A Compromise on Religious Observance

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
In response to numerous requests that I put forward this compromise proposal as a separate bill, I am now doing so.

As I noted, previously in the other thread, the reason I took the approach I did is because of the language of Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights

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...

My proposal of a compromise meets the standard contained in Clause 2, but at the same time maintain a distinction between the government and any churches, and protect adherents of any religion, or no religion, without favoritism, as far as their role in government is concerned.

I would ask the Speaker to expedite debate and formal debate on this bill, which I am offering in two separate versions, solely dependent on the outcome of Flemingovia's current repeal proposal.

Current final version:
The Compromise Act on Religious Observances

The Regional Assembly, noting the need for a inclusive compromise to revise Section 7.3 of the Legal Code and cognizant of Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights does hereby enact a law as follows:

Section 1. Amendment of Section 7.3 of the Legal Code on Religious Obervance.
Section 7.3 of the Legal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 7.3: Religious Observance
14. There may be one or more recognized religions and churches of The North Pacific. The Government may register such religions and churches in order to better preserve and encourage general religious observance without favoritism or bias for or against any religion or church.
15. All nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any, or no religious belief, and that freedom shall not be curtailed.
16. Recognition of any religion or church shall not entitle it to any governmental, financial or tax advantages through being a religion or church of The North Pacific.
17. Holidays of any religion or church shall be permitted 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.
18. No type of religious test shall ever be required of any nation to hold any governmental office or position. No nation shall serve on the cabinet or any other appointed or elected government position by virtue of their status in any religion or church.
19. The delegate may invite officials from any religion, without discrimination or favoritism, to participate at a state event as he or she wishes.
Click to expand...

The precise additions and deletions in the text of Section 7.3 are as follows:

Section 7.3: Religious Observance
14. Flemingovianism shall be adopted as the religion and church There may be one or more recognized religions and churches of The North Pacific. The Government may register such religions and churches in order to better preserve and encourage general religious observance without favoritism or bias for or against any religion or church.
15. All nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any, or no religious belief, and that freedom shall not be curtailed.
16. The Flemingovian religion shall receive no Recognition of any religion or church shall not entitle it to any governmental, financial or tax advantages through being the a religion or church of The North Pacific.
17. Holidays of the Flemingovian any religion or church shall be observed permitted 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.
18. No type of religious test shall ever be required of any nation to hold any governmental office or position. No nation shall serve on the cabinet or any other appointed or elected government position by virtue of their status in the Flemingovian religion any religion or church.
19. Flemingovian officials may participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions.The delegate may invite officials from any religion, without discrimination or favoritism, to participate at a state event as he or she wishes.
Click to expand...

Section 2. Implementation of this Act.

This law shall take immediate effect upon enactment. Any religion that has gained legal recognition by law prior to the adoption of this Act, including Flemingovianism, shall be considered "registered" for all intents and purposes in accordance with Section 7.3 as amended by this Act when this Act takes effect. The Delegate shall establish the register referred to in Clause 14 of Section 7.3 of the Legal Code as amended by this Act within seven days of it taking effect as a law.
Click to expand...

Second version:

This proposed compromise to revise Section 7.3 of the Legal Code is as follows:

Section 7.3: Religious Observance
14. There may be one or more recognized religions and churches of The North Pacific. The Government may register such religions and churches in order to better preserve and encourage general religious observance without favoritism or bias for or against any religion or church.
15. All nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any, or no religious belief, and that freedom shall not be curtailed.
16. Recognition of any religion or church shall not entitle it to any governmental, financial or tax advantages through being a religion or church of The North Pacific.
17. Holidays of any religion or church shall be permitted 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.
18. No type of religious test shall ever be required of any nation to hold any governmental office or position. No nation shall serve on the cabinet or any other appointed or elected government position by virtue of their status in any religion or church.
Click to expand...

