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: Protection from Religion Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: The Green Manalishi 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: May 2603
Description[?]:
| ... |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The state's intervention in the appointment of ministers of religion.
Old value:: The state does not intervene in the appointment of ministers of any religion whatsoever.
Current: The state has the right to veto the appointment of any ministers of religion.
Proposed: The state nominates ministers of religion, but the appointment is left up to the religious communities themselves.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:53:54, July 05, 2008 CET | From | Plowshare Collective | To | Debating the Protection from Religion Act |
| Message | absolutely, completely opposed. religious expression is one of the basic rights of humanity. they'll be no cooperation from us on anything whatsoever if this isn't dropped. |
| Date | 12:29:16, July 05, 2008 CET | From | The Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Protection from Religion Act |
| Message | Not when 'religious expression' impinges on everybody else's rights, liberties and safety. We would not be actively promoting ministers or nominating names but we do feel that it is important to maintain the power to veto appointments. To give an example of when this might be necessary: if our intelligence agencies notify us of incitement to hatred or radicalised threats from certain personalities. |
| Date | 12:56:31, July 05, 2008 CET | From | Plowshare Collective | To | Debating the Protection from Religion Act |
| Message | or religious dissent? how is there any safeguard from abuse here? when did a liberal government become the thought police? it's precisely because we care so much about human rights that we have to be willing to allow freedom of even hate speech. once you start legislating what is and isn't acceptable *thought* you've already lost 95% of the battle against tyranny. |
| Date | 19:39:18, July 05, 2008 CET | From | Republican Patriciate Coalition | To | Debating the Protection from Religion Act |
| Message | Absolutely support. We support the complete removal of the disease of humanity that is religion. This is a step in that direction by removing preachers who are a threat to the peace and the state. |
| Date | 16:48:22, July 06, 2008 CET | From | The Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Protection from Religion Act |
| Message | There's difference between hate speech behind close doors and in public though PC. In the public sphere it can be largely exposed as extremist, non-representative and ethically/logically flawed. Allowing it to happen behind the closed doors of a church, mosque, synagogue etc. with congregations that are arguably already more receptive to mythology is a far riskier stance. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 272 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 443 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, special care must be taken to ensure realism is maintained when role-playing a government controlled by an ethnic and/or religious minority. If it is to be supposed that this government is supported by a majority of the population, then this should be plausibly and sufficiently role-played. The burden of proof is on the player or players role-playing such a regime to demonstrate that it is being done realistically |
| Random quote: "Law is mind without reason." - Aristotle |