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 Freedom Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: New Nationalist Alliance
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 3220
Description[?]:
| A bill to curtail and minimise the threat of 'cult' organisations and to protect the integrity of established and credible religious groups. For the purposes of this bill there shall be a standing committee consisting of; Standing Appointees 1. The Minister for Education and Culture (who shall act as Chair of the Committee) Appointed Members 1. An Academic Theologian appointed by the Head of State. 2. A leading sociologist nominated by the leading professional association representing sociologists in the Republic. 3. A lay person who is appointed through an application process. Other Matters 1. Appointed members will serve a term not exceeding 4 years in continuous duration. 2. The appointment of a lay person to the committee shall be administered by the Ministry of Education and Culture. 3. To be eligible, appointed members must not be a member of a registered political party. 4. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the Standing Committee on Religious Freedom to prescribe any organisation that the committee believes, by majority opinion, operates as a religious cult. In doing so the Committee must publish a Prohibition Notice detailing it's reasoning for prescribing the organisation. 5. Any organisation subject to a Prohibition Notice shall have the right to appeal such a decision within the normal legal procedures of the Republic in force at the time. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning religions.
Old value:: There is no government policy concerning a state religion.
Current: There is an official state religion, but membership is completely voluntary.
Proposed: There is no official state religion, but the government only allows recognized religions. 'Cults' are persecuted.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:52:29, November 27, 2011 CET | From |  Federal Republic Progressionist Party | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | I'm fine with this. I'd rather not have the kind of people that worship Charles Manson running around Solentia. But what would be defined as a 'cult.' |
| Date | 01:04:43, November 27, 2011 CET | From | United Liberal Caucus | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | This has our support, but their needs to be a broad definition of what is a religion if we are to persecute "cults." |
| Date | 15:10:52, November 27, 2011 CET | From | Pink Party! | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | Why should people be persecuted for worshipping who or what they want? |
| Date | 16:28:45, November 27, 2011 CET | From | New Nationalist Alliance | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | Senators, We have considered the comments on this proposal to date and have taken them on board. Within the bill we now propose the establishment of a standing committee whose duty it shall be to review and designate cults for the purposes of this law. We hope this enhancement addresses the concerns raised in this chamber. |
| Date | 17:52:20, November 27, 2011 CET | From | Federal Republic Progressionist Party | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | OOC: The commitee is pointless. We don't know what new religons pop-up. |
| Date | 18:01:32, November 27, 2011 CET | From | New Nationalist Alliance | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | OOC: That's why it's a standing committee - it exists on a permanent basis so it can deal with any new 'religions' as and when they appear. If I define 'cult' in the law then it's terribly prescriptive and means, in my humble opinion, the law will always be behind the curve and will need to be revisited constantly as groups deliberately structure themselves to avoid the law. |
| Date | 00:53:17, November 28, 2011 CET | From | Pink Party! | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | The current law is religious freedom, the proposed legislation is not. |
| Date | 15:26:09, November 28, 2011 CET | From | United Liberal Caucus | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | Again we reiterate our support for this interesting proposal. |
| Date | 21:20:24, November 28, 2011 CET | From | Pink Party! | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | We vote against in order to defend civil rights. |
| Date | 12:35:19, November 29, 2011 CET | From | Democratic Catholic Party | To | Debating the Religious Freedom Act |
| Message | In this regard we fully agree with the PinkP. We invite the NNA to withdraw this law or we'll definitely have to react. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 225 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 200 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real life-life nationalities, cultures or ethnicities should not be referenced in Particracy (eg. "German"). |
| Random quote: "The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty. The activist is the man who cleans up the river." - Ross Perot |