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 education
Details
Submitted by[?]: trucido ignarae 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: December 2102
Description[?]:
| We feel that in religious schools, students will get the impression that theirs is the only religion and mass racism will emerge. Promoting schools with one religion may cause seperation between the people within the nation and as a safety precaution, we wish for schools to keep a neutral stance on such subjects. Parents will be expected to raise their children with their own moral values and beliefs. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The governments stance on religious schools.
Old value:: Religious schools are allowed, but are strictly regulated. Only recognised religions may set up religious schools.
Current: Religious schools are allowed, but are strictly regulated. Only recognised religions may set up religious schools.
Proposed: Religious schools are not allowed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:56:19, August 21, 2005 CET | From | Totalitarian Nationalist Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | We support. |
| Date | 02:09:58, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Populist Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | Wouldn't this not be fair to those families who wish their children to be brought up with a firm moral base? I am not in favor of religion interfering with government, but I strongly believe that people should have the option if they want their children taught things that may or may not exist. We will vote against this bill. |
| Date | 03:11:18, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | We are a strongly religeous party based open the re education of the populus it would be going agianst our party to vote yes to this. |
| Date | 05:59:23, August 22, 2005 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | "Firstly, students will get the impression that theirs is the only religion and mass racism will emerge." Excellent, you have made a statement and now prove it. "Second, most religions conflict with science so the concept of a religious school is an oxymoron by definition." Schools teach more than science. "Third of of course is that it is blasphemous (in any religion) because it suggests that the god(s) are not great enough to come down here and teach us without help of human preachers." According to what? And you are violating people's rights. That's a firm no. |
| Date | 08:33:05, August 22, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | ok i can see this will be a big message... Populist party: I completley agree morality should be a big part of our lives, but religion is not the only way to teach morality. Take the great crusades for instance, thousands of christians and muslims alike died because their "religion told them to kill the enemy". Unless there is only one religion it will only bring conflict and seperation in everyone. It is possible to bring up a child to be good without having to be terrified of an all loving god that wants to sentance us all to eternal suffering if we are bad. Morality can be taught in regular schools, why should we think otherwise? HN: I'm aware you are religious, I am after all in the religious organization you yourself started. What I oppose is a school devoted to one religion and telling our kids to be close-minded towards other belief systems which brings me to the LLP... LLP: I proved it in the first paragraph, the great crusades for mecca... or how about the civil wars in the middle east? Or all the Muslims and Hindus killing each other in india and Pakistan. Oh and the spanish inquisition... you get the point, moving on. More than science. Ok i'll give you that, but i never denied the fact. all i'm saying is that science is one of the most important things we can learn because it has so many catagories ranging literally from a-z. Hypothetically speaking, let's say i go to my first class of the day and get told that evoloution is a lie spread by the devil. My next class is biology and I get told that things change and adapt through gradual evoloution. If I have a test in one of those classes, what theory am i supposed to support? it adds confusion and just gets messy. next! "According to what?". now come on, even you should know this. i'm under the the impression you are strongly christian? is it not a sin to impersonate your god? what about speaking for "him"? the whole concept of a priest is demeaning to the god(s) in question. if your god is an omnipotent being that can do anything, why were we not born with the knowledge of him, or at the very least come to visit and say "hi" once in a while. I'm not the one violating rights here. Churches are still allowed, you can believe whatever you want on your spare time. if you are so set on being religous then please, go ahead and do so but stop telling everyone elses children how to live. what if we do not all believe the same things? we would need a different school for every major religion (unless you are quite rascist), costing our nation alot of money and possible civil disorder. Now if you are still mad at this proposal let me suggest a theology course in all public schools. not a class to preach one belief, but to teach about all religions, their specific value's, idea's, etc. Make us more open minded, you know? |
| Date | 09:20:35, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | "Take the great crusades for instance, thousands of christians and muslims alike died because their "religion told them to kill the enemy"." Didnt happen here. Keep your OOC references marked under OOC. "Morality can be taught in regular schools" Which morality should we teach? There is no chance in hell you and I would agree on a morality to teach. Public schools should be objective. Private schools can be as subjective as they like, hence why we have them. "the great crusades for mecca... or how about the civil wars in the middle east? Or all the Muslims and Hindus killing each other in india and Pakistan. Oh and the spanish inquisition... you get the point, moving on." See my first point. "Hypothetically speaking, let's say i go to my first class of the day and get told that evoloution is a lie spread by the devil. My next class is biology and I get told that things change and adapt through gradual evoloution. If I have a test in one of those classes, what theory am i supposed to support? it adds confusion and just gets messy. next!" I think you underestimate the cohesion of religious schools. They could just be smart enough to organise a cirriculum. And your problem is an easy one to solve: if you have a biology test, you talk evoluion. If you have a religious class, you dont. "now come on, even you should know this. i'm under the the impression you are strongly christian? is it not a sin to impersonate your god? what about speaking for "him"? the whole concept of a priest is demeaning to the god(s) in question. if your god is an omnipotent being that can do anything, why were we not born with the knowledge of him, or at the very least come to visit and say "hi" once in a while." Actually, Im a strong atheist and secularist but recognise people's right to delude themselves. Thanks for characterising me. Also, Catholics are quite accepting that priests' word is as good as God's. Lutherans and other Protestants disagree. You can't just sweep Christianity under one big carpet AND completely ignore the existence of other religions. Your questioning is also futile as most people realise religion is a question of faith/self-delusion and thus God proving his own existence would not be fair on those who do have faith. Its the whole point. "what if we do not all believe the same things?" Go to a different school? Go to a public school? We arent forcing kids into religious schools here. "we would need a different school for every major religion (unless you are quite rascist), costing our nation alot of money and possible civil disorder." Who says we fund them? There are no charter schools in Baltusia and since we only fund public, objective schools... |
| Date | 09:28:51, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | OOC: Correspondingly to your arguments: World War I and II (55 million people and before you start, the Jews were murdered because of racism, not religion), Korea, Vietnam and there are dozens of other bloodbaths not based on religion. Religion is not a cause of war but something that gets mangled by power hungry lunatics. Nationalism, economics and petty dicksize comparing are far more responsible for war than religion. And honestly, when the last big religious war? |
| Date | 10:50:35, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Centrist Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | Indeed. Admittedly, I would never have come up with any of that but the LLP have and we happen to be in total, complete and utter agreeance. And by the way: "Firstly, students will get the impression that theirs is the only religion and mass racism will emerge." You seem to be of the opinion that atheism is the only religion, so presumably, going by your own statement, mass racism will now emerge. Thanks, thanks a lot. Just for the record, we will in no way support such an outrageous proposal. OOC: Lern 2 spel. |
| Date | 23:15:55, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | OOC: WW2 happened because of the oppression of the people who had the means to commit mass murder the ones to blame for WW2 are those nations which opressed German people unfairly and unrightly. Its always natural to hate which steps on you. There are reasons that things like the murder of the jews went on that are not just because they didnt like thier ancestry. IC: If your just trying to limit the abilities of some religeons to educate people then make a seperate proposal and then fail because the mass amount of these parties will see it as discrimination there is no winning in this argument. |
| Date | 23:56:07, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Centrist Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | Either move this to vote or get rid of it. |
| Date | 00:07:36, August 23, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | OOC: "Didnt happen here. Keep your OOC references marked under OOC." what didn't happen here? the wars i listed off? not trying to pick on you here i just don't get what you mean. in any case, your entire defence of all those things is based on me failing to properly label it... nice... "Which morality should we teach?" It seems pretty universal. be generous, don't steal, don't lie, don't murder and so on. " There is no chance in hell you and I would agree on a morality to teach." i'm not so sure about that, see above comment. and i notice you have started swearing while talking about morality.ironic. but there is no need to get angry, that only proves my point that the mere discussion of religion causes violence. "See my first point." no i can't say that i do. unless you are saying that all those things didn't happen because i forgot to say OOC. "your problem is an easy one to solve: if you have a biology test, you talk evoluion. If you have a religious class, you dont." so we force every single student to lie? well i guess you have a point about us disagreeing on what morality to teach. "...but (I) recognise people's right to delude themselves" As do I, but not to delude others. "...AND completely ignore the existence of other religions" let me quote myself "let me suggest a theology course in all public schools... to teach about all religions, their specific value's, idea's, etc. ..." "Your questioning is also futile as most people realise religion is a question of faith/self-delusion and thus God proving his own existence would not be fair on those who do have faith. Its the whole point." you mentioned futile so i must mention your comment about religious wars never happening. Now you are saying that we can only believe in something if it does not exist? so you want schools to knowingly make invisible friends for our kids? and teach them that the invisible friends are more real than scientifically evident things. "Go to a different school? Go to a public school? We arent forcing kids into religious schools here." maybe not if you live in a big city. but for the backcountry and middle-of-nowhere homes, there are not as many options and a poor family may find it cheaper to go to a nearby religious school than to drive countless miles to a public school that is not so close. with reference to my last comment in the previous message, i notice you avoided my point about civil disorder, and dividing the country. "Religion is not a cause of war " It is not the only cause, but yes it is one. i don't care if you see it as discrimination, you cannot simply say that people do not fight over things like this. It has happened repetedly over the course of history. The entire thread is an argument. "when (was?) the last big religious war" you know muslims in pakistan and hindus in India are still going at it. and there seems to be a little something happening in Ireland right now between catholic and protestants. Not that i see the relevance of a timeline here. Thanks for coming out CP: i don't recall mentioning Atheism and i resent the title. I belive in physics and logic. I believe there is something greater that has not yet been explained by any modern religion, and i think that until it can be proven logically we should not worry about or even care about it. I have a spiritual side but i like i said, believe what is logical. or should i say, don't believe only what someone has told you, believe what makes sense. this idea is pretty close to atheism but it isn't, i'd probably chose to follow budhism if anything... but there is a time for spiritual, and a time for educational knowledge. the two often argue with each other as I said so a religious school is bad news. HN: i don't expect to win this argument, it's basic pseudopsychology, people believe what they want no matter how many times it can be proven wrong. I do this on the sheer principle of doing what is actually best for the people in the long run as opposed to what appeals to them right now. |
| Date | 00:57:21, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | Teaching sence to these lefties is like beating a dead horse. We do see wrong in some religeons distractions from reality and do support dissallowing some religeons but all is not something we can support which is what this bill is proposing. |
| Date | 04:47:14, August 23, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | excactly. but i'm not disallowing religion. churches and temples are still fine. remember what i said about budhism? i just don't think it should belong in school. |
| Date | 04:48:24, August 23, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | OOC last comment was OOC ; ) |
| Date | 05:36:58, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | No |
| Date | 05:39:49, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | And i resent your inference that religious schools cause prejudice. OOC: I attended a religious school and am strongly secular. Perhaps you should learn that ignorance breeds prejudice. |
| Date | 06:35:25, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | All of our pantian temples are re education centers so we cannot support this. |
| Date | 06:38:01, August 23, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | OOC: and religious schools breed ignorance. did they tell you all about the history and idea's of other beliefs from the viewpoint of others, or just their own? or not at all? As i mentioned before: THEOLOGY class. no preaching, just learning, let the people make their own choices instead of being told what to believe. Now i'm not trying to call you ignorant, I know there are exceptions. |
