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 dress
Details
Submitted by[?]: Malivia Democratic 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: June 2139
Description[?]:
| Prohibits government officials from dressing in a religious fashion. Reasoning: Government personnel should not be advertising their religious faith, lest it be construed that the government endorses their religion. |
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 | 15:11:18, November 09, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Religious dress |
| Message | oppressing the religious beliefs of our officials completely disregards the importance of religion in their lives. This should be encouraged rather then forbidden. If a person is a believer they should be permitted to express this aspect of their lives to others. |
| Date | 15:20:39, November 09, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Religious dress |
| Message | Uh huh. So... here is a fundamental question that the PP will need to think in regards to this bill and their other one.. Is not wearing religious clothing in essence.. "advertising that religion"? Yes, it is. However, with the PPs bill which expressly prohibits "all advertising" (no exceptions provided in that bill) then it seems government officials.. and everyone else for that matter, is also prohibited from wearing any clothing that advertises religions, products, events.. etc. The PP is a hypocrite in this matter, pushing for banning all advertising on one hand, and stating here that it supports government officials wearing religious symbols. Think about it, PP. Your position is so full of hypocricy, I'm amazed some of the other parties here don't see it. If you're going to be persistent in banning advertising, then do us all a favor and support this bill for the sake of consistency. |
| Date | 18:38:14, November 09, 2005 CET | From | Ministerial Party | To | Debating the Religious dress |
| Message | Support. |
| Date | 21:22:13, November 09, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Religious dress |
| Message | Since this only covers religious symbols, and not clothing, presumably a Sikh could still wear a turban, or a Muslim woman the hijab? If so, we support. |
| Date | 21:15:12, November 10, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Religious dress |
| Message | Of course |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 183 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 63 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 55 |
| Random fact: Voters have an extra appreciation for bills that actually get passed, so if you want to maximally take profit from your votes, make sure you compromise with others. |
| Random quote: "I worked at a factory owned by Germans, at coal pits owned by Frenchmen, and at a chemical plant owned by Belgians. There I discovered something about capitalists. They are all alike, whatever the nationality. All they wanted from me was the most work for the least money that kept me alive. So I became a communist." - Nikita Khrushchev |