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: Government Secularization Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Technocratic Nationalist 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: September 2446
Description[?]:
| A secular government leads to greater freedom. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: Recognized religions are not taxed.
Current: No religions are 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:: 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: Public officials are not allowed to wear religious symbols while exercising their duties.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to prayer in schools.
Old value:: The government leaves this decision up to the schools themselves.
Current: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden, except in religious schools.
Proposed: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden, except in religious schools.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:07:24, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Labour and Unionist Party | To | Debating the Government Secularization Bill |
| Message | Religious institutions are non-profit orgnizations, whose only aim is to give aid to their communities. For that reason the DLUP will oppose article 1. Also, the freedom of expression and religion must not be curtailed, so the DLUP opposes article 2. In respect to article 3 we have no objections or comments as of now. - The Hon. Thomas Allan MP |
| Date | 13:29:27, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Supreme Party of the Republic | To | Debating the Government Secularization Bill |
| Message | We totally agree with our friends in the DLUP about all the articles. Curtaining the freedom of expression or religion can not be tolerated. If we start to put too much pressure on the religious group we can always expect to hear a lot of noise coming from the streets. We, as members of the House of Commons, have the duty to protect our people and its freedom against the oppression of measures like this. Maybe some preventive actions against a religion that is well known for deceiving people could fit well but not against those who aid poor communities. We also agree with the article 3! |
| Date | 23:20:36, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Technocratic Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Government Secularization Bill |
| Message | If articles 1 and 2 were removed, both the DLUP and the NUP would vote in favor of this bill? |
| Date | 23:25:34, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Supreme Party of the Republic | To | Debating the Government Secularization Bill |
| Message | Yes we would. |
| Date | 23:26:31, August 21, 2007 CET | From | Supreme Party of the Republic | To | Debating the Government Secularization Bill |
| Message | Correction: We = NUP I can not speak on behalf of the DLUP. |
| Date | 16:33:49, August 22, 2007 CET | From | Dorvish Popular Front | To | Debating the Government Secularization Bill |
| Message | We shall support. |
| Date | 03:30:21, August 23, 2007 CET | From | Technocratic Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Government Secularization Bill |
| Message | Due to the support of the National Bolshevik Party, and the lack of an official response from the DLUP regarding the proposed amendments to this bill, we will move this bill to a vote unchanged. |
| Date | 07:06:05, August 23, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Labour and Unionist Party | To | Debating the Government Secularization Bill |
| Message | Albiet belated, yes we would support article three, but we feel that stripping out the first to articles in this bill changes the bill entirely, so it should stand or fall on its merits. And if the third article is to hold its own rights it should stand as well as its own bill. |
| Date | 09:23:11, August 23, 2007 CET | From | Moderate Party of The Free Republic | To | Debating the Government Secularization Bill |
| Message | I agree with Articles 2 & 3 because sometimes religion can be a barrier in society, not always but sometimes, and religious prayers in school create a bias to one particular religion at an early age, which could be considered by some non religious families insulting or infact by members of different religions. Due to these terms iwill supporthough do expect me to suggest a change in the law away from article 1 at some point. |
| Date | 22:47:03, August 23, 2007 CET | From | Supreme Party of the Republic | To | Debating the Government Secularization Bill |
| Message | If this bill does not pass we would gladly support a new bill with the 3rd article alone. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 11 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 218 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 170 |
| Random fact: After 3 days (72 hours) your account will be inactivated by Moderation. If you want to be reactivated you can request reactivation located here: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4360 |
| Random quote: "It is never too late to give up our prejudices." - Henry David Thoreau |