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: Religion Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Plaid Draddwyr
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: May 2196
Description[?]:
| Because we're loving it. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: No religions are taxed.
Current: Religions are treated as companies, and all profit is taxed, however, charitable donations are not taxed.
Proposed: Recognized religions are not taxed.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The state's policy concerning religious clothing.
Old value:: Public officials are not allowed to wear religious symbols while exercising their duties.
Current: Public officials are not allowed to wear religious symbols while exercising their duties.
Proposed: People are required to dress according to religious codes
Article 3
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 encouraged.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning religions.
Old value:: There is no government policy concerning a state religion.
Current: There is no government policy concerning a state religion.
Proposed: There is an official state religion, and membership is mandatory.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:43:24, March 05, 2006 CET | From | Bloc Socialiste | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | No! We will not allow the establishment of a theocracy in this Republic! |
| Date | 16:45:27, March 05, 2006 CET | From | Plaid Draddwyr | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | But you will allow a racist militia group to take control of a province? |
| Date | 16:46:01, March 05, 2006 CET | From | New Theta | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | We believe in religious freedom and religious expression but such proposals would encourage discrimination and intolerance. We would sadly have to vote no on this act. |
| Date | 16:47:48, March 05, 2006 CET | From | National Progressive Party | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | Not in a milllion years |
| Date | 16:56:43, March 05, 2006 CET | From | Plaid Draddwyr | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | Not very authoritarian are you NPP. |
| Date | 19:22:19, March 05, 2006 CET | From | National Progressive Party | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | I'm a progressive. I believe that science is the way of the future, and that religion is an opiate, hopefully to due swiftly within the coming years. Religion hinders the progess of humanity by filling it with constrictive and arbitrary rules, hindering technological and social progress. |
| Date | 19:46:15, March 05, 2006 CET | From | New Theta | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | That is a very narrow view of religion. Perhaps the older, faith-based groups, yes. But not the NRMs that are built on reason and human advancement. |
| Date | 20:21:00, March 05, 2006 CET | From | National Progressive Party | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | By it's very nature religion requires illogical faith, it is the antithesis of religion. |
| Date | 20:59:39, March 05, 2006 CET | From | New Theta | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | That is a huge generality and is totally incorrect. Scientology, for example, does not demand faith from it's students. It encourages people to think for themselves, and to evaluate data without faith. This is true of a number of other NRMs and religious philosophies including older systems such as Taoism and forms of Buddhism. Your argument, however, could be applied to brances of "science" such as, but not limited to, psychiatry and paleontology. Psychiatry, for example, is not based in proven science and requires faith from its practitioners that it's theories are correct. The "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness, for example, is scientifically unproven and yet it still, to this day, is claimed as an assumed fact and is a platform for modern psychiatry and the psychopharmaceutical industries. |
| Date | 22:36:40, March 05, 2006 CET | From | Plaid Draddwyr | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | @ NPP "Religion hinders the progess of humanity by filling it with constrictive and arbitrary rules, hindering technological and social progress." Swap religion for socialism and it remains true, yet you have no qualms with supporting socialism? |
| Date | 00:11:35, March 06, 2006 CET | From | Dranland Progressive Conservatives | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | Gee, what happened to freeing the people? |
| Date | 00:33:04, March 06, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Darwinist Party | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | NO. |
| Date | 13:38:44, March 06, 2006 CET | From | Plaid Draddwyr | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | SDP, this does free the people, it gives them a chance to be free in the afterlife. |
| Date | 23:38:47, March 06, 2006 CET | From | Bloc Socialiste | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | Infants! You conservatives are infants! People who show the judgment of babies should be put with the babies! Go back to school! |
