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: Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: RSDP - Democratic Front
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: September 2087
Description[?]:
| An Act to regulate and determine the remuneration of ministers of recognised religions. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Remuneration of ministers of religion.
Old value:: Ministers of religion shall receive no remuneration whatsoever.
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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:56:39, July 28, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act |
| Message | To give all religions a fair chance, and thus enhance the freedom of religion. ;-) |
| Date | 16:57:13, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act |
| Message | I don't see much of a problem here. Seems a reasonable idea - I mean, they do work hard I guess. For |
| Date | 16:59:45, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act |
| Message | WHo defines what is and what is not a "religion"? Im leaning towards against (the state shouldnt fund peoples' private beliefs) but Im still open to debate. |
| Date | 17:04:35, July 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act |
| Message | Well, I think the State should bear the salaries and pensions of ministers of religion to ensure that religions that mainly attract poorer people also have the chance to exist. I don't know about the definition of a "religion", but you did give me an idea for drafting another proposal about that. (the two current proposals on the appointment of ministers of religion and the remuneration of ministers of religion are my work :-D ) |
| Date | 17:06:44, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act |
| Message | So if the state will appoint ministers of religion under your proposal, does that mean that the state will actually control religion also? And define what is and what is not a religion? It sounds a bit iffy to me. |
| Date | 17:25:55, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act |
| Message | How about 'Official Religions'? Thats what it says in the main religion bill I think. |
| Date | 17:38:31, July 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act |
| Message | If the State would appoint the ministers of religion without any input from the religious communities, that would indeed mean State control of religion. But I prefer the current appointment option, namely the State does not intervene in the appointment of ministers of religion. I think that bearing the salaries and pensions of the ministers of recognised religions is indeed a good option. Bearing the salaries and pensions of the ministers of dangerous sects is obviously not something we want to do. |
| Date | 17:39:33, July 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act |
| Message | So I added "recognised" to the description, is everyone OK with that? |
| Date | 17:48:31, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act |
| Message | Yep, sounds good - and the salaries means we don't actually control them. |
| Date | 19:37:45, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Humanist Socialist Party | To | Debating the Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act |
| Message | Absolutely no way in a non-existent hell should Rutanian tax-payers' money be going to peddlars of mysticism. Nor should the state be funding Humanist practitioners, by the way. What we support is the option that says the State does not intervene and the religions bear their own costs. We don't like the current situation but this proposal makes things immeasurably worse, and we are implacably opposed. |
| Date | 20:10:26, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act |
| Message | THe state has no right to interfere in peoples' religious beliefs. Besides, why must the state pay the salaries of religious ministers? They seem to manage quite well enough as it is. Against. |
| Date | 20:20:45, July 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act |
| Message | Every religion should get a fair chance, even the ones that particularly appeal to the poor. So this bill would enhance freedom of religion, and how can a liberal be opposed to that? |
| Date | 20:38:17, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Remuneration of Ministers of Religion Act |
| Message | I did some thinking about it. There are so many religions, that even if the officisal ones were paid, it would be quitea drain on the nations resources that could go to something like defence or the economy itself. Therefore I'm against |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 171 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 366 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 62 |
| Random fact: Check out the forum regularly for game news. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower |