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: Ministers Remuneration Act of 2954
Details
Submitted by[?]: Hutorian Conservative Party
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: December 2954
Description[?]:
| .............. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Remuneration of ministers of religion.
Old value:: The state does not intervene in the remuneration of ministers of religion.
Current: The state does not intervene in the remuneration of ministers of religion.
Proposed: Ministers of religion shall receive no remuneration whatsoever.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:55:13, June 15, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ministers Remuneration Act of 2954 |
| Message | Rt Hon Duke McCullum MP, NSC Frontbencher, Madam Speaker, this Bill is the last nail in the coffin of religion. This sees all Ministers and former ministers who are still entitled to state money be cut off. They are no longer wanted by the state nor the people so why should they be paid for it. The NSC wants this - the last anti-religion bill needed to completely cut off religion from the people passed and the nation will be better off for it! |
| Date | 14:59:31, June 15, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Ministers Remuneration Act of 2954 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, yet more deceit. No ministers of religion are entitled to state money at all. "The State does not intervene in the remuneration of ministers of religion". Religious organisations had to pay ministers of religion out of their own pockets. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman correct his words and admit to getting that particular claim wrong? |
| Date | 15:06:10, June 15, 2010 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Ministers Remuneration Act of 2954 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, I hope the gentleman knows that I believe in a man who died and rose again... I hope he knows that this coffin of his cannot confine religion, and that this coffin will be absolutely obliterated when religion awaked from its slumber in these lands... We do not believe that religion is mandatory, so why do you believe that athiesm is? I think you have a fixation, try a psychiatrist... Actually no, your not that bad. Its that crackpot UFD that desperatly need a psychiatrist, baal and asag and who knows what else mental illnesses conjure up. And actually, to be honest, you are a joke for coalessing with them. This government is utterly laughable. The Right Reverend, Duke John Buchanan. |
| Date | 22:08:04, June 15, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ministers Remuneration Act of 2954 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, will the Labour Party still associate themselves with the anti-religous SPU? They are just as anti-religion as we are, yet they are both in the UM? |
| Date | 22:27:23, June 15, 2010 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Ministers Remuneration Act of 2954 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, the SPU can say whatever it likes to say about economic policy, that is not our concern. Our concern is that the SPU allow civil liberties, i'm sure they do not seek to keep religion banned, but separate to the state, much like our party. |
| Date | 10:13:16, June 16, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Ministers Remuneration Act of 2954 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, will the NSC answer my question. They misled the House on a particular issue. Will they put the record right? |
| Date | 13:28:46, June 16, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Ministers Remuneration Act of 2954 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, the House awaits a response. |
| Date | 13:56:11, June 16, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ministers Remuneration Act of 2954 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, fine the NSC retracts its statement. But we now move to the SPU. Why would labour say "the SPU can say whatever it likes to say about economic policy" when we questioned their vote on religion? Why are Labour associating themselves with the SPU when they are just as anti-religion as we are? |
| Date | 14:05:59, June 16, 2010 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Ministers Remuneration Act of 2954 |
| Message | Madam speaker, the NCS have proven themselves not only to be ignorant, self-centred, opressive autocracts who dont know what the word democracy even means, they have also proven themselves to be absolutely idiotic as well. What kind of a prime minister is stupid enough not to understand the first argument? and then have to repeat the question? Madam Speaker, THE SPU HAVE NOT VOTED TO BAN RELIGION, BUT ONLY TO MAKE REVERANDSHIP A VOLUNTARY POSITION! THE SPU (as part of the UM) WOULD NOT VOTE TO BAN RELIGION AND IS THERFORE NOT AS ANTI-RELIGIOUS AS THE GOVERNMENT! Would the prime minister like me to provide a nursery nurse to translate everything that is said into pre-school language? I promise this house, when I next see these monsters on the opposition, they will be charged with everything humanly possible to charge them with. |
| Date | 14:09:58, June 16, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ministers Remuneration Act of 2954 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, that would be nothing then. Madam Speaker, Labour are deluded. Do they not realise the SPU are COMMUNISTS? Communists believe that religion shouldnt exist so how are the NSC in the wrong here? Was it not Karl Marx who said, "religion is the opium of the masses"? Perhaps Labour should get their facts right and realise the SPU are anti-religion. |
| Date | 14:36:42, June 16, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Ministers Remuneration Act of 2954 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, the SPU are hardly communist, when they believe in a mixed economy and have proposed a bill that would bring back a good deal of private sector industry! Madam Speaker, I think these issues must involve some sense of scale and in the past even the CLP has been too quick to condemn those who have supported even the slightest infringement of liberty. There is a difference between saying that ministers of religion should not be payed and saying that all religion should be banned. Madam Speaker, I am sure that even the government would recognise that there is a scale here. Of course, it would be interesting to hear whether the SPU would have supported the NSC's attempts to destroy religion. We doubt they would have, but I am sure they will wish to put the record straight against the NSC's accusations. |
| Date | 15:32:08, June 16, 2010 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Ministers Remuneration Act of 2954 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, when the government is as it is today, we agree with marx, opium is very useful... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 252 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 139 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: There is a phpBB forum dedicated to Particracy. Please click the Forum link in the top game menu. Additions to the game, suggestions and discussion is held there so get involved. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Global warming, at least the modern nightmare vision, is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not." - David Bellamy |