Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 01:28:45
Server time: 14:31:14, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (3): Autokrator30 | HopesFor | Liu Che | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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 Liberties Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Conservative Monarchist Alliance

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: March 3723

Description[?]:

"Lodamese Nationalism" is a deadweight ideology which has been forced upon our long-suffering people for far too long. Give the people the freedom to worship in the same way as their ancestors did! Long live the Hosian revival!

Walter Schmitz
Chairman of the Conservative Monarchist Alliance

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date13:39:18, September 02, 2014 CET
FromPeople of Freedom (P.F)
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker.

We as the Liberal Democratic Party are certainly a republican party. For the state to have to pay for a priveledged family reigning over them is unthinkable. Therefore we are apposed to most of the CMA ideology. We are also apposed to most of the articles in this bill at the moment.

Zach Valentinn
LDP Leader and National Spokesperson

Date13:44:57, September 02, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

The CMA is committing blasphemy right now. We hope the President kills them.

--

George Huddleson,
GNRG Spokesman on Justice

OOC: This is unrealistic. Membership in Lodamese Nationalism is mandatory, so you can't just get up and oppose it. To keep things real, you should have proposed to maintain "an official state religion, but membership is completely voluntary" in this bill. If it passed, you could have then proposed to have "no government policy concerning a state religion" in a future bill.

Date14:09:31, September 02, 2014 CET
FromSocial Libermuns Party
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

I, Rowan Argall, am unwilling to make any controversial decision for the remainder of my time in office. This includes executing the CMA, or voting in favour of this bill, even though we, the SLP, find current blasphemy laws excessive.

We are not in favour of Articles 2, 3, and 4 in particular. We are followers of Nationalism, even if we do not endorse the current discrimination against non-believers policy that seems to come along with it, we will not put up with the active proselytizing and proliferation for anything else.

~

Rowan Argall
The President

Date14:19:42, September 02, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
Message^

OOC: Now something like that can be said even when someone opposes Lodamese Nationalism. The CMA should have pretended to support Lodamese Nationalism until the "government policy concerning religions" is changed.

Date14:25:24, September 02, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

We are particularly concerned with the statement that "a deadweight ideology which has been forced upon our long-suffering people for far too long. Give the people the freedom to worship in the same way as their ancestors did! Long live the Hosian revival!"

Hosianism is a foreign imperialist religion. Hosians were not granted citizenship in Lodamun until recently. We blame the government for the rise in extremism, and call for the resignation of the entire cabinet.

--

George Huddleson,
GNRG Spokesman on Justice

Date14:39:36, September 02, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

We would like to point out the passing of this bill: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=416097

The President no longer determines "what is right or wrong" - we have courts now.
According to our laws:
- "There is an official state religion, and membership is mandatory." - http://classic.particracy.net/viewvariable.php?variable=STATE_RELIGION
- "Both Private and Public Blasphemy are considered grave offenses, and are heavily prosecuted." - http://classic.particracy.net/viewvariable.php?variable=BLASPHEMY
- "Religious doctrine determines the death penalty" - http://classic.particracy.net/viewvariable.php?variable=DEATH_PENALTY

The courts are obligated to rule against the CMA. By precedent, the death penalty was used for blasphemy:
- http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=404154 (case of blasphemy)
- http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=404243 (result of blasphemy)

What protected the Allied Humanists was a law Parliamentry Privilege, where "Members of the national legislative body are exempted from any civil or criminal liability fot their speech or actions, but this immunity can be overruled by a vote in the nation's legislative body." http://classic.particracy.net/viewvariable.php?variable=PARLIAMENTARY_IMMUNITY
However, Mr. Speaker, the CMA is not a part of the Presidium, and parliamentary privilege doesn't apply to them. We don't need to pass a bill in the Presidium to have them sentenced to death. If the courts are not corrupt, the CMA members proposing this bill would have already been dead. We don't care much for the President's stance on the current law. The current law is the current law, and the courts must make their rulings based on the current law, regardless of whether the Presidium intends to change these laws.

