flemingovia:
I cannot be bothered to put this into legal wording, but I wish to propose the repeal of the act that made Flemingovianism the official regional religion.
there is one simple reason for this; Romanoffia.
this forum is getting smashed by his "hammering" of Flemingovianism (his word, on IRC). I care about Flemingovianism, but I care more about this forum, and I am not prepared to see the continuation of the damage that is being done to this community by his attitude and action.
So I am throwing the towel in, rather than see more damage to TNP. I've had enough. And I think most of you have too.
Now Roman may call this a victory. that is fine. Let him. But I see it as a victory for bullying. Roman could have proposed a repeal himself, and he could have accepted the democratic will of the RA. Instead he chose to slug it out across the forum. That is causing too much damage for me to ignore it.
Cue post by Roman claiming that HE is the injured party. post away. I am sick of it.
First, I would like to commend you for bringing this proposal to the table.
Second, I would like to commend you for your tactic of trying to make this thread all about me.
Third, dissenting opinions concerning "Official State Religion" (no matter what religion it may be) will not go away. It will only grow as more people see the damage that having an "Official State Religion" does, not only the rights of others not of the Official State Religion, but by culturally limiting this region by the implication that other religions will be discriminated against. Again, the damage was done and perpetrated by the passage of a bill to recognize an Official State Religion. It would be total lunacy to think that it would be otherwise or that it would not create controversy. Mixing politics and religion and then making it official by law is a sure recipe for endless dissent, opposition and trouble in general.
The biggest proof that an "Official State Religion" is the proximate and root cause of this whole situation is perfectly illustrated by Alunya's most eloquent and concise letter of resignation from the Regional Assembly. She stated in so few words what I only wished I was capable of in terms of brevity.
Official State Religion caused a loss of great consequence to this region in the form of Alunya's resignation from the RA. That was caused by one thing and one thing only: the institutionalisation of an "Official State Religion". Her resignation letter is worth a good reading for anyone who is considerate enough to read it.
I do not wish to call this a victory other than if "Official State Religion" is repealed, it is a victory for civil liberties and the Constitutional right to freedom of religion in the region.
I feel you, Mr. Flemingovia, need to learn the purpose of a Consitution: to preserve the rights of individuals against assault of Democracy itself. You see, without a guiding Constitution, a democracy could vote to take away the rights of certain individuals and call it 'Democracy'. Fortunately, our Constitution was written to prevent democracy from turning into mob rule.
What if the citizens in the RA decided that the BOR should be abolished and we establish a dictatorship? Would that benefit anyone except a few elite rulers at the top of the heap? That would defeat not only the purpose of democracy, but would enable the 'will of the people' to deny rights and impose all manner of infamy and degradation upon the individual persons of this region. Unrestrained 'democratic will' is mob rule. It is a bunch of pitchfork and torch wielding rioters at best, and this is precisely why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Yes, Alunya is 100% correct when she voiced her concerns over the fact that having any Official State Religion is a violation of the rights of the individual. She is correct that an Official State Religion produces a conflict of conscious. If one's RA oath requires one to support all laws of the region, excluding none, then that oath requires one to support an Official State Religion, no matter how harmless the wording of the law is, that one may not believe in. To be legally required to support an Offical State Religion in an egregious violation of the conscience of any individual. And Official State Religion is an affront to free thought.
The reason I did not propose such a repeal myself, despite the many people who requested me to do so, is because I wanted someone else to stand up and do what is right. And ironically, you have chosen to introduce the repeal.
I stand on the very same platform as does Alunya on the matter of Official State Religion and for exactly the same reasons. Rational democracies do not have state religions for all the obvious reasons.
In the interest of an informed electorate, it is my suggestion that you do not turn this into a forum to case aspersions upon me or make this bill proposal about me. I ask everyone to carefully thing about the consequences of passing a bill that creates an Official State Religion and the requisite consequences due to legitimate dissent over the concerns of such a disreputable thing as Official State Religion.
I ask everyone not to appease me or appease Flemingovia to determine which way you may vote on this proposal. Vote your conscience after weighing the facts about the trouble that ensues when you mix politics and religion in a government bowl. And more important, think about the rights of people who are not of the Official State Religion because you are requiring them to support the law that recognizes an Official State Religion.
And that is all I think I will say about this matter at this time.
“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.”
------- Robert A. Heinlein
