Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 18, 2012 17:34:56 GMT -6
These are very slim technical grounds, and amount to contravention of the fairly obvious intent and result of the bill. "Your Honor, yes, it's true that I shot him with my shotgun. But I didn't kill him! I just put some holes in him, so maybe that's assault, and then he just happened to bleed to death!" Intentionality isn't King, though (Nor is Jesus, yet ). Hey, I'm a big advocate for authorial intention, but - here, let's say I post an Amendment making the Easter Bunny King, and I'm under a sincere delusion that the Easter Bunny is real and should be King. Let's say, somehow, that ends up being law - because you lot humour me, or whatever. Has the Amendment breached the Third Covenant? Has it enforced worship of the Easter Bunny? Has it created any practical change in the running of the nation in terms of religion? Or again, I'm really into my earth-lovin' and nominate Mother Earth as our Gaian Protectress, replacing the King. You all say, sure, it'd solve the current issues of having a King which some people don't like, it's quirky, let's go with it. Have I enforced worship/veneration of the All-Mother on anyone? Well, obviously not. It hasn't even been made a state religion, after all. Obviously, if my intent were a joke in the first place, and everyone went along with it to solve the problem of a crowned King...so instead we made the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever...then there'd be even smaller grounds for crying foul. There'd be no practical upshot, no official state structure of religion.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 18, 2012 18:07:04 GMT -6
No, intentionality is not the end-all be-all. But let's be a little frank and avoid the long semantical argument I was about to get to: you're being deceitful, here. You know that this bill is intended as an endorsement of Christianity, and the language is phrased in such a way as to endorse the Christian god of Talossa's largest religious group. Regardless of whether or not we can come up with a contorted series of hypotheticals where a somewhat similar case might possibly be maybe not an endorsement of religion, you know that this one is. Will you admit as much?
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 18, 2012 19:24:12 GMT -6
No, intentionality is not the end-all be-all. But let's be a little frank and avoid the long semantical argument I was about to get to: you're being deceitful, here. You know that this bill is intended as an endorsement of Christianity, and the language is phrased in such a way as to endorse the Christian god of Talossa's largest religious group. Regardless of whether or not we can come up with a contorted series of hypotheticals where a somewhat similar case might possibly be maybe not an endorsement of religion, you know that this one is. Will you admit as much? It's an endorsement of no religious establishment (which is disbarred by the Third Covenant), but rather of an individual. No establishment is favoured; that is, no establishment (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church) is given preferred status, or additional rights/privileges, and no other religious establishment (or non-religious individual) is deprivileged. So no, I do not admit that; I also raise my eyebrow at the accusation of deceit levelled against me. Now, to return to Kane's earlier point, the more I read this, the Amendment might well be in contravention of the clause relating to the preservation of the individual conscience. Of course, "The government shall not restrict the free exercise of religion or conscience in worship or conduct" cannot be expected to be entirely binding - if your free exercise of conduct involves murder, the government has the duty to make an exception - but in the context of the rest of the Third Covenant, it seems like enthroning an individual (furthermore without official Talossan citizenship) whose status is contentious with many citizens might breach the exercise of one's conscience, given their oaths of allegiance would be to Jesus, their everyday governmental business would operate under His aegis, etc. So my considered opinion is that I don't see this as preferencing a religious establishment; but it might be seen to be an unacceptable restriction of the individual conscience.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 18, 2012 19:25:07 GMT -6
Also, guys, why has no-one else but Deet picked up on the fact that this might well imply a coup d'etat? Are you more bothered about semantics than our King's status and safety? Al might be on his way to Colorado even now to execute "the Pretender Woolley"!!!
