The Religious Exclusion Act

Romanoffia

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
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 Shall Amended As Such:

Section 7.3: Religious Observance

14. Flemingovianism shall be adopted as only recognised acceptable the 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 as long as they do so vociferously, but respectfully public.

16. The Flemingovian religion shall receive no financial or tax advantages through being the religion of The North Pacific shall not be publicly criticised in any fashion under penalty of being whipped mercilessly with a wet noodle for a period to time not to exceed 30 seconds while a song by The Throgs is played in the background.

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 with full pay and a liter of rum, which they shall be required to drink under penalty of the wet noodle clause above in section 16. Government officials Conscientious Objectors are excluded from the effects of this clause.

18. No nation shall serve on the cabinet or any other appointed government position by virtue of their status in the Flemingovian religion. Any adherent to Flemingovianism who is determined to be a Heretic by Church Law shall be forced to run naked through the Agora while making Chicken Sounds for each heretical transgression. Non-Flemingovians will be required to observe this forfeit but shall mercifully be supplied with a quantity of rum and blindfolds so they may not have to utter the phrase, Cor, Blimey!

19. Flemingovians officials may participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions Must fast 364 days of the year, eating only cold porridge and water on those days as a sign of their unwavering devotion to the State Religion of Flemingovianism. On the 365th day, January 1, to be exact, they may feast on the fried innards of marsupials provided they do not use any untowardly condiments to modify the flavour, but they must engage in self-flagellation with a wet noodle (as per section 16) while singing We Are the World, in the key of F, chicken noises being optional. Non-Flemingovians will be required to observe this forfeit but shall mercifully be supplied with a quantity of rum and blindfolds so they may not have to utter the phrase, Cor, Blimey!

20. Compliance with this law is absolutely voluntary and it is compulsory that you not comply with this law if you choose not so.

21. All Citizens, residents and visitors to The North Pacific shall be made aware of the potential ill effects of adhering to or not adhering to the Official State Religion of Flemingovianism and that this warning be publicly posted in a prominent place:

WARNING

SERIOUS STATE RELIGION NEUROPSYCHIATRIC EVENTS

Serious neuropsychiatric events including, but not limited to, depression, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, and completed suicide have been reported in Adherents to the Official State Religion. Some reported cases may have been complicated by the symptoms of sanity withdrawal in Adherents to the Official State Religion who Adhering to the Official State Religion. Depressed mood may be a symptom of sanity withdrawal. Depression, rarely including suicidal ideation, has been reported in hereitics and non-Adherents to the Official State Religion undergoing a religion cessation attempt without medication. However, some of these symptoms have occurred in Adherents to the Official State Religion who continued to have doubts about their religious beliefs.

All adherents to the Official State Religion should be observed for neuropsychiatric symptoms including changes in behavior, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, and suicide-related events, including ideation, behavior, and attempted suicide. These symptoms, as well as worsening of pre-existing psychiatric illness and completed suicide, have been reported in some patients attempting to quit smoking while worshipping in the postmarketing experience. When symptoms were reported, most were during sanity withdrawal treatment, but some were following discontinuation of adhering to the Official State Religion.

These events have occurred in Adherents to the Official State Religion with and without pre-existing psychiatric disease. Adherents to the Official State Religion with serious psychiatric illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder did not participate in the premarketing studies and the safety and efficacy of of The Official State Religion in such Adherents to the Official State Religion has not been established.

Advise Adherents to the Official State Religion and caregivers that the Adherents to the Official State Religion should stop worshipping and contact a healthcare provider immediately if agitation, hostility, depressed mood, or changes in behavior or thinking that are not typical for the patient are observed, or if the patient develops suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior. In many postmarketing cases, resolution of symptoms after discontinuation of worshipping in the Official State Religion was reported, although in some cases the symptoms persisted; therefore, ongoing monitoring and supportive care should be provided until symptoms resolve.

The risks of adhering to the Official State Religion should be weighed against the benefits of its use. The Official State Religion has been demonstrated to increase the likelihood of abstinence from religious activity for as long as one year compared to treatment with placebo. The health benefits of quitting worshipping are immediate and substantial.
Click to expand...


