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 2725
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 2725
Description[?]:
| same old |
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 | 22:16:57, March 13, 2009 CET | From | New Whig Party | To | Debating the Secularisation Bill of 2725 |
| Message | Progressive, my ass. |
| Date | 08:25:05, March 14, 2009 CET | From | People's Party - Republican Democrats | To | Debating the Secularisation Bill of 2725 |
| Message | Glad you know a progressive donkey. What some do not seem to want to accept is that the kind of separation of religion and state that the PPP/SD is advocating is a perfectly normal secular position. We argue for keeping religion and state apart, with the state having no presence in houses of worship, and religion having no presence in buildings that are given over to the functions of the state. It's as simple as that. We do not expect anyone to share our position, but we will put our suggestions forward regularly. |
| Date | 09:58:51, March 14, 2009 CET | From | Green Party of Aldegar | To | Debating the Secularisation Bill of 2725 |
| Message | It is a form of religion-phobia. The kind they use in Turkey (de jure) and Malaysia (de facto) to avoid frictions between religions. But Turks and Malays of all religious background are now demanding the undemocractic 'secularisation' to be removed. |
| Date | 10:45:10, March 14, 2009 CET | From | People's Party - Republican Democrats | To | Debating the Secularisation Bill of 2725 |
| Message | When there is a separation of religion and state, why should it only be the state that is staying out of religion? We don't subscribe to the one-sided opinion that secularisation only means that the state stays out of religion. Religions are powerful organisations in their own right, and when the state agrees to keep out of their affairs, they have no business advertising their own beliefs inside public buildings. Religions should stay free of state intervention, and the state should stay free of religious influence. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 34 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 273 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 192 |
| Random fact: Before creating a party organisation, check to see whether there are any existing organisations which cover the same agenda. |
| Random quote: "This administration is not sympathetic to corporations; it is indentured to corporations." - Ralph Nader |