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: Pantian Religeon Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Baltusian Pantian Alliance
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 2145
Description[?]:
| The BPA is making the second call in Baltusian history to make Pantianism a nationally reconised religeon. With at one point in Baltusia 27% of Baltusia voting for a party of Pantian ideology we hope our plea for respect shall be heeded. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:40:59, November 22, 2005 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the Pantian Religeon Act |
| Message | We ask for opinions on why or why not our faith should be respected. |
| Date | 06:08:12, November 22, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Pantian Religeon Act |
| Message | Religion is not a governmental matter, and OOC: the people of Baltusia have no way of precieving the tennats of your 'faith'. What are they? |
| Date | 06:14:24, November 22, 2005 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the Pantian Religeon Act |
| Message | OOC: the Pantian faith is about working to provide for yourself your family and the government, not disobeying the laws and shunning those who do. |
| Date | 14:34:11, November 22, 2005 CET | From |  National Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Pantian Religeon Act |
| Message | "Religion" |
| Date | 15:42:39, November 22, 2005 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the Pantian Religeon Act |
| Message | Funny words coming from someone with their kind of "ideology". |
| Date | 18:30:03, November 22, 2005 CET | From | Optimates Party | To | Debating the Pantian Religeon Act |
| Message | I'm for religeous toleration, as long as human sacrafices are not involved. The Pantian relegion seems okay to me. Almost like some of the early American, and British Christian sects like the Quakers and Shakers. |
| Date | 23:52:30, November 22, 2005 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the Pantian Religeon Act |
| Message | We sacrafice to no god and we do not even worship an other worldly being we are simply a religeous group backed by a unifying sense of nationalism. |
| Date | 01:21:45, November 23, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Pantian Religeon Act |
| Message | While I agree with what the Prog Cons say, it is important that Baltusia defines "accepted" religions. For example, the law states that religious schools may only be set up by recognised religions, which therefore requires that we state what recognised religions are. While the Pantian faith is no worse than any other particular one, the fact they would get the ability to set up schools gives them a huge advantage in the future over the rest of us. |
| Date | 05:52:38, November 23, 2005 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the Pantian Religeon Act |
| Message | However how is this advantage different then any other religeon who sets up an organised political party there is nothing stopping them and yet you choose us as those who are undeserving to be accepted by the government. We know you have always been a more accepting of beliefs party but that runs on the line of religeous discrimination. |
| Date | 10:55:48, November 23, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Pantian Religeon Act |
| Message | A contrast is required: Christianity is very old, mainstream and incredibly diverse. To get a random group of Christians to agree upon on a point of their own scripture, let alone political beliefs would be as difficult as getting the eight parties here to agree on a political point (mostly). It, like Islam, Judaisim, Buddhism, etc, is an established religion. Pantianism is relatively new, has few followers (if any) and is not particularly diverse. You have shown no evidence that you indeed are a religion, other than your word. Indeed, your worship of the government smacks more of political fascism than religion. It is not an established religion. Pantianism, for all we know, could be a tax dodge. You could be raising funds from your churches, siphoning them through the schools and into your pockets without having paid the fair tax on it. You could, as I suspect, be using the church as a method of recruitment for your party to satisfy Mr Moi's own dictatorial needs. How can you expect us to approve of you as a religion (a concept with which I am unsettled to be honest) when you have not proven yourself as one? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 91 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 209 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 42 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not accept Cultural Protocol updates which introduce, on a significant scale, cultures which are likely to be insufficiently accessible to players. In particular, for all significant cultures in Particracy, it should be easy for players to access and use online resources to assist with language translation and the generation of character names. Moderation reserves the right to amend Cultural Protocols which are deemed to have introduced significant cultures that are not sufficiently accessible and which are not being actively role-played with. |
| Random quote: "There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed." - Mahatma Gandhi |