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: Public official apparel
Details
Submitted by[?]: People's Party of Rutania
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 2835
Description[?]:
| We at the PPR feel that religion should be kept out of politics. We would hate to see public officials, from a minority faith, marginalized due to their religious beliefs. |
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: There are no laws regulating the wearing of religious clothing and the wearing of religious symbols.
Proposed: Public officials are not allowed to wear religious symbols while exercising their duties.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:31:23, October 17, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Public official apparel |
| Message | While the DPR support the restriction of religious symbols and clothing within such professions as teaching and high administrative or judicial office, we are not yet completely decided on the issue of ALL public officials facing this restriction. We welcome further debate on this matter and will make our decision in due process. Jack Lawton Head of Legislative Affairs for the Democratic Party |
| Date | 13:35:35, October 17, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Public official apparel |
| Message | We see no reason for this legislation - why should public officials not be allowed to hold religious affiliations, and why should they be made to hide these affiliations? The only instance in which we might be more willing to support a ban on religious clothing or symbols in the public sector is in the case of Muslim burqas and hijabs, which are a slightly different matter. |
| Date | 13:45:58, October 17, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Public official apparel |
| Message | Regarding the RHPs' comments, we certainly wouldn't agree with clothing restrictions for specific religions. If we were to do this, it should be an outright ban on religious clothing. Also we understand your objections to the burqas, but we see no reason for an objection to hijabs. |
| Date | 14:08:18, October 17, 2009 CET | From | People's Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Public official apparel |
| Message | To the DPR: We are not advocating that officials hold no religious affiliations, but that those affiliations do not unduly influence, positively or negatively, people affected by their authority. To clarify our position to the DPR we believe that a successful teacher, who is of Muslim faith, is successful due to teaching prowess, not due to their faith. To imagine that a young child, who has been indoctrinated into another faith other than that of their teacher, may reject the education provided. We only use education as an illustrative example of our point, this example could be shared across other places that public officials have influential authority. We welcome further debate on the matter. |
| Date | 14:16:45, October 17, 2009 CET | From | People's Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Public official apparel |
| Message | To the RHP: The PPR agree with the RHP on the removal of burqas and hijabs, but we fear that it may be for differing reasons. We at the PPR do not see the burqas and hijabs as a differing matter than that of the Christian cross, Star of David or the Swastika. We believe that these symbols should have no influence upon the politic of our land. As above, we welcome further debate. |
| Date | 14:32:46, October 17, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Public official apparel |
| Message | We assumed that the RHP were objecting to the burqas for there physical appearance more than their symbolic meaning. We have no objection to the symbolic representation of the burqas but can see it's physical appearance mat not be preferable to some. |
| Date | 06:48:04, October 18, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Restoration Party | To | Debating the Public official apparel |
| Message | Yes, public officials may be able to "sway" their supporters to support their religious views, but I will continue to argue that religion and that choice is a personal matter. I shall abstain from the usual slippery slope of how this bill will ultimately end in the total secularization of Rutanian society. The Orange Party shall not support this bill, for as we stated earlier, we believe religion is a personal choice. If you choose to be a Jew, Christian, Muslim or whatever else because of a celebrity figure, then that's your choice. -Hans Jurgen, OP's voice in Parliament. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 49 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 256 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy is completely free! If you want to support the game financially, feel free to make a small donation to the lievenswouter@gmail.com Paypal account. |
| Random quote: "No government has the right to tell its citizens when or whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown |