Help with an issue.

[Ledarre]

Hi, I recently got this issue. I'm not sure what option to choose and I don't want my choice to prevent me from getting the "A question of faith" issue, since I rather enjoy the new custoizable features (even though I'm not sure this will have an effect) and I don't want to dismiss the issue beacuse I've been dismissing issues for two days and it's getting boring. Anyway heres the issue:

Several musicians have recently produced songs in which "Violet" sings silly and offensive things, causing outcries of horror from the Order of Violet.

The Debate
1) "THIS IS BLASPHEMY!" shouts Faith Broadside, Grand High Poobah of the Order of Violet. "Our holy scriptures specifically forbid any portrayal of our prophet's most holy voice. We cannot permit people to slander and mock our prophet and insult all of us. These people are simply doing this to see if we are extremists. Death to the blasphemers!"



2)Speaking anonymously and from hiding, one of the musicians says, "It was just meant to be a joke! I never thought that they'd take it so seriously. I just wanted to give them a little ribbing like I do the other major religions of Pastafarianism and Frisbeetarianism." Hope Summers glances over their shoulder to see if anyone is watching, "Please don't try to figure out who I am. I'm scared for my safety. The government should protect my freedom to insult whomever I want. Freedom of speech should hold nothing sacred, not even God."



3)"Freedom of speech is important, but so is freedom of religion. Surely we can strike some sort of balance?" says Anne-Marie Hamilton, chief spokesperson for the LSOC (the Ledarre Society of Compromisers). "Freedom of speech comes with a responsibility. People must avoid anything that insults another's religion, and if they aren't willing to do it themselves, the government must enforce it."



4)"His Holiness, the Grand High Poobah of Violet, has the right idea, but the wrong religion," says Freddy O'Bannon, the Prelate of Primary Public Relations for the fanatical organization Ledarre's Concerned Citizens for Our God. "This nation needs an official religion, and not support the Godless heathens who worship the idolotrous Violet. Appoint me as your spiritual adviser an I'll ensure that all people worship God in the correct way."



5)"They've got it all wrong. Freedom of speech isn't the problem, religion is!" shouts Klaus Licorish, at a local AA (Atheists Anonymous) meeting. "If religion were outlawed, this problem would solve itself. Just send them in for medical treatment. After all, anyone who believes in some big invisible dude who can do anything is clearly nuts."

I am thankful for any help offered.

[Leelan]

I would say option 3 is the best one. I don't know if it would have an affect on whether you'd be able to choose a religion or not. It would, however, probably raise the civil rights of your country, without downing the economy. A choice like that is rare, as most civil rights boosts have a negative effect on the economy.

Hope that helps!

[Marcuslandia]

Just avoid choice #5.

[Bears Armed]

I would say option 3 is the best one. I don't know if it would have an affect on whether you'd be able to choose a religion or not. It would, however, probably raise the civil rights of your country, without downing the economy. A choice like that is rare, as most civil rights boosts have a negative effect on the economy.

Hope that helps!

Wouldn't the bit about "the government must enforce it" increase spending on the police, and thus increase taxation?

[Ledarre]

I would say option 3 is the best one. I don't know if it would have an affect on whether you'd be able to choose a religion or not. It would, however, probably raise the civil rights of your country, without downing the economy. A choice like that is rare, as most civil rights boosts have a negative effect on the economy.

Hope that helps!

Wouldn't the bit about "the government must enforce it" increase spending on the police, and thus increase taxation?

increased taxation would not be a good thing. Income tax is already at 78%, what would you suggest Bears Armed?

[The Emmerian Unions]

You can always dismiss the issue.

[Cynthia McKinney]

This issue is easy. The correct choice is option 2 which is the only option that protects BOTH freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Option 1 promotes murder.

Option 3 protects freedom of religion but violates freedom of speech since it eliminates criticism of religion.

Option 4 supports establishing a state sponsored religion which would allow the favored religious group to persecute those of other religions.

Option 5 protects freedom of speech but violates freedom of religion since it outlaws all religions.

[Ledarre]

Hi it's me again, thought I would post the issue here, rather than start a new topic in got issues. Anyway heres the issue I'm having problems with now.

The space research organization in Ledarre has requested more government funding for space-related research and development, and the possiblity of creating orbital weapons platforms has become a topic of intense debate.

The Debate
1)General Al Longfellow says, "We should spend more. But not just on exploration. We should start developing Orbital Weapons! Space Marines! Armed Spacecraft! We would rule the region, and look cool doing it! Just divert some funding from environmental protection, and BAM! Sci-fi goodies!"

2)Noted Scientist and pacifist writer Miranda Li thinks otherwise, "No! Space is a place for peace! It's the only place left we've got that we haven't screwed up. Oh, the space program still needs funding, don't get me wrong, but none of this 'military in space' stuff will do! We ought to divert funding from the military to education and space research instead!"

3)Fringe Group Leader George W. Hendrikson disagrees, "Space is a total waste of time. We should spend more on stuff people actually CARE about. Like voting rights and protecting the environment! Forget that fancy-schmancy space station!"

I'm not really interested in option 1, so heres the question: 2 or three; which one is better?

[Cynthia McKinney]

On the space issue both options 2 and 3 are good. It just depends on what your current priority is.

On option 2 military spending is reduced, spending on space research and education is increased.

On option 3 funding for environmental protection increases and political freedoms increase since you're also spending money on voting rights.