Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: February 5461
Next month in: 00:56:39
Server time: 23:03:20, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): Moderation | reformist2024 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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 Act of 2143

Details

Submitted by[?]: Patriot 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: October 2146

Description[?]:

This act will require foriegn Missionaries to register with the foriegn affairs department and will bar public officials from wearing religious clothing while exercising their duties.

Religious symbols are icons worn on the clothing or written on clothing that names or mentions a specific deity.

Necklaces and headscarfs will be acceptable. The articles of clothing mentioned above is permissible outside the office.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date18:26:39, November 20, 2005 CET
FromSocial Dynamist Party
ToDebating the Religion Act of 2143
MessageWhy on earth do we need either of these proposals?

Date18:41:12, November 20, 2005 CET
FromPatriot Party
ToDebating the Religion Act of 2143
Message1) so we know the missionaries that are in our nation but we will do nothing to hamper them

and

2) to maint seperation of church and state which I thought would be obvious to you.

Date21:27:08, November 20, 2005 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Religion Act of 2143
MessageWe'll support the measure.

Date22:00:38, November 20, 2005 CET
FromSocial Dynamist Party
ToDebating the Religion Act of 2143
Message1. Why do we need to know what missionaries are in our nation?
2. Why is it the government's job to say what its employees can and can't wear when it's not the government's job to say what they can and can't spend their time doing?

And what do you define as a religious symbol? A small, concealed item of jewellery? Conforming to what sort of religious restrictions on clothing? What about when it's a matter of modesty? Will groups who feel it proper to cover the hair be permitted to wear turbans? What about covering for the mouth?

Date01:38:47, November 21, 2005 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Religion Act of 2143
MessageAnd here ladies and gentlemen is what we call hypocracy. They won't allow prayer in school because of seperation of church and state but yet they'll allow public officials to wear religious symbols while they exercise their duty.

So much for the vaunted seperation of church and state.

Date04:45:31, November 21, 2005 CET
FromFreedom Party
ToDebating the Religion Act of 2143
MessagePP, please define, for the SDP's benefit mainly, in the description that religious symbol refers to actual icons (such as crosses or Stars of David) being worn on articles of clothing or writing on clothing that names a specific religion or mentions deities, but that things such as necklaces and headscarfs are permissable and the aforementioned articles of clothing are permitted outside the office.

Date11:38:20, November 21, 2005 CET
FromSocial Dynamist Party
ToDebating the Religion Act of 2143
Message"And here ladies and gentlemen is what we call hypocracy. They won't allow prayer in school because of seperation of church and state but yet they'll allow public officials to wear religious symbols while they exercise their duty."
We'll support the proposal if well enough defined. It is RiP and PP hypocrisy that I was pointing out, who support separation when it means curtailing freedom but oppose it when it means sponsoring religion.
We're not averse to the law in principle, but we are averse to vague, poorly-thought out legislation.

Date03:15:13, November 23, 2005 CET
FromInactive
ToDebating the Religion Act of 2143
MessageWe oppose.

Date03:15:45, November 23, 2005 CET
FromInactive
ToDebating the Religion Act of 2143
MessageThose who choose to serve should be granted the right to wear it, not barred it.

Date07:04:00, November 23, 2005 CET
FromFreedom Party
ToDebating the Religion Act of 2143
MessageCP, it does not stop priests from wearing their little black outfits with the white collars or the Pope from wearing his hat. It is merely to keep government officials from walking around with shirts saying "My God pwns you" or some other rediculous thing.

Date16:14:02, November 26, 2005 CET
FromInactive
ToDebating the Religion Act of 2143
MessageThose who serve the public in a public capacity should be allowed to dress as they please.

Date17:56:13, November 26, 2005 CET
FromPatriot Party
ToDebating the Religion Act of 2143
MessageThis bill has been approved by the Tribal Council.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
    

Total Seats: 194

no
 

Total Seats: 40

abstain
   

Total Seats: 65


Random fact: When you join the game, you will find yourself with only zero seats. That's because your party's representatives haven't been elected yet. You need to establish your party's position on issues by proposing several bills that your party wants passed and sending them to vote. This raises your visibility and if you do it enough, you will win seats at the next election.

Random quote: "Politics is the system of depriving the proletariat of their power." - Karl Marx

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 78