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 from Religion Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Freedom Party
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: May 2156
Description[?]:
| Whereas our proposals are meted out in a coherent and actually relevant manner, the Social Reform Party's proposed legislation is a mishmash of incoherence and nonsense (indeed, few of the proposals have anything to do with one another) and is put forth under a false name. We put forth this legislation because it is in line with our platform, not because we wish to destroy visibilities, though that may be the unfortunate result. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Old value:: The government requires foreign missionaries to register with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Current: The government has no policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Proposed: Foreign missionaries are not permitted to enter the nation.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards evangelism and religious advertising.
Old value:: Religions are permitted to freely promote and advertise themselves.
Current: Religions are permitted to freely promote and advertise themselves.
Proposed: Religions are not permitted to promote themselves or advertise in any manner whatsoever.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The state's policy concerning religious clothing.
Old value:: There are no laws regulating the wearing of religious clothing and the wearing of religious symbols.
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 4
Proposal[?] to change The governments stance on religious schools.
Old value:: Any religion may set up a school, but they are strictly regulated.
Current: Religious schools are allowed, but are strictly regulated. Only recognised religions may set up religious schools.
Proposed: Religious schools are allowed, but are strictly regulated. Only recognised religions may set up religious schools.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to prayer in schools.
Old value:: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden, except in religious schools.
Current: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden.
Proposed: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:14:55, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | Against. This is a deleborate attempt to make those of us against religious persecution more "religious" in the game's views and thus cost us votes while making you more "secular" (ie. anti-religious freedoms). You are no better than the Social Reform Party you criticized in the Devolution Act... |
| Date | 19:15:16, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | If this goes up to vote, I'll abstain in disgust... |
| Date | 19:17:48, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | We beg to differ. Whereas our proposals are meted out in a coherent and actually relevant manner, the Social Reform Party's proposed legislation is a mishmash of incoherence and nonsense (indeed, few of the proposals have anything to do with one another) and is put forth under a false name. We put forth this legislation because it is in line with our platform, not because we wish to destroy visibilities, though that may be the unfortunate result. |
| Date | 19:19:14, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | You want to destroy religion. That's anti-civil rights, even if the game engine disagrees. If you persist I will have to bring this issue to the forums... |
| Date | 19:27:14, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | I concur wholeheartedly with the ICP - this is not 'freedom from religion', this is destroying the people's right to follow their own beliefs, and that's wrong. |
| Date | 19:35:06, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | If prostitutes can work in Aloria, why can't missionaries? Prostitutes sometimes promote crime but missionaries usually promote peace... |
| Date | 19:40:47, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | 1) Do missionaries usually promote peace? Shall we have a look at the religions in the world today? The Deltarian Catholic Church, for example? Is that what we want in our nation? 2) Currently, religions promote themselves in a loud and obnoxious manner, some proclaiming that certain groups are damned to hell. No person should have to undergo that torture. 3) Public officials should not identify with a specific religion. As a nation that embraces diversity, we cannot then go and permit our spokespeople to endorse one culture over another. 4) We see no reason why any whacko religion should be able to set up a school and teach whatever ideas they want. We must oppose the indoctrination of our youth. 5) When a teacher, or anyone else in a position of power over children, abuses their power in a way that coerces their students or those subordinate to them to practice a belief which that student or subordinate does not believe in or actively rejects or objects to, then that is wrong. This is not a war on religion. This is the insurance of freedom from it for those who wish to be free from it. |
| Date | 20:11:47, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | "1) Do missionaries usually promote peace? Shall we have a look at the religions in the world today? The Deltarian Catholic Church, for example? Is that what we want in our nation?" Currently, all missionaries are required to register at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, I doubt people from the DCC will be allowed in. If I am not mistaken, you control it. "2) Currently, religions promote themselves in a loud and obnoxious manner, some proclaiming that certain groups are damned to hell. No person should have to undergo that torture." I do not see how this bill makes you any better than those screaming fire and brimstone. All you would be doing would be restricting the Freedom of Speech, which is against the Alorian Bill of Rights if I am not mistaken. "3) Public officials should not identify with a specific religion. As a nation that embraces diversity, we cannot then go and permit our spokespeople to endorse one culture over another." People have the right to believe in a specific religion. By not allowing people to believe in religion or the lack thereof you are infringing on the freedom of expression, which I believe is against the Alorian Bill of Rights. "4) We see no reason why any whacko religion should be able to set up a school and teach whatever ideas they want. We must oppose the indoctrination of our youth." Religious schools are already strictly regulated, however, I agree there. Propose Article 4 separately and I will vote for it. "5) When a teacher, or anyone else in a position of power over children, abuses their power in a way that coerces their students or those subordinate to them to practice a belief which that student or subordinate does not believe in or actively rejects or objects to, then that is wrong." Currently, teacher-led prayers are forbidden except in religious schools. If you are in a religious school, you should have the right to pray. Let secular schools be secular and religious schools be religious. |
| Date | 20:40:29, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Social Reform Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | We would vote for article 4 if it were proposed alone... of course, it'd need a comprehensive list of religions. |
| Date | 00:37:48, December 12, 2005 CET | From | Memorare Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | This is a typical assualt on our nations family values and civil liberties. I'm all for fobidding foriegn missionaries, but then this bill decents into total madness. |
| Date | 13:07:35, December 13, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | We fail to see the effect on civil liberties. This legislation makes the difference between church and state and public and private life all of the more clear. |
| Date | 02:49:13, December 14, 2005 CET | From | Social Reform Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | Honestly, I'm voting yes for the visibility factor. This bill is just plain stupid. |
| Date | 02:59:48, December 14, 2005 CET | From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | What we're against is no prayer, even in religious schools. The ICP abstains in disgust of this mutli-clause bill and encoruages others to do so. We are for some, against others. Therefore, the only propoer thing to do is abstain. Propose them separately and some might actually pass. |
| Date | 03:03:00, December 14, 2005 CET | From | Social Reform Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | Also, "We put forth this legislation because it is in line with our platform, not because we wish to destroy visibilities, though that may be the unfortunate result." That's really funny. You accuse us of trying to "fuck" with people's visibilities, however you fail to realise that the bill we proposed fell in line with our pro-regulation, pro-devolution platform. Of course, you'll ignore that so long as you get to make further insults directed towards us. Isn't it fun to ignore the facts? |
| Date | 03:16:36, December 14, 2005 CET | From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | Don't take offense with us, though. We still like MLAS on many areas. We just don't like it when one or two clauses we like are with clauses we don't like in a huge bill and we are torn. |
| Date | 04:34:30, December 14, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | Some Movement representatives, especially those who associate with the Very Silly Party faction, may break with the party and vote "No" on this legislation. (OOC: I'm voting "no" on this. Fundamentalism, here I come!) |
| Date | 04:43:31, December 14, 2005 CET | From | Memorare Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | This bill is so very very anti civil liberty... |
| Date | 05:04:22, December 14, 2005 CET | From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Freedom from Religion Act |
| Message | The ICP representatives follow suit and vote no. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 78 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 468 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 54 |
| Random fact: Particracy has been running since 2005. Dorvik was Particracy's first nation, the Dorvik Social Democrats the first party and the International Greens the first Party Organisation. |
| Random quote: "Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity." - Albert Einstein |