The precise additions and deletions in the text of Section 7.3 are as follows:

Section 7.3: Religious Observance
14. Flemingovianism shall be adopted as the religion and church There may be one or more recognized religions and churches of The North Pacific. The Government may register such religions and churches in order to better preserve and encourage general religious observance without favoritism or bias for or against any religion or church.
15. All nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any, or no religious belief, and that freedom shall not be curtailed.
16. The Flemingovian religion shall receive no Recognition of any religion or church shall not entitle it to any governmental, financial or tax advantages through being the a religion or church of The North Pacific.
17. Holidays of the Flemingovian any religion or church shall be observed permitted 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.
18. No type of religious test shall ever be required of any nation to hold any governmental office or position. No nation shall serve on the cabinet or any other appointed or elected government position by virtue of their status in the Flemingovian religion any religion or church.
19. Flemingovian officials may participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Original version:
If that proposal fails, then I offer the compromise as originally offered, with one additional minor change as requested by some RA members:

Section 7.3: Religious Observance
14. Flemingovianism shall be adopted recognized as the a religion and church of The North Pacific.
15. All nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any, or no religious belief, and that freedom shall not be curtailed.
16. The Flemingovian religion shall receive no governmental, financial or tax advantages through being the a religion of The North Pacific.
17. Holidays of the Flemingovian religion shall be observed permitted 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.
18. No type of religious test shall ever be required of any nation to hold any governmental office or position. No nation shall serve on the cabinet or any other appointed or elected government position by virtue of their status in the Flemingovian religion.
19. Flemingovian officials may participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions.
Click to expand...

In the event that the current repeal proposal passes, then the proposed compromise is offered as new language being added to the Legal Code:

Section 7.3: Religious Observance
14. Flemingovianism shall be recognized as a religion and church of The North Pacific.
15. All nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any, or no religious belief, and that freedom shall not be curtailed.
16. The Flemingovian religion shall receive no governmental, financial or tax advantages through being a religion of The North Pacific.
17. Holidays of the Flemingovian religion shall be permitted 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.
18. No type of religious test shall ever be required of any nation to hold any governmental office or position. No nation shall serve on the cabinet or any other appointed or elected government position by virtue of their status in the Flemingovian religion.
Click to expand...
 
I support this compromise and second his request to expedite debate under the conditions Grosseschnauzer requests.
 
I'm not entirely sure I understand the member's request, presuming that that is to be taken as a motion to vote and to expedite formal debate, the bills would be at vote and, probably, conclude their vote before the repeal bill. Could the member, perhaps, clarify for me, as to whether they wish for formal debate to begin now or whether they wish it to be deferred until the repeal bill is voted on, and then for formal debate on this bill to be expedited.
 
Ideally, I'd like for this to come to a vote at the same time as the repeal proposal; I believe the way I've posted it that it is clear that the compromise changes I've proposed will survive whether or not the current language of section 7.3 is repealed or not.

Since the timing of these things is up to the Speaker, I've had to word things to cover all eventualities, but I don't think we need to have an extended period of debate before a formal debate, or that formal debate need last longer than whatever time remains for formal debate on the repeal proposal.

However, if the Speaker chooses to lag this proposal behind the repeal proposal, then I've made clear what language would go into the Legal Code should this compromise pass. My preference is however to have simultaneous votes id at all possible.
 
I'm afraid that it isn't possible, at this time, for these two bills and the repeal to be voted on simultaneously, due to the Assembly's Rules on voting, so I shall defer their entry into formal debate until the vote on the repeal bill is concluded, and shall, at that point, expedite formal debate to as few as two days, if it is requested by the sponsor of the bills.
 
Ironically, either way Flemingovia's repeal bill goes, this bill with be brought up for a vote. I said I would support it, and I will.
 
I won't support this. I don't see the need for any religion to be 'recognized' under the law. It's existence is good enough to establish that.
 
As I said in the other thread, I will not be supporting any bill of this type as long as the outrageous behavior that has prompted them is allowed to continue.

Once that behavior ceases of its own accord, or is caused to cease by increasing administrative action, this is something I would be open to.
 
In the past 24 hours I have not witnessed any new threads or current ones with "this behavior" - I have witnessed a cooling off and a willingness to compromise.
 
Ceasing inappropriate behavior in response to being rewarded for it is not cooling off, it;s gloating - though it does at least show some amount of sense.