Let us debate in the spirit of silliness and porridge.
 
You're adding fuel to the fire that was supposed to be out awhile ago...Don't go setting the entire forest ablaze Roman come on.
 
Have a sense of humour.

It's a meaningless and harmless law, and it's funny. I mean, everyone wants an Official State Religion, and that point is well established. So, why not go all the way in a harmless and unenforceable way with an escape clause which exempts anyone not willing to comply?

I'm going along with the silliness of an official state religion and supporting said religion with all due vigour and effort as promised. What harm could come of it?
 
Roman:
Have a sense of humour.
Click to expand...
I sold mine for 'sacred pepper spray' for when those people with bicycles and ties show up. ;)

My only issue with this proposal is the use of 'liter' (litre?). Fine, ok.. I'm from Canada (metric system), but a liter of rum just doesn't sound pirate-ish.
 
I an not sure this area of our law ought to use up ra time a fifth time, even to give. Roman some lutz.
Click to expand...
That's not for you to decide. We used up RA time for your masturbatory leanings. Don't you have Inquisitors to recruit? Btw.. your grammar, punctuation, etc. needs work.
 
falapatorius:
I an not sure this area of our law ought to use up ra time a fifth time, even to give. Roman some lutz.
Click to expand...
That's not for you to decide. We used up RA time for your masturbatory leanings. Don't you have Inquisitors to recruit? Btw.. your grammar, punctuation, etc. needs work.
Click to expand...
Word of advice, if you keep up your aggressive, snarky, and down right disrespectful childish comments, not only is nobody is going to take you seriously(probably at that point already) and you're dangerously close to being kicked out. I would stop.
 
falapatorius:
I an not sure this area of our law ought to use up ra time a fifth time, even to give. Roman some lutz.
Click to expand...
That's not for you to decide. We used up RA time for your masturbatory leanings. Don't you have Inquisitors to recruit? Btw.. your grammar, punctuation, etc. needs work.
Click to expand...
What the heck is going on with you recently? I would ask that you calm down and debate without insulting your fellow RA members.

That said, can we possibly not do this a third time?
 
Word of advice, if you keep up your aggressive, snarky, and down right disrespectful childish comments, not only is nobody is going to take you seriously(probably at that point already) and you're dangerously close to being kicked out. I would stop.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the advice, but I would counter that you keep your unsolicited opinions to yourself. Save them for something important. I'm way past caring if you or anyone else takes me seriously.

What the heck is going on with you recently?
Click to expand...

Haha, seriously? If it were up to me, you wouldn't be here. What's up with me is none of your damn business.
 
I shall note in advance of a motion to vote that I will not be scheduling a vote on this bill nor will I allow it to enter into formal debate, members who wish to see the bill progress may, of course, use the motion for an immediate vote which would require the support of eight members, including the bill's sponsor.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
I shall note in advance of a motion to vote that I will not be scheduling a vote on this bill nor will I allow it to enter into formal debate, members who wish to see the bill progress may, of course, use the motion for an immediate vote which would require the support of eight members, including the bill's sponsor.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, you cannot do that. It would be in violation of the standing RA Rules and you have no authority, legally or constitutionally to alter the standard procedure. I will be asking the Court if you have such authority and were in the Body of The Law such authority is granted to the Speaker of The RA.

So, let the informal debate continue.


Back on topic here...


So, I figure since we now have an Official State Religion, I say that we take it to its ultimate goal - and that being the Exclusive Official Religion. This bill does it in a harmless way that doesn't interfere with anyone's rights as the law is meaningless other than it enshrines a specific Religion as the Exclusive Official State Religion in a most convoluted and wordy fashion.

So, since the Speaker has denied us the normal process of formal debate in an effort to prevent further legitimate debate (an constitutionally questionable action on the Speaker's part), let's see if we can make this law even more wordy and convoluted in keeping with tradition.
 
