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: State Church Act of 2740
Details
Submitted by[?]: Konstitutionelle Monarchie Partei
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: October 2740
Description[?]:
| Is this deja-vu? |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning religions.
Old value:: There is no government policy concerning a state religion.
Current: There is no government policy concerning a state religion.
Proposed: There is an official state religion, but membership is completely voluntary.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:22:24, April 12, 2009 CET | From | Konstitutionelle Monarchie Partei | To | Debating the State Church Act of 2740 |
| Message | The Fascist Authority Party has still not heard a reason from the CLA or the Radicalists Movement on why the constitutional monarchy of Greater Hulstria should not have a State Church. While they like to vote no, they seem to forget to justify such a stance, and stand silent for whatever reasons. Well why? Is it because they don't know to properly convince other parties, because I hope they remember they aren't the only two here in Hulstria, that their stance is correct, the stance to keep the State Church illegal and keep one of the founding establishments of this nation on the burner? The abolishment in the first place should've been considered treason and insult to the Emperor of Hulstria himself. I'm surprised by the CLA, the former Christian Liberal Party, who led the way during the Republican Revolutionary Army stint by proposing to actually outlaw an entire political party (the RRA) because of their threats to the Monarchy in 2668. Yet today in 2740 they are siding with a party that seeks just that, harm to the Monarchy. They have said in public they want to outlaw it and their first move in their ventures was to ban the State Church, attended by the Emperor, Royal Family, and other honorables. Where is the bill to outlaw them? Didn't the RRA have similar principles to that of the Radicalists Movement? Mind you this State Church is clear ceremonial and symbolic to the history of Hulstria, membership is completely up the choice of citizens, no one is imposing religion on anyone.The State Church represented royalty and monarchism when parties like the KHP led the resurgence of the Monarchy during communist periods; it represented strength and prosperity, that the country was gone from its old days of Marxism and radicalism. Until two years ago, since 2551 Greater Hulstria had a State Church, almost 130+ years of undisturbed existance. Never in that time did the State Church harm anyone, dictate anything, or impose their religion onto other people. It was there as a symbol to the hard work put into this form of government and an ode to the pillars who built it. To say we should keep this banned is superflous, absurd, and insulting; radical secularism should not get in the way of traditional values on religion. While these stances on a State Church could be accepted in other countries, we should not as a member of the IML accept this sort of garbage in our lawbooks. As said before, I will keep proposing this until either a party gives a reason why we should not have a State Church or until the sensible KHP comes back to help fill this gap. |
| Date | 18:26:33, April 12, 2009 CET | From | Radicalistische Bewegung | To | Debating the State Church Act of 2740 |
| Message | Because a state church would mean involvement of government wich means inefficientcy, easily corruptable and waste of tax money. Also it would mean there would be connection between religion and government, which could easily change in the government telling you what to believe. We stand by are opinion that religion is your own choice your own decision. And the citizens of Hulstria do not need government to make this decision for them. Then finally it would still be a form of positive discrimination, making one church the state church while other churches and religion do not get ceramonial status. Now you have an answer, you will most likely not agree but then again you can't always agree;). |
| Date | 19:23:00, April 12, 2009 CET | From | Liberaldemokratische Allianz | To | Debating the State Church Act of 2740 |
| Message | An organized religion headed by the Emperor but not established by the state should and must exist. The FAP is needless using inflammatory language (banned, illegal) to try to score political points. The Lutheran Church in Hulstria has been disestablished; the FAP seeks to reestablish it. The Church itself continues to exist, now just as a purely private and civic institution. Nothing is banned. The Lutheran Church in Hulstria continues to be headed by the Emperor in his capacity as a private citizen, not as the crowned constitutional monarch of the Imperial Crownlands. If anything, continued disestablishment protects the rights and status of the Emperor as head of the church. Should, God forbid, republicans overthrow our sacred monarchy and plunge Hulstria back into darkness the descendants of the Emperor will remain tied to the Church no matter the status of the government. |
| Date | 01:59:32, April 13, 2009 CET | From | Konstitutionelle Monarchie Partei | To | Debating the State Church Act of 2740 |
| Message | The State Church has not once in its history got itself involved in governmental affairs. The Radicalists Movement is making it seem having a State Church would create this sort of connection between how we run this government and their personal goals; that is completely false. As I said many times, the State Church is ceremonial/symbolic and membership to it is completely voluntary, it is not some sort of massive ring of spies or assassins scaring people to believe what they do. I don't see anyone with guns from the State Church forcing people to join them or force legislaters to pass laws in their favor. Never in the history has that happened and I call on the Radicalists Movement to name one incident where the State Church acted like a dictatorship or went beyond its reach to impose their beliefs on anyone. Score political points? I'm telling the facts; the "Religion" bill was proposed to eliminate religion and all its influence in Greater Hulstria. If the CLA would go back and read that bill, you can clearly see what the theme of it was (communism, radical secularism). It was in essence banned taking into consideration the other articles placed in there. I would not be saying it if there wasn't truth behind it and the CLA should know that or if not should take out a pen and paper to write it down. The Church should have never been thrown away in the first place is the point I'm trying to make here. The Church has always been a national institution and never has Hulstria seen it differently; this is a matter of maintaining tradition, not just for the fun of me trying to get it back into law. You're talking about it has its some local company, its not. What the parties opposed don't seem to get that Hulstria is a constitutional monarchy and what do constitutional monarchies have? A state church. The Emperor "running" the church at a ground level is not the same at the top; this has never become an issue until now and has been accepted by all modern Hulstrian royalist parties. respect The CLA never advocated this before they became inactive is what puzzles me, so what is the sudden change in position? Continued isolation of the State Church is good? It protects the Emperor? Again you talk as of its some kind of company. What do you think someone is going to try to attempt a coup on the church and try to take it over or something? Name one incident where the Emperor's position at the Church was in danger of being replaced by someone else. What makes you think having it "as a private institution" would make it any safer? "Should God forbid republicans overthrow our sacred monarchy and plunge Hulstria back into darkness"? My my, the CLP has changed. They sure do know how to reveal their true feelings about certain subjects. Nonetheless I guess defending the monarchy is not such an important task anymore for them. It was the you afterall that proposed to illegalize a political party, a political party that had similar if not exact the same view as the Radicalists Movement and it was you that pushed for greater powers to the Internal Affairs ministry so we can defend against threats to the Monarchy? Is there something so different about the RM and that they get special treatment? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 404 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 321 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Bill descriptions must be in English, or at least include a full English translation. Bill titles may appear in a language that is appropriate to the nation and are not required to be translated into English. |
| Random quote: "Without opposition there is no politics." - Alun Daffys, former Alorian politician |