We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Ecumenical Movement Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Reformation Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2382
Description[?]:
| . |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Old value:: The government has no policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Current: The government has no policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Proposed: Foreign missionaries are welcomed and encouraged by the government.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The state's intervention in the appointment of ministers of religion.
Old value:: The state does not intervene in the appointment of ministers of any religion whatsoever.
Current: The state does not intervene in the appointment of ministers of any religion whatsoever.
Proposed: The state appoints all heads and other ministers of all religions.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: Religions are treated as companies, and all profit is taxed, however, charitable donations are not taxed.
Current: Religions are treated as companies, and all profit is taxed, however, charitable donations are not taxed.
Proposed: No religions are taxed.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The state's policy concerning religious clothing.
Old value:: There are no laws regulating the wearing of religious clothing and the wearing of religious symbols.
Current: There are no laws regulating the wearing of religious clothing and the wearing of religious symbols.
Proposed: People are required to dress according to religious codes
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The governments stance on religious schools.
Old value:: Any religion may set up a school, but they are strictly regulated.
Current: Any religion may set up a school, with no regulations.
Proposed: All schools are required to be religious in nature.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change Remuneration of ministers of religion.
Old value:: The state does not intervene in the remuneration of ministers of religion.
Current: The state does not intervene in the remuneration of ministers of religion.
Proposed: The salaries and pensions of ministers of religion shall be borne by the state and regulated by the law.
Article 7
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to prayer in schools.
Old value:: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden, except in religious schools.
Current: The government leaves this decision up to the schools themselves.
Proposed: Teacher-led prayers in schools are encouraged.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:57:00, March 31, 2007 CET | From |  Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Ecumenical Movement Act |
| Message | What happened to "The party believes moral and religious beliefs are something to be concluded personally, and never legislated or forced upon its people." in your Party Description? And you attacked us for flipping ideololgies.... |
| Date | 19:32:33, March 31, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Ecumenical Movement Act |
| Message | If you'd criticised the JPJ when they first made these bills, then perhaps we'd take you seriously. But as it is, we do not. If the JPJ withdraws their support from these bills, then so shall we. Otherwise we will mock their attempts at a power-play by also pledging our "support" and ensure the electorate sees these proposals for what they are: fraudulant. |
| Date | 19:39:27, March 31, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Ecumenical Movement Act |
| Message | We did. We sent them a message questiong their motives and why they have flipped ideologies. Conveniently they have not responded. We didn't see it as necessary to attack them publicly and privately. Once is enough. We did decide though to take your method of public attacks like when we had our pleasant discussion not so long ago. This disappoints us that you would do something because another would, just to mock them. Doing something because another party is doing it does not garner much respect. |
| Date | 20:09:54, March 31, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Ecumenical Movement Act |
| Message | The LDP representatives should be picking their statements very carefully. This is the second party of the Allied Protectors to resort to these tactics. Should this be indicative of a larger problem of deceit and corruption within the organisation, then those involved will be excluded from governing. This is a serious matter, and we expect to see a serious attempt to rectify the situation by the Allied Protectors. You have two months remaining to resolve the issue. |
| Date | 20:58:07, March 31, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Ecumenical Movement Act |
| Message | After much debate and deliberation, the Allied Protectors of the Supreme Council have made a unanimous decision. On behalf of the Liberal Democratic Party, United Democrats of Jakania, the Moderate Republican Party, the Independent Party, and the Jakanian Party of Jakania, we deliver our statement and our decision. As one of the two Leadership positions, we have been chosen to deliver our actions. The Allied Protectors of the Supreme Council hereby condemns the actions of the Jakanian Liberal Socialists in their aggressive attacks against another Allied Protector party/member and the Allied Protectors Organization itself, as well as their dangerous political movements they have made recently. As a body in whole, the Allied Protectors of the Supreme Council regard the Jakanian Liberal Socialists as a political opponent. As of August 2382, the Allied Protectors of the Supreme Council orders official political sanctions on the Jakanian Liberal Socialists and will do so until the Jakanian Liberal Socialists renounce their statements and their actions. This political boycott will remain in enaction until the Jakanian Liberal Socialists do as stated. The Allied Protectors of the Supreme Council will oppose the Jakanian Liberal Socialists as long as needed until they prove to the organization that they have changed their current party actions and have moved away from their wrongdoings. Signed, Leadership Liberal Democratic Party Leadership United Democrats of Jakania Member Party Moderate Republican Party Member Party Independent Party Member Party Jakanian Party of Jakania |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 122 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 358 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In order for a Cabinet bill to pass, more than half of the legislature must vote for it and all of the parties included in the proposed Cabinet must support it. If your nation has a Head of State who is also the Head of Government, then the party controlling this character must also vote for the bill, since the Head of Government is also a member of the Cabinet. If any of these requirements are not met, the bill will not pass. |
| Random quote: "A wise ruler ought never to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interests." - Niccolo Machiavelli |