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: Freedom on Religion
Details
Submitted by[?]: Beloved Freedom
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: November 3137
Description[?]:
| - |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Old value:: Foreign missionaries are not permitted to enter the nation.
Current: The government has no policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Proposed: The government has no policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The state's policy concerning religious clothing.
Old value:: Wearing religious clothing or religious symbols in public is illegal.
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.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Remuneration of ministers of religion.
Old value:: Ministers of religion shall receive no remuneration whatsoever.
Current: The state does not intervene in the remuneration of ministers of religion.
Proposed: The state does not intervene in the remuneration of ministers of religion.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:56:28, June 16, 2011 CET | From | Social Democratic Party (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | We oppose this bill. Article 2 might be acceptable, but Articles 1 and 3 are definitely not. It is insulting to Ikradon for foreign missionaries to come here with the goal of saying our citizens' beliefs are not good enough. We also don't want to do anything that encourages the spreading of religion. The non-remuneration of religious leaders ensures that no one will get into the profession for the money rather than out of sincere superstitious belief. |
| Date | 19:10:39, June 16, 2011 CET | From | Union Socialism Alliance | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | On the remuneration bit, would the SDMEP support no remuneration for politicians, MPs and ministers? That way, no one would become a politician out of sheer greed and for the money, but only for the betterment of the nation. |
| Date | 19:25:30, June 16, 2011 CET | From | Social Democratic Party (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | Politicians don't teach superstitions to people. |
| Date | 19:29:54, June 16, 2011 CET | From | Union Socialism Alliance | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | Politicians have differing believes, from totally racist or fascistic (URA), to utterly mysterious (KASA), to even worshiping cats and even nominated and placing a cat as HoS (SFA). |
| Date | 19:44:00, June 16, 2011 CET | From | Social Democratic Party (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | And their various beliefs are opposed by others. We suppose we could support paying ministers if an equal amount were paid to people to teach people there was no God. |
| Date | 20:14:01, June 16, 2011 CET | From | Union Socialism Alliance | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | Actually, atheism, satanism, agnosticism are all allowed to start their own church, or group and practice their beliefs. |
| Date | 21:45:08, June 16, 2011 CET | From | Social Democratic Party (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | Although with atheism and agnosticism, there are no beliefs to share and nothing to worship, so there is no point to a church. |
| Date | 22:08:41, June 16, 2011 CET | From | Union Socialism Alliance | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | Atheism would promote the believe that a God does not or can not exist. Agnosticism can just keep talking about possibilities. And not necessarily a church, but just groups that talks and debates about stuff and ideas and such, and maybe televangelism by these individuals. |
| Date | 22:50:52, June 16, 2011 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | Atheism is the null hypothesis. It does not need to evangelize because it is the default status. Atheism is not a religion. It is the absence of religion and metaphysical thought. |
| Date | 22:53:14, June 16, 2011 CET | From | Union Socialism Alliance | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | That still doesn't stop people from preaching their anti-religionism. Call it a believe then. |
| Date | 01:41:51, June 17, 2011 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | It is not a belief. It is a lack thereof. |
| Date | 02:52:25, June 17, 2011 CET | From | Union Socialism Alliance | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | Well, now you're starting to make my head hurt. "If you believe in nothing, would that mean that you have a belief? I believe in nothing, therefore, I believe in something, that it is nothing, yet it is still a belief as it is a general idea, that no deity exists." I think that agnosticism is the equivalent of believing in nothing, because to be an atheist, you believe that there are no gods, and you "know" that, while agnosticism is the you don't know if there are any gods or not, nor do you believe in any idea. Regardless, it is a philosophical idea, I guess, or maybe not. |
| Date | 10:36:44, June 17, 2011 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | It is not literally "believing in nothing". It is literally "not believing". And again: Atheism is the null hypothesis here, not agnosticism. Agnostics say.... we can't know whether a deity exists or not. We can't know whether a unicorn exists, or a leprechaun.... Atheists say.... there has been no evidence to prove the existence of a deity. Therefore, the theists have failed to reject the null hypothesis. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Null_hypothesis |
| Date | 12:55:05, June 17, 2011 CET | From | Union Socialism Alliance | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | I am aware of what a null hypothesis, but what I am getting at is that if you would ask a random person who has never been informed of religion of any kind, what would he answer if you were to ask him if he believed in a deity. I would say that he would say "uh I don't know". And by your definition, wouldn't then a christian be an atheist when it would come to the islam language? and vice-versa? |
| Date | 00:32:41, June 18, 2011 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | "And by your definition, wouldn't then a christian be an atheist when it would come to the islam language? and vice-versa?" Of course not. Also, if a person had never heard of deities or religions.... and you were to ask them whether they believed in a deity. Their answer, even if they say "I don't know", is obviously, NO. Simply because they had never heard of that concept before, they had no belief in it. There always begins with a lack of belief, not the uncertainty of belief or non-belief. That is why lack of belief is the default status, the null hypothesis. Prove a deity, then we'll talk. For now, no one has succeeded in rejecting the null hypothesis.... |
| Date | 00:42:16, June 18, 2011 CET | From | Union Socialism Alliance | To | Debating the Freedom on Religion |
| Message | You make a fair point. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 288 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 462 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The Real-Life Equivalents Index is a valuable resource for finding out the in-game equivalents of real-life cultures, languages, religions, people and places: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6731 |
| Random quote: "If you have an apple, and I have an apple, and we exchange the apples, then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea, and I have an idea, and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas." - George Bernard Shaw |