| Date | 06:42:51, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | OOC: "WW2 happened because of the oppression of the people who had the means to commit mass murder the ones to blame for WW2 are those nations which opressed German people unfairly and unrightly. Its always natural to hate which steps on you. There are reasons that things like the murder of the jews went on that are not just because they didnt like thier ancestry." I agree and there were a number of other factors - none of them religious. "what didn't happen here? the wars i listed off? not trying to pick on you here i just don't get what you mean. in any case, your entire defence of all those things is based on me failing to properly label it... nice..." I wouldve thought that placing that comment directly under the quote would've given you some indication about what I was saying. RL/RW events are not acceptable debate points as they did not occur in PT. You may use them OOCly to illustrate your point but not to add to it. Oh and nice strawman btw. "It seems pretty universal. be generous, don't steal, don't lie, don't murder and so on." There is no universal morality. For example, murder has been perfectly acceptable in society's past and is not now. How is there universal morality there? Or is one society immoral? Wouldnt that be relative to your particular POV? And thus we arrive at the conclusion there is no universal morality. And you seem to be using examples that most members of the religious mainstream would advocate so what's it got to do with this debate anyway? "i'm not so sure about that, see above comment. and i notice you have started swearing while talking about morality.ironic. but there is no need to get angry, that only proves my point that the mere discussion of religion causes violence." Hardly swearing. Where was I violent? Nice slippery slope. And your proving the point that idiots can agitate anyone. "no i can't say that i do. unless you are saying that all those things didn't happen because i forgot to say OOC." And in Particracy, they didnt. "so we force every single student to lie? well i guess you have a point about us disagreeing on what morality to teach." Its not lying, just doublethink. Again, you miss that religious schools would have a cohesive cirriculum or they are giving students a choice in thinking. Isnt that what you want? "let me quote myself "let me suggest a theology course in all public schools... to teach about all religions, their specific value's, idea's, etc. ..."" My point was you attack Christianity solely, despite the fact your "morality" has a great deal in common with it. "so you want schools to knowingly make invisible friends for our kids? and teach them that the invisible friends are more real than scientifically evident things." Are they your kids now? So you own all of them? Maybe parents DO want their kids to have, as you so eloquently put it, "imaginary friends". Is it your place to stop them? No. "maybe not if you live in a big city. but for the backcountry and middle-of-nowhere homes, there are not as many options and a poor family may find it cheaper to go to a nearby religious school than to drive countless miles to a public school that is not so close. with reference to my last comment in the previous message, i notice you avoided my point about civil disorder, and dividing the country." I would be very surprised if there was a big enough market for a self-sustaining private school but not a public school. If there is, they could come to the government for help. You also claim that prejudice will become rife. Based on what I've seen here, your party has enough for all of Terra. YOU are more of a cause of division in Baltusia than any religious school. "I belive in physics and logic." That's stunning. You dont believe in physics, you accept it. It doesnt require faith (which is an important difference between science and religion). And your belief in logic is just as confusing as you've made at least two bigass logical fallacies already (strawman and slippery slope). "can be proven logically" OOC: Aristotle tried to prove things logically, like men having more teeth than women. "probably chose to follow budhism" You up for the annihilation of the self? Or what about compassion for everyone, even Christians? "I do this on the sheer principle of doing what is actually best for the people in the long run as opposed to what appeals to them right now." So you are lord and master of what is right for the people now? Cant they decide anything for themselves? OOC: You have also failed to respond to the fact that a vast majority of Earth's war were not based on religions, notably our largest: WWI and WWII. |
| Date | 06:56:37, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | No the general populus is never able to decide what is generally going to help them they are spun out of logic by parties that are to close to the centers lies if there is no right and wrong we become lost in the shades of grey to many variables gives us to much thought and intellegence is what is in the end what damns humanity. That last statement is proven by the christian story of adam eve and the apple that represents intellegence as soon as humanity gave into the greed and made itself above the other species the christian or cathilic or whatever the hell they are's god damned them from their heaven like paradise. Essentially there is a religeon out there that says the stupider and more blindly faithful you are the closer you are to the divine master. Stupid=Good Smart= AntiChrist So essentially letting that religeon have schools is having a school that teaches children that learning is bad that essential point being an oxymoron. One everyone just blindly believes. |
| Date | 06:58:36, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | That point would've been much more effective with a dozen full stops. |
| Date | 07:20:51, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | Once more my ability to present it does not change the how right or wrong what i say is and i will continue to point that out every time you make one of those comments leftie. |
| Date | 07:23:24, August 23, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | ya kind of reminds me off the whole "religious wars have never happened" comment because of my context... |
| Date | 07:26:27, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | "ya kind of reminds me off the whole "religious wars have never happened" comment because of my context..." I never claimed they didnt. If you actually read my response, I clarified that they did not occur on Particracy's Terra and thus are not valid points. "Once more my ability to present it does not change the how right or wrong what i say is and i will continue to point that out every time you make one of those comments leftie." Petty namecalling does affect your image to others though. |
| Date | 08:20:23, August 23, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | OOC: ok the comment about universal morality. thanks for proving my point. maybe we should let the parents decide, instead of a school. the strawman thing. for the last time stop talking about the context and tell me why those wars do not matter. Who cares where they happened. they happened. it's real. people died because of religion. not really strawman. maybe it would be if you found a piece of evidence that religion was framed... "RL/RW events are not acceptable debate points" So my points are not allowed to be real? kudos on that comment "Hardly swearing. Where was I violent?" violence can start off with aggression. you seem to be getting angrier with each post. if this was not just a game the populas would be getting angry at each other, feeding off that anger until it built up to violence. this too has happened in history. "they are giving students a choice in thinking. Isnt that what you want?" it's not a choice. they are expected to believe what the teacher is telling them if it is not a passive theological view. again, i am in favor of a theology class that does not assume we all fall into one belief. "you attack Christianity solely, despite the fact your "morality" has a great deal in common with it." so when i mentioned catholics, islam and hindu that didn't count? indeed most religions share the same morality. i say most, not all so don't start that again. "Maybe parents DO want their kids to have, as you so eloquently put it, "imaginary friends". Is it your place to stop them? No." is it your place to tell them which imaginary friends are real and which are not? "Based on what I've seen here, your party has enough for all of Terra." by trying to close schools that disagree with each other? "You dont believe in physics, you accept it. It doesnt require faith (which is an important difference between science and religion). And your belief in logic is just as confusing as you've made at least two bigass logical fallacies already (strawman and slippery slope)." what you refer to as "strawman" seems pretty logical, but i anxiously await you reasoning about it (other than the context it was in). slippery slope: again you contradict yourself calling me an idiot because i think such conversations make some of us upset. "Aristotle tried to prove things logically, like men having more teeth than women." did he succeed in that? "You up for the annihilation of the self? Or what about compassion for everyone, even Christians?" first, i said if anything i would choose that, but i haven't. but you know what, for the sake of argument let's say that i am devoutly religious. i can teach my children what i believe, but i don't care if others believe it. it is up to the family to decide, not a school. that is not really self annihilation, it's being open-minded and wanting schools to be neutral. "So you are lord and master of what is right for the people now? Cant they decide anything for themselves?" they can't unless things are neutral. and i think the HN summed up my thoughts pretty good about that. "OOC: You have also failed to respond to the fact that a vast majority of Earth's war were not based on religions, notably our largest: WWI and WWII." remmeber when i said yes religion is a cause of war, but not the only cause. i'd appreciate it if you responded to the fact that it is one cause. |
| Date | 08:44:57, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | "it is up to the family to decide, not a school. that is not really self annihilation, it's being open-minded and wanting schools to be neutral." "is it your place to tell them which imaginary friends are real and which are not?" Parents choose for their children to go to these schools. The government does in no way force attendance on or fund religious schools. We merely regulate them. If a parent wants their kid to attend an objective school, they can in public schools and Ive no doubt secular private schools also exist. If you have failed to understand that, then I can see why you argue so vehemently but for no point. A lack of understanding is often the root of many conflicts. "the strawman thing. for the last time stop talking about the context and tell me why those wars do not matter. Who cares where they happened. they happened. it's real. people died because of religion. not really strawman." It was a strawman