NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 3

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

No way, that would be taking a right away from a person to exercise religion.

I think that persons under the age of 12 lack the maturity to decide whether or not they are willing to worship.

That is why is up to their parents to decide. If that's the case, then no child should go to school since they don't have the maturity to decide. See? Sounds ridiculous.

[Britanno]

Regarding the Protection of Religious Freedom for Minors Act, i think it should be added that no minor under the age of 12 should take part in any religious activity.

I swear to god that would be against their human rights. That would literally be preventing children from practicing religion, which is against their rights.

[The Nihilistic view]

Yes.

Yes, i would like to know that.

That is outrageous. We cannot tell people what to do in these cases. The government would be having too much control over people's lives.

The senator is a communist so don't waste your breath. They are opposed to any form of religion or religious choice.


The army is volunteer but there are provisions for conscription in defence of the nation.

[The Nihilistic view]

Regarding the Protection of Religious Freedom for Minors Act, i think it should be added that no minor under the age of 12 should take part in any religious activity.

I swear to god that would be against their human rights. That would literally be preventing children from practicing religion, which is against their rights.

Yes, under several acts it would be an illegal clause.

[Venaleria]

No way, that would be taking a right away from a person to exercise religion.

I think that persons under the age of 12 lack the maturity to decide whether or not they are willing to worship.

Some may, though. You speak as if everyone under that age is the same. There may be many children who would like to worship, and if that was implemented, it would restrict them from doing so.

But this is beside the point.

[Britanno]

I think that persons under the age of 12 lack the maturity to decide whether or not they are willing to worship.

There you go, we have a senator who openly believes that children should not be allowed to practice religion.

[The Nihilistic view]

I think that persons under the age of 12 lack the maturity to decide whether or not they are willing to worship.

That is why is up to their parents to decide. If that's the case, then no child should go to school since they don't have the maturity to decide. See? Sounds ridiculous.

Also no child should eat as they don't have the maturity to decide what food is healthy and what is not. We don't want them gorging on fast food and crisps.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

I think that persons under the age of 12 lack the maturity to decide whether or not they are willing to worship.

There you go, we have a senator who openly believes that children should not be allowed to practice religion.

Very bad indeed. Freedom to practice a religion is a basic right of every person regardless of how old he/she is.

[Sahrani DR]

That is outrageous. We cannot tell people what to do in these cases. The government would be having too much control over people's lives.

The senator is a communist so don't waste your breath. They are opposed to any form of religion or religious choice.


The army is volunteer but there are provisions for conscription in defence of the nation.

Thanks for answering me.

It is false. As i said, i do NOT want to ban religion or any religious activity. I just think that it is a choice that should be taken with some kind of reasoning behind, not just because your parents are of the X religion.

Moreover, i never said that children should not be taught religious traditions at home. I just think that they should not take part to public religious rituals.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

That is why is up to their parents to decide. If that's the case, then no child should go to school since they don't have the maturity to decide. See? Sounds ridiculous.

Also no child should eat as they don't have the maturity to decide what food is healthy and what is not. We don't want them gorging on fast food and crisps.

Very true. If that is the case, no child should be allowed to open their eyes since they are not mature enough to see the reality of the World. (Being sarcastic )

[Mediciano]

I would just like to note that The Protection of Religious Freedom for Minors Act is infringing on the rights of the parents to raise their children according to their own cultural tradition. Really, what this act accomplishes, is the removal of all diversity from Aurentine culture.

This act appears to have been written under the false impression that children don't like going to church/synagogue/mosque/etc because they have ideological problems with the religious institution. Having been a child myself, and having three children, I can honestly say that kids dislike church because it requires them to sit still for an hour, and not because it is seen as an infringement of their religious freedom.

Are we really banning the right for parents to make their children attend mass, Pesach, funerals, weddings, meals with a blessing beforehand, Hebrew school, mosque, etc.? And banning them from being forced to, say, go over to their cousins house for Easter dinner? What would be doing, by passing this act, is removing the right for a parent to raise their child.

[Welsh Cowboy]

I have a problem with the part of the Religious act that prohibits parents from forcing kids to participate in religion.

It seems a simple clause, but I have thought about at least one of the implications: so if a 5-year old doesn't want to get in the car to go to church because there's a good TV show on, not because he has any objections to the religion, the parents can't make him go... And obviously they can't leave him home alone, so then wouldn't they have to stay home? I think this clause would have some unintended consequences.

[Sahrani DR]

That is why is up to their parents to decide. If that's the case, then no child should go to school since they don't have the maturity to decide. See? Sounds ridiculous.

Also no child should eat as they don't have the maturity to decide what food is healthy and what is not. We don't want them gorging on fast food and crisps.

Religion doesn't influence the physical well-being and health.

I think that persons under the age of 12 lack the maturity to decide whether or not they are willing to worship.

Some may, though. You speak as if everyone under that age is the same. There may be many children who would like to worship, and if that was implemented, it would restrict them from doing so.

But this is beside the point.

But the same may be said for people who are underage. Some 17-year-olds may be more mature than some 26-year-olds.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

The senator is a communist so don't waste your breath. They are opposed to any form of religion or religious choice.


The army is volunteer but there are provisions for conscription in defence of the nation.

Thanks for answering me.

It is false. As i said, i do NOT want to ban religion or any religious activity. I just think that it is a choice that should be taken with some kind of reasoning behind, not just because your parents are of the X religion.

Moreover, i never said that children should not be taught religious traditions at home. I just think that they should not take part to public religious rituals.

It is a basic right. And whether their parents take their child to religious events or not, the child will eventually decide by him/herself. Some people change their religion, or become atheist.

[Sahrani DR]

I have a problem with the part of the Religious act that prohibits parents from forcing kids to participate in religion.

It seems a simple clause, but I have thought about at least one of the implications: so if a 5-year old doesn't want to get in the car to go to church because there's a good TV show on, not because he has any objections to the religion, the parents can't make him go... And obviously they can't leave him home alone, so then wouldn't they have to stay home? I think this clause would have some unintended consequences.

I like this comment, because it introduces a new issue. I would like to work on this point.

[The Nihilistic view]

I would just like to note that The Protection of Religious Freedom for Minors Act is infringing on the rights of the parents to raise their children according to their own cultural tradition. Really, what this act accomplishes, is the removal of all diversity from Aurentine culture.

This act appears to have been written under the false impression that children don't like going to church/synagogue/mosque/etc because they have ideological problems with the religious institution. Having been a child myself, and having three children, I can honestly say that kids dislike church because it requires them to sit still for an hour, and not because it is seen as an infringement of their religious freedom.

Are we really banning the right for parents to make their children attend mass, Pesach, funerals, weddings, meals with a blessing beforehand, Hebrew school, mosque, etc.? And banning them from being forced to, say, go over to their cousins house for Easter dinner? What would be doing, by passing this act, is removing the right for a parent to raise their child.

I have to say when I was a young lad this was exactly why I hated church or chapel.

[Britanno]

Thanks for answering me.

It is false. As i said, i do NOT want to ban religion or any religious activity. I just think that it is a choice that should be taken with some kind of reasoning behind, not just because your parents are of the X religion.

Moreover, i never said that children should not be taught religious traditions at home. I just think that they should not take part to public religious rituals.

This means denying children the right to worship, as some religions are worshipped in places and can't be worshipped at home.

[Mediciano]

I have a problem with the part of the Religious act that prohibits parents from forcing kids to participate in religion.

It seems a simple clause, but I have thought about at least one of the implications: so if a 5-year old doesn't want to get in the car to go to church because there's a good TV show on, not because he has any objections to the religion, the parents can't make him go... And obviously they can't leave him home alone, so then wouldn't they have to stay home? I think this clause would have some unintended consequences.

I like this comment, because it introduces a new issue. I would like to work on this point.

I literally said the same thing one post beforehand, with some examples.

[New Bierstaat]

The idea that any person, no matter how old or young, should be prohibited from participating in a religious activity is both ridiculous and a travesty.

Also, I agree with the Cowboy - banning parents from making their kids go to church realistically means some bad things. I'll be voting against this, and I encourage all who are pro-religious freedom to do the same.

[Mediciano]

The idea that any person, no matter how old or young, should be prohibited from participating in a religious activity is both ridiculous and a travesty.

Agreed.

[Sahrani DR]

Thanks for answering me.

It is false. As i said, i do NOT want to ban religion or any religious activity. I just think that it is a choice that should be taken with some kind of reasoning behind, not just because your parents are of the X religion.

Moreover, i never said that children should not be taught religious traditions at home. I just think that they should not take part to public religious rituals.

It is a basic right. And whether their parents take their child to religious events or not, the child will eventually decide by him/herself. Some people change their religion, or become atheist.

This is very true. But i think that a children under a certain age may mistake X religion they practise with the parental authority that has taught them to do so. For a young mind, free choice and parental authority may become one in a later age. But i would like to hear other opinions.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

I have a problem with the part of the Religious act that prohibits parents from forcing kids to participate in religion.

It seems a simple clause, but I have thought about at least one of the implications: so if a 5-year old doesn't want to get in the car to go to church because there's a good TV show on, not because he has any objections to the religion, the parents can't make him go... And obviously they can't leave him home alone, so then wouldn't they have to stay home? I think this clause would have some unintended consequences.

I like this comment, because it introduces a new issue. I would like to work on this point.

I think that clause should be taken out. As our dear Senator said, children do not have maturity in their judgement, so they can't really decide if they want to go or not, maybe because of a TV (as a Senator mentioned), not necessarily because the child does not agree with the religion.

[Welsh Cowboy]

I like this comment, because it introduces a new issue. I would like to work on this point.

I literally said the same thing one post beforehand, with some examples.

Mine was a bit more specifically directed towards a clause, I think.

[Mediciano]

I literally said the same thing one post beforehand, with some examples.

Mine was a bit more specifically directed towards a clause, I think.

Perhaps, yes.

[New Bierstaat]

I like this comment, because it introduces a new issue. I would like to work on this point.

I think that clause should be taken out. As our dear Senator said, children do not have maturity in their judgement, so they can't really decide if they want to go or not, maybe because of a TV (as a Senator mentioned), not necessarily because the child does not agree with the religion.

I agree. Remove this clause or this bill will fail.