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 Non-Intervention Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progress 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: January 3026
Description[?]:
| The Libertarian Party submits, A BILL To remove the state's involvement in the vetoing of religious ministers and to change the state's religious policy. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The state's intervention in the appointment of ministers of religion.
Old value:: The state nominates ministers of religion, but the appointment is left up to the religious communities themselves.
Current: The state does not intervene in the appointment of ministers of any religion whatsoever.
Proposed: The state does not intervene in the appointment of ministers of any religion whatsoever.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning religions.
Old value:: There is an official state religion, but membership is completely voluntary.
Current: There is no government policy concerning a state religion.
Proposed: There is no government policy concerning a state religion.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:06:32, November 04, 2010 CET | From | Movement for the Progress of Lodamun | To | Debating the Religious Non-Intervention Act |
| Message | We will support this bill. |
| Date | 21:12:54, November 04, 2010 CET | From | United Democratic Caucus | To | Debating the Religious Non-Intervention Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We are unsure whether the proposal would be beneficial. Although no one wants to live in a theocracy, this ability does allow the state to prevent possible religious extremists from taking high ranking positions and spreading their word. I yield. |
| Date | 21:20:03, November 04, 2010 CET | From | Progress Party | To | Debating the Religious Non-Intervention Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We allow only recognized religions special status within our nation, thus already a deterrent to any "cults" or extremist groups. However, would our cousin party not concede that any such threatening groups would ignore such vetoes? The people should be left to decided the religious activities of this Union, not the government at large. I yield. |
| Date | 21:22:20, November 04, 2010 CET | From | United Democratic Caucus | To | Debating the Religious Non-Intervention Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We would concede to the Libertarian Party's argument regarding Article 1, but will not accept Article 2 under any circumstance. Article 2, like the changes from Presidential to Parliamentary system, shows complete disregard for our nation's proud history. I yield. |
| Date | 21:35:52, November 04, 2010 CET | From | Progress Party | To | Debating the Religious Non-Intervention Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that our colleagues feel offended by Article 2 of our bill, however the Libertarian party, like the people of this great nation do not entirely follow the official state religion. We may not compel people to follow said state religion, however our government headed by 100 congressional delegates does not have the right to advocate 1 religion to over 835 million people. On a side-note, Mr. Speaker, to compare this to the parliamentary bill is apples to oranges. I yield. |
| Date | 21:39:00, November 04, 2010 CET | From | Progress Party | To | Debating the Religious Non-Intervention Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that our colleagues feel offended by Article 2 of our bill, however the Libertarian party, like the people of this great nation do not entirely follow the official state religion. We may not compel people to follow said state religion, however our government headed by 100 congressional delegates does not have the right to advocate 1 religion to over 835 million people. On a side-note, Mr. Speaker, to compare this to the parliamentary bill is apples to oranges. I yield. |
| Date | 21:44:00, November 04, 2010 CET | From | United Democratic Caucus | To | Debating the Religious Non-Intervention Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Hence why the national religion is voluntary - it doesn't have to be followed - people don't even have to be religious. So, Mr. Speaker, you point suggests that Congress has no authority whatsoever, as every law affects every citizen, is that what you're suggesting? We must make this clear, we are not forcing religion upon people, simply preserving the religion that the majority of people have followed for the entirity of Lodamun's history, as the official, voluntary religion. I yield. |
| Date | 21:54:10, November 04, 2010 CET | From | Progress Party | To | Debating the Religious Non-Intervention Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Our only concern is the preservation of religious freedom that the nation at large should maintain, and feel that by advocating one religion over any particular one is clearly sending a mixed message upon that notion. As for the second point, the Libertarian Party preferably wishes for local and regional governments to handle as many matters as they possibly can. To say that we believe Congress has no authority whatsoever is insulting to the intelligence of all Lodamunians and is a gross and draconian misrepresentation of our ideas. We respect the long history of this nation, and in fact the many changes that the Republican Party put into place we are completely in agreement with. We do not advocate this policy in order to prevent the people of this nation from finding religion, nor are the members of this Party anti-religious nor atheist (though we do have a few). Instead, we merely wish the government at large to not have an opinion whatsoever on the matter of religion, and let the people decide that for themselves. I yield. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 71 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Treaty-locking", or ratifiying treaties that completely or nearly completely forbid any proposals to change laws, is not allowed. Amongst other possible sanctions, Moderation reserves the discretion to delete treaties and/or subject parties to a seat reset if this is necessary in order to reverse a treaty-lock situation. |
| Random quote: "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan |