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: Foreign Missionaires Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Luthorian Workers 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: February 4146
Description[?]:
| Mr. Speaker, I rise today to propose the following piece of legislation in order to reform the process by which we allow foreign missionaries to enter into our country. We are, as all of Terra well knows, a religious people. A devout and a pious people. We have national religion. In fact, many of you here today belong to a party which acknowledges or points to our religious background "Hosian" or "Luthorian." But, while we should make every effort to be inclusive, and to promote and to respect religious rights, we must too be cautious in this day and this age. Not every religion is peaceful. Not all practitioners of all religions are peaceful. And not everyone is well intentioned. It is for that purpose that I think, and I propose, that we have a more rigorous screening process for foreign missionaries. I do not want to, in anyway, deter or to turn away pious people who are well intentioned and seeking to spread their faith and to evangelize. But, I do think, that we ought to be cautious and to be more thorough in making sure that those we let in and permit to evangelize and to spread their faith are just that, well pious and peaceful practitioners. The following proposal will ensure that we do not discriminate against missionaries on the basis of their religion, but instead we look at each applicant on a person by person, case by case, basis and make sure that the person is not on a terror watch list, that they aren't affiliated with recognized terrorist organizations, we can inspect their personal and criminal background and make sure that those who are admitted into this country for the purpose of religious missionary work are well meaning and pious people. Not people who would, under the guise of a missionary, seek to harm us. |
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: Foreign missionaries are welcomed and encouraged by the government.
Proposed: The government determines which missionaries are permitted to visit on a person by person basis.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:58:51, December 30, 2016 CET | From | United Luthori | To | Debating the Foreign Missionaires Reform Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, How much more dangerous is a terrorist with a missionary background than a terrorist with a civilian background? This bill is well-meaning, but it misses the mark. Furthermore, how would the government know who is and who isn't a missionary? Would this person have to be an official member of the religion they wish to spread? Do we consider lay citizens who simply wish to talk about religion with their friends in the country one evening as missionaries? Mr. Speaker, we are all well-off in that Luthori has not faced even the slightest terrorist threat in ages, and though we should remain vigilant, there simply is no basis on which to pass this proposal. The HDU will be voting no on this proposal. I yield. The Rt Hon. Margaret Patterson MD Minister of Education and Culture |
| Date | 23:20:12, December 30, 2016 CET | From | Luthorian Workers Party | To | Debating the Foreign Missionaires Reform Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I'd like to answer the question of Minister Patterson. She asks how we would know who is and who isn't a missionary. Clearly with the change in legislation we would have missionaries, from foreign countries, file for a missionary visa before traveling here. Would the person have to be an official member of the religion which they intend to spread? Yes, I would think so. It would be necessary I imagine to be a missionary. I wouldn't expect an atheist to be a Hosian missionary. That is not to say that one would have to a member of the clergy to be a missionary, no. But we would, in my opinion, require that a missionary from a foreign country be sponsored by a church or religious group. Would we consider lay people talking about religion with the friends as missionaries? No, we'd consider them as pious lay people. But we aren't talking about the citizens of our own country. We are talking about people coming into this country for the purposes of mission work or evangelization. I confess that I don't understand the controversy of this bill, or why my colleague from the HDU would attempt to make it controversial. I think she is, for political purposes, creating a rift or generating faux opposition where there is none. This is a simple resolution that would, in an attempt to protect the people of our great nation and keep safe those who live here form potential harm, by simply monitoring and running background checks on those who seek to come here from foreign nations for the purpose of being a missionary. It would make sure that no one, because we currently don't monitor missionaries or those who apply to be missionaries aren't people with a connection to terrorists groups, aren't a terrorist watch list, and don't have a serious criminal background. Does the Minister mean to suggest that, because we haven't had a threat from terrorism that we never will and shouldn't take easy steps that could further ensure that no one slips through the cracks. Is she saying, for all intents in purposes, that she's fine with leaving the back door open and making it easy for someone with a terrorist connection or violet criminal back ground entering into this country under the guise of a missionary? I yield Edison Turner Leader of the LWP and MD from Geharon |
| Date | 05:34:18, December 31, 2016 CET | From | United Luthori | To | Debating the Foreign Missionaires Reform Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Examining Mr. Turner's speech patterns, it's clear that this bill is far from the "simple resolution" he presupposes this is. By saying such things as, "I would think so" and "in my opinion", it's evident that this policy is not well-defined. I, and the rest of my party, do not understand whether this law would be construed as putting all religious travelers under increased scrutiny, or whether it specifically calls for government approval only to those registered members of foreign religions. If it is indeed the case that only missionaries sponsored by a church or religious group are put under government review, then what is stopping those people from indefinitely leaving or removing themselves as official members from said organizations and simply bypassing this entire procedure? The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill is muddled, lacks clearly-defined terms, and is completely unnecessary. If the system isn't broken, don't fix it! Furthermore, I am surprised to see a slight appearance of fearmongering in Mr. Turner's words. To attempt to exploit terrorism, or even the fear of it, for political purposes appalls me. To subject entire religious groups under government review on a case by case basis would not only drain the respective ministry of financial resources, manpower, and time, but it might not even work! As stated before, even Mr. Turner is not completely sure as to who would have to undergo government review. I yield. The Rt Hon. Margaret Patterson MD Leader of the HDU Minister of Education and Culture |
| Date | 15:54:06, December 31, 2016 CET | From | United Luthori | To | Debating the Foreign Missionaires Reform Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I come before this Diet again to reiterate my position that the bill has some flaws and lacks well-defined definitions of the terms used in the bill, but the HDU as a party has agreed to reconsider our standing on this bill provided the Luthorian Worker's Party can attach another article defining who exactly a missionary is. If that is done well, I can perhaps see the HDU voting in favor of this proposal. I yield. The Rt Hon. Margaret Patterson MD Leader of the HDU Minister of Education and Culture |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 149 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 479 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 22 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." - Confucius |