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 18, 2012 19:39:14 GMT -6
"if your free exercise of conduct involves murder, the government has the duty to make an exception " (Owen)
A good example of this would be unlawful animal sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 18, 2012 20:03:51 GMT -6
It's an endorsement of no religious establishment (which is disbarred by the Third Covenant), but rather of an individual. No establishment is favoured; that is, no establishment (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church) is given preferred status, or additional rights/privileges, and no other religious establishment (or non-religious individual) is deprivileged. So no, I do not admit that; I also raise my eyebrow at the accusation of deceit levelled against me. Now, to return to Kane's earlier point, the more I read this, the Amendment might well be in contravention of the clause relating to the preservation of the individual conscience. Of course, "The government shall not restrict the free exercise of religion or conscience in worship or conduct" cannot be expected to be entirely binding - if your free exercise of conduct involves murder, the government has the duty to make an exception - but in the context of the rest of the Third Covenant, it seems like enthroning an individual (furthermore without official Talossan citizenship) whose status is contentious with many citizens might breach the exercise of one's conscience, given their oaths of allegiance would be to Jesus, their everyday governmental business would operate under His aegis, etc. So my considered opinion is that I don't see this as preferencing a religious establishment; but it might be seen to be an unacceptable restriction of the individual conscience. I apologize for the breach in courtesy. But I think only a moment's consideration reveals that your stance is deceitful, in the manner in which it is designed to obscure the truth. When an explicitly Christian party that explicitly favors the explicit government endorsement of religion proposes a bill that explicitly sets their deity as the head of state, it is deceitful to try to knot that up into some sort of endorsement of the historical personage and "individual" Jesus. It's hard to believe that you don't honestly see any endorsement of Christianity here, so I can only conclude your replies here are designed to obfuscate that view. I know that this a harsh thing to say, but I think it is very much merited here. The bill calls for the "Kingship of Christ" and the establishment as sovereign of the "Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." This is religious language, phrased in a traditional Christian way that makes reference to the godly and religious role of Jesus of Nazareth. even though no organization is singled out as the best one, this would constitute an official endorsement of the Christian mythos and religion by the Organic Law, implicitly denigrating those who believe otherwise or don't believe at all. If I am mistaken in my perception, I sincerely apologize, and instead merely urge you to reconsider and think carefully about some more comparable situations. A parallel is not the Easter Bunny, but rather an amendment that states that "Section 1 of Article III of Organic Law ("King") be amended to add the following first sentence: The eternal and everlasting Allah, and his only prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him)." Note the clear religious language, lack of any honest ambiguity of meaning, and obvious endorsement of a specific set of religious beliefs.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 18, 2012 20:38:40 GMT -6
Well, hence my Mother Earth comparison. I wasn't ridiculing Gaian beliefs, I was saying "here is another actual 'religious' belief". If an active Muslim proposed that Amendment (in an obviously tongue-in-cheek way that did not in fact fully correspond with his own theology of government...), I would vote CONTRA because I disagreed; I would not say it constituted a preference to a religious establishment, which is what the law disbars. Not only is Islam or some subset NOT established as a state religion, but no active, functioning preference is given to those who are practising Muslims over those who are not.
Perhaps here the fact I would distinguish between "God" and "religion" comes into play. I understand the object of a particular religion or faith to be distinct, conceptually, from the faith itself, whether or not it is "real". Jesus, Allah, and Lucifer != Christianity, Islam, and Luciferianism. In fact, I think such a stance is a basic necessity of any attempt to analyse propositions; to assume identity between objectified and objectifier is 1) to presume your answer (there is in reality no objectified) and 2) to confuse orders of proposition to be analysed.
A Poirot fanclub, or even the Christie Estate is not preferenced by us declaring Poirot King, despite the former's worship and the latter's ownership of an avowedly fictional character. Even should we ourselves be members of the former or executors of the latter, we should gain no preference to our establishment - which would be against the law.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 18, 2012 20:44:29 GMT -6
Note that in Arabic Bibles, God is also named al-Lah.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 18, 2012 20:55:38 GMT -6
Well, hence my Mother Earth comparison. I wasn't ridiculing Gaian beliefs, I was saying "here is another actual 'religious' belief". If an active Muslim proposed that Amendment (in an obviously tongue-in-cheek way that did not in fact fully correspond with his own theology of government...), I would vote CONTRA because I disagreed; I would not say it constituted a preference to a religious establishment, which is what the law disbars. Not only is Islam or some subset NOT established as a state religion, but no active, functioning preference is given to those who are practising Muslims over those who are not. Perhaps here the fact I would distinguish between "God" and "religion" comes into play. I understand the object of a particular religion or faith to be distinct, conceptually, from the faith itself, whether or not it is "real". Jesus, Allah, and Lucifer != Christianity, Islam, and Luciferianism. In fact, I think such a stance is a basic necessity of any attempt to analyse propositions; to assume identity between objectified and objectifier is 1) to presume your answer (there is in reality no objectified) and 2) to confuse orders of proposition to be analysed. A Poirot fanclub, or even the Christie Estate is not preferenced by us declaring Poirot King, despite the former's worship and the latter's ownership of an avowedly fictional character. Even should we ourselves be members of the former or executors of the latter, we should gain no preference to our establishment - which would be against the law. Fair enough. With that clarification, I apologize for my assertion that you were being deceitful. But, with respect, while there might be a distinction between endorsement of a particular god and endorsement of a particular religion, such a distinction is of little consequence in terms of official governmental endorsement of religion. Endorsing any god is a de facto endorsement of a certain subset of religions - in this case, Christianity of the various flavors that consider Jesus to be a divine entity that died for their sins (i.e. almost all of them). Again: no one worships Poirot, so it is not a religion, so any endorsement of Poirot does not constitute a religious endorsement and hence is not an endorsement of any particular religion or religions. But we are quickly descending into arguing over words, instead of sticking to the point: this is a Christian bill designed to enthrone a Christian deity as the head of state, implicitly endorsing the truth of the Christian religions. I don't believe in Jesus as the Christ, and I don't want my government telling me that Christianity is true. That's a matter for me to decide.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Jul 18, 2012 23:57:10 GMT -6
Hope that this will be closed soon..
