A Compromise on Religious Observance

In light of that, Grosse, is there any way to include something that mentions that Flemingovianism will be immediately recognized as one of the religions of TNP? Nothing that would physically be part of the legal code but like a sidenote or something? That "Flemingovianism should immediately be recognized as a religion of TNP." or something? Also, Flem, any comment on my clarification point?
 
flemingovia:
Grosseschnauzer:
Section 7.3 is amended, not repealed.
Click to expand...
Sooner or later, you can cut or amend something so far that it becomes, effectively, a repeal. I can understand how you would want to avoid using the word, since the RA has just rejected a repeal and it might appear arrogant to immediately re-introduce one. But what you are doing is effectively repealing 7.3 as it stands.

I objected to the original version of this bill as appeasement and rewarding of trolling (an objection i still maintain) and did not want my name associated with such a thing.

I requested that my name be removed from the bill. But it is not my bill. I am happy with the law as it currently stands, as the RA has also demonstrated. I cannot stop endless attempts to "amend" the law, or challenges in court, but I feel no obligation to help draft them.

You are right, Grosse, this is straightforward. And it stinks.
Click to expand...
Ah, another one of your ad hominum arguments that proves nothing, and solves nothing.

I want the Regional Assembly out of the religion recognition business. It was an inappropriate topic for legislation to begin with even when you tried amending the Constitution to do so.

There is nothing in this bill that disestablishes Flemingovianism as a religion. Why you persist in that argument is beyond me because that argument is false.

Yrkidding, there is a very simple way of accomplishing what you seek, and what I previously offered, Flem will have to put up with a possible mention of his name in the bill anyway, but it can easily be done.

The proposed amendment of section 7.3 would become section one of the bill, titled "Amendment of Section 7.3 of the Legal Code".

Section 2 of the bill would be titled "Implementation."

It would state something like. "This law shall take 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."
 
Grosseschnauzer:
It was an inappropriate topic for legislation to begin with
Click to expand...
The Regional Assembly obviously disagrees with you.
 
I want the Regional Assembly out of the religion recognition business. It was an inappropriate topic for legislation to begin with even when you tried amending the Constitution to do so.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making so plain what lays behind this proposal. I applaud your honesty.
 
Flem, should any legislative body in a democracy ever be legislating religion? Ever?

We set up a framework outside the legislative process for recognition, as this proposal does, and then the R.A. does not have to have any further involvement. Those who want to organize churches and religions in TNP will be able to do so to their hearts' content.

What about that don't you get? Or is the power of ego gotten to you that far?

And I don't think it is an issue of whether the R.A. agrees or disagrees, since the issue has never yet been framed in that form. If the R.A. were to vote to rewrite all of your platitudes you've written and posted inside your church, is that equally acceptable to you, Flem, even if you don't like what the rewrite looks like? You let the R.A. legislate on religion and that is exactly what you are going to get. Mark my words, this whole subject matter will come back and bite you as the saying goes. This proposal avoids that problem and all the other problems that you have created and insist of maintaining.

Or have we seen the birth of a cult in the image of Jim Jones or Charles Manson?
 
Flem, should any legislative body in a democracy ever be legislating religion? Ever?
Click to expand...

Ummm..... yes? Because (and I cannot believe I am still having to make this point) this is not South Carolina. It is a make-believe game. A simulation. And in a simulation you can have a go at all sorts of things you may not wish to see in real life.

is the power of ego gotten to you that far? ....Or have we seen the birth of a cult in the image of Jim Jones or Charles Manson?
Click to expand...

Given what Jim Jones and Charles Manson got up to, that is really quite an objectionable comparison to make.

I am surprised you accuse me of Ad Hominem attacks when you use that sort of language. I ask the RA to note that I am trying very hard to keep my tone moderate.

Look, let's cut to the chase. You and Roman have made all sorts of dire predictions about what will happen now that Flemingovianism is adopted as Regional Religion.

Let me propose a compromise to YOU.

Withdraw this proposal. Leave it for a decent period to respect the votes that the Regional Assembly has passed - say three or four months.

Give us a chance to see whether all the dire predictions of regional collapse, messianic cults etc have shown any signs of coming to pass, and give me the chance to show what an asset this can be to the vibrancy of regional life

Such a breather will give us all a chance to actually see some evidence rather than just theory and rhetoric - and will, as I say, respect the votes the RA has passed.

After a few months of calm, propose a straight out-and-out repeal (which is, I can see, where your heart truly lies.)

If any of the predictions you have made have come to pass, or are even hinted at, I am sure the RA would pass such a repeal - especially if Roman has been behaving like a gentleman. If, in fact, it has been a benefit to the region, I am sure that folks will go "gosh, what has all the fuss been about?" and reject the idea of a repeal.

The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. How about a proper compromise?
 
Flemingovia in The State Religion Act 2014 proposal thread:
I did not realise until recently that we could legally just keep proposing stuff until it passed.
Click to expand...
Once again, what's good for the goose..

Flemingovia:
Given what Jim Jones and Charles Manson got up to, that is really quite an objectionable comparison to make.
Click to expand...
Just as objectionable as suggesting this bill is an 'appeasement' (the implication being that Roman et al are akin to the Nazis of WWII.

Flemingovia:
I ask the RA to note that I am trying very hard to keep my tone moderate
Click to expand...

Well golly gee, I'll change my vote on this bill to Nay immediately. :eyeroll:
 
I agree with Flemingovia that this should be given time to see its effects, and I say that as someone who has no use whatsoever for NationStates religions though I'm not particularly opposed to them. Opponents jumped on this immediately with dire predictions, without even giving the Regional Assembly majority that voted in favor of it a chance to see its effects. Surely if it's as bad as claimed, there will be no problem repealing it a month, two months from now.

I also agree with Flem on another point: This is NationStates, not real life. And even in real life, the suggestion that no democratic government can have an established religion and not be a horribly oppressive dictatorship is an Americanized concept. The British are doing democracy better than we are these days and last I checked the Church of England is still established.

Let's just cool it on this. Opposed to Grosse's "compromise" and opposed to further drama over this.

falapatorius:
Flemingovia:
Given what Jim Jones and Charles Manson got up to, that is really quite an objectionable comparison to make.
Click to expand...
Just as objectionable as suggesting this bill is an 'appeasement' (the implication being that Roman et al are akin to the Nazis of WWII.
Click to expand...
:eyebrow: :blink: :eyeroll:

appeasement (noun) - the action or process of appeasing

appease (verb) - 1. pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands
2. relieve or satisfy (a demand or feeling)

Finding the English language offensive sounds like a personal problem.
 
Cormac:
Finding the English language offensive sounds like a personal problem.
Click to expand...
:lol: The reference is obviously lost on you. There's these things.. ummm.. your parents might have mentioned them.. they're called books! :shock: Ignorance is bliss.
 
I are a college graduate. I speak English much more goodlier now. Appeasement.

A portrait of Grosseschnauser by Flemingovia:

Neville_Chamberlain_by_William_Orpen_-_1929.jpg
 
Speaker's edit: Removal of discussion on the topic mentioned afore.

And, on that note, and to bring this all back on topic...I find it extremely absurd that we are even having this conversation.

But, considering this is actually happening, should this bill fail, I am entirely willing to support a bill that makes Flemingovianism the ONLY LEGAL RELIGION in TNP to the exclusion of all else, and make non-believers (Infidels and Heretics) subject to expulsion from the region (or at least a severe beating in the Fiqh, with high-heeled shoes and whips). You know, just to see how it plays out. :lol:

I also think that the Earth should be made flat by law and that the law of gravity be repealed by RA vote! Now I call that Democracy!

OOC: I don't care. In fact, if I will support Flemingovianism if it remains the Official State Religion to the point of a fanatic, just for the fun of it. I will aspire to become the ultimate Witch-Finder General to root out all heresy and infidelianismismism with all the powers I can muster. I'm game!

Besides, we need a guiding principle that will abolish all other potential principles in the name of Democracy if it votes to piddle on the Constitution!


Short Translation: I will support Flemingovianism is it elevates me to Oligarchianismisticalstateofsupremedeificationsandabsolutepowerism. :clap: :winner: :2c: :tb1: :lol:


I will vote against this bill just because it will settle the issue once and for all keep the peace. And because Chaos is the will of the Universe after it has had a few drinks (which I have not had tonight only because Blue Wolf hasn't shared the booze).
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Except everytime we did that - we'd have to amend 7.3 to reflect the new addition or even add a 7.4
Click to expand...
So?

If something wants to be recognized as an official religion of TNP, it seems to me that they should have to go through a vote of the RA.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Yrkidding, there is a very simple way of accomplishing what you seek, and what I previously offered, Flem will have to put up with a possible mention of his name in the bill anyway, but it can easily be done.

The proposed amendment of section 7.3 would become section one of the bill, titled "Amendment of Section 7.3 of the Legal Code".

Section 2 of the bill would be titled "Implementation."

It would state something like. "This law shall take 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."
Click to expand...
Indeed, I see no reason for Flem's blessing, the concept (Flemingovianism) is part of our Legal Code, therefore you can use it as you will when amending it. I'm very much in favour of the addition of Section 2 so that the opinions about this being a back-door repeal may be silenced.
 
Flem, I am not willing to wait another three or four months and put up with the manure that has been going on from both extremes.

What do you promise to me explicitly in exchange for a wait of three or four months that will make me happy to wait?

Will you guarantee absolute support for this proposal in three or four months without reservations or shenanigans of any sort?

Will you guarantee that all your followers will vote for this bill in three or four months without any further argument or delay or objection?

Or is this merely a device by which it gives you three or four more months as an excuse to make things even more oppressive, either openly or covertly. in favor of this clap-trap than it already is?

I've never proposed repeal. You've interpreted it as such because you are incapable of recognizing a compromise. This compromise takes this out of the R.A. and let anyone who wants to start their own church in TNP do so. And leave the government and the politicians out of it. We've worked out a modification that you've conveniently ignored, as usual, to insure that Flemingovianism is treated as already being registered under the terms of the compromise just to allay your groundless fears that this bill will someone make Flemingovianism persona non grata.

I'm going to modify the proposal in the O.P. in a moment along the exact lines Yrkidding and I have been discussing. That will be the proposal you will have to deal with as to any delay that you are asking for. So if you are serious about asking for a delay, then let's see you put a legitimate, actual offer on the table, in black and white, that I can consider as legitimate and meaningful and not mere posturing, for everyone to see.
 
What is being tried here is something totally new for feeders. In fact, I do not know of any foundered region that has tried a constitutional religion which is not an out and out theocracy roleplay.

There have been predictions on both sides. Some have predicted disaster, even ruin for the region; that it will mean the end of the constitution. Others like myself have predicted that it will do nothing more than provide additional scope for roleplay and enrich the culture of our region.

Examples from real-life do not help. This is a game: in a small way we draw on real life, but results and consequences in real life are different in a game. Therefore we have no evidence to go on.

What I am suggesting is that any legislation we pass at this point ought to be evidence-based.

So no, i cannot promise at the outset that I will support legislation of any kind. Waiting until the evidence is seen is sort of the point of evidence.

What i can promise is this: I hope the RA knows me well enough to realise that I would not want to see a threat to the region. If, once the evidence is in, there is even a hint that the region is going to the dogs I would thrown my support behind a bill like this, or even a straight out repeal.

In fact, we can possibly draft something even better that is evidence-based rather than ideology-driven.

But if the results of this has been entirely beneficial to the region, all i ask is that folks recognise that and let things be, and let me spend my time on developing the roleplay stuff.
 
And, by the way, if I read Roman's posts above correctly I do not think we are going to see a continuation of "the manure".

Roman seems willing to enter into the spirit of the thing, and all I want to do is have a breather to get on with the cultural/roleplay stuff I started this whole thing to do.

this bill may, at the moment, be answering a problem that no longer exists.
 
This proposal would not affect what you want to do by one iota. None, at all. And nothing you said shows that it would. It is not a question of evidence, it is a question of philosophy and respect. You want what you want while disrespecting any objection or alternative. That is the same attitude that Roman has shown in this past month or so on this issue, and it is no more acceptable from you than it is from him.

Your statement above proves as much. Your opposition to this compromise, then, is in fact, mere hypocritical posturing of the worse kind. I'm not willing to let a law that has clearly unconstitutional elements remain unchanged. I am seeking to merely remove those unconstitutional elements and make this law come within the constitution and have a legal basis that clearly stays within the scope of our Bill of Rights.

For the record, I am not willing to be one of your guinea pigs. I would feel much safer and much more comfortable with this compromise enacted and on the books. And no, I don't trust an hare-brained experiment with our home region that contains absolutely no check and balances. And for the record, you aren't the first to experiment with a religion in TNP controlling the government; as I recall, some otherelected delegate tried a Islamic state during their term a few years ago, which I also disapproved of and ignored.

I'm going to let a few more days pass for those who are sincere and serious about a compromise to look at what I think should be the final form of this proposal to make sure no other changes are needed, and then we'll look at scheduling a vote.
 
I'm not interested or concerned about what Roman does. As I said in the past, you two are equally responsible for the chaos over the last month plus.

Since this bill won't affect what you are doing, I don;t understand why you continue to oppose it. If you read (and I assume you can read, after all) the final version of this bill now posted in the Opening Post of the thread, you will see that it explicitly preserves Flemingovianism as a religion of The North Pacific, and it nor any other religion that comes along won't need to involve the R.A.
 
With the addition of the "Implementation" section, the consequences of this amendment are simple. First, Flemingovianism continues to be a recognized religion of TNP, satisfying the clear wants of the majority of the RA, and therefore also allows Flem to proceed with his plans to enrich the culture of our region with religious-based role-play. Secondly, it provides the vital clarification that the initial bill lacked that makes it much clearer that any religion can seek this status and provides a more logically organized section of the legal code, using a generalized approach, than the precedent set by the unmodified bill.

With that in mind, I see no reason for either side to oppose this amendment.
 
First of all I ought to say that I admire Grosse’s candour in this thread. He freely admits that this proposal is ideologically-driven, so there is no point in gathering evidence. He also freely hopes that people will vote for this to “punish” Roman and/or myself.

I disagree with his conclusions and his motives, but I admire his honesty.

I suppose it is up to the Regional Assembly now. I would prefer the RA to decide that they want to see some evidence – good or bad – before they make a decision. The “checks and balances” Grosse asks for are absolutely in the Regional Assembly’s power to repeal clause or amend 7.3 at any time. But I would prefer they do so on a rational rather than an ideological basis. Therefore I will be voting against this when it comes to vote, and would urge others to do so.

But meh, I only have one vote.
 
My "ideology" is the Bill of Rights and its role as the document that limits government power and protects liberty, something we all suppoedly took an oath concerning which at some point as members in the R.A. or holding any other office in TNP. It hasn't needed a law to make it a state religion, but given your blindness on the matter, Flem, maybe it does.
 
What concerns me, as a young member of the TNP community and with little to no moral authority to weight in, but with all the right to do so, is how personal Flem takes all references to a religion based on his name...

Should Budah take all references to Budaism personally too? One wonders.

I like the current proposal.
 
Grosse, establishing Flemingovianism as the regional state religion does not violate the Bill of Rights. A free exercise clause =/= an establishment clause. That's why the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights has both, but TNP's has only the former.

So long as establishment of Flemingovianism doesn't inhibit the free exercise of other religions, it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights.

I remain opposed to this proposal and will vote against it. I don't RP, I don't particularly care for NS religions, but I have no intention of giving either Roman or Grosse what they want. They should have enough respect for the majority that voted for this to give it a try. They don't, and they shouldn't be rewarded for that.
 
flemingovia:
And, by the way, if I read Roman's posts above correctly I do not think we are going to see a continuation of "the manure".

Roman seems willing to enter into the spirit of the thing, and all I want to do is have a breather to get on with the cultural/roleplay stuff I started this whole thing to do.

this bill may, at the moment, be answering a problem that no longer exists.
Click to expand...
I will vote for Grosse's bill, but if it doesn't pass, I can live with that as long as we let the state religion thing develop to whatever end it is naturally inclined to end up.

If the bill fails, it will be interesting to see if the RA develops some kind of mechanism that allows other 'religions' to seek official state status and how that mechanism works.

OOC: After a fun and interesting bantering about with Flem and others on IRC last night, that it might be fun to let the idea of state religion to develop one way or another. One idea that came to mind is that if this bill fails, to create a "Religious Council" to "advise" in an unofficial way as to the "morality" of legislative action/government action - possibly in a 'Religious Council" section of the "Temple" sub-forum. This idea might be fun even if this bill passes.

Either way, we need to keep the peace on this forum and not let RP get out of hand by infesting it with too much RL attitudes. The idea is to have fun, not bomb the crap out of each other.
 
Mr. Speaker, do the rules permit me to request an extension of formal debate until next Monday?
The foot traffic in the Assembly seems to be slow at the moment, and I'd rather address any last minute issues in the proposal now just to avoid problems later. (And OOC, I'm in a death crush of a deadline that won't pass until towards the end of the week, and having until Monday will give me time to address any other questions.)
 
Cormac:
I remain opposed to this proposal and will vote against it. I don't RP, I don't particularly care for NS religions, but I have no intention of giving either Roman or Grosse what they want. They should have enough respect for the majority that voted for this to give it a try. They don't, and they shouldn't be rewarded for that.
Click to expand...
I encourage you to look past any questionable actions by any other member of the RA, I (as far as I know) haven't participated in any personal attacks or attacks on Flemingovianism itself but this is very much a piece of legislation that I might've put forward had Grosse not. Instead look at the consequences of this legislation and what it is doing. As I said in my last post:

With the addition of the "Implementation" section, the consequences of this amendment are simple. First, Flemingovianism continues to be a recognized religion of TNP, satisfying the clear wants of the majority of the RA, and therefore also allows Flem to proceed with his plans to enrich the culture of our region with religious-based role-play. Secondly, it provides the vital clarification that the initial bill lacked that makes it much clearer that any religion can seek this status and provides a more logically organized section of the legal code, using a generalized approach, than the precedent set by the unmodified bill.
Click to expand...
These consequences make this bill worthwhile. Standing on it's own and unhindered by the previous actions of others, this legislation is in the best interest of the RA. Voting against something due to the actions of others despite that the legislation would otherwise be a logical and easily supportable piece of legislation is not the right way to place your vote.

In addition, in support of the role-play potential slightly diminished by the striking of s.19, I propose the following amendment.

19. The delegate may invite officials from any religion to participate at a state event as he or she wishes.
Click to expand...
The purpose of which is to be another generalized subsection that entrenches that the delegate has permission from the RA to invite a religious official to observe at state events if he or she wishes while implying that is not something that must happen while retaining more of the role-play potential created in the original legislation.

EDIT: I do admit I am still relatively new and unfamiliar with parts of RA procedure but I too would be in favour of extending the period of Formal Debate due to the amount of debate that has occurred and the great potential for further debate on such a controversial topic.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Mr. Speaker, do the rules permit me to request an extension of formal debate until next Monday?
Click to expand...
Mr Speaker, any extension offered ought to allow time for debate of any additions or changes as well as the proposal of such.

I am aware that this debate has been going on for more than a fortnight and has run to six pages. I ask the patience of the speaker.
 
The extension is granted, formal debate will instead conclude on Monday. Time will, naturally, be allowed between the conclusion of formal debate and the vote on the amended bill, should the bill be amended.
 
Yrkidding:
In addition, in support of the role-play potential slightly diminished by the striking of s.19, I propose the following amendment.

19. The delegate may invite officials from any religion to participate at a state event as he or she wishes.
Click to expand...
The purpose of which is to be another generalized subsection that entrenches that the delegate has permission from the RA to invite a religious official to observe at state events if he or she wishes while implying that is not something that must happen while retaining more of the role-play potential created in the original legislation.
Click to expand...
I'd consider adding it, if there's support to do so, but it may need a slight refinement.

19. The delegate may invite officials from any religion, wihout discrimination or favoritism, to participate at a state event as he or she wishes.
Click to expand...

I dropped the current clause 19 because in my view, the Delegate could invite whomever they wished as long as it respected the language of Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights. If we're going to mention this topic in the bill as is proposed, then we're going to need to reinforce the limitation of that Clause against favoring any particular religion.

But I'm open to argument as to whether to bring the topic back into the bill and whether the additional phrase should or shouldn't be added.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
19. The delegate may invite officials from any religion, wihout discrimination or favoritism, to participate at a state event as he or she wishes.
Click to expand...

I dropped the current clause 19 because in my view, the Delegate could invite whomever they wished as long as it respected the language of Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights. If we're going to mention this topic in the bill as is proposed, then we're going to need to reinforce the limitation of that Clause against favoring any particular religion.

But I'm open to argument as to whether to bring the topic back into the bill and whether the additional phrase should or shouldn't be added.
Click to expand...
I think adding clause 19 would help the amendment a little, especially for the sake of roleplay and the rest I said earlier. As far as the added wording goes, it's up to you, I don't know if its absolutely necessary but I understand why it's there and I don't see any harm coming out of adding it.
 
Yrkidding:
Grosseschnauzer:
19. The delegate may invite officials from any religion, wihout discrimination or favoritism, to participate at a state event as he or she wishes.
Click to expand...

I dropped the current clause 19 because in my view, the Delegate could invite whomever they wished as long as it respected the language of Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights. If we're going to mention this topic in the bill as is proposed, then we're going to need to reinforce the limitation of that Clause against favoring any particular religion.

But I'm open to argument as to whether to bring the topic back into the bill and whether the additional phrase should or shouldn't be added.
Click to expand...
I think adding clause 19 would help the amendment a little, especially for the sake of roleplay and the rest I said earlier. As far as the added wording goes, it's up to you, I don't know if its absolutely necessary but I understand why it's there and I don't see any harm coming out of adding it.
Click to expand...
With the absence of any input other than Yrkidding's, I guess because of the summer heat or winter cold (depending on your hemisphere), I'm going to go ahead and accept this amendment as part of the final draft, and I am updating the O.P. accordingly,
 
I encourage members to vote on this amendment without prejudice and recall that to vote against legislation, in the name of spite, that would otherwise be a reasonable and logical amendment is no way to place your vote. This legislation, though still on the subject of section 7.3 that currently deals with Flemingovianism, is different and unique from the other votes that have taken place on section 7.3 and I would like to remind the RA that it does not seek to repeal it nor neuter it and instead merely seeks to clarify the equality of the legislation while maintaining the vast role-play potential of Flemingovianism.

Any previous conflict between people will pass, and perhaps is already passing, but the effects of this legislation will last upon the Legal Code of The North Pacific. I encourage all members of the RA to vote 'Aye' on this amendment and thank you for your time in carefully and logically considering the consequences and advantages above all else.

EDIT(To address Flem's post below.):
I support this amendment but admit that the "dire consequences" some people have claimed will be the outcome of the original bill are mostly foolishness and sensationalism. Those who believe in that "hyperbole" are representative of two of those who support this bill and very few if any others. Not for a second did I think Section 7.3 would lead to the downfall of TNP or something similar nor would supporting this bill instantaneously make you one of those who do. The motivations for this proposal may not be completely wholesome but the consequences of it are altogether reasonable and in the best interests of this RA, striking a nearly ideal compromise and that is why I support it. When considering every legislation we consider the long-term consequences, keeping in mind that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I see room for improvement to the original bill, eliminating any oppourtunity for future confusion and creating a more logical system for recognizing religions of TNP. These additions will not restrict Flem's role-play ideas from continuing and it is not necessary for us to leave time to see that these changes are sound. To propose allowing time and then simply repealing the legislation if it does not work out is altogether too extreme when this compromise eliminates any potential for issue right here and now.
 
Likewise i urge members to vote against this, at this time. We have allowed no time to see whether current legislation just passed will lead to the dire consequences predicted in the hyperbole of those supporting this bill.

Grosse has admitted that it is ideologically driven, and he has no desire to see any evidence before legislating. He has also urged people to support this bill if they wish to "punish" other members of the Regional Assembly.

I have suggested that we allow a short time to evaluate soberly the effects of the legislation already on the books. And I have publicly stated that should the current legislation indeed lead to the consequences predicted by Grosse, Roman and their followers, I will support repeal myself.

But I want to see some evidence first - and I hope you do too.

Therefore I would urge you to vote nay on this bill. And vote in favour of evidence-based legislation.
 
flemingovia:
Likewise i urge members to vote against this, at this time. We have allowed no time to see whether current legislation just passed will lead to the dire consequences predicted in the hyperbole of those supporting this bill.

Grosse has admitted that it is ideologically driven, and he has no desire to see any evidence before legislating. He has also urged people to support this bill if they wish to "punish" other members of the Regional Assembly.

I have suggested that we allow a short time to evaluate soberly the effects of the legislation already on the books. And I have publicly stated that should the current legislation indeed lead to the consequences predicted by Grosse, Roman and their followers, I will support repeal myself.

But I want to see some evidence first - and I hope you do too.

Therefore I would urge you to vote nay on this bill. And vote in favour of evidence-based legislation.
Click to expand...
Once again Flem, you misintrepret my position and this proposal out of a sense, I suppose, of selfish political diatribe.

The issues being raised have nothing to do with evidence or the lack of evidence. This compromise merely seeks to create a general resolution rather than continue to have an ego-driven provision in the Legal Code of TNP.

As I noted in the opening post of this thread weeks ago, this genesis of this proposal is from Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights. It reflects your admission that your original bill was poorly written and that. more or less, it did not do what you intended to do with your original proposal. But that hasn't stopped the numerous and erroneous efforts to mislead the R.A. that this bill was "appeasement."

This compromise sets out a middle course, something that is actually more appropriate in the Legal Code as it furthers the language and intent of the Bill of Rights without blatantly offending many, as your original proposal did.

This compromise is for the long term, and not for the limited amount of time you call for for evidence. Your insulting demand that I withdraw this proposal is an insult not just to me but to all of us who sincerely believe in the full scope and meaning of the Bill of Rights as part of the structure of TNP society, and who respect the values that document in particular represent.

My original objection was, and remains that your original bill went too far and infringed on the rights and protections guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. You have over the course of these past couple of months, demonstrated that you really don't understand that point, because otherwise, you wou;dn't have made many of the inaccurate and plainly untrue statements you have made about me and this legislation since the day I first broached it in your "repeal" proposal. What is here is a permanent resolution to the dispute, one in which you position loses very little if anything other than asserting the limitations and protections imposed by the Bill of Rights.

It is clear to me that this won't be the first battle in the days to come to protect the Bill of Rights from denigration and destruction, there will be more to come. But it is clearly a battle that will have to be waged in the name of the hard-won liberty of TNP.
 
It reflects your admission that your original bill was poorly written and that. more or less, it did not do what you intended to do with your original proposal.
Click to expand...

I have looked back over all my posts in this and other threads, and I simply cannot see where you got this impression.

I am, in fact, entirely happy with the legislation as it stands.

I am sure you would not deliberately misrepresent my position, so you must have misunderstood my words, so perhaps you would link me to the post that led you to this conclusion, so I can clarify?

You know, Grosse Old Bean, you would get on a lot better if you did not constantly denigrate people who disagree with you. Lately you have been losing elections for which you should have been a shoe-in. If you tacked the issue rather than the person, I think you would probably regain some of the political capital you have lost. Just as word to the wise.
 
I am voting against this bill due to its use of "he or she" and for no other reason. (I do support changing that part of our legal code).
 
Eluvatar:
I am voting against this bill due to its use of "he or she" and for no other reason. (I do support changing that part of our legal code).
Click to expand...
Seriously? :(

Pweeeasseee vote yes? Pwetty pwease? *puppy eyes*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top