A Compromise on Religious Observance

DD, it makes no sense for you to state opposition to a proposal before you even know what the final form of it even is.

In accord with Flemingovia's previously posted request to take all references to Flemingoviaism out of this section of the Legal Code, I hereby offer this as a quasi-final version of this proposal. I will entertain minor fixes for issues I haven't noticed, but otherwise this is the final proposed compromise to revise Section 7.3 of the Legal Code, 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...

I'll be editing the opening post with this version a.s.a.p.

One correction made.
 
Recalling my original statement that I would allow the move into formal debate upon the conclusion of the vote on the repeal bill, formal debate is now commenced, unless the bill's sponsor would wish for me to defer it further. Formal debate shall last for five days, at which time a vote shall be scheduled.
 
"17. Holidays of any religion or church shall be observed permitted regionally, "

GROSSE - I dont understand the wording on that part. Im unsure if a grammar mistake or thats how you wrote it and intend it?

observed permitted regionally.

Do you mean observed and permitted regionally?
 
Fair enough. Thanks GS for sticking your neck out and drafting this. I personally see no isssue with the premise. It gives any potential RP religion the same equal protection under the law - not just one.

The only people I can think of personally who wouldnt support this are people who simply want to perpetuate the drama and who cant put it behind them for their best intrests and best intrests of the region. New players wont join the forum as long as they keep seeing shade and bullying thrown about.

When this goes to vote, as it is currently written I plan to support it. And I hope others will too.
 
SillyString:
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.
Click to expand...
I stand with Comrade SillyString on this matter.
 
Tim:
SillyString:
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.
Click to expand...
I stand with Comrade SillyString on this matter.
Click to expand...
And you choose to attempt to blackmail me because?

I have and had nothing to do with Roman's behavior or tactics. It would be regrettable that you and Silly Strong choose to engage in such petty and childish behavior.

The Speaker made his decision on the matter of the post splitting and what not. Blame him if you must, but do not take that irrational behavior out on me, which is precisely what you are doing.

Just remember, schnauzers have a very, very long memory. >|P
 
I really want to remove section 17 of the current law. If my read is correct, any holiday the leaders of the Flemingovian church make up would be observed throughout TNP.

17. 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.
Click to expand...

That implies to me that the leader of the Flemingovian church can - by law - make any holiday he/she wishes and the rest of the region would be compelled to observe. I don't mean individual nations would be forced to observe, but where my thoughts go would be requests to update the WFE with Flemingovian related holiday adverts or whatnot. I don't want our regional holidays hijacked by a religion that not all practice.
 
It's not blackmail to not support it, Grosse. Nobody is saying that you are engaging in or perpetuating the behavior we object to, or that you have the power to wave your hand and stop it - merely that this bill is attempting to appease it, and we will not go along with that.

The RA has now voted twice to keep Flemingovianism in the region. I hope after the third time, we can finally move on to more important things.
 
punk d, this proposal removes all references to Flemingovianism as Flem himself has requested; Clause 17 is rewritten so that a private person could observe their religious holidays if they wish as unpaid time off work. It would not require an official holiday.

Silly, you are saying exactly that which you claim not to be saying. You still called this proposal and my efforts to find a middle ground appeasement, when it is not. Does that make you as much as a radical extremist as Roman? I abhor philosophical extremism at both ends, and I truly believe my approach as taken in this proposal is the only way out of this quagmire that will resolve the conflict without rewarding either extreme.
 
The conflict was resolved. We had a vote on Flemingovianism. It passed. We had a vote on repealing Flemingovianism. It failed.

Even those on the defeated side acknowledge that the RA membership does not want to repeal Flemingovianism. Pandering to them is pointless and legitimises the behaviour of Roman et al.
 
Nierr, this does not repeal Flemingovianism, that just the point you are missing. It is respecting Flem's specific request that any direct reference to Flemingovianism be removed from the Legal Code.
Before I drafted this final version, I specifically requested of Flem in this thread whether that request still stood, and he did not respond. If he has changed his mind on the point, he was under a moral obligation to say so.
So this has nothing to do with the status of Flemingocianism, it has more to do with all other current and future options on the sunject and to rein in the excesses of Section 7.3 so it would satisfy Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights without violating anyone's rights on the subject.

If that's to complicated to understand, let me know and we'll construct a Dick and Jane story for your benefit.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
You still called this proposal and my efforts to find a middle ground appeasement, when it is not. Does that make you as much as a radical extremist as Roman?
Click to expand...
How on earth do you think the one follows from the other? Appeasement does not require that there be two unacceptable extremes - it is merely buying off objectionable behavior by promising incentives. It can be one sided or two sided, and has nothing to do with extremeness or moderation of position.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Before I drafted this final version, I specifically requested of Flem in this thread whether that request still stood, and he did not respond. If he has changed his mind on the point, he was under a moral obligation to say so.
Click to expand...
To be specific (and I know you like clarity in language) you did not make any "specific request" of me. What you did was say this directly to PaulWall:

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.
Click to expand...

You said to Paulwall that there would need to be clarification, not to me.

But I am sure you will say that is splitting hairs.

As far as "Moral Obligation" goes, I would remind you that I am on Leave Of Absence from the Regional Assembly. I am keeping an eye on this and the other stuff relevant to Flemingovianism going on, but I am trying REALLY hard not to post, for my own good.

I would have thought the only "moral obligation" was for my fellow Assemblymen to respect that Leave of Absence.

So... my last word (i hope ) on this.

Looking back at what led to this proposal coming to the chamber of the RA it is hard to see it as anything other than an attempt to buy calm on the forum. Appeasement does not work, friends. Once you start to pay for peace you never stop paying, and you never get peace. Just ask the Emperor Honorius.

I would urge my fellow assemblymen to vote against this, even if they agree with some of the sentiments in this bill. Once folks get the message that they can barrack their way to getting what they want, then we are heading for trouble.

Now, I am really really going to try not to post again.
 
flemingovia:
I . . . . 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.

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.
Click to expand...

You last post Flem, smacks of the highest level of hypocrisy, and the only reason I can think oof for your "leave" is that you know you're being a total hypocrite. I want this bill to go to a vote to see who aligns themselves with Flem's hypocrisy, as well as Roman's and who does not.

I have no use for either one of you; and your allies, and you can expect that in the future, you both will regret your mutual and extended obnoxious behavior throughout these forums. You are both equally guilty of causing the problem, and as I've said repeatedly, the only way to settle this and effectively, punish both of you for your obnoxious and hyporactical conduct is to pass this bill.

So Silly String and Flem's other apologists, consider your position carefully, are you punishing Roman or are you enabling Flem in continuing the same sort of behavior?
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Your last post Flem, smacks of the highest level of hypocrisy, and the only reason I can think of for your "leave" is that you know you're being a total hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Not sure he's on leave. Just one of the 'anonymous'.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I want this bill to go to a vote to see who aligns themselves with Flem's hypocrisy, as well as Roman's and who does not.

I have no use for either one of you; and your allies, and you can expect that in the future, you both will regret your mutual and extended obnoxious behavior throughout these forums. You are both equally guilty of causing the problem, and as I've said repeatedly, the only way to settle this and effectively, punish both of you for your obnoxious and hyporactical conduct is to pass this bill.

So Silly String and Flem's other apologists, consider your position carefully, are you punishing Roman or are you enabling Flem in continuing the same sort of behavior?
Click to expand...
Very statesmanlike. I would warn you against damaging your reputation further, but previous efforts have fallen on deaf ears. At least your position and intent are clear now, thank you.
 
DD, you declared your declared yourself against this proposal before you even knew what the final version of it was. Just like Flem did, and all his victim-less followers.

