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 Equality
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rationalist 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 2108
Description[?]:
| ... |
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 not allowed.
Proposed: Any religion may set up a school, but they are strictly regulated.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:34:20, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Religious Equality |
| Message | No. As discussed this was to prevent any wack religion from setting up a school. Yes they are regulated but that makes no difference, G-d does not speak with anyone, will it in the future? Only time will tell. This will not bring about equality, it will bring about religious nonsense and a smack to the face of actual religions. Ones that have history. |
| Date | 22:51:33, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Religious Equality |
| Message | Who defines "wack religion"? The reasoning behind regulation was simply to force them to teach a basic curriculum. As for whether or not God speaks to anyone, that is a matter of opinion. There is no way of proving or disproving it, thus your arguement is moot. This is entirely about equality, it will allow smaller religions and sects of religions to teach their values to those who want to hear them, much like any other religious school. And when has history ever lent value or authority? Your reasoning shows only your own insecurity about challenges to established spirituality. There is no logical reasoning behind restricting what moral values should be taught to children, if there were, we would take all newborn children from their parents and put them in state approved care facilities. |
| Date | 23:44:04, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Telamon National Party | To | Debating the Religious Equality |
| Message | We dont want satanists setting up schools do we. We will vote no to this. |
| Date | 02:41:19, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Religious Equality |
| Message | 1. The people define whack religions. 2. Yes, obvioulsy they can teach religion in their school as long as the students meet set requirements in academia. 3. I do not consider it opinion, as i believe G-d talked Moses, and the Jewish people. 4. Your telling me all people who claim G-d talked to them is correct? If later on i would say G-d talked to me, and i got a few thousand follower's you would allow me to create my own religious school...so long as i meet your academic standards of course. That is completely inane. 5. They want to gain recognition? If they truly believe G-d told them theirs is the one true religion, then their's would be spreading all over Terra. Take Judaism, Islam and Chrisianity. Judaism has survived for 4000 years, and Chrisianity and Islam have a high amount of followers, meaning if they convince people that G-d is protecting their religion, then they're doing something right. 6. What? Insecurities to established spirituality? There is a fine difference between spiritually and religion. You can create a government based off the rules in Religion. You cannot in spirituality, the people may have happiness yes, but no rules or history is taught on what they have to do for their religion. (aside from buying nikes, castration or worshipping satan). 7. Of course there is....all morals date back to religion. You cannot dispute that. Did you know that murder was legal in pagan viking cities? With Christianity introduced, that stopped. So your point is moot. Religion has always and will always play part in politics, and i will not allow some fringe group, who just acheived enlightenment to create their own personal religious school. |
| Date | 03:00:33, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Religious Equality |
| Message | 1) How? We have no way of doing it right now, when you can come up with something reasonable, I'll consider it 2) I think we agree here 3) I'm sure IP would disagree here, thus, a matter of opinion 4) Nope, just that everyone who claims God or gods talked to them is equaly acceptable before the law. Personally, I don't think that, but that's not my point 5) One way to do this would be to have schools, schools people don't HAVE to go to, but they choose to anyway, so their children can learn the values and traditions of the religion of their choice 6) There is a difference between religion and spirituality, organization. Thus, personally your beliefs are your spirituality, and the church (mosque, temple) you belong to would be your religion. 7) Let me rephrase this. There are no logical reasons why we should choose to teach the morals of one religious group over those of another. I can dispute that morals predate religion by thousands of years, Sumaria had the first organized religion, and this arrived only after the thriving society was established. Since civilization cannot exist without moral standards which prevent violent anarchy, they must have had these before the religion of Sumer was formed. Religion will always have a part in politics? Likely, so? Christianity was a fringe group, as was Islam, and Bhuddism, and Hindu, and any other religion you care to name, why should they be given preferential treatment because they have been around longer? If someone can create a religion (divinely inspired or not) which would then support a school, why should they not be allowed to teach? |
| Date | 03:03:18, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Religious Equality |
| Message | And drop the Satanists thing, I know people who claim that Roman Catholics are satanists, devil worship is the worship of a god that you don't like, there is no organized satanist church, no structure planning the destruction of the world, a few outcasts and sadists, but nothing more. Plus, those values you attribute them to teaching, likely wouldn't be legal (incitement ot commit a crime). |
| Date | 12:21:47, September 09, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Religious Equality |
| Message | It all seems to depend on what you take 'recognised' to mean. I have always thought that because we have religious tolerance in Telamon and the state is secular, that we recognise all religions, it simply provides a method of tracking fringe cults as they apply (or whatever) to be recognised. Now as the state keeps out of religion then that in practice means that anyone who sets up a religion is likely to be recognised by the state and therefore allowed to set up a religious school. It simply provides a way of keeping basic tabs on these organisations and allows the government to step in iof necessary. I.e. I have no problem with sects setting up schools, unless it happens to be one of those sects (as IRL in America) which involves ritutal and mass suicides - I don't really want children involved in that or the possibility of child abuse etc. although I suppose that you could say that regulation takes care of that. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 74 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 89 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 92 |
| Random fact: Party candidates for head of state elections are not visible to the public. This means that you cannot see who will run and who will not, which adds another strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society." - Franklin D. Roosevelt |