Religious Freedom and Tolerance Act

JhonsJoe:
That would have to be stated in a separate bill. This legislation is for one purpose: to eliminate a state religion in TNP, thus promoting religious tolerance. If this bill passes, no main religion would allow every or no religion to be followed by the citizens of TNP. So I will not accept the revisions.
Click to expand...
Wow.. you didn't cave to the pressure or try to ingratiate yourself to anyone. :w00t: Be patient though.. don't expect it to all happen in one day.

I support the original bill, and have no interest in debating the issue. My stance is clear. My sig says it all. Eluvatar's compromise may/may not have merit, but that's another bill.

Pass or fail.. welcome to the RA JhonsJoe. :toast:
 
We've already voted on whether we want a state religion or not - more than once. The will of the RA is clear on that point. The choice for detractors is whether they want to come to the table with an acceptable compromise, or continue to bang their head against a wall with bills that will not pass.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
We've already voted on whether we want a state religion or not - more than once. The will of the RA is clear on that point. The choice for detractors is whether they want to come to the table with an acceptable compromise, or continue to bang their head against a wall with bills that will not pass.
Click to expand...
To be fair there are new members in the region now. Maybe sentiments/advantage has changed. Doesnt seem like new RA members like state religion much. Meh.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
We've already voted on whether we want a state religion or not - more than once. The will of the RA is clear on that point. The choice for detractors is whether they want to come to the table with an acceptable compromise, or continue to bang their head against a wall with bills that will not pass.
Click to expand...
These are NOT the only two options. A third option would be to accept the will of the RA, expressed now many times, accept that the dire predictions of Romanoffia that clause 7.3 would mean the end of civilization in TNP were bullshit, and just get on with the game.

But hey - this is TNP. Should long enough and hard enough and someone will compromise with you.
 
I am disappointed that the bill's proponent is uninterested in my suggestions. I will have to consider how to vote on this matter carefully.
 
2 more seconders needed for the motion for immediate vote to proceed.

I'm going to make this a pretty quick vote (4 days) too once it starts.
 
Oh Merlin damn it all.

Add me to the list. Let's get this horrific excuse of a bill out of the way so the Author can go back to playing God in his mindscape. For the record, if a compromise must be sought, I'd prefer Elu's version although I am very much in favour of the current in-force law.
 
I also agree to move to an immediate vote.

While I appreciate JJ's efforts at introducing legislation, his unwillingness to discuss compromise has essentially made it a failed exercise. Moving forward, I hope he will recognize the need to seek consensus in order to have a meaningful outcome.
 
Eluvatar:
I support this bill :)

However, I don't think it will pass. Perhaps a less complete repeal of flemingovianism as a state religion might get less opposition?
Click to expand...
Same here.

And I also "second" moving to immediate vote in case we are falling short on that
 
I urge all RA members to vote Nay on this proposal. It was proposed less than a day ago, and it is already going to vote. Whether you agree with it or not, this is an unacceptable way to legislate. This bill is not a matter of any urgency, nor is the opposition to the bill unwilling to compromise. The only reason to avoid debate on this is that the author has stated flat out that no changes will be entertained. Well, so be it.

Detractors of flemingovianism, this is not how you want to win this issue. Vote nay.

EDIT: For chrissake, this thread has had barely fifty views!
 
On that basis I may well vote nay despite even supporting the originally proposed text becoming law. Legislation should not be by ambush.
 
BY the way, JJ, since you look set to be a serial legislator, using the phrase " his/her" in any piece of legislation is a sure-fire vote loser.

Some people/peoplesses really hate it.
 
Eluvatar:
On that basis I may well vote nay despite even supporting the originally proposed text becoming law. Legislation should not be by ambush.
Click to expand...
I think that the problem is that the legislation is going to a vote too quickly without proper discussion or any willingness to compromise.

The general willingness for compromise in the RA as per construction of legislation is becoming a very disturbing norm.
 
Romanoffia:
Eluvatar:
On that basis I may well vote nay despite even supporting the originally proposed text becoming law. Legislation should not be by ambush.
Click to expand...
I think that the problem is that the legislation is going to a vote too quickly without proper discussion or any willingness to compromise.
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top