NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate]

[Yanalia]

Against: Limiting Legislation Act (for the constitutional right to bear arms)
Against: Secular State Act (for leaving poor families without the ability to send their children to state-funded faith schools)
For: International Law Act
Against: Worker Empowerment Act (just totally silly)

Why do poor families need to send their children to faith schools? If it's funded by the state, picking faith schools for funding provides state sponsorship to some form of religion.

[Britanno]

I am strongly against the Limiting Legislation Act as I believe that citizens should be banned from possessing firearms due to the incredible amounts of gun violence caused by citizens having legal possession of them.

However, I am in favour if the other two bills.

[Wolfmanne]

Against: Limiting Legislation Act (for the constitutional right to bear arms)
Against: Secular State Act (for leaving poor families without the ability to send their children to state-funded faith schools)
For: International Law Act
Against: Worker Empowerment Act (just totally silly)

Why do poor families need to send their children to faith schools? If it's funded by the state, picking faith schools for funding provides state sponsorship to some form of religion.

I meant poor religious families.

[Unicario]

I am strongly against the Limiting Legislation Act as I believe that citizens should be banned from possessing firearms due to the incredible amounts of gun violence caused by citizens having egal possession of them.

However, I am in favour if the other two bills.

Yes, because a small number of violent people outweigh those who legitimately own a gun and use it wisely.

[Wolfmanne]

I am strongly against the Limiting Legislation Act as I believe that citizens should be banned from possessing firearms due to the incredible amounts of gun violence caused by citizens having egal possession of them.

However, I am in favour if the other two bills.

Yes, because a small number of violent people outweigh those who legitimately own a gun and use it wisely.

And the United States' gun crime rate means nothing what so ever right?

[Unicario]

Yes, because a small number of violent people outweigh those who legitimately own a gun and use it wisely.

And the United States' gun crime rate means nothing what so ever right?

I didn't know we had applied to be part of the United States, Senator? That's the only way American crime rates could really matter to Aurentina, who has a different culture, different law, different people.

In Aurentina -- We have low gun crime rates already, banning guns will do nothing but put them in the hands of bad people, who will circumvent the law anyway.

[Great Nepal]

I am strongly against the Limiting Legislation Act as I believe that citizens should be banned from possessing firearms due to the incredible amounts of gun violence caused by citizens having egal possession of them.
However, I am in favour if the other two bills.

It fails to define "reasonable restrictions". Therefore any bill that has clause saying "accepts these restrictions to be reasonable restriction" will pass.

Why do poor families need to send their children to faith schools? If it's funded by the state, picking faith schools for funding provides state sponsorship to some form of religion.

I meant poor religious families.

Why should state funds be used to indoctrinate children, at young age in believes, which has no factual basis and often contradict facts?

[Unicario]

I advise the author of the LLA to define what "reasonable restrictions" are, before the anti-gun lobby twists it to outlaw guns.

[Jetan]

I oppose Limiting Legislation Act because of following section: "(7) The right to own, trade, and produce firearms and ammunition, as well as use them in situations deemed as necessary self defense, in recreational practice against inanimate objects, and when hunting wild animals for game, food or sport"

I support Secular State Act.

I support International Law Act.

I oppose Worker Empowerment Act because of the following section: "•In addition to this, the state will recognize the right of workers to choose to change the nature of their workplace to more democratic forms via fair and democratic elections. In such cases that workers decide to change the nature of their workplace, the state will be obliged to compensate the present owners in accordance with the nature and extent of compensation (as determined by a court of law).

•The state will be obliged to create a independent organisation that will be tasked with providing fair oversight of any vote by workers to decide on whether to change the nature of their workplace. It will be expected to act impartially and will be empowered to act against any attempt by management to influence the vote."

I hope such maddness shall not be allowed to pass when the voting begins.

[Wolfmanne]

Why should state funds be used to indoctrinate children, at young age in believes, which has no factual basis and often contradict facts?

