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: Religion Reforms Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Anti-Ownership Federation Party
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: February 2129
Description[?]:
There shall be no religious schools....... |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The governments stance on religious schools.
Old value:: Religious schools are allowed, but are strictly regulated. Only recognised religions may set up religious schools.
Current: Religious schools are not allowed.
Proposed: Religious schools are not allowed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 10:12:04, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Anti-Ownership Federation Party | To | Debating the Religion Reforms Act |
Message | We should give children a secular education, and let them decide for themselves, whether to take up a faith in later life. |
Date | 10:13:31, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Anti-Ownership Federation Party | To | Debating the Religion Reforms Act |
Message | or hopefully keep a clear view of life.... (no offence meant to anyone) |
Date | 19:19:13, October 19, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Religion Reforms Act |
Message | No, religous schools should be allowed - people should have the option for what sort of education they want |
Date | 21:52:15, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Religion Reforms Act |
Message | Children do whatever their parents tell them to do for the most part....when they are adults (16) they can make the decision how to continue their higher education and their faith. I see nothing wrong. Plus he'll learn a little more history, culture and maybe even more 'righteous' to say the least. |
Date | 22:48:35, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Religion Reforms Act |
Message | While I did not go to a religious school, and would not send my children to one, there is no way that I would agree that they should be banned. |
Date | 08:48:52, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Anti-Ownership Federation Party | To | Debating the Religion Reforms Act |
Message | CP is right, parents force children into religion... they should be allowed to choose |
Date | 09:47:37, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Telemon Lutheran Party | To | Debating the Religion Reforms Act |
Message | How are they supposed to chose without being educated about religion. And what about the children who are religious, should they not have the opportunity or a religious education? |
Date | 10:22:24, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Anti-Ownership Federation Party | To | Debating the Religion Reforms Act |
Message | unreligious schools can still educate about religion, they just wont concentrate on any specific one..... |
Date | 19:04:30, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Religion Reforms Act |
Message | AOFP....thats history. Religious history. I'm sorry you don't make a convincing argument at all, just getting rid of the peoples right to worship to a sane religion. |
Date | 21:55:08, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United | To | Debating the Religion Reforms Act |
Message | Well at least I've found one thing about AOFP that I like. But in all fairness, we shouldnt ban religious schools. Just monitor them *VERY* closely. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||||||
yes | Total Seats: 37 | |||||||
no |
Total Seats: 218 | |||||||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Moderation will not implement nation renaming requests where the proposed name does not comply with the requirements set out in the Nation Renaming Guide: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6364 |
Random quote: "Nature provides a free lunch, but only if we control our appetites." - William Ruckelshaus |