Why should I worry about your opinion of my reputation (as biased and narrowed minded as you are showing it to be) when you make up your mind to follow the lemmings off the cliff into the sea? My reputation is speaking honestly and directly about what I see and think. It never got there by being a lemming.
 
To make the argument that I am rejecting it outright because the "final version" is not ready is asinine, I understand the reasoning of this proposal, and that is what I reject. I voted FOR Flemingovianism as a recognized religion and voted AGAINST its repeal. It is logically consistent to reject what is essentially another attempt at repealing Flemingovianism. Not only that, but the additional convoluted language typical of your legislative efforts just adds to the overall bloat of the legal code and constitution, which is your "legacy" for the region, as it were.

I am not a lemming, maybe people are opposed to this proposal because it is an affront to previous votes held on this subject, and in addition is utterly functionless?

This proposal essentially establishes that there can be such a thing as a recognized Church or Religion in TNP, leaving it to future proposals to establish those recognized religions. What a redundant process, as Flemingovianism is already a recognized religion, and nothing is preventing others from seeking such status.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
I am not a lemming, maybe people are opposed to this proposal because it is an affront to previous votes held on this subject, and in addition is utterly functionless?
Click to expand...
Nah. If you don't go along meekly without asking questions, you're a lemming![note]For what it's worth, the poor lemmings were driven to their death. They didn't die willingly.[/note] :yes:
 
I'd like people to step back and look at what this bill is really doing. It is not in some way repealing Flemingovianism as a religion of TNP nor will it have any huge effect on Flemingovianism at all outside of striking s.19 but is instead clarifying and allowing any religion to be recognized as a church of TNP instead of the current language of the legislation that seems to imply that Flemingovianism is to be the sole recognized religion of TNP without room for another to be elevated to this status, an act I think we can all agree is discriminatory in nature. Flem himself has admitted that the interpretation that I initially had of this act where it elevated Flemingovianism to its current rank and by extension denied any other religion from holding this title wasn't the intention (See this post and this post) which is where I believe a lot of the opposition to the original act arose from, including myself and perhaps most notably from Roman. (I'm under that impression, if I am wrong there Roman feel free to correct me.)

I encourage all members of the RA to accept this act as to me it better signifies the initial intent of the act of elevating a religion, Flemingovianism, to the status of a church of TNP while still allowing for other religions to seek this status. If this act passes then we simply must add some duties to the Ministry of Culture where they may maintain a list of recognized religions of TNP with Flemingovianism included and a system whereby other religions can seek this status. Finally, I urge all members of the RA to look past what controversy has plagued this debate and look solely at what the bill will accomplish, not appeasment, not repealing Flemingovianism, but instead an amendment that fixes the phrasing of the initial act to eliminate the possibility for the discriminatory interpretation and reinforces that all religions, not just one, may seek status as a church of TNP without discrimination.
 
I definitely agree with Yrkidding.
This bill will not wipe out the Flem religion, and at the same time, it will also appease the people who oppose it.
I think that passing this would most likely cool the tensions down and it has my support, also.

~Tomb
 
I'm sorry for the bluntness, but your reading comprehension is not very good. How does a proposal that strikes out the mentions of Flemingovianism from the legal code not amount to a repeal of Flemingovianism? This proposal is redundant in the sense that it is a half-step backwards. It establishes that a religion can be recognized legally. If this passes then ANOTHER proposal will have to be put forward to recognize Flemingovianism again. It is a useless proposal that only adds more words to the legal code with no apparent effect EXCEPT to remove Flemingovianism from the legal code, which the RA has demonstrated TWICE is not what the majority wants.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
I'm sorry for the bluntness, but your reading comprehension is not very good. How does a proposal that strikes out the mentions of Flemingovianism from the legal code not amount to a repeal of Flemingovianism? This proposal is redundant in the sense that it is a half-step backwards. It establishes that a religion can be recognized legally. If this passes then ANOTHER proposal will have to be put forward to recognize Flemingovianism again. It is a useless proposal that only adds more words to the legal code with no apparent effect EXCEPT to remove Flemingovianism from the legal code, which the RA has demonstrated TWICE is not what the majority wants.
Click to expand...
It very much does have an apparent effect and is in no way useless. As I explained in my last post this legislation is important in that it clarifies that more than one religion may be recognized as a religion of TNP instead of the initial legislation that definitely seems to imply that Flemingovianism would be recognized as the only religion of TNP without room for any other to claim this status. Again repeating my last post, the Ministry of Culture will simply have to establish a list of recognized religions of TNP and a system for religions to seek that status or something similar and I think we can all agree that Flemingovianism will be the first religion on that list.