Owen, this is your point but is evident that many of us don't share your opinion and we do consider this a breach of the 3rd convenant because of a different interpretation. It's also clear we can't persuade you and you can't persuade us. That's it.
This teach us something: "tongue-in-cheek" isn't a magic spell that allows everyone to say anything he wants without expecting "serious" reactions. This amendment, even most of us (as myself) understood it to be as such, touched the core itself of this nationette and its "citizenry pact" and the "tongue-in-cheek" label couldn't save it from rightfull objections, strong as they were. So to everyone, pay attention...
And don't clark it because that label ("tongue-in-cheek") will not be enough to defend it and what we saw yesterday will continue.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 19, 2012 13:29:07 GMT -6
I don't believe in Jesus as the Christ, and I don't want my government telling me that Christianity is true. That's a matter for me to decide. Well, thank you for agreeing with my (second) interpretation that the issue comes down to the clause relating to freedom of conscience, not preference of establishment. I can see the Amendment (potentially) being inOrganic because it would breach your freedom of conscience, as I said above - perhaps you didn't notice. (The Poirot example was actually a demonstration that even should a personage be avowedly fictional, it should still be regarded as conceptually different to its adherents/owners. And if you don't believe there are Poirot worshippers...you haven't met the people I have .) Uc, forgive me for my bluntness, but I'm not sure what your contribution exactly is; yes, we disagree somewhat, but funnily enough, conversation brings us closer to mutual understanding, whereas angry comments (aimed at someone who is not in fact proposing the Amendment) about the nature of "tongue-in-cheek" things simply damage mutual understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2012 15:51:05 GMT -6
After having met with the author of this piece of legislation, who is really a very sweet and approachable person, I do not believe he was being tongue-in-cheek. In fact, I dare say, while he recognizes that this probably won't pass, he would love to see this become a reality.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Jul 19, 2012 16:27:24 GMT -6
[Uc, forgive me for my bluntness, but I'm not sure what your contribution exactly is; yes, we disagree somewhat, but funnily enough, conversation brings us closer to mutual understanding, whereas angry comments (aimed at someone who is not in fact proposing the Amendment) about the nature of "tongue-in-cheek" things simply damage mutual understanding. Angry comments damaging mutual understanding?
|
|
|
Post by Eldsfäts Blasiüs on Jul 20, 2012 20:57:49 GMT -6
After having met with the author of this piece of legislation, who is really a very sweet and approachable person, I do not believe he was being tongue-in-cheek. In fact, I dare say, while he recognizes that this probably won't pass, he would love to see this become a reality. I cheerfully admit that 1) I wasn't being tongue-in-cheek and 2) would love to see this pass. I also admit that I don't see much hope for its passage. But I do believe in miracles, so I'm willing to ride this pony out.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jul 20, 2012 21:10:58 GMT -6
I cheerfully admit that 1) I wasn't being tongue-in-cheek and 2) would love to see this pass. I also admit that I don't see much hope for its passage. But I do believe in miracles, so I'm willing to ride this pony out. You just want to keep poking us with that stick, don't you. So, you would like to see me, and others, renounce our citizenship's because of your personal agenda? Your "hope" is more important than our personal beliefs? Wonderful.
|
|