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: Religous Revivement Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Red Eye 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: October 2157
Description[?]:
Showcasing our Religous beliefs. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Old value:: The government has no policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Current: The government requires foreign missionaries to register with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Proposed: The government requires foreign missionaries to register with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The state's intervention in the appointment of ministers of religion.
Old value:: The state does not intervene in the appointment of ministers of any religion whatsoever.
Current: The state does not intervene in the appointment of ministers of any religion whatsoever.
Proposed: The state appoints the head and ministers of the state religion, but does not intervene otherwise.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: Religious taxation policy is left to the local governments.
Current: Recognized religions are not taxed.
Proposed: Religions are treated as companies, and all profit is taxed, however, charitable donations are not taxed.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Remuneration of ministers of religion.
Old value:: The state does not intervene in the remuneration of ministers of religion.
Current: The state does not intervene in the remuneration of ministers of religion.
Proposed: The remuneration of ministers of religion shall be left up to the local governments.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning religions.
Old value:: There is no government policy concerning a state religion.
Current: There is no government policy concerning a state religion.
Proposed: There is an official state religion, but membership is completely voluntary.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 02:05:41, December 16, 2005 CET | From | Radical New Party | To | Debating the Religous Revivement Act |
Message | I don't like the first article... government "screening"... synonymous with regulation. |
Date | 06:53:05, December 16, 2005 CET | From | People's Equality Party Of Trigunia | To | Debating the Religous Revivement Act |
Message | I know it's cliche', but 'Religion is the opiate of the masses' my dear sir. |
Date | 20:31:36, December 16, 2005 CET | From | Radical New Party | To | Debating the Religous Revivement Act |
Message | Karl Marx is also a socialist, controlling, Big Brother nut case. |
Date | 10:49:54, December 17, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Religous Revivement Act |
Message | We cannot agree with the first article, for precisely the reasons stated by the RNP. We also cannot accept the second article since it involves the intermingling of the church and state, which we absolutely oppose. We feel the third article is step forward, although our position would simply be that net income (i.e., profit) would be taxable |
Date | 10:53:59, December 17, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Religous Revivement Act |
Message | cont'd, We strongly oppose article 4, we do not see why the state (at any level) should have right to intervene in the remuneration of ministers (or anyone else for that matter). Finally, we obviously strongly oppose 5, for obvious reasons. |
Date | 02:39:02, December 19, 2005 CET | From | Red Eye Party | To | Debating the Religous Revivement Act |
Message | Reasons stated by RNP were adjusted. Nowhere do i propose an impingement on anyones freedom. |
Date | 21:09:04, December 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Religous Revivement Act |
Message | Article 1 is an infringement on the freedom of missionaries to perform their missionary duties, article 2 is interference in the religions themselves and therefore an infringement of every person's right to be free from interference by the government in matters of faith, article 4 is infringement on the right of individuals operating religions to pay their staff a wage that they regard as fair and an infringement on the right of the individuals working for the religion to accept a wage that the government does not like. Article 5 gives preferential treatment to the members of the state's own brand of religion and therefore infringes the rights of all non-members to the right to be free from interference by the government in matters of faith. Now you may believe all the articles are great ideas, and that is all well and good; but to claim that nowhere do you propose an impingement on anyones freedom is simply untrue. |
Date | 21:23:47, December 19, 2005 CET | From | Red Eye Party | To | Debating the Religous Revivement Act |
Message | I was wrong article four does propose infringement. The rest although do not. The State has the right of keep a record of missionaries,simply registering does not prvent them from anything. In article 2 The selections are still wholly up to the communitys themselves. In article 5 memership is voluntary nowher does restriction of other religions come into play. |
Date | 02:23:40, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Religous Revivement Act |
Message | I think you have a narrower interpretation of infringement (or impingement) than I do. Infringement does not necessarily require abuse, introducing the possibility is sufficient. You may say that article 1 simply registers them, but what is the point of registering them, the state keeping a record of them, unless you intend to give them differential treatment at some point. Even if you personally do not, you have given the people who follow you the perfect tool to implement differential treatment. Article 2 is an infringement because it reduces the rights of individuals to determine their own religious leaders. Again, it doesn't matter if you only intend to nominate the nicest or most qualified characters - they will inevitably be only the nicest or most qualified people IN YOUR VIEW, and not necessarily in the view of the people who should properly be making those decisions - i.e., the members of the religions concerned. Article 5 infringes on free religion because you are making one of those religions special. Presumably you intend for this to be your own personal religion, how happy would you be if the official religion was Islam or Scientology or Buddhism or Hinduism or Pat Robertsonism (if you are a Pat Robertsonist then substitute some really moderate, progressive branch of Christianity) or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? You would be appalled if an opposing religion got special state treatment, and rightly so. And again, you may not intend for your religion (and its adherents) to get special treatment, but by making an official state-sanctioned distinction between your religion and all others, the result is that sooner or later all the believers in an alternative are going to get treated differently for their beliefs. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes |
Total Seats: 110 | ||||
no |
Total Seats: 303 | ||||
abstain |
Total Seats: 142 |
Random fact: Voters have an extra appreciation for bills that actually get passed, so if you want to maximally take profit from your votes, make sure you compromise with others. |
Random quote: "Cruel leaders are replaced only to have new leaders turn cruel." - Ernesto "Che" Guevara |