- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
So... You don't think I should express my opinion on what I want or think should be done? That seems fair.falapatorius:
The Additional Religious Observance Act.
- Thread starter PaulWallLibertarian42
- Start date
falapatorius
TNPer
^ thisme:
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
" was it necessary to share it?"
You seem to say it is fine for me to have my own opinion, but I shouldn't share it.
You seem to say it is fine for me to have my own opinion, but I shouldn't share it.
falapatorius
TNPer
You're just trying to influence the vote. But I ask again.. was it necessary to share it? Do you feel your opinion warrants attention? What if I said no one cared? Or worse, ignored it?
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
If I deem it necessary to share my opinion on a proposal I will do so. I feel that It is necessary to share my opinion on this proposal, to provide feedback and make my position clear. It is up to me as an RA member to determine if my expression of opinion is necessary or not. That is my right. Not yours.
I am telling the original author what I think about the proposal. Just as every other person in this thread has done. If no one cares, so be it. If the author ignores it or doesn't care, so be it. But I am still entitled to share my opinion. Whether it influences the vote or not. Democracy my friend.
I am telling the original author what I think about the proposal. Just as every other person in this thread has done. If no one cares, so be it. If the author ignores it or doesn't care, so be it. But I am still entitled to share my opinion. Whether it influences the vote or not. Democracy my friend.
falapatorius
TNPer
FFS! Read. You're entitled to your opinion, that's not in dispute. But don't pretend your opinion takes precedence. Maybe with certain parties, it does. You may be the longest-running delegate, but that may be because you have the support of 1% of people who can be bothered to join the forums. Not really representative of TNP is it? And that's on top of the population dwindling to 2nd in the world.McM:
falapatorius
TNPer
Spoken like a true company man. 
Treize_Dreizehn
TNPer
First of all, let me say, as someone who doesn't necessarily get along with McM all that much, you guys should show a little more respect. You're piling on a well respected and well supported citizen and pretending you're in the majority in your views. You're not.falapatorius:You may be the longest-running delegate, but that may be because you have the support of 1% of people who can be bothered to join the forums. Not really representative of TNP is it? And that's on top of the population dwindling to 2nd in the world.
If he's wrong, prove him wrong. Don't tell him to shut up.
Second, are you implying the forum government is somehow less than the legitimate government of TNP?
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I don't see where you get the view that I think my opinion takes precedence over the view of others. While in government and out of it, I have always been a cooperative and collaborative individual.falapatorius:FFS! Read. You're entitled to your opinion, that's not in dispute. But don't pretend your opinion takes precedence. Maybe with certain parties, it does. You may be the longest-running delegate, but that may be because you have the support of 1% of people who can be bothered to join the forums. Not really representative of TNP is it? And that's on top of the population dwindling to 2nd in the world.McM:
Nor have you explained why it should be considered unnecessary for me to give my opinion.
PaulWallLibertarian42
TNPer
Guys? You just mean falap right? Dont lump his commentary in with mine or this bill. I have been respectful in my back and forth here. I do not have issue with anyone sharing thier opinion.Treize_Dreizehn:First of all, let me say, as someone who doesn't necessarily get along with McM all that much, you guys should show a little more respect. You're piling on a well respected and well supported citizen and pretending you're in the majority in your views. You're not.falapatorius:You may be the longest-running delegate, but that may be because you have the support of 1% of people who can be bothered to join the forums. Not really representative of TNP is it? And that's on top of the population dwindling to 2nd in the world.
If he's wrong, prove him wrong. Don't tell him to shut up.
Second, are you implying the forum government is somehow less than the legitimate government of TNP?
Please do not include me in with any other indivduals commentary.
If this is not what you meant by using the phrase "guys" then I aplogize.
Good grief.
I personally am not convinced that official status ought to be granted to either of the religions suggested. The Church of the Thirteen is an Osiran religion, recently imported from that region by dual citizens, and the other is a weird, half-baked mashup of two RL religious notions into a not quite coherent whole. Neither of them has significant tenure in TNP, neither of them can point to solid contributions to the region, and neither has earned cultural prominence. There is nothing about them that merits recognition as an official religion of TNP.
