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: Secularisation Bill of 2721
Details
Submitted by[?]: People's Party - Republican Democrats
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 2721
Description[?]:
| We believe that religious clothing and symbols have no place in public buildings (as opposed to private buildings and any outside spaces. |
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: Public officials are not allowed to wear religious symbols while exercising their duties.
Proposed: It is not permitted to wear religious clothing or religious symbols in public buildings.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:34:55, March 06, 2009 CET | From | Traditionalist Party | To | Debating the Secularisation Bill of 2721 |
| Message | I thought we were meant to be a 'free' society. We cannot condone this bill. |
| Date | 01:46:51, March 06, 2009 CET | From | Green Party of Aldegar | To | Debating the Secularisation Bill of 2721 |
| Message | Sadly we have to agree with the Traditionalists. |
| Date | 17:59:28, March 06, 2009 CET | From | People's Party - Republican Democrats | To | Debating the Secularisation Bill of 2721 |
| Message | This provision promotes the freedom to be free of religious symbols in public buildings. Public buildings, paid for by all taxpayers, are no places where anyone should promote a particular religious stance, and that is what the wearing of religious clothing and symbols in such surroundings does. |
| Date | 01:34:55, March 07, 2009 CET | From | Green Party of Aldegar | To | Debating the Secularisation Bill of 2721 |
| Message | But it is just the same as any clothes with any images? Should one not wear T-shirts campaigning for marijuana in public places if some people feel offended? Should one not wear uniform of a company that is claimed to be irresponsible to the society in public places if some people feel offended? If we go down this road, we'll all be wearing only government approved attires. |
| Date | 07:35:57, March 07, 2009 CET | From | People's Party - Republican Democrats | To | Debating the Secularisation Bill of 2721 |
| Message | The point is that, unlike a campaign for legalising marijuana, religions tend to be exclusive and all-encompassing belief systems that tell their believers what to do in (almost) every situation in life, and which do have an inherent authoritarian tendency to press their values on the rest of society. Why should we give religions the opportunity to promote their stances in public buildings? Anyway, there seems to be a misunderstanding that this bill would have banned the wearing of certain items in public places. This bill only mentions public buildings, which means publically owned buildings, such as schools, hospitals, administrative buildings of the national and local governments, etc. |
| Date | 17:33:37, March 07, 2009 CET | From | Green Party of Aldegar | To | Debating the Secularisation Bill of 2721 |
| Message | What if, say, a person becomes a victim of a car crash, and is in a critical condition. She needs to be sent to the hospital, but the hospital administrators refuse to admit her because she happens to be wearing religious clothing? And by the way, are you not trying to press your values on the rest of society (and society includes religious people too, mate). |
| Date | 19:27:06, March 07, 2009 CET | From | People's Party - Republican Democrats | To | Debating the Secularisation Bill of 2721 |
| Message | I should imagine that much of the clothing has to be cut away anyway when the person is so seriously injured. Anyway, your example is entirely hypothetical, there would be no question of not admitting seriously injured people to hospital. It just that they wouldn't be allowed to parade their religious clothing and symbols for the course as long as they stay in hospital. We are not pressing our values on the rest of society, but are promoting our view that the people have the right to be free from religion and are advocating the absolute separation of religion and state. |
| Date | 01:45:21, March 08, 2009 CET | From | Green Party of Aldegar | To | Debating the Secularisation Bill of 2721 |
| Message | In a mature democracy like Aldegar, people have the rights to be free from and free to religion. And what you are advocating is not separation of religion and the state. You are extending state tentacles into religious matters. |
| Date | 09:02:25, March 08, 2009 CET | From | People's Party - Republican Democrats | To | Debating the Secularisation Bill of 2721 |
| Message | What we are advocating is complete separation of religion and state. We don't argue for the state to get involved inthe internal affairs of any religion, but we are fighting off religion's tentacles from the institutions of the state. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 82 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 668 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The use of proxy servers makes it impossible to detect multiing and is therefore forbidden. Players who access Particracy through a proxy will have their accounts inactivated. |
| Random quote: "I bet their mothers don't love them. Many Trigunian women are so cold. I mean it's a racist hellhole in parts." - Tirza Sommer, former Dorvish politician |