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 Ministers Freedom Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Underappreciated Party of Ikradon
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: March 2167
Description[?]:
| The State shall not interefere in the appointments of ministers. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The state's intervention in the appointment of ministers of religion.
Old value:: The state nominates ministers of religion, but the appointment is left up to the religious communities themselves.
Current: The state does not intervene in the appointment of ministers of any religion whatsoever.
Proposed: The state does not intervene in the appointment of ministers of any religion whatsoever.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:20:09, December 31, 2005 CET | From | Lyika ati Isọdọtun | To | Debating the Religious Ministers Freedom Act |
| Message | We agree with both, but we especially wish to see the passage of the first article. |
| Date | 00:23:20, December 31, 2005 CET | From | Underappreciated Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Religious Ministers Freedom Act |
| Message | The UPI views this as a start. We don't want to try to go too far too fast. We feel that religion has been increasingly under attack in this country in recent years. We want to try to bring it back to a greater level of tolerance. Right now our policies seem to be based on fear. We fear that religion will corrupt us, or that any open display of religion, or having a religiously affiliated school will cause strife and intollerance...I say this is intolerance that we're dealing with, and I say it needs to end now. We must tolerate everyone's descision to choose their religion, and to practice it as they see fit. If it moves into public life, that's okay, just so long don't use religion as a basis to inflict harm on others. Particularly damaging are those who cannot seek a public life because it would require them to shed their religious accoutriments, this is very wrong and discriminatory. We urge everyone to vote to affirm this bill, make it a law. ---Stephanie Applegate, Minister of Culture |
| Date | 01:38:41, December 31, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Ikradon Party | To | Debating the Religious Ministers Freedom Act |
| Message | "Religion is the opium of the people" once someone said. It's sad that all the progress made in the last years is being ruined by this cabinet! With all conviction we will vote no! |
| Date | 02:21:09, December 31, 2005 CET | From | Underappreciated Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Religious Ministers Freedom Act |
| Message | Since when has intolerance been the best way to control ignorance? Also, since when has Ikradon been opposed to letting people decide about their drugs, be it religion or opium? Also the UPI has been in both of the recent cabinets, and this is not a change in UPI policy in any way, we have always supported the free practice of religion and the maximum educational choice. These have not changed in all of the UPI's 78 years. ---Stephanie Archon, Chief Legislator, UPI |
| Date | 02:21:45, December 31, 2005 CET | From | Lyika ati Isọdọtun | To | Debating the Religious Ministers Freedom Act |
| Message | It is appropriate that the SIP has removed "libertarian" from its title. We agree with the UPI's appraisal of the unfortunate recent hostility in this assembly toward religion, and we look forward to the reverse of these anti-libertarian measures. |
| Date | 13:00:45, December 31, 2005 CET | From | Ikradonian Faith Party | To | Debating the Religious Ministers Freedom Act |
| Message | We cannot support the second article of this proposal at all. Government workers that come into contact with the citizens should be impartial, also on a religious level. Wearing a religious symbol gives the impression that the worker favours that religion over another, and could intimidate citizens who abide by a different religion. As a compromise, we are willing to support the first article, providing that religious ministers will still be monitored carefully by the ministry of Justice. |
| Date | 19:04:37, December 31, 2005 CET | From | Neoretropostmodernist Party | To | Debating the Religious Ministers Freedom Act |
| Message | We also oppose the second article. However, we feel that passage of the first article is vital to free speech and thought. How long is it until the government is allowed to veto the appointment of political leaders because of "extremist views"? |
| Date | 01:24:46, January 01, 2006 CET | From | Classical Party | To | Debating the Religious Ministers Freedom Act |
| Message | We woiuld not be opposed to the first, but the second is needed. |
| Date | 04:52:48, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Underappreciated Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Religious Ministers Freedom Act |
| Message | Splitting Bill. ---Stephanie Archon |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 380 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 141 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 78 |
| 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: "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." - Confucius |