| Date | 23:46:17, March 06, 2006 CET | From | National Progressive Party | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | "That is a huge generality and is totally incorrect. Scientology, for example, does not demand faith from it's students. It encourages people to think for themselves, and to evaluate data without faith. This is true of a number of other NRMs and religious philosophies including older systems such as Taoism and forms of Buddhism. Your argument, however, could be applied to brances of "science" such as, but not limited to, psychiatry and paleontology. Psychiatry, for example, is not based in proven science and requires faith from its practitioners that it's theories are correct. The "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness, for example, is scientifically unproven and yet it still, to this day, is claimed as an assumed fact and is a platform for modern psychiatry and the psychopharmaceutical industries." Theories require evidence. What evidence is there of God? None. Also, Scientology still requires people to have faith in the illogical. It doen't matter if it tries to look logical, it isn't. Because the joiners said it was logical doesn't make it so. Taoism and Buddhism also require unprovable faith. |
| Date | 14:39:11, March 07, 2006 CET | From | New Theta | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | NPP, I agree with you on the subject of faith-based groups and theories of "God", but what faith do you think is required to be a Scientologist? Please explain. |
| Date | 14:40:21, March 07, 2006 CET | From | New Theta | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | NPP, there is no valid evidence behind psychiatry's theories. They are junkscience. IMHO, psychiatry belongs in the realm of faith-based religion and not science. |
| Date | 14:40:57, March 07, 2006 CET | From | Plaid Draddwyr | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | When the dcp stop their Tontons from racially attacking whites in Elbien, perhaps we would listen to you. |
| Date | 16:38:18, March 07, 2006 CET | From | National Progressive Party | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | There shall be no presence of any Tonton with Elbian. If you look to the RP, I have already ordered them out. I have already said I would bring them out through force. And I hold no qualms to doing it. So long as I am the Internal and Defense minister, the Tonton militia is unecassary and shall not hold power. For Theta, the "tone" bullshit, the "Xenu" bullshit, and the belief in past lives. And this is just a glance. Scientology is in many ways more illogical than more mainstream religions. I take it you're a scientologist who believes in the fantasy pseudo-scientific crap they push? |
| Date | 14:23:41, March 08, 2006 CET | From | New Theta | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | NPP, the "'tone' bullshit" you speak of is a philosophical principle that requires only application, and not faith. In this it is no different to any workable psychological practice. The emphasis is on workability and what gets results. Faith is not only irrelevant, it is not required. Scientology is not a "you have to believe in it for it to work" subject. As for the "'xenu' bullshit", this is such a common misconception i get tired of having to talk about it. this, and all the past lives stuff make up a branch of Scientology called para-scientology (much like para-psychology). It is not core Scientology, nor is it claimed to be. It is presented as research nothing more. A tabloid or a dodgy website would claim different, but hey...what do I know? I'm only a scientologist afterall. <sigh> Bottom-line, whilst each and every scientologist believes in different things, (some may believe in past lives, some may not) Scientology, at its core, is a philosophy that is workable, and requires only application - not belief/faith. |
| Date | 21:55:02, March 08, 2006 CET | From | National Progressive Party | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | "NPP, the "'tone' bullshit" you speak of is a philosophical principle that requires only application, and not faith. In this it is no different to any workable psychological practice. The emphasis is on workability and what gets results. Faith is not only irrelevant, it is not required. Scientology is not a "you have to believe in it for it to work" subject. As for the "'xenu' bullshit", this is such a common misconception i get tired of having to talk about it. this, and all the past lives stuff make up a branch of Scientology called para-scientology (much like para-psychology). It is not core Scientology, nor is it claimed to be. It is presented as research nothing more. A tabloid or a dodgy website would claim different, but hey...what do I know? I'm only a scientologist afterall. <sigh> Bottom-line, whilst each and every scientologist believes in different things, (some may believe in past lives, some may not) Scientology, at its core, is a philosophy that is workable, and requires only application - not belief/faith." You're easily won over, aren't you? I should've known, you have Theta in the name (Thetans also being bullshit). Look, the fact is is that scientology is only scoentifically proven if you a. never bothered to see if it was proven or b. are too stupid to seperate an actual science from a psuedoscience. It's like saying that you know that tone exists because of an E-meter. Tone has nothing to do with anything remotely psychological. And the fact that you regect psychiatry only goes to prove how illogical the system is. Next thing you know you'll be saying Freud is full of crap. Also, I never caught it before, but you also said paleantology was crap. Don't believe in Carbon-14 either? A big myth? |