--

George Huddleson,
GNRG Spokesman on Justice

Date15:32:56, September 02, 2014 CET
FromPeople of Freedom (P.F)
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr Speaker.

Under current laws minister of justice would have final jurisdiction and powers to implement charges if needs be.

Zach Valentinn
LDP Leader and National Spokesperson

Date16:53:02, September 02, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

That isn't true. The law could have said that "Every person has the right to appeal to the Minister of Justice to have a judgement reviewed by another court" but instead, it says that "Every person has the right to appeal against a judgement and to have it reviewed by a higher court."

Even if the Justice Minister had any say in this, he would have to make a ruling based on law, not his personal feelings. Any court ruling must be based on law.

--

George Huddleson,
GNRG Spokesman on Justice

Date18:14:11, September 02, 2014 CET
FromPeople of Freedom (P.F)
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker.

The Justice minister has the a role to play in the administration of justice. Regarding law and that the law is followed. Correct.

We agree. Resolution s must be drawn up to clearly state clearly how the Justice system operates. As far as i am aware we do still have a supreme court. Highest court one can appeal to with regards to justice. This is where the minister of justice through being informed by Judges on verdicts.

I call on the Justice minister to respond. And call on all justice representative within parties to review what seems to be concerns. And if this matter sjould be brought forward to court.

Phillipa Corazona
LDP Justice Representative.
LDP Deputy Leader

Date20:56:28, September 02, 2014 CET
FromConservative Monarchist Alliance
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageOOC: Thanks for the clarifications, guys. As a new player to Lodamun I may not be as aware of some things as you all are, so I may need a little guidance on occasion :).

In other nations I have played in, there is a convention that a newly-arrived party is presumed to have won a seat in a by-election. This is as this is the most obvious explanation for why that party is able to contribute to parliamentary debates, and vote on and propose parliamentary bills. With the consent of the other players here, my preferred outcome here would be to presume Walter Scmitz became a member of the Presidium after winning a by-election and is therefore - at least for the time being - covered by parliamentary legal immunity. In future I will, of course, be aware that any "blasphemy" against Lodamese Nationalism outside of the Presidium will invite the interest of the police!

If there is an objection to this option, then I am also happy to write a news article describing how Walter the Martyr made a speech outside the Presidium building criticising Lodamese Nationalism, and was then taken away by the police and later executed after a swift trial. (In which case, please advise me of the method of execution).

Date21:02:47, September 02, 2014 CET
FromConservative Monarchist Alliance
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

I would like to ask the President and his party to outline which specific liberalising religious reforms he and his party would be prepared to support at the present time. We are prepared to compromise if that is the cost of getting this bill passed.

Walter Schmitz
Chairman of the Conservative Monarchist Alliance

Date21:34:14, September 02, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageOOC: It's really common sense. They weren't things you really had to look for either. In the very laws you're changing, the current ones state that:
"There is an official state religion, and membership is mandatory."
"Both Private and Public Blasphemy are considered grave offenses, and are heavily prosecuted."

Yet, your character openly claims that the national mandatory religion is "a deadweight ideology which has been forced upon our long-suffering people for far too long. Give the people the freedom to worship in the same way as their ancestors did! Long live the Hosian revival!" I have one simple question; was that realistic? The smart thing to do would be to appeal to moderates, and change the law to having an official religion where membership is voluntary, and have no penalties for blasphemy. After that, you can bash Lodamese Nationalism all you want, and propose a bill identical to the current one. It was unrealistic for this bill to be proposed, and for the character to say something like that.

You did message me before, asking about religion, and I told you that the government currently actively suppresses Hosianism, so don't pretend that you "may not be as aware of some things" here.

