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: Religious Reform Act of 2743
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cathartic Crisis Coalition
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 2744
Description[?]:
| An effort to lift Government Restrictions on religions. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: All religious income, despite the use, is taxed.
Current: All religious income, despite the use, is taxed.
Proposed: Recognized religions are not taxed.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The governments stance on religious schools.
Old value:: Any religion may set up a school, but they are strictly regulated.
Current: Any religion may set up a school, but they are strictly regulated.
Proposed: Any religion may set up a school, with no regulations.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to prayer in schools.
Old value:: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden, except in religious schools.
Current: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden, except in religious schools.
Proposed: The government leaves this decision up to the schools themselves.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:10:13, April 20, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Religious Reform Act of 2743 |
| Message | We oppose each of these provisions. Religions are businesses that sell hope in the afterlife, or fear in the afterlife, whatever, and if not taxed, can amass huge amounts of wealth, instead of redistributing it to the poor like they are supposed to. Religions should not be able to start schools without restrictions, because then they can teach whatever hocus pocus nonsense superstition that they want. We need to make sure there are reasons for kids to go to school if they are going there, other than being brain washed. And we should not let schools decide whether to say prayers. We are a secular nation. Period. There should be no religion in the public space. |
| Date | 03:28:51, April 20, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Religious Reform Act of 2743 |
| Message | If it is the opinion of the SPoK that religions are a bunch of hocus pocus nonsense, then fine. We obviously can not change their opinion. Quite frankly, we see no need for the SPoK to believe this unless they feel that religious organizations threaten their attempts to control the lives of every individual in this country. We feel that religious organizations are some of the few organizations that stand up to the tyranny of socialist rule. As far as prayers are concerned, if a public school wants prayers, what is the harm in letting them happen? No child is forced to pray! This provision simply accommodates for schools in regions that are more religious. It prevents a few stuffy secular socialists in from forcing everyone else to abide by their beliefs. |
| Date | 03:29:25, April 20, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Religious Reform Act of 2743 |
| Message | stuffy secular socialists in Ananto** |
| Date | 11:23:17, April 20, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Freedom Party -- KEG SLAM | To | Debating the Religious Reform Act of 2743 |
| Message | First of all, there is every possibility and likelihood that some children *will* be forced to pray. The legislation specifically states that schools will decide for themselves how this is handled. If a school decides to force all the children to pray, if they want to or not, according to this legislation, they can. This is the provision that worries us the most. We could accept 1 in a separate bill, or 2 with otherwise major compromises. |
| Date | 11:31:40, April 20, 2009 CET | From | Liberal Patriots' League | To | Debating the Religious Reform Act of 2743 |
| Message | Article 3 concerns me too. |
| Date | 14:09:23, April 20, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Religious Reform Act of 2743 |
| Message | Let's not waste time on whether or not children will be forced to pray. We tend not to respond too well to argument like "Let's PLEASE think about the Children!" Fact is: There is no evidence that God exists. So, we will be happy to debate about the existence of God. We'll take the null side please and insist on evidence that God exists. We don't have to prove the negative, we merely have to raise enough doubt with the affirmative that it is possible that the affirmative may be mistaken. Since we will easily win that debate, we can assume that it is not us who attempt to control people's lives. We do not seek to establish a system of morality which says you must behave by a certain moral code. We are not a religion. We prefer that people have the decision about whether or not to believe in the first place, and make no comment on what they must believe if they do. Religions, on the other hand, say that you must believe or you will go to hell (that is not a free choice because it is made under the duress of eternal damnation) and prescribe a dogma which cannot be questioned, and which people must follow or they are accused of angering/saddening God, which they take for granted exists though the only evidence they EVER present for that claim is that you must believe it as part of the dogma. We prefer the matter be settled individually, and not part of any state legislative program. I mean... seriously. Do you want the government, which is elected democratically, getting itself involved in religion? Think of what religion would look like if the Socialist Party, who, last cycle had nearly 33% of the seats, got to make laws about religion? Do you REALLY want that? Or do you think it is better to protect the individual's right to observe religion if they wish to by protecting the wall of separation of church and state? This is the definition of a secular nation. We respect people who choose to be religious, but we don't believe that the government should have anything to do with promoting or limiting religion in this country, (to include offering them special preferences over other corporations by giving them tax breaks or automatic access to our schools. You have to treat them all the same or the law is not fair. It ends up promoting religion, and this is as bad as if we limited it.) As for prayer in school: It is not against the law for a student, or even a group of students to pray if they like. But we will not support a use of taxes to spend time conducting prayers if the school desires to do so. Public money should never go to promote religion, and if a teacher or principle mandates time to prayer, it needs to be completely off the clock. I don't care if it is one minute out of the day. That minute can be spent teaching the child something that will be useful to him or her in THIS world. That is, after all, why kids go to school, not to be indoctrinated with concerns about the next world. If the principal or teachers want to run prayers, let them do that when they are not being paid by the state. |
| Date | 22:01:54, April 20, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Religious Reform Act of 2743 |
| Message | Whether or not God exists is completely unimportant. It is a question purely left to faith. What is important is that the current law states that Teacher led prayers are FORBIDDEN. The only place where they are allowed are in religious schools. Well, what about all the private schools in Kalistan that want to conduct a prayer before they begin the day. They are not payed for by taxpayer dollars, they are a private entitiy. All the law does is leave the desicion up to the individual school. Therefore, government schools can say no to teacher led prayers, and private schools are free to choose. We see no problem with this. We will, however, split this bill up into three different parts, and allow each point to be decided on. |
| Date | 22:51:09, April 20, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Religious Reform Act of 2743 |
| Message | Right. Forbidden. No tax money for religious education. The law is correct on that point. Private schools are regulated to assure they meet national standards, and those standards are secular. |
| Date | 00:30:00, April 21, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Freedom Party -- KEG SLAM | To | Debating the Religious Reform Act of 2743 |
| Message | The existance of God or of gods or of The Gods, or of the divine, or of The Divine, or of a Divine Force, cannot be proven or disproven, except by philosophy. Attempting to do so with science is like measuring temperature with a ruler. |
| Date | 05:35:16, April 21, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Religious Reform Act of 2743 |
| Message | Agreed, and furthermore if the mysteries of faith are unknown to the government, it does not mean the government should then ban faith. The freedom of religions to exist unhindered by the government and the freedom of people to pray if they wish should not be in any way denied by the government. |
| Date | 18:59:10, April 21, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Religious Reform Act of 2743 |
| Message | We don't seek to ban faith. We simply seek to ban the use of public money fro the promotion of faith. Just like we would seek to ban the use of public money to promote private products like televisions. We don't seek to limit anyone's freedom to purchase in the market, but we certainly wouldn't want to force them to do so, nor should we be using tax money to promote those companies who choose to sell in the market (unless they are public companies, or unless the market is owned by the State). Similarly, we certainly don't want to treat companies unfairly by preferring one over another through our support of that company. Religion is considered in the same way. Religions promote private goods, and it is not incumbent upon the government to promote private goods in public institutions. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 235 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 479 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 36 |
| Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
| Random quote: "The use of solar energy has not been opened up because the oil industry does not own the sun." - Ralph Nader |