement to give religious holidays of any one religion preferred status over all others is an infringement. Directly or indirectly causing a requirement, whether stated or not, that adherent to one religion over any other, or none at all, is an infringement.
And no matter how you try to window dress the matter Flem, what this bill would do creates infringements on religious liberty for those who do not adhere to your notions of religious belief.
My position infringes on no one's religious beliefs because I leave that decision to each individual for themselves. Thomas Jefferson, where are you?

Thomas Jefferson:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between church and State
Click to expand...
 
It is worth noting that our Bill of Rights does not include the establishment clause from the American counterpart, only the free exercise clause.
 
There wasn't a need to d so aa decade ago when the Bill of Rights was originally adopted.

But an establishment of religion, any religion, necessarily involves a form of subjugation of those not in line with that particular religion. So it is possible to create the same result logically even without mentioning an establishment clause. The BoR allows the encouragement of religion generally, not the establishment or favoritism of one over another, or any at all.
 
Promoting or establishing a religion doesn't inhibit the free exercise of other religions, and I haven't seen you present any concrete ways that it does. Your argument so far is based entirely on a philosophical assertion that establishing a religion inhibits free exercise. You may think that the support for that assertion is self-evident, but it is not.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Promoting or establishing a religion doesn't inhibit the free exercise of other religions, and I haven't seen you present any concrete ways that it does. Your argument so far is based entirely on a philosophical assertion that establishing a religion inhibits free exercise. You may think that the support for that assertion is self-evident, but it is not.
Click to expand...

You are certainly and absolutely ignorant of history, aren't you?

Crushing Our Enemies:
It is worth noting that our Bill of Rights does not include the establishment clause from the American counterpart, only the free exercise clause.
Click to expand...

Presuming that the BOR recognizes that everyone is equal under the law in TNP and that no class of people are slaves to another class, the official recognition of a specific religion denies the validity and equality of other religions in relation to the government.

In all reality, if you guys want to go for an 'official state religion', at least have the cajones to call for extermination of 'infidels' just to assure you have no opposition or any other religions. The bogus claim that it will never get to such a point is just a farce.

OOC: I realize that "Flemingovianism' is just an IC joke (or at least I hope it is, but sometimes I wonder...) but state recognized official religions is such a distasteful concept to anyone with a sense of justice or equality that it transcends IC/OOC sensibilitys of any sane and rational person. Religions who claim to believe in religious tolerance and free exercise of religion are usually the very religions who mass-murder people who refuse to be of that religion.

Again, at least have some semblance of OOC morality and ethics even in the IC world lest you fall victim to such idiocy in both worlds.

Some things like state religion, genocide, ethnocide and democide under 'state religion' aren't funny even in the context of IC RPing.

I think I saw this movie in the former Yugoslavia back in the 80's first hand and personal and it didn't turn out well.

I know it's a joke, but it's like the RL Franco or Mussolini invading the IC world for the sake on one player's ego.

IC: But if you want to have a state religion, make your bed and sleep in it. I will just laugh at the stupid results.
 
Romanoffia:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Promoting or establishing a religion doesn't inhibit the free exercise of other religions, and I haven't seen you present any concrete ways that it does. Your argument so far is based entirely on a philosophical assertion that establishing a religion inhibits free exercise. You may think that the support for that assertion is self-evident, but it is not.
Click to expand...

You are certainly and absolutely ignorant of history, aren't you?
Click to expand...
I will be graduating this year with a college degree in history.

Romanoffia:
the official recognition of a specific religion denies the validity and equality of other religions in relation to the government.
Click to expand...
Let us assume for the sake of argument that this assertion is correct. How does that limit the free exercise of those other religions?

The rest of your post deals with out-of-character/real-life state religions. I would like you to consider that the UK has a state religion, and then look over your post again, and state whether you intended for your comments about state religions to apply to a country like the UK. I think that is the best model for the system that is being proposed here.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Promoting or establishing a religion doesn't inhibit the free exercise of other religions, and I haven't seen you present any concrete ways that it does. Your argument so far is based entirely on a philosophical assertion that establishing a religion inhibits free exercise. You may think that the support for that assertion is self-evident, but it is not.
Click to expand...
You really ought to read what I said more carefully; I demonstated how, using logic, you do reach a very similar result of an Establishment Clause even without one, And I have to agree with Roman that we have an equality clause in the Bill of Rights and that reinforces my argument as to how this proposal who preclude such equality.