There's a misconception of faith schools right there. Faith schools aren't schools of 'OMFG YOU HATE JESUS LET'S BEAT YOU' or 'YOU DREW A PICTURE OF MUHAMMED, WRITE OUT LINES DECLARING THAT YOU WISHED TO RECEIVE 10 LASHES'. Having attended a Catholic primary school myself, everyone who attended was religious, including myself, fellow Catholics and Church of England adherents who also attended the school. Even so regular education was secular; we were taught evolution, that it was the right theory over creationism. However, we also had Religious Education, which we only had for a hour a week and even then it was split between time for secular Religious Education (studying all religions from a nonbiased point of view) and Catholic Religious Education (focusing on the Catholic bible and teachings). We had a non-religious puberty talk as well. We would attend mass once a month every Thursday and that was it. Now, if a parent wishes to educate their child in a religion, why should they be stopped? If a group of parents wish to set up a school to teach the education of a certain religion, why stop them? If the Board of Governors or the teachers working at a school wish to make their school religious, why stop them? As long government limitations are in place, faith schools just teach a bit of their religion, have prayers and have religious ceremonies.

[Yanalia]

Why should state funds be used to indoctrinate children, at young age in believes, which has no factual basis and often contradict facts?

There's a misconception of faith schools right there. Faith schools aren't schools of 'OMFG YOU HATE JESUS LET'S BEAT YOU' or 'YOU DREW A PICTURE OF MUHAMMED, WRITE OUT LINES DECLARING THAT YOU WISHED TO RECEIVE 10 LASHES'. Having attended a Catholic primary school myself, everyone who attended was religious, including myself, fellow Catholics and Church of England adherents who also attended the school. Even so regular education was secular; we were taught evolution, that it was the right theory over creationism. However, we also had Religious Education, which we only had for a hour a week and even then it was split between time for secular Religious Education (studying all religions from a nonbiased point of view) and Catholic Religious Education (focusing on the Catholic bible and teachings). We had a non-religious puberty talk as well. We would attend mass once a month every Thursday and that was it. Now, if a parent wishes to educate their child in a religion, why should they be stopped? If a group of parents wish to set up a school to teach the education of a certain religion, why stop them? If the Board of Governors or the teachers working at a school wish to make their school religious, why stop them? As long government limitations are in place, faith schools just teach a bit of their religion, have prayers and have religious ceremonies.

They are not being stopped. However, endorsing them with government funding violates secularism.

[Greater Pokarnia]

Now, if a parent wishes to educate their child in a religion, why should they be stopped?

They aren't. Churches aren't banned.

If a group of parents wish to set up a school to teach the education of a certain religion, why stop them?

They can do that. They shouldn't expect state funding though.

If the Board of Governors or the teachers working at a school wish to make their school religious, why stop them?

Because it's an educational institution?

[Great Nepal]

Why should state funds be used to indoctrinate children, at young age in believes, which has no factual basis and often contradict facts?

There's a misconception of faith schools right there. Faith schools aren't schools of 'OMFG YOU HATE JESUS LET'S BEAT YOU' or 'YOU DREW A PICTURE OF MUHAMMED, WRITE OUT LINES DECLARING THAT YOU WISHED TO RECEIVE 10 LASHES'. Having attended a Catholic primary school myself, everyone who attended was religious, including myself, fellow Catholics and Church of England adherents who also attended the school. Even so regular education was secular; we were taught evolution, that it was the right theory over creationism. However, we also had Religious Education, which we only had for a hour a week and even then it was split between time for secular Religious Education (studying all religions from a nonbiased point of view) and Catholic Religious Education (focusing on the Catholic bible and teachings). We had a non-religious puberty talk as well. We would attend mass once a month every Thursday and that was it. Now, if a parent wishes to educate their child in a religion, why should they be stopped? If a group of parents wish to set up a school to teach the education of a certain religion, why stop them? If the Board of Governors or the teachers working at a school wish to make their school religious, why stop them? As long government limitations are in place, faith schools just teach a bit of their religion, have prayers and have religious ceremonies.

Well, I am glad that your experience with faith schools was good however, as you stated there was bible teaching lessons. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this, it becomes wrong when state is giving schools funding to do this.
Under the proposal, everything you listed would be allowed, provided state isn't writing big fat cheques to those schools. Tax payers must not pay to teach faith, they should pay to educate students and that can be done by vouchers (obviously not for faith schools) or less preferably by non-faith public schools.

[New Bierstaat]

I support all of the acts in the upcoming omnibus except the international law act. We can make our own laws and don't need outside organizations writing them for us. It's a step toward world government.

I especially like the Secular State Act and would like to be added as a sponsor if it's not too late.

EDIT: just realized that the Worker Empowerment Act is in this omnibus. I vehemently oppose this blatantly socialist bill. Would anyone be willing to cosponsor a modified version that protects unions (right to organize) and prevents companies from discriminating based on union status (right to work)?

[The American Commune]

I don't see anything in the LLA which specifies that taxation without compensation is a legal deprivation of property.

[Greater Pokarnia]

I support all of the acts in the upcoming omnibus except the international law act. We can make our own laws and don't need outside organizations writing them for us. It's a step toward world government.

I especially like the Secular State Act and would like to be added as a sponsor if it's not too late.

Added you.

[Wolfmanne]

There's a misconception of faith schools right there. Faith schools aren't schools of 'OMFG YOU HATE JESUS LET'S BEAT YOU' or 'YOU DREW A PICTURE OF MUHAMMED, WRITE OUT LINES DECLARING THAT YOU WISHED TO RECEIVE 10 LASHES'. Having attended a Catholic primary school myself, everyone who attended was religious, including myself, fellow Catholics and Church of England adherents who also attended the school. Even so regular education was secular; we were taught evolution, that it was the right theory over creationism. However, we also had Religious Education, which we only had for a hour a week and even then it was split between time for secular Religious Education (studying all religions from a nonbiased point of view) and Catholic Religious Education (focusing on the Catholic bible and teachings). We had a non-religious puberty talk as well. We would attend mass once a month every Thursday and that was it. Now, if a parent wishes to educate their child in a religion, why should they be stopped? If a group of parents wish to set up a school to teach the education of a certain religion, why stop them? If the Board of Governors or the teachers working at a school wish to make their school religious, why stop them? As long government limitations are in place, faith schools just teach a bit of their religion, have prayers and have religious ceremonies.

They are not being stopped. However, endorsing them with government funding violates secularism.

Just requesting some clarification on your view points:

1a. A group of parents wish to set up a grant-maintained school, in which it's independent from the government. he state but receives a government grant. Would you consider this acceptable?
1b. A school has decided that it would enter a partnership with it's local Church. The Church would provide funding for religious education and other activities within the state school. The regular curriculum is followed in other subjects. However, religious education isn't being funded, so it's fine. Would you consider this acceptable?

[Frisbeeteria]

OPPOSE THE WORKER EMPOWERMENT ACT! IT IS INHERENTLY SOCIALIST (WORKERS CONTROLLING THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION)!!!!!! REMOVE THE "DEMOCRATIC" PART AND I'LL CONSIDER VOTING FOR IT!!!!!!!

[Frisbeeteria]

*snip*

Don't shout. Now I need to get a new hearing aid.

[Frisbeeteria]

[quote="Bleckonia";p="14844593"][/quote]
Cross out the il consider it and this statement has my full support

[Frisbeeteria]

Don't shout. Now I need to get a new hearing aid.

...you have the computer read writing aloud?

[Frisbeeteria]

[quote="Bleckonia";p="14844593"][/quote]
I'm probably goin to draft a replacement for this act removing the socialist aspects. Would you consider being a cosponsor?

[Eliasonia]

Yes, because a small number of violent people outweigh those who legitimately own a gun and use it wisely.

And the United States' gun crime rate means nothing what so ever right?

Right.

We are not the US. Therefore the US's social problems don't apply here.

[Frisbeeteria]

Don't shout. Now I need to get a new hearing aid.

Then whyinthehell did you quote it?

[Hathradic States]

Aye
Abstain
Aye
Nay