Everything which exists adds something by virtue of its existence, but simply existing is no great feat deserving of recognition. Legal inclusion is better reserved for things with longevity and an established history of contributions. The RA rejected flemingovianism more than once before it finally welcomed it, and a lot of the change of heart is related to the fact that it stuck around, and grew, and gained converts, and provided entertainment, and put in the effort to win people over. It's not in any way unreasonable to want other religions, or attempts at cultural creations, to put in the same kind of prolonged effort to gain official recognition.
I could be convinced otherwise, but as of yet I am not.
That's a fine opinion to have and all, but it's meaningless unless you have a solid argument to back it up.
I personally am not convinced that official status ought to be granted to either of the religions suggested. The Church of the Thirteen is an Osiran religion, recently imported from that region by dual citizens, and the other is a weird, half-baked mashup of two RL religious notions into a not quite coherent whole. Neither of them has significant tenure in TNP, neither of them can point to solid contributions to the region, and neither has earned cultural prominence. There is nothing about them that merits recognition as an official religion of TNP.
Everything which exists adds something by virtue of its existence, but simply existing is no great feat deserving of recognition. Legal inclusion is better reserved for things with longevity and an established history of contributions. The RA rejected flemingovianism more than once before it finally welcomed it, and a lot of the change of heart is related to the fact that it stuck around, and grew, and gained converts, and provided entertainment, and put in the effort to win people over. It's not in any way unreasonable to want other religions, or attempts at cultural creations, to put in the same kind of prolonged effort to gain official recognition.
I could be convinced otherwise, but as of yet I am not.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
I can see your point to a certain extent. But, look at it this way: if you deny 'foreign' religions the ability or right to engage in proselytism in TNP, then you also deny cultural additions and diversity to the region.SillyString:
As per the importing of religions from other regions by 'dual citizens' as a test for validity of a religion, one only has to consider how many government officials and RA members here are 'dual citizens' with other regions.
It then becomes a matter of diversity versus a society/culture carefully planned by an Oligarchy or College of Cardinals of a standing state religion.(Fnord)
falapatorius
TNPer
To clarify (one final time):
You can state your voting intention, and why you choose to do so. I just don't think you should encourage anyone else to vote similarly (publicly anyway).
As for respecting someone because of their history, popularity, blah blah.. good luck with that.
on topic:
The idea that a religion's acceptance be measured by some standard of cultural impact/significance has no basis in Law, and would be considered discriminatory by any sane person. The RA, by voting against a religion's inclusion into the Legal Code, is denying a nation's fundamental (and BOR guaranteed) right to freedom of religious expression. But go ahead, by all means, discriminate. I will abstain from every religion based vote anyway.
You can state your voting intention, and why you choose to do so. I just don't think you should encourage anyone else to vote similarly (publicly anyway).
As for respecting someone because of their history, popularity, blah blah.. good luck with that.
on topic:
The idea that a religion's acceptance be measured by some standard of cultural impact/significance has no basis in Law, and would be considered discriminatory by any sane person. The RA, by voting against a religion's inclusion into the Legal Code, is denying a nation's fundamental (and BOR guaranteed) right to freedom of religious expression. But go ahead, by all means, discriminate. I will abstain from every religion based vote anyway.
roman:
Straw man argument.
I do not think anyone has suggested denying anyone the right to prosyletise, have they?
falaptorius:
You do realise this is a political simulation, don't you? Trying to persuade propel to your point of view and to vote similarly is sort of a major point of the game.
How? In what way are nations unable to freely practice their religions when those religions are not mentioned in the legal code?falapatorius:
Cormac
TNPer
- TNP Nation
- Cormactopia III
- Discord
- Cormac#0804
Against. Didn't even read it, just saw "religious."
- Discord
- COE#7110
Falapatorius, there is a fundamental fallacy in your recent line of comments to Mcm. On the one hand, we have this:
These two statements are completely at odds. What I am getting out of them in conjunction is "You are influential and you disagree with me. Please stop talking."
Here, you seem to imply that Mcm's opinion carries some weight, and you wish he wouldn't try to influence people to his way of thinking. Then we have this:falapatorius:
You imply here that Mcm's opinion is not worthy of attention, and that no one cares about it.falapatorius:
These two statements are completely at odds. What I am getting out of them in conjunction is "You are influential and you disagree with me. Please stop talking."
- TNP Nation
- North_Elegarth
- Discord
- Elegarth#8848
Curious. Most people would usually call if Freedom of Speech and Voicing an Opinion...falapatorius:
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
I am not making any kind of straw man argument. And, I will build on Mr. Fal's analysis of your comment. If you lack the intellectual capacity to understand what I am about to say, then don't waste your time reading it. Those who lack intellectual capacity may make rude comments in response thus fortifying proof of intellectual capacity.flemingovia:
But I am sure that some who still have minds of their own will actually read this. It is to them that this is really addressed.
While on the one hand, you claim to promote religious freedom, Mr. Flem, but on the other hand you wish to deny other religions co-equal status with the Official State Religion. That is discrimination which relegates those who believe otherwise than you to second class citizen status.
We have always been a region that has promoted democracy and equality and diversity, yet you seem to be working toward the end of destroying any equality, diversity and by subverting 'democracy' into nothing more than mob rule.
Now, I suggest, that in the sake of preservation of egalitarianism and diversity that any religion that wishes to do so be afforded "Official" status in the legal code just to prove that we are an egalitarian region and not a region governed by an Oligarchy that only pretends to equality, fairness and diversity.
As for this being a political simulation, I realise that. But simulation or not, it is no excuse to promote simulated discrimination or exclusivism or oligarchism.
Oh, I agree that this is a political simulation. It is a political simulation which has turned a simulated Official State Religion into a simulated political cause which has lead to a simulated authoritarian situation (simulated, of course) in which simulated discrimination is being passed off for simulated democracy.
By mixing simulated politics with simulated Official State Religion which simulates a very dangerous simulated combination of simulated Religion and Politics which is a very destabilising, tyrannical and dangerous combination in terms of politics, simulated or otherwise. And all for the sake of enshrining your simulated persona in the legal code of The North Pacific and an exercise of simulated egotism on your part.
Looking at this through the eyes of a Sigmund Freud (simulated, of course) we recognise that as individuals, we all have a desire to be worshipped as Gods (simulated or otherwise). But to carry this over from real life into a political simulation is just damned bizarre. It's entertaining, but bizarre. And you, my friend, are entertaining, at least, in a simulated fashion, that is.
In this way, you have made your religo-political simulation the very point of this game. No one but you has done this.
Now, what makes it so very bizarre is the fact that you wish to engage in a political simulation in which you are a simulated God.
Then, of course, in a simulated fashion, we can look towards Carl Jung concerning your fetish with maintaining an Official State Religion of which one is the simulated God of such a simulated official state religion. We only have to replace "Beautiful Woman" with "Simulated God"/"State Religion":
And to make a long story even longer, you, my friend, are heading head long into a simulated rendition of "Die Götterdämmerung" in which you will personally be responsible for the destruction of the simulated Oligarchy a sure as the sun shall rise tomorrow.
In any instance, you have doomed TNP in such a way that this will be the official them music for the region:
[flash]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkOiKy6sXfM[/flash]
falapatorius
TNPer
Roman:
Hah.. I flip a simulated bird to that.
Yet his hands are clean, because he has offloaded responsibility to the RA ( always a wise choiceRoman:
) Inclusion/Exclusion as determined by any standard is discriminatory by nature.If I have to explain to the CJ how subjecting freedom of religious expression to a vote is discriminatory, then TNP is in serious trouble. Or a simulated farce anyway.Silly String:
PaulWallLibertarian42
TNPer
Im really Rand Paul tho. No simulation
I have never heard of Rand Paul, so I just googled him. I am not impressed.
How is this in any way subjecting freedom of religious expression to a vote?falapatorius:
Where in the law is freedom of religious expression curtailed?
- TNP Nation
- North_Elegarth
- Discord
- Elegarth#8848
While I am not at all a supporter of the whole religion matter, and I have supported the bills that pretend to take it out, I do must say that this argument is quite failed.SillyString:
While I don't personally like to see a religion being sponsored by the law as official, I can see how the bill itself does not prevents or curtails people's right to adore or not adore whatever they wish or not.
falapatorius, is your arguments perhaps a farce on itself?
falapatorius
TNPer
I'll refer you to this:Elegarth:
Roman:
If a religion seeks official status, is that not a form of religious expression?Silly String:
Since voting is required to amend the Legal Code, the vote in and of itself may contradict the BOR in that a failure outcome effectively infringes a nation's guaranteed right to free expression of religion. Reasons for voting nay are irrelevant (I refer to my earlier statement that a religion's recognition, as determined by any standard is discriminatory). So, as PWL42 put it:TNP Bill of Rights:
As distasteful an idea that allowing all religions official legal recognition is to me, it seems we either allow all religions to attain official status, or we draft an Establishment Clause for the BOR, and/or the Constitution. I prefer the Establishment Clause.PWL42:
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Oh, you'd never get an Establishment Clause added to the BOR(ing) with the current religio-political fanaticism of the adherents to the One and Only Official State Religion. Eventually, people will become bored with the Official State Religion and when the new wears off of that penny, it will wither and die without so much as even an audible flatulent sound.
In terms of Role Playing, I do have to admit that an 'Official State Religion', and all RP religions quite amusing in the level of absurdity it brings to the game/region. It is sort of Disc World-esque but lacking anything resembling the creativity of Terry Pratchett's gags. In terms of viable and entertaining gags, though, our Official State Religion is like a wine and cheese party with a bottle of Boone's Farm and a slab of Velvita, all covered with bile. It's funny for about 30 seconds and then the smell becomes unbearably nauseating, but in an entertaining and demented sort of way.
Official State Religion in terms of TNP RP is not dissimilar to Roman Emperors declaring themselves to be Gods by legislation or edict. It's like Caligula bleating like a sheep before the Roman Senate and the Senate bleating back (yes, this actually happened). The only difference is that Caligula threw better parties.
All things considered, and out of a sense of irony and sarcasm, a collective thumbing of the nose at the Official State Religion is apropos.
In terms of Role Playing, I do have to admit that an 'Official State Religion', and all RP religions quite amusing in the level of absurdity it brings to the game/region. It is sort of Disc World-esque but lacking anything resembling the creativity of Terry Pratchett's gags. In terms of viable and entertaining gags, though, our Official State Religion is like a wine and cheese party with a bottle of Boone's Farm and a slab of Velvita, all covered with bile. It's funny for about 30 seconds and then the smell becomes unbearably nauseating, but in an entertaining and demented sort of way.
Official State Religion in terms of TNP RP is not dissimilar to Roman Emperors declaring themselves to be Gods by legislation or edict. It's like Caligula bleating like a sheep before the Roman Senate and the Senate bleating back (yes, this actually happened). The only difference is that Caligula threw better parties.
All things considered, and out of a sense of irony and sarcasm, a collective thumbing of the nose at the Official State Religion is apropos.
falapatorius
TNPer
In keeping with that attitude, I would prefer..Roman:
[flash]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA[/flash]
falapatorius:
Not under any commonly understood meaning of the term, no, unless the tenets of the religion require it to seek official status (and even then, seeking and being guaranteed are two different things). If you have an argument to the contrary (as opposed to simply an assertion), I for one would be interested in reading it.
Again, how does it do this? How does a religion not being able to bill itself as an official regional religion in any way interfere with its adherents' ability to declare themselves as members and practice that religion?
I find this notion especially puzzling when it comes from people who think that no religion should ever be granted official recognition. If any religion not receiving recognition infringes on free expression, it follows logically that prior to the official recognition of flemingovianism, it too was being infringed upon in violation of the Bill of Rights.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
That is quite apropos!falapatorius:
That also is apropos and can be easily modified to keep with the spirit of the great Nose Thumbing!
falapatorius
TNPer
SS:
Bravo. I didn't think you'd pick up on that. As you can see, a case could be made for either side of the debate to claim a BOR violation (whether you think it has merit or not). I don't know what you're smoking.. but pass that sh*t! The act of seeking official status itself is a religion attempting to express itself (regardless of whether it's tenets say so or not.. which seems ridiculous).SS:
Anyway.. I'd like you to clarify: While can we argue all day about BOR conflicts, do you think that voting to affirm a religion's official status, based upon some 'phantom' (or at any rate, unquantifiable) standard, is discriminatory? Imo, as long as a religion does not violate TOS or TNP Law, it should have no other barriers to official status. Rubber stamp please. I remind you, I'm completely against this, but with the Legal Code as it is at the moment, fair is fair. It's either all or none. None would be better though.
- Discord
- COE#7110
Falapatorius, public recognition of a religion is a completely separate thing from religious expression. Religious expression is the ability to practice one's religion and follow the teachings/tenets/rules of one's religion. Since the law as it currently stands does not prevent any religion from doing that (despite recognizing one and not others) this is not a violation of the right to religious expression.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
We have the equivalent in TNP. We just call it the Rum Party.Egalotir:Tea Party? Oh what a laughPaulWallLibertarian42:Im really Rand Paul tho. No simulation
More accurately, there are a few of us here who are RL Libertarians who firmly believe that the government that governs least, governs best. A lot of us also believe that governments (RL or RP) that exist for the sole purpose of promoting and preserving the rights of individuals as opposed to governments that promote the absolute power of the government over a 'collective' (which annihilates the concept of the individuals) is the best way to go.
Then again, Collectivism and the requisite totalitarian state that goes with it is good, if you simply want to keep a herd of sheep together. It doesn't work very well with people who are individuals who still possess their free will (the ability to choose whether to think or not think).
Enshrining an "Official State Religion" in the legal code only encourages more and more people to thumb their nose at such a proposition. Even sheep get the urge to wander out of the pasture once they discover it is enclosed by a barbed wire fence.
falapatorius
TNPer
Nope, that's freedom of religion. Similar, but different.COE:
Freedom of religious expression is the freedom to hold, practice and share one's religious beliefs.
You still haven't in any way explained how religious expression is infringed upon.falapatorius:
Members of the Church of the Thirteen are perfectly free to hold their religion, to practice it, and to share their beliefs with others. They are free to promote their religion on and off this forum, to post copies of their religious texts and/or songs, to vote according to the demands of their gods, and in every way express their religion without penalty.
So how does not calling this religion "official" infringe upon their rights to do the above?
Neither case is a very good one, since in no scenario are anybody's religious freedoms being infringed upon. There's always someone who can make a case for a BOR infringement no matter what the issue - the point is that you're claiming that there's a BOR violation no matter what we do, unless we give all religions official status, and preferring the biggest possible BOR violation from the set of options.falapatorius:
The logic of your argument - that removing all religions from the Legal Code is the biggest BOR violations - is entirely at odds with your own stated preference - to remove all religions from the Legal Code. This calls into question your genuine adherence to the basic premise you have been asserting, namely, that BOR violations are a bad thing.
And at the point where your premise, argument, and preferences don't line up, you're either playing Devil's Advocate or have not carefully examined your thoughts for consistency and are proposing things that sound good as justifications for an inherently unjustifiable thing ("I don't like X" is perfectly cromulent statement but often unsubstantiatable; "I don't like spinach because it's icky" is hardly an objective argument). Either is possible, though given the level of vitriol you have expressed I'm guessing it's the latter.
All choice involves discrimination. It is a necessary thing in order to make a choice. The loser in an election, the person not chosen as a deputy, the two justices not named as chief are all chosen (or discriminated) against.
So yes - to choose whether or not to grant a particular religion "official" status is to separate certain ones from certain others - to distinguish, to discriminate. However, this simple act does not have the negative connotations you are seeking to impose. No nation's rights are infringed upon by denial of the word, and no nation is granted extra rights by its conferral. There is neither tangible benefit nor tangible harm from either status.
If elections were to begin being decided on the basis of religious belief, that might quickly become a different matter entirely. The BOR does not grant any protection against discrimination, but one could make a good argument that electoral advantages going to a certain set of religions over certain others - potentially independent of the term "official" - is an infringement of the encouragement of personal belief which exists in the BOR.
Even then, such discrimination on an individual basis may be merited depending on the tenets of that religion. I cannot imagine a delegate candidate professing a religion which mandated that they coup and purge TNP before handing the delegacy over to Durk would be well received. So long as discrimination in elections is done on an individual basis, not encouraged by the government, it's not really something that can be disappeared by force.
You disagreed with this yourself, above - hold, practice, and share beliefs, which covers the freedom to believe, to worship (publicly or privately), to dress or act in ways that demonstrate one's adherence to a religion, and to a limited extent to proselytize (limited by the bounds of civility and other peoples' desire to not be bothered). Unless the tenets of a religion demand it seek official status (which is indeed a ridiculous thing), doing so is not an element of free expression.
- Discord
- COE#7110
I will concede this definition. However, this point:falapatorius:
still stands.Crushing Our Enemies:
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Since there is no time limit on this informal debate, thanks to the Speaker's special and arbitrary rules, I will be presenting an even more diabolical version of this bill in a day or so.
...You think there should be a forced time limit on how long you're allowed to talk about something?
And that would somehow be less arbitrary?
And that would somehow be less arbitrary?