The fact that you're wanting examples says to me that you're not able to respond to the logic of my argument.

Que sera, sera.
 
I will get to the main points made after work. But I have a video for you to watch

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN1h5av2Bj0&feature=kp[/video]

Where is David Bowie when you need him?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Romanoffia:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Promoting or establishing a religion doesn't inhibit the free exercise of other religions, and I haven't seen you present any concrete ways that it does. Your argument so far is based entirely on a philosophical assertion that establishing a religion inhibits free exercise. You may think that the support for that assertion is self-evident, but it is not.
Click to expand...

You are certainly and absolutely ignorant of history, aren't you?
Click to expand...
I will be graduating this year with a college degree in history.
Click to expand...
FYI, I have a PhD in History and taught as a professor at a couple of relatively well known universities. I suggest you contact your college and ask for your money back and get a degree in something more suitable to your personality, something like Underwater Basket Weaving or Cheesemaking. Just joking. :P

All insults aside, what is your speciality in History?
 
For anyone interested, my DPhil thesis was an appraisal of Jewish revolutionary movements of the C1 AD (with parallels to terrorist groups in the late C20) in the thinking of Morton Smith and Martin Hengel, since we are comparing dick sizes when it comes to history qualifications.

I only mention that because I have few opportunities to mention what dominated my life for so many years.

Looking back over the past few posts I have not seen anything concrete that shows HOW anyone will be disadvantaged by this bill. The objections seem to be philosophical in nature. If you cannot separate real life and in-game, then those philosophical difficulties will remain unresolved.
 
I have no important credentials to bolster my position on the question. I do know that we have tried lots of different things in TNP. Sometimes they work out and sometimes they don't. When they don't work, we try to fix it or try something else. Nothing is set in stone. This is something new, and it has the potential to enliven the community. I think that's always a good thing.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I knew I shouldn't have responded to that first bit. I knew Roman would fixate on that and ignore the substance of my post.
Click to expand...
"I knew I shouldn't have pulled that tiger's tail. I knew it would turn around and let out a long-winded roar". :D

I saw a Schoolhouse Rock once. :)
 
COE, sorry I missed your post in the confusion of penis-size issues in Flem's envious posts... [post referenced for context: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8144738&t=7200640 ]


et us assume for the sake of argument that this assertion is correct. How does that limit the free exercise of those other religions?

The rest of your post deals with out-of-character/real-life state religions. I would like you to consider that the UK has a state religion, and then look over your post again, and state whether you intended for your comments about state religions to apply to a country like the UK. I think that is the best model for the system that is being proposed here.
Click to expand...

Well, in the UK, the Constitution/Laws strictly prohibit a Catholic from ever being a reigning monarch of England. See: Catholics cannot be Monarch in the UK.

Sounds discriminatory to me!

Actually, as a historical tradition, that restriction is quite logical. But then again, the Church of England as far as a state religion goes, is rather null and void in terms of actually meaning anything as a state religion (other than the reigning monarch is head of the Church by constitutional definition, so it would make sense that a Catholic could not head the Church of England. Oh, and having a Catholic monarch has caused or resulted in a lot of people losing apendages (like their heads) after the creation of the Church of England, that is. Can you say Mary I? :P

My argument is, that even in RP, inserting a religious institution into the structure of the government and thus into politics will lead to trouble in due time. Every branch of government, no matter how innocuous it might be, always seeks primacy in government as the ruling branch. Eventually the balance and separation of powers gets, well, unbalanced. Add the 'Church' into the mix and, even in IC, you even further destabilize the situation as you now have another competing element inserted into a balance of power scheme that is not designed to handle a fourth estate of government (even if that fourth estate is only nominal).

