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: Freedom of Religion
Details
Submitted by[?]: Combination Unto Constitution
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: May 2194
Description[?]:
| While we applaud the secular nature of Kanjor, we find it distasteful that such a condition is enforced by law. We believe Kanjor's surpassment of religion can be shown even better by disregarding it entirely. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning religions.
Old value:: Any form of religion is banned.
Current: Any form of religion is banned.
Proposed: There is no government policy concerning a state religion.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:51:01, March 02, 2006 CET | From | National Socialist Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Religion |
| Message | Your proposal doesn't cover all of the possible options. You either ban religion, or let people chose what they want. How about, banning all religions except for one master religion which people are forced to be part of. We could use it as a propaganda machine, and have them worship the Leader. MDH |
| Date | 17:48:25, March 02, 2006 CET | From | Rational Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Religion |
| Message | I agree wholeheartedly, this is a good proposal. |
| Date | 18:59:19, March 02, 2006 CET | From | National Socialist Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Religion |
| Message | You agree with who? Him or me? MDH |
| Date | 00:19:01, March 03, 2006 CET | From | Rational Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Religion |
| Message | Haha, sorry, I meant him. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 175 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 102 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 23 |
| Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
| Random quote: "Cruel leaders are replaced only to have new leaders turn cruel." - Ernesto "Che" Guevara |