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: Religious Freedom Act
Details
Status[?]: passed
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: February 2444
Description[?]:
| The PPPP asks that the government should in no way discriminate between religions and that all citizens should be free to express their religious beliefs. In keeping with treating religions equally, taxation of religious institutions should not be left to local governments but controlled by the national government to be equal and fair. Also, the government should not interfere with the salaries that religious institutions give their ministers. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: Religious taxation policy is left to the local governments.
Current: All religious income, despite the use, is taxed.
Proposed: Religions are treated as companies, and all profit is taxed, however, charitable donations are not taxed.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The state's policy concerning religious clothing.
Old value:: Public officials are not allowed to wear religious symbols while exercising their duties.
Current: Wearing religious clothing or religious symbols in public is illegal.
Proposed: There are no laws regulating the wearing of religious clothing and the wearing of religious symbols.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Remuneration of ministers of religion.
Old value:: The salaries and pensions of ministers of religions shall be regulated by the law, but shall be borne by the religious communities themselves.
Current: Ministers of religion shall receive no remuneration whatsoever.
Proposed: The state does not intervene in the remuneration of ministers of religion.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:26:14, August 17, 2007 CET | From |  Autonomie d'Ouvrier | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | Article 1: Considering the use of missionaries as a fifth column for foreign subversion and imperialism we feel that their entrance must be regulated. Article 2: We agree Article 3: We can waffle though we do feel that as representatives of a secular state that they shouldn't be prominently displaying their religion whilst performing their duties. Article 4: Religious schools without regulation would mean that various reactionary nutballs could force their children into schools designed to crush independent thought and accept irrational dogma. Ever been to a catholic school when Abortion is brought up? Article 5: Throughout history televangelists, Popes etc. have taken excessive salaries and reimbursements from gullible flocks. This must be regulated. No Christ sponsored multi millionaires. |
| Date | 08:40:02, August 17, 2007 CET | From | Partie Patriotique de Kanjor | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | Article 1: No. The current law exists to prevent organisations masquerading as religions from infiltrating the Confederation. Article 2: No. We prefer either the current system or that recognised religions are not taxed. Article 3: Yes. We believe that such matters should be left to the individuals concerned. Article 4: No: We believe that only genuine religions should be allowed to operate schools. Article 5: Yes: Such matters should be up to the religion and its followers themselves. |
| Date | 09:18:18, August 17, 2007 CET | From | Union Pour une Nation Homosexuelle | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | We oppose all worship of any deity, all the world's major religions are homophobic and unacceptable. We propose a national religion based around the holy trinity of shoes, chocolate and sequins. |
| Date | 09:38:36, August 17, 2007 CET | From | 2ème PPPP | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | I understand the problem with former articles 1 and 4. They have been removed. As for the remaining three parts: 1. Taxation on religious institutions should be consistent throughout the nation. 2. Wearing of religious clothing is a personal freedom and should not be banned. 3. Despite the fact that most people would be uncomfortable with religious leaders earning a lot of money, there is no more reason for the state to regulate ministers' renumeration than CEOs' or the salary for any occupation. If a person wishes to pay their plumber more money than they deserve, they can go ahead and do so without regulations. |
| Date | 10:01:23, August 17, 2007 CET | From | Partie Patriotique de Kanjor | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | We'd like to thank the PPP for amending this bill. Though we disagree (and may seek to change it in the future) with the current article 1. we believe that on balance this bill deserves our support. We will be voting Oui. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 242 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 133 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "Were it not for electricity, we would have to watch television in the dark." - Muammar Gaddafi- |