It is discriminatory for only one religion to be afforded this status without ability for another to do so and that is the critical issue that has brought opposition and that this legislation is addressing. The primary goal of this legislation is to address that issue of a widely-held interpretation that paints this act as discriminatory and that even Flem admits was not the initial goal of the legislation. It establishes that a religion can be recognized legally and that other religions can be recognized legally, again something the initial legislation is unclear on (and the opposition to this act is clear evidence of that lack of clarity). If this legislation passes, I have no doubt that Flemingovianism will promptly be recognized as a religion of TNP as soon as the Ministry Of Culture can establish their system.

EDIT: Also, yea, Flem did kinda ask for it to be removed from the legislation.
 
Just a reminder of what Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights says:

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...

In one sentence, all this compromise seeks to do is to bring current Section 7.3 into line within the limits of Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights, no more and no less.
 
Yrkidding:
It is discriminatory for only one religion to be afforded this status without ability for another to do so and that is the critical issue that has brought opposition and that this legislation is addressing.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good, except that any religion which wishes to be recognized is free to seek recognition in the same way as flemingovia did for his.

There is nothing in the law that prevents multiple recognized religions, or imposes sanctions on anyone seeking such an addition. The only thing stopping anybody from doing so is their own choice not to pursue it.

This idea that the law prohibits multiple religions from being recognized, either intentional or unintentionally, is completely fabricated.
 
SillyString:
Yrkidding:
It is discriminatory for only one religion to be afforded this status without ability for another to do so and that is the critical issue that has brought opposition and that this legislation is addressing.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good, except that any religion which wishes to be recognized is free to seek recognition in the same way as flemingovia did for his.

There is nothing in the law that prevents multiple recognized religions, or imposes sanctions on anyone seeking such an addition. The only thing stopping anybody from doing so is their own choice not to pursue it.

This idea that the law prohibits multiple religions from being recognized, either intentional or unintentionally, is completely fabricated.
Click to expand...
Except everytime we did that - we'd have to amend 7.3 to reflect the new addition or even add a 7.4 - I do not feel this would impact flemingovianism in any way and would make it easier in the future to have a generic blanket statement so othwr religions can be recognized if they wish and we dont have to update the legal code and vote everytime a new religion wants included.
 
So is the expectation that if this passes I will have to go - for a third time - to the RA asking them to recognise Flemingovianism as a state religion.

Scratch that - fourth. I forgot the earlier time that was rejected?

If so, this is a back-door repeal, which I did not wholly realise when it was first proposed.
 
the original version of this bill (see the OP) accepted that the will of the Regional Assembly was not to repeal the adoption of Flemingovianism as regional religion - so it castrated it instead.

Of all the clauses in the original act, the only one that actually DID anything was clause 19, which allowed delegates to invite Flemingovian officials to participate in regional functions. Please note, this did not confer any rights on FLemingovianism, it simply allowed the delegate to involve us, should (s)he wish.

This clause was deftly removed in this bill.

As I said: what could not be repealed is to be castrated. No wonder Romanoffia is happy to support this, and is keeping quiet while it makes its way into the statute books.

As it stands I cannot support any version of this bill so far presented.
 
I'll have to give it a more careful reading. If it does mean going back to vote on Flemingovianism again, then it should be revised so as not to repeal it. The wishes of the RA are clear on the matter.
 
I too am not a hundred percent sure. I would welcome some guidance from the SPeaker on this matter.

Near as I can tell, this resolution crosses out the existing wording of section 7:3 so yes, flemingovianism would have to go back to the RA yet again.

TBH, I am heartily sick of all these shenanigans. The RA has made it's will felt in several democratic votes. Can;t we just get on with it?
 
I would offer that the bill as written would not require another vote of the Assembly to recognise Flemingovianism, or indeed any other religion, but would grant blanket recognition to all religions, with the expectation that one of the Ministries, presumably the Ministry of Culture, be responsible for recording religions, though I would note that the Government is not compelled to perform such recording.

If one were to wish for a religion, Flemigovianism in this case, to be specifically recognised in the Legal Code, however, another bill would be required if this bill were to pass.
 
Still confused,

so to be clear, the specific recognition of Flemingovianism granted by the regional Assembly not two months ago is removed by this bill, yes?

So ...... I still see this as a back-door repeal of section 7:3 as it now stands.
 
Section 7.3 is amended, not repealed. If Flem wants an additional implementation clause added in the bill, to make clear that Flemingovianism is to be considered as already "registered," he'll have to give me express permission to use the word, since the way this bill is currently written is in large part due to his request about not using his name in the changes proposed by this proposal. (Flem, you can't have it both ways, though you are trying very hard to do so.)
The bill does not repeal Flemingovianism, it merely removes direct mention of it from the Legal Code as Flem requested of me in the first few posts of this thread.
If this bill passes, no further votes in the R.A. will be required. It will be up to the Delegate to decide where registration would take place and the manner of it.

I fail to see how this confuses Flem or anyone else. It couldn't be any more straightforward.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
SillyString:
There is nothing in the law that prevents multiple recognized religions, or imposes sanctions on anyone seeking such an addition. The only thing stopping anybody from doing so is their own choice not to pursue it.
This idea that the law prohibits multiple religions from being recognized, either intentional or unintentionally, is completely fabricated.
Click to expand...
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...
(Please note, parts of these quotes are left out to save some space on this large post, the messages remain the same.)

To SS, as I've stated, I understand that this bill does not prohibit other religions from seeking this status but that its the lack of that being clear that needs to be addressed, that has caused significant opposition and that is being addressed with this legislation. The mere fact that the other discriminatory interpretation was so easily mistaken to be the true meaning is evidence enough that there is poor wording in the legislation that needs to be fixed. In addition, Paul makes a fantastic point that using this current legislation as a precedent section 7.3 would soon look like this:
1. Flemingovianism, Christianity, Pastafarianism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Taoist, Norse Mythology and Confucianism shall be adopted as the Regional religions and churches of the North pacific.
2. As per the Bill of Rights, section 2, all nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any or no religious belief, and this shall not be curtailed.
3. The Flemingovian, Christian, Pastafarianist, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist, Norse and Confucian religions shall receive no financial or tax advantages through being the state religion of The North Pacific.
3. Holidays of the Flemingovian, Christian, Pastafarianist, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist, Norse and Confucian religion shall be observed regionally, and all nations shall have the right to take a day off work, unpaid, on those holidays.
4. No Flemingovian, Christian, Pastafarianist, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist, Norse or Confucian official shall serve on the cabinet or any other appointed government position by virtue of their status in the Flemingovian, Christian Pastafarianist, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist, Norse and Confucian religion.
5. Flemingovian, Chrisitan, Pastafarianist, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist, Norse and Confucian officials may participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions.
Click to expand...
Or worse, sections 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11, 7.12, 7.13, and 7.14 respectively of individual religions, either of which I think is hardly the correct way to go about recognizing religions in TNP.

(EDIT: Edited to reduce the length of this post.)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top