As for the whole by-election and MP thing, that doesn't change how unrealistic this bill is. The only thing that could affect is parliamentary privilege. So you'd still be breaking the law and be deserving of the death penalty (since our law states that "Religious doctrine determines the death penalty), but parliamentary privilege would mean that the Presidium would have to first pass a bill revoking your immunity. As it stands, though, we had nothing about parties with no seats being assumed to have 1 seat in a by-election. We don't RP a first-past-the-post thing, and we usually call parties out on having "no seats" so there is no precedented case here for your assumption.

Date00:23:42, September 03, 2014 CET
FromConservative Monarchist Alliance
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageOOC: Yes, I knew the government persecutes Hosian citizens, but I did not appreciate the convention you have here that parties debating bills in the Presidium get executed if they are considered to have committed "blasphemy" against the "religion" of "Lodamese Nationalism". You are perfectly entitled to have this convention, of course. And I have no massive objection to it, BTW; in fact I find it kind of novel and fun. However, in my defence, I want to point out this is not the way things have always been done elsewhere. I have played in other nations with oppressive religious laws, and none of them adopted this attitude towards parties who criticised the established religion in bill debates. It was generally accepted that the legislature was the one place where free speech was permitted.

But anyway, please lets move on from this because endless feuding is the last thing I want. As I said earlier, my preferred outcome is that we presume Walter Schmitz is a member of the Presidium, having won a by-election a few in-game months ago, and therefore enjoys parliamentary immunity from prosecution. Are you guys happy with that? If anyone objects, then I'll write a news post saying he was executed for blasphemy. (Though please tell me what the method of execution is for blasphemy).

Date06:45:42, September 03, 2014 CET
FromSocial Libermuns Party
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

The GNRG is being hasty in calling for a resignation of the entire cabinet. Due to the rise in extremism it is best until we wait for the next election period so that the SLP can try gain some control back from these extremists. The SLP considers itself committed to this cause.

The SLP thank the LDP for their expert advice on the new system of courts. We could not have done a better job. The GNRG is correct about our laws, there has been blasphemy at play here. And we propose that if this bill does not pass, that we deal with Chairman Walter Schmitz the way the law asks us to.

In response to the CMA, if you're hoping to protect your party and your chairman, I suggest you find a suitable value for the laws that the GNRG pointed out to you. Scrap Articles 2 through 5. Make Article 6 something that does not allow for something other than Nationalism (The SLP wouldn't be opposed to a blanket ban, as we consider Nationalism less religion and more a way of life or philosophy).

And, if you wish to keep your head, we advise changing the death penalty laws. We are not in favour of excecutions, but we have found it difficult to get proper support.

Then, the vote will properly decide for or against the CMA chairman. Lodamun or Death! All in favour?

~

Rowan Argall
The President
-------&-------
Eliseus Warwick
Minister of Justice

Date08:34:30, September 03, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

I am very impressed by the President's statements, but I don't think the vote on this bill itself should determine the fate of the CMA Chairman. He should still face the penalties for violating the current laws. The law is law, and he broke the current law. We shouldn't change it to suit him.

I want to make it clear that George Huddleson's call, for the entire cabinet's resignation, doesn't properly represent my personal views.

--

Gordon Fertig,
Chairman of the GNRG

--

OOC: I'm not in fvour of presuming that he's an MP, because there is no precedent of that in Lodamun. All parties without seats were ICly spoken of as having no seats. I completely object to making a special exception for your character, when we haven't been doing things like that before. Yes, I would prefer if there was a news report about an execution, and for the CMA to propose a more realistic bill, or you could just delete this one (where the blasphemy existed) and pretend it didn't happen. You can create a more realistic bill with a more realistic description (one not involving blasphemy). As I understand the current laws, a party can't openly oppose Lodamese Nationalism. Even if the freedom to propose certain things was protected, the blasphemous statements couldn't have been protected. Be realistic.