Had flem not posted his proposal to repeal, I have no doubt that the same behavior would still be escalating - and I do not buy that it has actually ceased. If the repeal goes to vote and fails, and if this bill goes to vote and fails, I predict the will of the legislature will not be respected. Rather, we will once again be inundated with angry rants about the evils of abstain and how tyrannical TNP is becoming, complete with entirely inappropriate pictures of people doing various anatomically impossible things.

Bullies are well known for backing off once they've got your lunch money. That doesn't make them not bullies, not even temporarily, and it certainly doesn't stop them from coming back for more.
 
SillyString:
Ceasing inappropriate behavior in response to being rewarded for it is not cooling off, it;s gloating - though it does at least show some amount of sense.

Had flem not posted his proposal to repeal, I have no doubt that the same behavior would still be escalating - and I do not buy that it has actually ceased. If the repeal goes to vote and fails, and if this bill goes to vote and fails, I predict the will of the legislature will not be respected. Rather, we will once again be inundated with angry rants about the evils of abstain and how tyrannical TNP is becoming, complete with entirely inappropriate pictures of people doing various anatomically impossible things.

Bullies are well known for backing off once they've got your lunch money. That doesn't make them not bullies, not even temporarily, and it certainly doesn't stop them from coming back for more.
Click to expand...
Spot on, asta.

I oppose this bill, and would request of Grosseschnauzer that all specific references to Flemingovianism be removed from it, if he has any regard for my wishes in this matter.

As things stand in TNP, due to the indulged bullying of a small minority, the region is not ready for a recognised religion of any kind. I have no appetite for developing or continuing Flemingovianism in an atmosphere where I am constantly double checking what I am writing just in case something upsets Romanoffia and he kicks off again. As Asta has said, I have no doubt that Roman will be back for more, eventually.

Given what I have said above, I think there is no need for this legislation to be added to our statute books. It answers a question that is no longer being asked.

I cannot stop anyone proposing legislation of any kind, but once again I would request that my name (even by extension through “Flemingovianism”) be kept out of it.
 
Changing the bill in the manner Flem asks will totally depend on whether his proposed repeal passes or does not pass, and I will need an indication from the members of the RA that such a change would be acceptable to a sufficient majority to assure passage of this bill when it does come to a vote.

We need to address the general issue in any event, given the language of Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights, and in that who is to say that some other religious movement may want to seek official status of some form or other in the future. It is better to lay down the parameters now and avoid such a clash in the future.

This is my position ,and it is not based on Flem's behavior or Roman's behavior on the subject. The object here is to stake out the limits between religion and government and avoid misunderstandings in the future.
 
Changing the bill in the manner Flem asks will totally depend on whether his proposed repeal passes or does not pass,
Click to expand...

I fail to see the logic of this statement. If you wish to "stake out the limits between religion and government" I am asking very nicely that you do so without reference to one specific religion - namely Flemingovianism.

Should this bill pass it would mean that every other religion that wanted recognition would have to pass their own version of this bill, which seems absurd.

It is rather like passing a law on murder which says "mr Joe Bloggs of 28 Laburnum Avenue, Exeter, is not allowed to unlawfully kill anyone" and then go on to make another law for every other person.

Should you require "an indication from the members of the RA that such a change would be acceptable" I am asking that others post here echoing my request that Flemingovianism be taken out of the wording - not only out of respect for my wishes but also to make the bill fairer and more generally applicable.
 
What is the point, to being with, of a state, a government, a juridic persona with no real will or heart or spirit or soul, to adhere to a religion of any sort? How is it possible that an ego-less juridic being, a non-person persona, claims a religion?

As I don't find a logical explanation for the law to recognize or adopt any particular religion, I would support laws that take us near or close to that environment. While the law should protect people's rights to adhere to any given religion, and for religions to exist into our legislative structure as organizations with all their rights and duties, it should not single out any specific religion, unless it in some way systematically threatens the sovereignty of the region.

With that said, I must also point out that Flem's previous post is also right: singling out Flemingovianism would also mean that any future formalized religion could end up needing such articles for itself, or to be included in the existing articles on this proposal. Which is, in my personal opinion, quite a... ehm... stupid path to follow, no offense intended (lack of a better word I guess).

I think a more universal writing would allow for a better proposal, something along the lines of:

Section 7.3: Religious Observance
14.Flemingovianism All religions shall be adopted recognized as the /a religion and church of legal within The North Pacific as long as they don't systematically threaten the security or sovereignty of the region.
15. All nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any, or no religious belief, and that freedom shall not be curtailed.
16. The Flemingovian No religion shall receive no any governmental, financial or tax advantages through being the a religion of The North Pacific.
17. Holidays of the Flemingovian religion all religions shall be observed permitted 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.
18. No type of religious test shall ever be required of any nation to hold any governmental office or position. No nation shall serve on the cabinet or any other appointed or elected government position by virtue of their status in the Flemingovian any religions.
19. Flemingovian officials may participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions. Officials of any religion may participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions, without this incurring discrimination towards other religions or beliefs.
Click to expand...
 
So there's no misunderstanding, I would not be proposing retaining any version of Clause 19 in current section 7.3. I think the more neutral approach is to not mandate that topic one way or the other. One question to consider what about those who strong adhere to no religion? Shouldn't such persons also come under that clause? Thus, I think the sounder policy is not to even mention it, which is why my proposal simply does not retain that clause in any form.
I have to look at what is in the law as of the time the Speaker intends to move this proposal to formal debate. As I said, I would entertain a more generic version of the law if the repeal does pass, and if there is support for a such a more generic version among the RA at that time.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
So there's no misunderstanding, I would not be proposing retaining any version of Clause 19 in current section 7.3. I think the more neutral approach is to not mandate that topic one way or the other. One question to consider what about those who strong adhere to no religion? Shouldn't such persons also come under that clause? Thus, I think the sounder policy is not to even mention it, which is why my proposal simply does not retain that clause in any form.
Click to expand...
That makes sense, indeed. At least to me. But I would still go for a generic version since the start up.
 
A generic version is also acceptable. In fact it would be better because it would place all religions, and even those who have no religious preference, or even atheists (who I think of as people whom, at their own funerals, are all dressed up with no place to go) on an equal footing in the eyes of the law and the spirit of the BOR in terms of religious freedom.

I am willing to accept a compromise, though, as I respect Flemingovia's personal feelings that Flemingovianism should be somehow mentioned in TNP legal code despite the repugnance and utter disdain for anything even resembling Official State Religion.

At this point, there is a gathering of growing support for the entire prohibition of any law regarding the establishment of an official state religion of any kind. We have a constitution that is designed to protect the rights of individuals from discriminatory laws or acts of government that creates inequality by setting any religion above another religion as that would intimidate non-state religion religions.

And that growing opposition will not likely go away no matter what coercion is directed at it.
 
I am willing to accept a compromise, though, as I respect Flemingovia's personal feelings that Flemingovianism should be somehow mentioned in TNP legal code
Click to expand...

You should try reading my posts. This is the opposite of my personal feeling.
 
A generic law does nothing. It adds nothing to our regional culture and adds nothing worthwhile to the region.

It is, in fact, merely cowing again to Roman's bullying and thuggery.
 
Back on topic ... I see this proposal as little more than an attempt at appeasement. Historically, as we all know, appeasement never ends well for the people who try it.

But it may buy us peace for our time, who knows?
 
First, I will post an appropriately modified version of the proposal if the repeal passes; if it does not pass, then the version(s) with references to Flemingovianism would have to remain in order to modify the current language in the Legal Code.

Second, one "n" removed from the title, but the last time I checked permissions, any mod could have done so. There had been a word in the title after the "an" that would have required the "n" but I took the word out and just forgot about the "n". The "n" is of course up for adoption to a good forever home.

Third, As I noted originally, a compromise is a compromise is a compromise. You don't have to like it or love it, but have both sides accept it so we can close the books on this issue. It is not an issue I want to see reopened yet again in a few months' time.

And fourth, can the moderator moderate the non-germane discussion out of this thread? :) >|P
 
I have attempted to honor the bill proposers request and split out non-germane commentary. If there is anything I missed or split in error please let me know.
 
Where have the split posts been placed? Since one of the objections to this bill is that it is rewarding bad behaviour it could be argued that if said bad behaviour is hidden away the deputy speaker is seeking to increase the chances of the bill passing.

Although I understand the intent of the proposer in asking for the split, I personally would have press ferried that members were able to see the whole debate and context - good, bad and ugly.

Usually split posts are left in the same area with the thread title "split from...." Or something like that.
 
I wholeheartedly object to the split. Again. And to this post being split for being irrelevant, which it is not.
 
It has always been the appropriate practice in the R.A. to split out non-germane discussion out of threads. The Court does so rigorously, but it is a common practice.

How the Speaker and his deputy chose to implement the request has nothing to do with this bill. It is a dispute between others about what was and wasn't germane to this proposal.

Those of you who persist in making an issue now that the Speaker himself has decided, must have nothing better to complain about with this proposal. I plan to update the proposal once the outcome of the repeal vote is known, and at that point even 48 hours should be more than enough time to discuss the final version of the bill and proceed from there. I plan to honor Flem's request to remove any explicit references to Flemingovianism from the final bill, unless of course he has changed his mind about the request. But he needs to let me know a.s.a.p.

But in any event I will not be bullied from either side about the final text of this proposal. There's been a lot of bullying going around, and honestly, it has been coming from both sides. And I have done my damnedest to stay out of it, from both sides.
 
If the repeal fails, and you remove the religions name "flemingovian" out of this compromise at flems request how is that going to work? It appears to be an orchastrated attempt to weaken the language in the bill to not affect flemingovian as a state religion or not. Perhaps if flemingovia did not want his name used he should have titled his religion something else? Then it has further been drug out into the public domain by being enshrined in the legal code. - I am just thinking out loud. But I await with anticipation to see how the language in the revised bill will read.
 
I'm pretty sure I can draft language that would apply to any religion even if the repeal vote fails; but I can proceed with the alternative I originally proposed if Flem has changed his mind. It is primarily a question of clarifying what Flem's current position is.
 
The Speaker just announced Flems bill failed as it seemed to be a political move designed to do and not a sincere proposal but that appears to be my personal opinion based on observation --

Anyway, onto this: I am curious to see what GS had come up with in his latest edit taking these events into account.
 
Flems bill failed not because it was designed to fail, but because the majority of the Regional Assembly didn't want to repeal the law in question.

I know you, Roman and the rest of your cheerleaders have a problem accepting the will of the Regional Assembly, but in this case... tough it out kid.
 
I dont nessicarily want it repealed. In fact if you'd please note I Abstained in the offical vote. As I have stated time and time again I am in favor of Religous Role Play - it can be satirical and a parody and reflection on RL religious opinions. - I feel it could be great for cultural developments in the region. But when the bill was first paced I did comment why we need to offically recognize one role play religion over the other. Why like RL we can't simply have our bill of rights statement of "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." instead of making one religion "offical" even if Flemingovian was not "offical" the BOR clearly states folks can express whatever religious or non religious beliefs they want. I am in favor of a generic statement where anyone can express belief equally - be it Flemingovianism, Discordian FSM, Church of the thirteen, Libertarianism, the Cult of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc. And one belief structure does not reign over any other. I enjoy participating in Flemingovianism rather it is offically recognized as a "state religion" or not.

What I did not like was the bullying and name calling on BOTH SIDES - and if there are going to be fights Id rather not have ANY "State" religion - Flemingovianism or otherwise.

And Yes, I am sorry, but FROM MY PERSONAL VIEW - I did see this repeal attempt as political manuevering and was not a sincere repeal - the proposer himself voted Nay as Chasmanthe pointed out in its debate thread - it seemed politically motivated - that is MY PERSONAL OPINION based on the actions I saw. I won't aplogize for holding that opinion.

Anyway, folks have been civil the last few days - I would rather see that trend continue indefinately.

And as I said, I am eager to see GS's updated proposal to ensure future religious group Role Plays be recognized by the state and this assembly in our legalcodes and not just one.

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top