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: Clerical Privillage Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Coalition for National Unity [CNU]
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 2609
Description[?]:
| An Act to make provision about the bennefit of the clergy; to make provision for the right of clerics to be tried in the chuch courts. This Act was written in the year of our Lord Twenty Six Hundred and eight and is proposed and approved by the executive of the Conservative and Morality Party. Be it enacted by the Supreme President's most Excellent and Loyal approval, by and with the advice and consent of the Senators elected and their peers appointed, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows___ Act 1: Members of the Clergy and Laity of the Official Religion of the Federal Republic of Solentia do hereby have the right to be tried for any accused crime in an ecclesiastical court run by the church it'self instead of the Federal courts. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:29:47, July 19, 2008 CET | From |  Solentian People Party | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | I am afraid the Solentian Peoples Party will have to vote no on this bill. It seems deeply unfair to us that the church should have their own courts and be different from the ordinary citizens. It is right that we all have the same courts and justice systems, it is right everyone in this country has the same sort of trial in the same sort of circumstances for a fair and democratic system. This bill would suggest that their is something wrong with our courts, that churches are somehow above everyone else and would only cause resentment to church and religion from other people who would feel this system was deeply unfair. Whilst, we believe this bill was written with good sentiments by the CMP we don't see how this would encourage a fair law and justice system in Solentia and therefore we must vote no. Theresa Livers, Justice Spokesperson for Solentia People Party |
| Date | 12:34:18, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | "Continuously we have beent odl that the Church and the State should be separate from multiple parties accross the political spectrum, if that is so, and the clergy do truely follow a different leadership to the state, then surely only their own will know how to make judgements made on their own moral codes? If the Church and faith, is really so different to the state, then how can we expect a judge to come to a decision in a fair manner?" Catherine York, Leader of the Conservative and Morality Party. |
| Date | 13:06:46, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Solentian People Party | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | Well some senators may have told you that message, but my party stands firm on the belief not that the church and the state should be seperate as such but on religious practises we must devolve our powers to the church and have less state intervention with both church and religion. That said, if we brand church and religion their own courts and judiciary system ran by themselves, the outrage amongst solentians would be sky high and surely we would then have to give courts out to the civil service and to business and industry etc. We believe it to be much better if we have one judiciary system for everyone in the country, therefore nobody can be accused to be above the law because everyone will have a fair and equal trial, the way frankly it should be. Theresa Livers, Justice Spokesperson |
| Date | 13:38:37, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | "I take it then that you plan on paying for the re-training of every judge in the nation? Judges are not able to give out sentances based on religious doctrine. If say, a clergy member of the Holy Traditionalist Church committed adultery...by the church's doctrine that is enough to have him ejected from the church, however as a judge doesn;t have the power to be able to give out such a sentance, how would our beliefs be taken into account? The same would apply if there is a practice in the Ordhodox church that is different, or the Xzarin Catholic Church that is different...Shouldn't the clergy be subject to religious law and have their future's decided by someone more qualified to decide that?" Matteo Trulli, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice. |
| Date | 13:50:11, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Solentian People Party | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | The answer to that is simple, hopefully the bill won't pass which means no judges will have to be retrained to a religious law, voting no for this bill which we are will keep costs at a low as the judicial system will not be reformed and no judges will need to be retrained! I could ask the same to you and say who would pay for the retraining of our vicars and send them to university to get a law degree? Judge Judy they are not!! Secondly if a priest committed adultery then it would be for their parish to decide the outcome of their priests careers which is what happens now rather than the government intervening and SPENDING MONEY to open a rangeof church courts and vicars training to become lawyers. The current practise is that the clergy do decide over the future of their priests careers, we don't need a court to do that. Theresa Livers, Justice Spokesperson |
| Date | 13:55:46, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | "Firstly, we would appreciate some seriousness when discussing religious matters as it is a delicate subject. Secondly, clergymen do not need to be "trained as lawyers", that was never suggested. A member of the cloth goes through extensive training to do their respective roles, they wouldn't need to be training in civil law or common law as those laws would not even be presented in a Church court. A church court would only deal with clerical and ecclesiastical affairs. Thirdly, no cost to the state is even being discussed. The Church is perfectly capeable of trying a member of their own cloth inside the Cathedrals, with the Achbishop in the pulpit and the defendants and prosecution in the pews. If the church wanted a separate court, they are welcome to raise the money to build one bu nobody has even suggested the state should pay for it." Matteo Trulli, Secretary of State for Justice. |
| Date | 14:03:34, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Solentian People Party | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | The subject of cost was mentioned by himself, he claimed it would cost money to keep the system as it was without reform, perhaps he could explain this to the senate? Secondly, "clergymen do not need to be "trained as lawyers", that was never suggested. A member of the cloth goes through extensive training to do their respective roles, they wouldn't need to be training in civil law or common law as those laws would not even be presented in a Church court. A church court would only deal with clerical and ecclesiastical affairs." If this is true, Then why does it say in the description of this act- "Members of the Clergy and Laity of the Official Religion of the Federal Republic of Solentia do hereby have the right to be tried for any accused crime in an ecclesiastical court run by the church it'self instead of the Federal courts." I point out ANY ACCUSED CRIME- so how on earth would a member of the church be able to pass judgement on civil and common law issues which would arise exactly? Or has this bill been incorrectly written? Either way there is a overlook and serious error/blunder here. Finally Mattew Trulli you are NOT the secretary of state for Justice, we know your ambitious but perhaps this is taking things a bit too far. Theresa Livers, Justice Spokesperson for the People Party |
| Date | 14:12:52, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | *shadow secretary of state, as I've already posted as that I am sure you could have worked out that a word has been missed. IC: "Cost to the state for the building of churches of the training of Priests was not mentioned. Cost to the state for re-training of judges has been. A judge is simply not qualified to take into account religious belief. The bill has not been written incorrectly Mr.Livers, it has been interpretted incorrectly. The bill states "any accused crime in an ecclesiastical court". Meaning any crime that a member of the cloth is accused of in an ecclesiastical court is dealt with via religious law. The ecclesiastical court would however, not deal in civil or common law. If you need that made simpler in the preamble I am sure a laymans terms version may be drafted. Lastly, I am the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Matteo Trulli....I do not know who you were reffering to when you were addressing "Mattew"." Matteo Trulli, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice |
| Date | 14:21:32, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Solentian People Party | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | *As you have already posted with n address of Matteo I am sure you could have worked it out!! IC: We don't agree with any of this as most of it is incorrect and totally snobbish, but finally we would like you to address the issues of total inequality this bill proposes which you have so far ducked. We ask of you to tell us why the members of the church are so different no everyone else that they should have their own church? Why a member of a church is needed to undergo a trial when a simple dismissal is just as accepting? And why also the state should intervene in the church by forciing this law on them which gives them their own church and courts when no member of the church has asked for one or wants one? |
| Date | 14:29:19, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | "why the members of the church are so different no everyone else that they should have their own church?" We hope you realise how utterly riddiculous this statement is. If a member of the church didn't have their own church, they wouldn't be reffered to as "members of the church". "Why a member of a church is needed to undergo a trial when a simple dismissal is just as accepting?" So any clergyman breaking the law needs to be dismissed? How preposterous. "And why also the state should intervene in the church by forciing this law on them which gives them their own church and courts when no member of the church has asked for one or wants one?" This bill was created to protect the religious beliefs of the church which are totally ignored in normal courtrooms. Finally, the CMP represents the Holy Traditionalist Church of Solentia, as the F.I.P would speak for Xzarin Catholics and the S.R.N.P would speak for the Orthodox Church." Matteo Trulli, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice. |
| Date | 14:37:41, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Solentian People Party | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | *lAUGHS, yes my apologies over that first statement what was meant to have been said- Why members of the church are so differnet that they have their own courts. "Why a member of a church is needed to undergo a trial when a simple dismissal is just as accepting?" So any clergyman breaking the law needs to be dismissed? How preposterous. As opposed to what going to prison for being gay or having an affair just because there a vicar and not a member of the public unassosiated with the church? Your talking nonsense and are proposing a shocking state of affairs which is giving one law to one group of people and another to another. If you were homoesexual or had an affair and you were not assoisated with the church you would still be allowed under Solentia law to have your freedoms and rights, but in a church you would what undergo a court service and be charged with a crime and then what?? Prison. Does the member not see how ridiculous this whole piece of legislation is ONE LAW FOR ONE SET OF PEOPLE AND ANOTHER FOR EVERYONE ELSE- This is not fair, this is not justice, this is a shambolic piece of legislation which I hope is thrown out! |
| Date | 14:44:44, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Solentian People Party | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | Anyway we don't really have anything more to say apart from we hope the whole senate supports a vote No to this legislation and that we can chuck out what is a pieceof upper class snobbery dividing our proud nation and creating a pecking order. |
| Date | 14:46:54, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | " Member of the Church are so different apparantly after many parties in Solentia have opposed all religious legislation. The point is that religious law is very different to common law and it's very difficult to mix the two systems. The proposed legislation, madam, is designed to take into account the freedom of religion. "If you were homoesexual or had an affair and you were not assoisated with the church you would still be allowed under Solentia law to have your freedoms and rights, but in a church you would what undergo a court service and be charged with a crime and then what?? Prison." That would depend on the faith and the laws of the ecclesiastic court. A clergyman swears his loyalty to his God and his faith, what right is it of this senate then, to impose laws that contradict that belief and loyalty? The honourable member is encouraged to calm down and not to resort to petty insult." Matteo Trulli, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice. |
| Date | 16:41:02, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | While the SRNP does support the growth of the church, we do not wish to ever see it develop its own court system in replacement of the Federal Republic. Such a thing would lead to corruption both within government and the church. It would go against our way of life. We vote no. |
| Date | 20:44:36, July 19, 2008 CET | From | Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Clerical Privillage Act |
| Message | "You say that because we have a separation of church and state that we should have separate courts for members of the church. Does anyone take this argument seriously? We also have an independent judiciary, but no on argues that we should have a separate court for people who work in law . . . although I suppose many Solentians would enjoy seeing lawyers regularly getting a taste of their own medicine." -- Emily van der Hout |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 304 | ||||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Characters are considered to be "owned" by the player who first mentioned or created them. In practice, players may share responsibility for role-playing a character, but ultimate authority rests with the owner. |
| Random quote: "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - John Maynard Keynes |