Date16:32:39, September 03, 2014 CET
FromConservative Monarchist Alliance
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

We have removed or amended several articles in the hope the Presidium will now feel able to vote in favour of this Bill.

Anton Rietveld
Chairman of the Conservative Monarchist Alliance

Date16:55:34, September 03, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageOOC: And you still haven't removed the blasphemous things from the bill description -.-

Date16:55:48, September 03, 2014 CET
FromConservative Monarchist Alliance
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageOOC: Very well then, guys, we're gonna have an execution :)

Date16:56:51, September 03, 2014 CET
FromConservative Monarchist Alliance
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageOOC: Please regard the comments in the bill description as a speech made by Walter Schmitz when he introduced the Bill.

Date04:45:53, September 04, 2014 CET
FromSocial Libermuns Party
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

The government is the law. I do not see why our vote would not determine the fate of the CMA Chairman. Although we will be voting in favour of the bill, we're pleased that Walter Schmitz will be facing the consequences for his actions. We are also thankful to Gordon Fertig, for making his position clear.

~

Rowan Argall
The President
-------&-------
Eliseus Warwick
Minister of Justice

Date04:55:52, September 04, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageNo, Mr. Speaker.

The government is no longer "law" in Lodamun. We have an independent court system now. Before, the President's word was law. Now, everything is based on every detail of every law, and the courts rule based on those. To have the administration intervening in judicial matters would be a violation of the recent liberal justice reforms which sought to remove the administration from having direct judicial power.

Walter Schmitz has already been executed, in accordance with Lodamun's current laws.

--

George Huddleson,
GNRG Spokesman on Justice

Date05:29:30, September 04, 2014 CET
FromSocial Libermuns Party
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

We are unconcerned with execution of a known traitor.

However, We are concerned with the GNRG's interpretation of the law. The government includes all the seats in the Presidium. The Presidium makes the law. Therefore the government makes the law.

We do have court-based ruling, but the Supreme Court has the right to overturn any law it wishes, and the Supreme Court is the Office of the President. The Presidium may as well be the acting Jury over Lodamun.

~

Rowan Argall
The President
-------&-------
Eliseus Warwick
Minister of Justice

Date05:50:54, September 04, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

The Supreme Court was only considered to be an extension of the Office of the President when the President possessed judicial power. An actual Supreme Court existed, but it was powerless and attached to the President's office until the law was changed. Even when it was attached to the President's office, it had voting members independent of the President. The President could, however, reject a Supreme Court ruling and make one instead.

The composition of the Supreme Court is determined as follows: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=388913
SLP - 39 seats
GNRG - 16 seats
LNC - 11 seats
LDP - 9 seats
RR - 0 seats
Total - 75 seats

Even if the law is changed to have the President being the only judicial authority, the "Supreme Court" will exist as an advisory body without power. This is what happened in the past. Now, the Supreme Court has its own power that is theoretically independent of the President. We do recognise that, at the moment, the President's party controls more than half of the Supreme Court, but this may not necessarily be the case in the future.

--

George Huddleson,
GNRG Spokesman on Justice

Date01:50:02, September 05, 2014 CET
FromSocial Libermuns Party
ToDebating the Religious Liberties Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

We are very aware of our end as such a powerful party, and even look forward to letting the people once again use their voice. Such is the life's blood of a Democratic Republic. Does that mean we're essentially pulling rank in this bill? Because then we'd much rather vote no.

That bill is a brilliant piece of work. We might need to update the break down of Provinces and their appointed judges as there are two centuries between when that passed and now, but we think we'd be more than happy to run things under those rules. It might be easier to calculate it in the same way that the election breaks down, for example.

~

Rowan Argall
The President
-------&-------
Eliseus Warwick
Minister of Justice

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 298

no
   

Total Seats: 301

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: "Kubrk" is a Jelbic word that has the colloquial meaning "old man" or "geezer".

    Random quote: "A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future." - Leonard Bernstein

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 85