Eventually, there will come 'Fleminingovian' endorsements of political candidates. Then will follow 'Papal Bulls' or Divine Ordination and Condemnations of private individuals and political/government/candidate figures. Then you will eventually have to deal with IC religious 'fanatics', sales of IC indulgences, an Inquisition, etc.,,,. A very slippery slope that heads to a very nasty proposition as an unintended consequence at best and an intended consequence at worst. But it will end up that way, sooner or later, and probably sooner.

Were I a cynical codger (which I may very well be), I might think that this is just a thinly veiled power play by a fanatical, self-proclaimed 'deity' that will eventually lead to a power struggle for the control of the government. :P

At any rate, if TNP wants to have a state religion, then have at it. No skin off my arse.

People get the government that they deserve. Who am I to raise concerns about it and deny some people of the windmills they tilt? It will be fun. Just ask Lady Jane Grey's ghost. :lol:
 
I may not be a History major :eyeroll: , but here's a couple tidbits: (all bolding is mine)

The Church of England

At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther articulated a doctrine of the two kingdoms. According to James Madison, perhaps one of the most important modern proponents of the separation of church and state, Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms marked the beginning of the modern conception of separation of church and state.

In the 1530s, Henry VIII, angered by the Catholic Church's refusal (Pope Clement VII) to annul his marriage with his wife Catherine of Aragon, decided to break with the Church and set himself as ruler of the new Church of England, the Anglican Church, ending the separation that had existed between Church and State in England. The monarchs of Great Britain have retained ecclesiastical authority in the Church of England since Henry VIII, having the current title, Supreme Governor of the Church of England. England's ecclesiastical intermixing did not spread widely, however, due to the extensive persecution of Catholics that resulted from Henry's power grab. This eventually led to Nonconformism, English Dissenters, and the anti-Catholicism of Oliver Cromwell, the Commonwealth of England, and Penal laws against Catholics and others who did not adhere to the Church of England.

One of the results of the persecution in England was that some people fled Great Britain in the hopes of religious freedom. Some of these people voluntarily sailed to the American Colonies specifically for this purpose. After the American Colonies famously revolted against King George III of the United Kingdom, the Constitution of United States was specifically amended to ban the establishment of religion by Congress.
Click to expand...
The Church of England was created by a monarch, and is still controlled by monarchs. Are we to make TNP a monarchy then? (rhetorical) Seems to be the antithesis of religious freedom too.

Jefferson and the Bill of Rights

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, whose letter to the Danbury Baptists Association is often quoted in debates regarding the separation of church and state.

In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The Bill of Rights was one of the earliest examples in the world of complete religious freedom (adopted in 1791, only preceded by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789) but it was interpreted as establishing a separation of Church and State only after the letter of Jefferson. At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, many states acted in ways that would now be held unconstitutional, some of them with official state churches. All of the early official state churches were disestablished by 1833.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. Americans could thank the English for indirectly helping them establish true religious freedom. :huh:

Elevating one religion to status of 'state religion', favors one over another (discriminates). I will support any legal challenge to this legislation.
 
Falapatouius, this is not America. Nor is it the u.k.

This is an online, role playing game.

Nobody is creating a monarchy. Nobody is being decapitated.

To base your objection on this to what happened in the C16 is odd.
 
Flemingovia:
To base your objection on this to what happened in the C16 is odd.
Click to expand...
The historical references were to provide perspective in relation to the origins of establishing the concept of 'religious freedom'. The UK is the model you're using. Just wanted to give some background on that model. Obviously, I prefer the American model, which I suspect was the basis for TNP's BOR. (probably)

You sure do flip-flop a lot. At times you are a stickler for the Law, other times you claim it's 'just for fun'. Particularly when it pertains to a pet issue of yours. I mentioned earlier I could support (well.. abstain anyway) this proposal if it was non-legislative. You chose to go the other route. Meh.. that's up to you of course. But, whether IC or OOC, I find the idea of legislating a 'state religion' repugnant and discriminatory. I guess your idea of 'fun' differs from mine.
 
