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: Separation of State and Church Reform Act of 2593

Details

Submitted by^[?]: The Liberal Party

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 2594

Description^[?]:

This bill will:

1) Prohibit public officials from wearing religious clothes while performing their duties.

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.

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date	13:46:34, June 18, 2008 CET
From	Lodamun Libertarian Party
To	Debating the Separation of State and Church Reform Act of 2593
Message	One thing in general, why do you always put the value your propose in the bill description? We can clearly see what you are trying to do in your proposels. On this specific thing its a attack on religious freedom

Date	13:51:02, June 18, 2008 CET
From	Republican Party of Lodamun
To	Debating the Separation of State and Church Reform Act of 2593
Message	It's the freedom of religion here, I believe this is not anything but an offense to that freedom. OOC: It's good that he does, as some of the proposals can be written in a difficult way, which can mean several things. Especially if you don't live in U.S. or an English speaking country.

Date	19:57:38, June 18, 2008 CET
From	The Liberal Party
To	Debating the Separation of State and Church Reform Act of 2593
Message	You know that has always been my trademark, I always put a description specifically saying what the bill intends to do. We are not telling them not to be part of a religion, we are telling them that when performing their duties, as a public official, religion must be out of the way.

Date	20:04:49, June 18, 2008 CET
From	Lodamun Libertarian Party
To	Debating the Separation of State and Church Reform Act of 2593
Message	OOC: Well its just copied from the proposed value, they say the same thing. If it explains the bill more I understand, but if is just copied I just find it annoying tbh.

Date	20:05:42, June 18, 2008 CET
From	Lodamun Libertarian Party
To	Debating the Separation of State and Church Reform Act of 2593
Message	You are prohibiting them from exercising there religion. No matter the reason that is discriminating

Date	20:16:37, June 18, 2008 CET
From	The Liberal Party
To	Debating the Separation of State and Church Reform Act of 2593
Message	OOC: I don't copy them. I write them in my own words. Go and check all of them and you'll see they are not the same.

Date	20:17:19, June 18, 2008 CET
From	The Liberal Party
To	Debating the Separation of State and Church Reform Act of 2593
Message	Religion is separate from State. You cannot involve religion in the State.

Date	22:37:54, June 18, 2008 CET
From	Lodamun Libertarian Party
To	Debating the Separation of State and Church Reform Act of 2593
Message	OOC: ok just nvm then. IC: Yeah you cant involve religion in state, but that means both ways. We cant have a state religion, but at the same time we cant have a state who banns the use of religious artifacts.

Vote

Seats

yes

Total Seats: 73

Total Seats: 68

abstain

Total Seats: 9

Random fact: Periodically, it is a good idea to go through your nation's Treaties and arrange to withdraw from any that are unwanted.

Random quote: "I think it's about time we voted for senators with breasts. After all, we've been voting for boobs long enough." - Clarie Sargent

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 59