|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Feb 3, 2006 12:20:07 GMT -6
Yes. On the referendum I voted "Yes" to remove the title. That's progress as I see it in The Kingdom of Talossa. There's nothing to really debate here, if you're opposed to it, vote "No". If you have no objections, vote "Yes". So far it looks like the title will be removed.
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Feb 3, 2006 17:32:37 GMT -6
Might I suggest that this conversation be moved to the Chat Room? The Hopper is a board for the discussion of bills that are being prepared for introduction to the legislature. This particular bill was prepared, introduced, and passed by the Ziu long ago.
Hooligan
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 3, 2006 19:22:27 GMT -6
Might I suggest that this conversation be moved to the Chat Room? The Hopper is a board for the discussion of bills that are being prepared for introduction to the legislature. This particular bill was prepared, introduced, and passed by the Ziu long ago. Hooligan That's a good point - it's not in the text of the law, but I don't think it would be inappropriate for the SoS to lock Hopper threads once the subject proposal has been hoppered, clarked, and voted on. Assuming Proboards allows locking of threads.
|
|
|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Feb 4, 2006 10:43:51 GMT -6
If not that, we SHOULD have an archive section for old stuff. How does that sound?
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Walkland on Feb 4, 2006 11:01:25 GMT -6
or: "old news"
|
|
|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Feb 5, 2006 17:28:49 GMT -6
Yeah, that would be good. An archive section. Anyway, what's the avatar about, Joseph?
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Walkland on Feb 6, 2006 11:25:55 GMT -6
D'you mean my visa?
|
|
|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Feb 6, 2006 17:11:08 GMT -6
Yes, but it's changed. Well it looks like this is gonna pass, which is good.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on Feb 8, 2006 18:31:01 GMT -6
I've a few comments. First of all I hearing all that about Separation of Church and State gets annoying, primarily because it's not constitutional. All the (U.S.) Constitution says is pretty much that no state religion may be established. The phrase "Separation between Church and State" might actually be traced to the Masons. The Masons' purpose according to the International Masonic Congress of Paris 1889 and 1900 is “To destroy radically by open persecution of the Church or by a hypocritical fraudulent system of separation between State and Church, all social influence of the Church and of religion, insidiously called "clericalism", and, as far as possible, to destroy the Church and all true, i.e., superhuman religion, which is more than a vague cult of fatherland and of humanity.”
I think it would be cool if Talossa had a state religion because it would bind everyone together, but unless we convert all the heathens--merely being loosely applied to everyone not belonging to the state religion--that's not practical. On the opposite end is indifferentism, which is also not a good thing.
|
|
Olaf
Citizen since 8-9-2005
A Bruce Lee of Loosely Abused Ink
Posts: 303
|
Post by Olaf on Feb 8, 2006 19:05:15 GMT -6
By heathens, she naturally means "not fans of the Packers".
|
|
|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Feb 10, 2006 12:23:37 GMT -6
I've a few comments. First of all I hearing all that about Separation of Church and State gets annoying, primarily because it's not constitutional. All the (U.S.) Constitution says is pretty much that no state religion may be established. Yeah, in other words the constitution states there should be seperation of church and state. Don't twist the constitution of the US... If it says there should be no state religion, then it's seperation of church and state...No doubt about it. If it's not binded, then it's seperated.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 10, 2006 12:38:37 GMT -6
Actually, all the Constitution really says is that no federal religion may be established. The states were pretty much left to do as they please. Of course, the 14th Amendment later implicitly extended some of the restrictions on the federal government to the state governments as well.
|
|
|
Post by Joel Wood on Feb 10, 2006 18:15:43 GMT -6
Excellent point. Isn't this where the tenth amendment comes in, the reserved powers or state's rights?
|
|
Prince Patrick
Citizen since 8-23-2005; Prince since 3-14-2007; Duke since 8-6-2011
Citizen and Governor of Florencia; His Highness, Prince Patrick, Duke of Florencia
Posts: 208
Duke Since: 8-6-2011
|
Post by Prince Patrick on Feb 14, 2006 1:33:04 GMT -6
All the (U.S.) Constitution says is pretty much that no state religion may be established. The phrase "Separation between Church and State" might actually be traced to the Masons. Nic, I like you more all the time. ~PW
|
|
|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Feb 14, 2006 10:16:54 GMT -6
All the constitution says? It looks clear enough to me that the founding father's didn't want the influence of religion infringing on the rights of the individual. How is that hard to grasp? If it's too hard to comprehend, move to Italy where catholicism ruined ancient italian history and replaced with it contemporary post-dark age mediocre italian history.
|
|