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: Secular State II
Details
Submitted by[?]: Telamon Social Democratic 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 2169
Description[?]:
| The current legislation does not follow, to a sufficient degree, the public opinion that sees the state as a secular organisation that should have nothing to do with religious organisation and should not take a stand on the matter. The current legislation simultaneously limits religios freedoms and allows the state to take sides in religious matters by eg. not limiting the use of religious clothing and wearing of religious symbols by public officials performing their duties. Same religious bias can be seen in demanding missionaries to register while allowing the founding of religious schools that are publicly funded. As the legislation explicitly states that no private schools are allowed, the religious schools would have to be public (not in the british sense) schools and religious public schools do not sound a good idea in a secular state. Teacher-led prayer should be allowed in private religious schools, but as the legislation does not allow for private schools of any kind, including religious private schools we should ban teacher-led prayer altogether as it can only be paid by the taxpayer who pays for the upkeep of the school. To both safeguard the rights of religious minorities, further strenghten our commitment to a secular state and remove current contradictions in the legislation the legislation needs to be reformed so as to allow full rights to all citizens despite their religious affiliations while not granting any religious group privileges over other religious or secular groups. Thus we propose a bill that would remove the limitations to promoting religion (ie. the necessity to register missionaries and ban on advertising) and limit the powers of the government to promote any religion (by banning the use of religious clothing by public officials and thus associating religion with the state, and banning state funded religious schools and teacher-led prayer). |
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 requires foreign missionaries to register with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Proposed: The government has no policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards evangelism and religious advertising.
Old value:: Religious organizations are not permitted to actively promote themselves or advertise, however evangelism is permitted by individuals.
Current: Religions are required to obtain government approval before promoting themselves or advertising in any manner.
Proposed: Religions are permitted to freely promote and advertise themselves.
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 not allowed.
Proposed: Religious schools are not allowed.
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 | 10:32:27, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Anti-Ownership Federation Party | To | Debating the Secular State II |
| Message | i can see the point in this and although im not too keen on the first 2 proposals i will support |
| Date | 13:17:31, January 10, 2006 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Secular State II |
| Message | 1. they are asked to register so that we can keep out those who would encite religious hatred and promote terrorism etc. 2. I don't have a problem with this, but others disliked the idea of religions advertising themselves as big businesses do etc. and therefore the current compromise was reached, which still allows religions to advertise and promote themselves, it's just that they must do it locally through the use of activists etc. 3. Despite being a secular party and believing in a secular state, on principle I cannot agree to this. I don't believe that this has any bearing on whether or not the state is secular and it certainly doesn't as the TSDP seem to suggest mean that the state can promote a religion. Why should the state stop a Sikh for example from wearing a turban to work, or a christian from wearing a crucifix etc. They are private and individual expressions of their faith and do not affect their work in any way.# 4. Obviously we can agree to ban religious schools, though we understand the point that you make in your preamble, but of course we believe in private schools and under us this would not be a problem. Surely a better solution would be to legalise private schools. 5. Again we have no problem with the current legislation given our stance on schools |
| Date | 14:59:19, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Telamon Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Secular State II |
| Message | 1. And as the ones that "would encite religious hatred and promote terrorism etc." are not going to enter as they can not get registered, we will be safe? The limitation merely allows the state to keep out unwanted representatives of religions that would not "encite religious hatred and promote terrorism etc." The ones that would, will come anyway. And besides any incitement to commit a crime (such as terrorism) is punishable even if missionaries are not demanded to register. 3. Public officials, while exercising their duties, represent the state and its beliefs and thus should not give indication as to their religious beliefs. When acting as private individuals/citizens, they naturally have every right to be as evangelical as they like. |
| Date | 16:29:59, January 10, 2006 CET | From | United Labour Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Secular State II |
| Message | I will not vote yes if you have 3,4, and 5. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 59 | ||||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 296 | ||||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In order for a Cabinet bill to pass, more than half of the legislature must vote for it and all of the parties included in the proposed Cabinet must support it. If your nation has a Head of State who is also the Head of Government, then the party controlling this character must also vote for the bill, since the Head of Government is also a member of the Cabinet. If any of these requirements are not met, the bill will not pass. |
| Random quote: "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - John Maynard Keynes |