Romanoffia:
Zyvetskistaahn:
I shall note in advance of a motion to vote that I will not be scheduling a vote on this bill nor will I allow it to enter into formal debate, members who wish to see the bill progress may, of course, use the motion for an immediate vote which would require the support of eight members, including the bill's sponsor.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, you cannot do that. It would be in violation of the standing RA Rules and you have no authority, legally or constitutionally to alter the standard procedure. I will be asking the Court if you have such authority and were in the Body of The Law such authority is granted to the Speaker of The RA.

So, let the informal debate continue.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you'll look, that's well within his powers. The law says "2. The Speaker may schedule a vote on any proposal being discussed by the Regional Assembly as permitted by law."

Emphasis on "may" not must, shall, or even will. That indicates a certain optionality to the clause.
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
Romanoffia:
Zyvetskistaahn:
I shall note in advance of a motion to vote that I will not be scheduling a vote on this bill nor will I allow it to enter into formal debate, members who wish to see the bill progress may, of course, use the motion for an immediate vote which would require the support of eight members, including the bill's sponsor.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, you cannot do that. It would be in violation of the standing RA Rules and you have no authority, legally or constitutionally to alter the standard procedure. I will be asking the Court if you have such authority and were in the Body of The Law such authority is granted to the Speaker of The RA.

So, let the informal debate continue.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you'll look, that's well within his powers. The law says "2. The Speaker may schedule a vote on any proposal being discussed by the Regional Assembly as permitted by law."

Emphasis on "may" not must, shall, or even will. That indicates a certain optionality to the clause.
Click to expand...
It says he may schedule a vote - it does not say he may prevent it from being debated formally or that he can deny a legitimate piece of legislation from going to a vote.

"As permitted by Law" - which laws are we speaking of and what are they specifically?

Point being - the RA Rules and Constitution specifically guarantee that legislation shall be conducted in a standard fashion. Nowhere is the Speaker given the authority to quelch legislation and thus thwart the constitutional and legislative process.

The Speaker is engaging in an action which, if carried to the extreme under your line of reasoning could mean that the Speaker can arbitrarily prevent any and all legislation from being conducted, thus neutralising the entire Legislative Branch.

Clearly, the Speaker has no authority to simply shut down the legislative process and deny formal debate because it would silence freedom of speech and thwart the Constitution and essentially conditionalise or entirely abolish the democratic process.

At this time, I am awaiting the a Review on this matter set before the Court.

But I suppose I could get the arbitrarily set number of votes to override the Speaker's actions here. And then I suppose another stumbling block to the democratic process will be thrown in the way.
 
But I suppose I could get the arbitrarily set number of votes to override the Speaker's actions here. And then I suppose another stumbling block to the democratic process will be thrown in the way.

^^^^^

I am not convinced you could get eight to support a vote on this. Paul wall and falaptorius, perhaps....
 
falapatorius:
That's not for you to decide. We used up RA time for your masturbatory leanings. Don't you have Inquisitors to recruit? Btw.. your grammar, punctuation, etc. needs work.
Click to expand...
Warned. Abusive and insulting. Every RA member has the right to express themselves in these halls, just as every member has the right to disagree, but not in such an ugly fashion.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
falapatorius:
That's not for you to decide. We used up RA time for your masturbatory leanings. Don't you have Inquisitors to recruit? Btw.. your grammar, punctuation, etc. needs work.
Click to expand...
Warned. Abusive and insulting. Every RA member has the right to express themselves in these halls, just as every member has the right to disagree, but not in such an ugly fashion.
Click to expand...
He's been warned 100 times by now but he clearly doesn't care.
 
For the sake of clarity this was a warning through the warning system. His level has been raised to 60% and he has been placed on post suspension for 5 hours, and moderator review for 3 days. He is now two warnings away from a permanent ban, which hopefully it will not come to that.
 
Roman, shouldn't this be in the Role Play area?
It is funny, amusing, and entertaining.
However, this is not something that would pass no matter how much you tried.
And I think that a lot of people are tired of stretching the Flem religion any further.
IF you were role playing with it, that's something, but proposing to make it part of our government is something else.
And once again, I think that people should really remember that we are humans behind the screens before making a post.

~Tomb
 
The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
Roman, shouldn't this be in the Role Play area?
It is funny, amusing, and entertaining.
However, this is not something that would pass no matter how much you tried.
And I think that a lot of people are tired of stretching the Flem religion any further.
IF you were role playing with it, that's something, but proposing to make it part of our government is something else.
And once again, I think that people should really remember that we are humans behind the screens before making a post.

~Tomb
Click to expand...
Isn't the whole idea of Flemingovianism and Official State Religion part of Role Play? I mean, everything here is part of Role Play, thus it is appropriate here. After all, the whole Fleminingovianism thing is a means to end, and that end is to liven things up in terms of RP.

I mean, if you really want the official state religion to take off and be a part of the regional culture, you need the tools to make it a fanatical endeavour of the most humorous kind.

It's about time we inject a certain level of silliness and entertainment into the forum. Absurdity is always a nice thing from time to time. (Fnord)
 
DD:
He is now two warnings away from a permanent ban, which hopefully it will not come to that.
Click to expand...
I think you mean that you hope it comes to that. :rofl:

Egalotir:
He's been warned 100 times by now but he clearly doesn't care.
Click to expand...
100 times is an obvious exaggeration. You're half right though.

Roman:
Isn't the whole idea of Flemingovianism and Official State Religion part of Role Play?
Click to expand...
Touche. :clap:
 
I think that making the Official State Religion nominally the only acceptable religion in the region is a hysterically entertaining proposition, especially considering the way the law is written (so as to not be unconstitutional in any way).

It would increase the level of silliness everywhere because it would give members of the Official State Religion the ability to call non-believers 'heretics' without possibly being punished for tagging people as heretics, infidels or poopy-headed non-believers!
 
I really don't get you all...

You are totally willing to motion a bowl of porridge and find no issues with it, but this harms your feelings? Really, what an hypocritical reaction...
 
Elegarth:
I really don't get you all...

You are totally willing to motion a bowl of porridge and find no issues with it, but this harms your feelings? Really, what an hypocritical reaction...
Click to expand...
I am not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is then I feel you are misrepresenting my position. I have no problem with all sorts of things being debated in the RA, from the serious to the trivial. And a bit of fun fron time to time lightens the mood.

But to bring an issue to the RA for the fifth time, and have exactly the same positions and arguments rehashed by the same people over again runs the risk of being deadly tedious.

My feelings are not harmed at all. If the RA wants to go ahead, then allons-y! But my thoughts would be the same whatever the issue. Let's debate something original.

As Leonard Cohen sang, "let's sing another song, boys. This one has grown old and bitter."
 
Elegarth:
I really don't get you all...

You are totally willing to motion a bowl of porridge and find no issues with it, but this harms your feelings? Really, what an hypocritical reaction...
Click to expand...
In my defense as a supporter of that bowl of porridge, it had no legal effect whatsoever. This, on the other hand, is against the bill of rights.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Elegarth:
I really don't get you all...

You are totally willing to motion a bowl of porridge and find no issues with it, but this harms your feelings? Really, what an hypocritical reaction...
Click to expand...
In my defense as a supporter of that bowl of porridge, it had no legal effect whatsoever. This, on the other hand, is against the bill of rights.
Click to expand...
It's not against the BOR at all. There is a clause in the bill that clearly states that anyone who has any objections to this law may ignore it and may be required to ignore it.

And, besides, whether or not a law is unconstitutional or not is decided by the Court after a law is enacted and only after someone who has standing can claim some kind of damage or violation of the Constitution that affects them specifically.

And that is how the constitutionality of a law is tested.

Besides, the proposed law says that if you disagree with the law you can ignore without penalty and effects of the law. Very similar to Flemingovia's attempted legislation of a bowl of porridge. (Fnord)

Besides, I actually like porridge.
 
flemingovia:
Elegarth:
I really don't get you all...