because you attacked my assertion of reasonable RP behaviour, not any of my arguments. I am merely asking you to follow proper RP etiquette and not use RW references to prove a point. I cant use precedents in PT in a RW court of law and the same should apply here: keep RW and PT separate! "violence can start off with aggression." And violence can come from nothing. "you seem to be getting angrier with each post." Your assumption, not mine. Im frustrated is all. "if this was not just a game the populas would be getting angry at each other, feeding off that anger until it built up to violence." OOC: I could easily sink to your level and say that many RW nations have religious schools and yet violence is not rampant in the streets. However... IC: Why would they get angry? "it's not a choice. they are expected to believe what the teacher is telling them if it is not a passive theological view. again, i am in favor of a theology class that does not assume we all fall into one belief." Do you believe everything a teacher tells you? "so when i mentioned catholics, islam and hindu that didn't count? indeed most religions share the same morality. i say most, not all so don't start that again." Ill concede that. "by trying to close schools that disagree with each other?" We disagree. Are you going to shut me down? "slippery slope: again you contradict yourself calling me an idiot because i think such conversations make some of us upset." So you agree its a slippery slope and thats a logical fallacy by sidestepping the real issue? "they can't unless things are neutral. and i think the HN summed up my thoughts pretty good about that." Are you neutral? "remmeber when i said yes religion is a cause of war, but not the only cause. i'd appreciate it if you responded to the fact that it is one cause." Never said it wasnt. You act as if it is the sole cause, hence the discrepancy in our positions. "did he succeed in that?" Logically, I have no doubt he did. Realitywise, of course not. My point is that things can only be proven by experimentation. Not by logic. |
| Date | 23:13:09, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | Petty namecalling is a good portion of all this party does at our chairmeetings we discuss what we call you next after some shots of rum. Our alcohol is covered under the budget in what our party calls the scwabbling expences. OOC: wasting post space one illogical post at a time. |
| Date | 00:02:16, August 24, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | OOC: i really don't feel like going through every personal attack you made on me because it really has nothing to do with the proposal anymore and I can't be bothered to type that much again. let's sum it all up. IC: We believe that believe that religious schools CAN OFTEN promote anger between different cultures in the same country. If half the country is firmly religion A and the other is firmly religion B the country might go through civil war and will not be united. To save the frustration of anger, violence, and discrimination, we want schools to take a neutral stance on beliefs and allow the parents to teach their own children about morality and worship however they want when they are not learning about everything else. We would support a neutral theology course in public schools. |
| Date | 00:03:20, August 24, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | OOC: i see the typo, no need to point it out... |
| Date | 01:10:04, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | OOC: LLP what you said about believing everything a teacher tells you look at America. Im pretty sure that should sum up an entire argument on how stupid the majority are able to be. Also to anyone who wishes to complain about my rascism I wont care. |
| Date | 23:25:27, August 24, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | OOC: yes but remember, it doesn't matter if you are correct here, in PT we can say such things don't matter ;( |
| Date | 07:17:31, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | OOC: shh u fool theyve been listening to ooc banter like that for a while now to no complaint <.< |
| Date | 22:47:09, August 25, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | Aherm, anyways... we've changed the bill description based on the criticism here. we think it is agreeable, what does everyone think now? constructive criticism |
| Date | 23:14:03, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | You fail to realise that the hosengott is the one and only divining light everyone is just wrongly believing false idols Robert Staunt is very real not like this "god" everyone else keeps going on about. |
| Date | 01:33:06, August 26, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | uh right, anyone else? |
| Date | 10:59:42, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Centrist Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | Just move it to vote already, geez. |
| Date | 03:23:50, August 28, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the religious education |
| Message | ya looks like everyone has stopped talking. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 1 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 412 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 7 |
| 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: "I swear to the Lord I still can't see Why Democracy means Everybody but me." - Langston Hughes, The Black Man Speaks |