It would help if you could show any concrete way in which you will be disadvantaged by the passing of this act, and any way in which The BOR of TNP (not the USA) is being broken by this act.

So far ... nothing concrete from those giving objection. Roman says this is an attempt to make me dictator of the region. grosse's objection is more philosphical than paranoid. But nobody has come up with any concrete instance of WHY this is repugnant and HOW this is discriminatory.
 
Flem, may I ask you a question?

I support this bill. I said so on the first page. I am a supporter of the Church of Flem. If this goes to a vote I will 95% more than likely vote "Aye."

But, for the sake of argument if this happens to fail or even just in general.....why do you need a bill to make flemingovian the state religion? The BOR says TNPers are free to worship or not worship as we see fit. There is nothing stoping you or I or anyone else to worship Flemingovia as we see fit. We can still worship freely in the temple and hold the Figh rather or not it becomes the offical state religion. And we can still use Flemingovian to enhance the Role Play and culture of TNP. And file for 501C3 Tax Exempt Status so r3n cant send the TNP tax men after us.
 
I think the whole issue is silly. I mean, after all, it is just an IC thingy.

First off, I would like to make it clear that it was silly on my part to bring into this IC issue a RL argument as a means to derail and IC issue (not that any number of people also don't do this).

If having an official State Religion for the sake of silliness and potential entertainment derived there from (after all, we tend to try to be somewhat silly at times for entertainment value), then I say pass the bill.

No more counter arguments from me.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Flem, may I ask you a question?

I support this bill. I said so on the first page. I am a supporter of the Church of Flem. If this goes to a vote I will 95% more than likely vote "Aye."

But, for the sake of argument if this happens to fail or even just in general.....why do you need a bill to make flemingovian the state religion? The BOR says TNPers are free to worship or not worship as we see fit. There is nothing stoping you or I or anyone else to worship Flemingovia as we see fit. We can still worship freely in the temple and hold the Figh rather or not it becomes the offical state religion. And we can still use Flemingovian to enhance the Role Play and culture of TNP. And file for 501C3 Tax Exempt Status so r3n cant send the TNP tax men after us.
Click to expand...
PWL, you make a good point that deserves an answer.

there are a number of reasons why I feel this legislation is necessary.

First, I think Flemingovianism had got about as far as it could develop without a new impetus, and i was getting a bit bored with it. Status as the "official" religion opens up new scope for roleplay and development which for me at least is quite exciting.

things develop or they grow stale. This is the next stage of development.

Second, the passing of this act offers a degree of respectability and protection. There has been a lot of opposition to Flemingovianism in the past in TNP. This was before you came to the region, but when the first Flemingovian temple was built on orders of Blue Wolf (the then delegate) the delegate was overruled and the Temple was destroyed. Let's just say there are some pretty rabid secularists out there, as a glance up this thread will show.

Official recognition gives me the confidence that the development of Flemingovianism is the will of the people, and that the people respect it and want it to be in TNP.

I suppose you could say that this vote is a fleece: It is a way for TNP to say what they want. Because of it's legislative nature, people will take the vote seriously. A non-legislative motion would put this on a par with the recent vote on porridge.

As I have said, I think a state religion opens up new avenues of development and fun for TNP. The defeat of this motion would send a message that this is not an avenue TNP wants to develop, and I would respect that.
 
As I have said, I think a state religion opens up new avenues of development and fun for TNP.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to say it...I'm not going to say it...I'm not going to...

The heck I'm not going to say it.

A Holy War to Inflict Flemingingovianism on the Whole of NationStates!

(That would be a really lovely avenue of development!! And it would go over like a lead balloon with hilarious results, or not, as the case may be.)


:P
 
I don't know where else to post this. This is an OOC response to my changed vote.

I have been here 3 months. Not years. So yeah Obviously I do not know everyones past involvement with one another. I missed the 1st attempt at flemingovianism. And the thought intrigues me to role play a made up religion. Like our own FSM or Discordianism. And I was excited to see flem introduce this bill. I was and still am conflicted on TNP having a role play state religion no matter what it is. Id much rather see it be voluntary amongst forumers who wish to participate in good fun and not nessicarily in our legal codes somewhere. Private relgion rp like private media posts. Free speech and what not. But I initally voted Aye. Figured After pestering flem for months to restart it. If he felt for RP it being a state religion would get him to revive it and enhance tnps culture then so be it.

But now, I don't know what is OOC and IC. I consider everyone here in tnp my NS brothers and sisters and friends. No matter if you get along with each other or not. And it is disheartening to see my friends fight. I dunno whats what or whats happened in the past or behind the scenes if you will. But seeing players and admins go back and forth and official responses being drafted and posted. I thought this was a game? A made up game on the internet a made up region with made up laws. For fun. For the lulz. So the political nerds in us have somewhere to go.

I would love to practice flemingovian freely. And those who dont want to do a religion RP dont have to. But with all this state religion stuff causing players and admins to fight. My friends to fight. To where im not sure what is real and what is part of the game. Im questioning my post activity here until everyone cools down and remembers this is a game. I dont like to see people really be mean to each other and its not RP. Especially for speaking their mind no matter how unpopular that opinion is. Everyone who is bantering back and forth are at fault I think. Player and admins alike. Im not trying to start anything. Just really concerned about whats going on in this region right now. Is this all IC Roleplay? Are the admins playing a part? Or are my friends really butthurt at each other? I wish everyone could get along. Like I said Id love to be free to RP religion and Flemingovianism. But if this Official State Religion stuff is going to cause my friends and my friends on the admin staff to fight and threaten and coerce one another to the point I don't know what is real and what is RP. I dont want any part in it. I don't know if this is all some IC drama stirring to get more activity on the forum or real. But I have changed my vote to Nay. I don't know if it will have any affect. But Id just like to know exactly what is going on. And ask my friends stop fighting. Or something. I am sure I am not the only poster probably disturbed by lurking and reading all these various threads that keep popping up about flem and roman and the admins and flemingovianism. Cant we all get along? Please dont fight guys. I love TNP. Dont get IRL butthurt over our roleplay fictional world please.
 
EDIT: I failed to read properly and missed that Formal debate has concluded and for that matter voting started a while ago. I apologize, my bad. The following may now be ignored.

I'm new to the TNP, I don't really know the history of the region all that well just yet, and I don't believe I've been around quite long enough to be eligible to vote on this resolution but I'd like to join the debate if I may. I concur that religion should play no official part in the government of the region. The freedom of worship or lack thereof already exists within TNP, and in my opinion therefore renders this proposal pointless. To have a state religion that has no consequence beyond the title seems utterly useless. Even further, I can only see the consequences of this proposal to be potentially conflicting with the freedom of worship or lack thereof within the region. The very fact that it is a state religion implies that it will be favoured over others by the government, and that it will impact the procedures and decisions of the government to be bias towards that specific religion. Now, let's assume that it has no consequence on the government and that indeed the proposed state religion does not affect the decisions of the regional government etc. etc. If we assume that, then this is a powerless motion that simply gives a religion more recognition than any other by granting it the special status of "state religion", thereby discriminating against every other religious group or secular group within the region. Even within the proposal we see that there is already some potential for discrimination. Clause 5 states that "Flemingovian officials may participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions." without mentioning any other religious leaders. In future this clause may be interpreted as only Flemingovian officials may participate in state functions as no other religion is mentioned as having that unique allowance. In addition, another clause reads "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. " Which is also discriminatory in that the religious holidays of Flemingovian are recognized by the state and holidays of all other religions are not recognized by the state. To avoid that discrimination, you would either have to strike that clause or allow all significant religions to have their days of holiday which would soon lead to a religious holiday of some sort every day of the year. With the passing of this proposal I only see the potential for future discrimination and I see no upside other than granting a useless title that has the potential to offend every other religious and secular groups within the region.

Quite frankly, the proposition of this bill, as I understand it, is again simply to grant a powerless title to a single religion which only has the potential for negative results and future discrimination and therefore a waste of the valuable time of the Regional Assembly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top