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: Re-establishing Seperation of Church and State
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rightist 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: November 2548
Description[?]:
Proposals
Article 1
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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:27:23, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Re-establishing Seperation of Church and State | | Message | Why would a person be scared of another, simply because they are a different religion? We are a nation where many religions have their followers. We should be encouraging tolerance of differing beliefs, not trying to cover them up with draconian laws. |
| Date | 23:54:02, March 17, 2008 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Re-establishing Seperation of Church and State | | Message | Public officials are not allowed
We are not banning anyone from wearing religious symbols. We are making sure that our public officials (which includes politicians) do not wear them WHILE THEY ARE ON DUTY!! It is not that hard to figure out but then again, we all know that you are incapable of logic. |
| Date | 01:24:44, March 18, 2008 CET |
From | Tuatha Dé Danann | To | Debating the Re-establishing Seperation of Church and State | | Message | Public officials are public. They exist for the public. If a person of some strong religious belief, believes that a certain religion is bad, or even evil, and than he needs to perform an errand at his local city hall, yet the person he needs to speak to, fanatically wears religious clothes of the religion the other person is not allowed to tolerate.
The citizen can not be required to move to a regional office in order to get his business done.
You need to open your mind and see that there are religious differences. You seem to assume that everyone lives peacefully together. There will never be complete tolerance in any aspect. Therefore it is much easier for everyone, to not allow religious outings on official duties, and leave the religion at home where they can practice in privacy and in peace. |
| Date | 04:59:26, March 18, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Re-establishing Seperation of Church and State | | Message | If a person feels that women are evil, and yet the only official he can deal with at his local city hall is a woman, then that person will equally not be able to get their business done. Should we then ban female public servants from displaying themselves publicly? |
| Date | 13:09:04, March 18, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Re-establishing Seperation of Church and State | | Message | The only difference between those two arguments is that one discriminates against women, the other against the religious. Why is it fine to discriminate against one group but not the other? We must have consistency after all. |
| Date | 13:27:01, March 18, 2008 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Re-establishing Seperation of Church and State | | Message | BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DISCRIMINATING AGAINST RELIGION FUCKTARD!!!! If we were discriminating against religion then we would have thoroughly banned people from wearing them at all. That would be discriminatory. Or making exceptions for certain religions. That too would be discriminatory. The proposed law is not discriminatory. |
| Date | 13:31:45, March 18, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Re-establishing Seperation of Church and State | | Message | "If we were discriminating against religion then we would have thoroughly banned people from wearing them at all."
So if you say that people who are older than 20 are not allowed to wear religious clothing, that wouldn't be discriminatory, because some people still can. How about people who have light coloured hair, would preventing them wearing religious clothing be discriminatory? What about people holding a particular type of job, would that be discriminatory? Because that's what this law does. It says people who hold a particular kind of job (ie a job in the state service) may not wear religious clothing. Atheists suffer no such restriction. That is discriminatory. |
| Date | 13:50:47, March 19, 2008 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Re-establishing Seperation of Church and State | | Message | So what religious attire do atheists have JUP? You are trying to build an argument with zero traction. Stop making untrue statements JUP. That's all you've been doing throughout this place.
And TDP? WHat is your objections? |
| Date | 13:53:19, March 19, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Re-establishing Seperation of Church and State | | Message | Atheists have no restrictions, and may work freely as a public servant. Some religious people are forced by their religious beliefs to wear certain articles of clothing. If this law passes, they will be unable to work in the state sector. This law discriminates against the religious for that reason. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 227 |
| no | Total Seats: 273 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Moderation reserves the discretion to declare RP laws invalid if the players supporting them are doing so in an excessively confrontational way. |
| Random quote: "In politics, stupidity is not a handicap." - Napoleon Bonaparte |