LGC 6.2: Recognition of the Separation of Church and State (PASSED)

[RC (a la Frémont)]

LGC 6.2: Recogniton of the Seperation of Church and State

I. Introduction
This legislation is written for the purpose of recognizing the seperation of church and state.

II. Declaration
The government of Lincoln declares:

a.) The government of the Region of Lincoln shall not create legislation that is influenced by or incorporating religious texts whatsoever.

b.) All citizens of Lincoln are protected under law to practice any religion of their choosing, as the region of Lincoln protects these freedoms.

Sponsor: Bruhgmger2

48 Hours for debate.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

While I won't make as big of a deal of it as the Governor did, I will offer up an amendment striking "that is influenced by or" from the text of the legislation.

LGC 6.2: Recogniton of the Seperation of Church and State

I. Introduction
This legislation is written for the purpose of recognizing the seperation of church and state.

II. Declaration
The government of Lincoln declares:

a.) The government of the Region of Lincoln shall not create legislation that is influenced by or incorporating religious texts whatsoever.

b.) All citizens of Lincoln are protected under law to practice any religion of their choosing, as the region of Lincoln protects these freedoms.

[KaiserDave]

What's the point of the second clause of B

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Is there a need to separate church by state. Secondly if there is wrongdoing in "the church" or any religion whatsoever, the state IMO should absolutely have a say on that. Religion is an aspect of life, and subject to policymaking IMO so i'm not sure if i believe in separation of church and state.

If we are deciding to separate church by state, i also believe that there should be no expenses to "religious institutions" as well. Secondly, I feel like whenever someone is not religious that those people should have the right to not have the church as a forced entity on their lives, meaning churches have no place in schools as well. If someone is religious, we need to respect that, but there are laws churches and religions should operate under and I want to defend the right that someone has to not be influenced by religion in their lives, meaning that if you go to school that you have no need to follow religious class or attend churches, extending that to every part of life.

As long this remains unclear, i'd probably vote nay.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

LGC 6.2: Recogniton of the Seperation of Church and State

I. Introduction
This legislation is written for the purpose of recognizing the seperation of church and state.

II. Declaration
The government of Lincoln declares:

a.) The government of the Region of Lincoln shall not create legislation that is influenced by or incorporating religious texts whatsoever.

b.) All citizens of Lincoln are protected under law to practice any religion of their choosing, as the region of Lincoln protects these freedoms.

Does this also mean literally any religion, or is it clarified which religions we are talking about. What is the status of religion in Lincoln? Does Lincoln have official religions and religions that are accepted, and which are these?

At what point do we start differ between religions and cults, and between religions and ideologies. Are religions like scientology protected under this law. Are ideologies like nazism protected by these law, if these people can make a claim nazism/white supremacy is a religion? (which in my view it is not, but let's clarify these). What is the status of pagan religions in Lincoln?

[KaiserDave]

B is pretty pointless, hurts freedom of religious practice rather than protects it. This bill needs some more work, but I support the spirit of state secularism.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

What's the point of the second clause of B

I don't think there is any particular point of Clause B other than just reaffirming the obvious. Just by looking at the Southern legislature I imagine it's some sort of response to their use of the Bible as a legislative tactic, and in that case I would support a bill in that light.
Also Governor with all due respect, I'm not sure how an affirmation like that would hurt religious freedoms, that is, if I'm interpreting this correctly.

[Mr. Reactionary]

What's the point of the second clause of B

I don't think there is any particular point of Clause B other than just reaffirming the obvious. Just by looking at the Southern legislature I imagine it's some sort of response to their use of the Bible as a legislative tactic, and in that case I would support a bill in that light.
Also Governor with all due respect, I'm not sure how an affirmation like that would hurt religious freedoms, that is, if I'm interpreting this correctly.

I am curious other than the nonoperative language about Bibbullz and Jeebus what policies the sponsor thinks this bill would prevent. Weve targeted big banks, debt collectors, wage cheats, bestiality, incest, child trafficking, and lynching. Id hope no one would actually oppose these policies just because the Bible also prohibits them. After all, the Bible says thou shalt not murder ... is a ban on murder religiously inspired? Plus its not like weve mandated Bible reading in schools as our friends in other Regions have done with the dull and uninspiring teenfic Dreadnought.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I don't see any problem with the language per se of B, though I suppose it is a bit redundant to re-declare rights that are strongly [and rightfully] protected in the Lincoln and Federal constitutions. Given that the constitutions protect these rights, I'm not sure how the LGC making a statement in this recognition weakens them.

Provided the amendment offered by the Speaker is adopted, I look forward to the passage of this.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

What's the point of the second clause of B

I don't think there is any particular point of Clause B other than just reaffirming the obvious. Just by looking at the Southern legislature I imagine it's some sort of response to their use of the Bible as a legislative tactic, and in that case I would support a bill in that light.
Also Governor with all due respect, I'm not sure how an affirmation like that would hurt religious freedoms, that is, if I'm interpreting this correctly.

I am curious other than the nonoperative language about Bibbullz and Jeebus what policies the sponsor thinks this bill would prevent. Weve targeted big banks, debt collectors, wage cheats, bestiality, incest, child trafficking, and lynching. Id hope no one would actually oppose these policies just because the Bible also prohibits them. After all, the Bible says thou shalt not murder ... is a ban on murder religiously inspired? Plus its not like weve mandated Bible reading in schools as our friends in other Regions have done with the dull and uninspiring teenfic Dreadnought.

I don't have a problem with much of the legislation the South has passed, seems to me that it's unnecessary to include the word of one religion in the business of state.

[KaiserDave]

What's the point of the second clause of B

I don't think there is any particular point of Clause B other than just reaffirming the obvious. Just by looking at the Southern legislature I imagine it's some sort of response to their use of the Bible as a legislative tactic, and in that case I would support a bill in that light.
Also Governor with all due respect, I'm not sure how an affirmation like that would hurt religious freedoms, that is, if I'm interpreting this correctly.

I may have misunderstood Clause B. I'll sign this as it stands.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

Alright, as debate has settled, members shall have a 24 hour period to object to the proposed amendment, otherwise it will be adopted without a vote.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

Amendment has been adopted, if no other input is given, I'll initiate a vote in 24 hours.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

A vote has been opened, 72 hours to vote.

Aye

[Brother Jonathan]

Aye

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Nay

[RC (a la Frémont)]

Legislation passes 2-1, 1 not voting.

[KaiserDave]

Good work