You are totally willing to motion a bowl of porridge and find no issues with it, but this harms your feelings? Really, what an hypocritical reaction...
Click to expand...
I am not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is then I feel you are misrepresenting my position. I have no problem with all sorts of things being debated in the RA, from the serious to the trivial. And a bit of fun fron time to time lightens the mood.

But to bring an issue to the RA for the fifth time, and have exactly the same positions and arguments rehashed by the same people over again runs the risk of being deadly tedious.

My feelings are not harmed at all. If the RA wants to go ahead, then allons-y! But my thoughts would be the same whatever the issue. Let's debate something original.

As Leonard Cohen sang, "let's sing another song, boys. This one has grown old and bitter."
Click to expand...
Is not really directed at anyone in particular and to all in general, but then again, what you say is partly the point. You mention that bringing back a similar (cuz is not the same) issue back to discussion can get dull. Can you really say that a Bowl of Porridge doesn't already shows things are somehow dull enough so that a bowl of porridge is required to bring out some fun?

Anyway, I do think the religious thing can keep going on and on, for good or worse. The problem is not really to bring forth a fifth or sixth or seventh proposal about it... The mistake was to bring ONE out.

At least it has also bring people to post often in those threads, so perhaps, like the bowl of porridge, it is allowing people to engage in debate and arguments and that is what they want?

Just saying...

Cheers, Flem.


P.S.:

McM agreed with me! That makes my heard tingle :p
 
Elegarth:
Can you really say that a Bowl of Porridge doesn't already shows things are somehow dull enough so that a bowl of porridge is required to bring out some fun?
Click to expand...
I don't agree with this at all.

While porridge may not be my favorite food, a bowl of it as a legislative motion is something which is inherently absurd, even silly. The motion was not to eat a bowl of porridge, or declare it the regional breakfast food, or to give it honorary RA status, or to create any tangible effects, but rather simply the bowl of porridge itself. It would be like saying, "I motion Elegarth." What does that mean? I have no idea! Ridiculous! Absurd!

I think absurdity and silliness are both funny and fun, regardless of the general state of affairs, and being entertained by them is no indication that things are direly boring. The porridge was not required, it simply appeared and found great favor. I know some disagree, and find such nonsense trivial and frustrating - they are of course free to do so. But don't go dissing that legally approved bowl of porridge! :horror:
 
SillyString:
It would be like saying, "I motion Elegarth." What does that mean? I have no idea! Ridiculous! Absurd!

I think absurdity and silliness are both funny and fun, regardless of the general state of affairs, and being entertained by them is no indication that things are direly boring. The porridge was not required, it simply appeared and found great favor. I know some disagree, and find such nonsense trivial and frustrating - they are of course free to do so. But don't go dissing that legally approved bowl of porridge! :horror:
Click to expand...
I would support that motion, by all means. Motioning an Elegarth would be awesome :p

I agree to the last paragraph, don't get me wrong, I am not AGAINST silly and absurd stuff, is just that continued argument and discussion about a complex topic should > than a silly absurd thing...
 
Elegarth:
SillyString:
It would be like saying, "I motion Elegarth." What does that mean? I have no idea! Ridiculous! Absurd!

I think absurdity and silliness are both funny and fun, regardless of the general state of affairs, and being entertained by them is no indication that things are direly boring. The porridge was not required, it simply appeared and found great favor. I know some disagree, and find such nonsense trivial and frustrating - they are of course free to do so. But don't go dissing that legally approved bowl of porridge! :horror:
Click to expand...
I would support that motion, by all means. Motioning an Elegarth would be awesome :p

I agree to the last paragraph, don't get me wrong, I am not AGAINST silly and absurd stuff, is just that continued argument and discussion about a complex topic should > than a silly absurd thing...
Click to expand...
I think I should add a "Motion to Elegarth" (a 'High Five' to be exact) to this bill, but only if you actually like porridge. :P

I'd like to make a motion to Silly String but I generally reserve that motion for when I get cut off in traffic by a New York City taxicab driver. Out of a sense of decorum, I will just make this motion: :cheese: :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top