Fwurg

[Senator Acehtoo of the Miomanian Colonists]

"I hereby raise the next point on the agenda for debate.

A proposal has been made to ban the use of blasphemy and foul language within the Senate, as it serves an example function for the Union. The proposal is spread in three parts:

1. The banning of personal insults against individuals.
2. The banning of blasphemy and blasphemous statements.
3. The banning of specific curse words.

We will hear arguments for and against in this, and ask that individuals clarify their positions on these points before giving their arguments to support their positions."

((OOC: As an experiment, this debate will be open for three weeks, specifically until Sunday the 22nd of February. After that, the debate will be closed and bonus will be awarded to the maker(s) of the winning argument. All participants will also get some base . Other minor bonuses may also apply, as of yet undecided.))

[Senator Danar Tassar]

"We of the Consensus believe that the first two parts pose issues. A personal insult is as it says: personal. It can be very difficult to judge if someone is going to be insulted by a statement. Aside from this, a person can also abuse this ruling to say that he or she feels insulted by a statement. There is no actual way of testing if this is true or not.

The problem we see with blasphemous statements that what is culture to one faction, is blasphemy to the other. By banning blasphemy from the senate, we of the senate effectively block discussions. Discussions we need to maintain a healthy cooperation."

[Nehket Aeka]

Aeka waited a moment to hear the argument by the Teprogrenaian Consensus.

"I am of the opinion that the example function of the senate might be less than presumed by the proposal. Mainly due to the fact that for many worlds in the Union the process of decision making as it can be observed in the senate is an alien one. I shall leave this point for a later time, as the debate's positions assume this example function."

"It is my position that only the first part of the proposal has merit.

The banning of blasphemy and blasphemous statements implies a certain religious alignment. Within the Union, the subject of religion is a subject of much diversity. With opinions and beliefs ranging from the Church of Highmons to the agnosticism common in the Veolian Commonwealth. It is common courtesy not to take another's beliefs in jest, yet the banning of such blasphemy would undermine the position of the senate as an example of civilized discourse. By elevating the beliefs of some worlds to a position of protection we effectively spread the message that some beliefs are worth protecting while others, by virtue of not being defined as a religion, are not.

To expedite the banning of specific curse words a list of such words will have to be introduced. The language used in the senate is galactic basic, which is accepted as a lingua franca in the Union, and the galaxy. It stands to reason then that the list of banned curse words should only feature words from galactic basic.

I see two problems with this proposed ban of certain words. Firstly, the different cultural backgrounds will each place their own weight on what words they experience as curses. A mild example of this would be the word 'dick' which, I have been told, can be used as a curse word. For a veolian this word simply invokes the image of the male member. I fear that the contents of the list itself will prove to be a constant source of grievance as different worlds.

Secondly, words are spoken using one's voice. Once the word is spoken, it is a sound without an associated language. Only in context can the language be known. It is entirely possible that one or more of the languages spoken on member worlds has a series of words or tones that, when interpreted as if they are galactic basic, form a curse word on the list. This might prevent senators from being informed by, or speaking to, their aides in their native tongue."

"The same arguments can be made against the banning of personal insults. As senator Tassar already points out, cultural background and personal feelings make it very difficult to judge if someone will be insulted by a statement.

On the other hand, I feel that the banning of personal insults will lead to the prevention of ad hominem arguments. In the example function of the senate, I think that this is step forward. Showing that ad hominem arguments are not to be used will lead to an overal improvement in argumentation, which in turn will lead to stronger decision-making in general."

[Lord-Senator Kachiso Doshima]

"Blasphemy and blasphemous statements are highly subjective. I believe a specific definition should be determined as to what is considered blasphemy or a blasphemous statement.

In my opinion a proper definition of this would be the following:

'The calling into question of the existence of one or more deities. Using deities, important religious characters or religious leaders in intended insults or curses. And claims to the contrary of beliefs about what happens to someone's memories, personality and other matters relating to the non-physical aspects of people after they die.'

My reasoning is simple. The first and last parts are currently completely unknown, as there has not been any definitive evidence that either proves, or disproves any religious or non-religious belief that entails these parts.

The second part coincides with a ban on insults and curse words that we are currently discussing.

I also believe that as civilised people it is no more then reasonable to accept this proposal. However, I suggest we include an error margin. With the wide variety of cultures in the Union it is nearly impossible to know every detail about every culture, not to mention the amount of contradictions. If by some means a member of the senate is insulted by a statement of another member, the insulted party lets the insulter know he or she is insulted and why they are insulted in a collected manner. The insulter then is given the chance to apologise to the insulted after which the matter is laid to rest by a rephrasing of the original statement or, if this is not possible, by an explanation to the exact meaning of the statment."

[Senator Ardios Eldrilith]

"The first part has merit. However I believe that simply banning insults is not a solution. In fact we need to ensure that debates in the senate will not get personal. We should regulate the debate by not speaking directly at each other under the supervision of a chairman.

The second part is a very large pitfall. I mostly agree with Senator Nehket Aeka we should not lower our standards to blasphemy. However we of the Praetorian Empire believe in a strong separation of church and state. Although certain member worlds have a different system on their homeworld with the large amount of different cultures and religions we will have to separate religion and politics to ensure the Senate is neutral and everybody has equal rights.

On the third part I believe the list itself will pose more problems than it will solve. This will not be a solution for the problem. I believe a chairman will be a much more efficient solution.

We will all try to be civilized but we should remember that politics is compromise and their will always be some group that does not agree with the statements of representatives and will abuse these matters and call it insults or blasphemy to get their way. I believe it is not possible to make a generic law for such a complex matter."

[Senator Harek]

"Debates in the Senate should be respectful and nobody should be insulted in any way.

Blasphemy is a very difficult matter to call with all the different cultures. Senator Nehket Aeka already has given examples which show this problem. An independent cultural committee with various religious experts needs to be appointed who can judge on these matters.

We could sett up some etiquette's for debates in the Senate with penalties for people who are crossing the line."

[Nehket Aeka]

"I would like to thank senator Doshima for the definition of blasphemy he presents, as his definition highlights exactly the problematic nature of the second part of the proposal.

His definition includes that it is blasphemous to call into question the existence of one or more deities. By doing so the definition places religions that subscribe to the existence of one or more deities in a protective bubble. At the same time the definition prohibits those that do not share a deity centric world view from expression their beliefs about the world.

Senator Doshima supports his definition by reasoning that there has been no definitive evidence that either proves, or disproves any religious or non-religious beliefs on the matter. I reject this as a valid argument: the existence of a deity is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. The definition presented by the Astrian Colonial Authority will curb the expressive rights of all representatives, and thus all worlds, that do not share a deity-centric world view."

[Senator Danar Tassar]

"The problem with blasphemy is that it is linked to religion, and religion alone is already a point of much discussion, as there are also cults, believes, theories, lifestyles and so one. In the hypothetical case that blasphemy would be banished, then we of the Consensus want that it will also be blasphemous to question the existence of a deity, or someones cult, believes, theories, lifestyle and so on.

Alternatively we can agree on calling all and everything 'religion'.

Senator Ardios Eldrilith raises an interesting point, debates should not get personal. However his solution would only complicates a discussion and a debate still can get personal, only now the chairman is caught in between. Therefore we believe it is a better solution to emphasize that senators are representatives of their worlds by talking into the 'we' form. When you talk to a senator that way, you are constantly reminded that are talking to an entire world. Getting personal with a senator means that you are getting personal with an entire faction."

[Senator Acehtoo of the Miomanian Colonists]

"I hereby close the debate regarding blasphemy in the senate, and shall withdraw to deliberate on the outcome."

((OOC: Feel free to make a story page that summarizes the debate's arguments and positions.))

[Mercury]

((OOC: I have reviewed the debate!

The following factions gain

• Astrian Colonial Authority: 4
• Hiocan Society: 2
• Praetorian Empire: 2
• Teprogrenaian Consensus: 2
• Veolian Commonwealth: 3

I have selected Lord-Senator Kachiso Doshima as winner because of their well reasoned defining of blasphemy, which in my personal view was key in the debate. I've also given an extra to the Veolian Commonwealth for their influential arguments.

Naturally this will be awarded when a storypage has been made.))

[Senator Harek]

((OOC: I made a Story page. Please review it.))

[Senator Danar Tassar]

((OOC: I made some additions, but haven't finished those yet))

[Senator Danar Tassar]

((OOC: I finished the story page))

[Mercury]

((OOC: IP granted!))