| Date | 14:15:45, March 09, 2006 CET | From | New Theta | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | I'm not talking about it being "scientifically proven". You argued that all religion is based on "illogical faith", and and I am disagreeing with you. What is "illogical faith" anyway? Does that mean "logical faith" is okay? Many scientific "truths" are based on "logical faith" but does that make them True? (This is where my argument with carbon dating comes in). Scientology rests on the fact that it is workable and that it achieves invariable results. One does not need faith or belief in it to work. It is what it is. I don't need to believe in tone levels, thetans or past lives to achieve the results from a couple of hours of Auditing. As for your comments about Psychiatry...lol. Show me conclusive scientific evidence that mental illnesses are biologically/neurologically based then. Tell me. I challenge you. Provide me the evidence that shows that antidepressants do not increase suicidal ideation and aggression. Show me the conclusive evidence that proves antidepressants are more effective than a mere sugar pill in "treating" depressive disorders. Psychiatry claims it is a science, that there is scientific evidence to back up its claims about the medical model of mental illness. Unfortunately, it cannot provide any. Not the NIMH, APA or RCoP, any pharmaceutical company, not anyone. The U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on Mental Health in fact states: “The precise causes (etiology) of mental disorders are not known” and that “there is no definitive lesion, laboratory test, or abnormality in brain tissue that can identify the illness.” which undermines the entire "science" Psychiatry rests on. You may laugh at me scoffing psychiatry, but I like to evaluate the "research" and evidence behind scientific claims before accepting them. |
| Date | 21:21:49, March 10, 2006 CET | From | National Progressive Party | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=160 First thing that I saw. "You argued that all religion is based on "illogical faith", and and I am disagreeing with you. What is "illogical faith" anyway? Does that mean "logical faith" is okay?" No such thing as logical faith. If something is based on a theory, then scientists go right out and admit it. It's what theory means. But usually it's got damn good backing. Carbon dating is a theory, but it has enough evidence so we can rely on it. "Scientology rests on the fact that it is workable and that it achieves invariable results. One does not need faith or belief in it to work. It is what it is. I don't need to believe in tone levels, thetans or past lives to achieve the results from a couple of hours of Auditing." "Show me the conclusive evidence that proves antidepressants are more effective than a mere sugar pill in "treating" depressive disorders" And I say the same to you about auditing. |
| Date | 15:40:47, March 11, 2006 CET | From | New Theta | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | RE: http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=160 I think you should read this properly before you post the link in support of your argument. No where does it say that mental ills are ~caused~ by chemical imbalances, only that there is some association in how mood can change certain neurotransmitter levels. This is not proof of the biological model of mental illness. Links you may find enlightening: - http://cchr.org/index.cfm/6401 - http://groups.msn.com/psychbusters/chemicalfraud.msnw - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_imbalance_theory RE: "No such thing as logical faith. If something is based on a theory, then scientists go right out and admit it. It's what theory means. But usually it's got damn good backing. Carbon dating is a theory, but it has enough evidence so we can rely on it." Sure, that's fine. But can we agree then that there is still an element of "faith" involved in the acceptance of such theories as fact. RE: "And I say the same to you about auditing." Ahh...but Scientology makes no scientific claims about auditing. As I already said: it is what it is. It is a religious system based on certain philosophical axioms. Empasis is always on what ~works~, not on what is "true". Faith is not required. |
| Date | 18:44:48, March 11, 2006 CET | From | National Progressive Party | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | "Ahh...but Scientology makes no scientific claims about auditing. As I already said: it is what it is. It is a religious system based on certain philosophical axioms. Empasis is always on what ~works~, not on what is "true". Faith is not required." So you give them money and they give you nothing? You just destroyed yourself. You admitted that scientology does nothing. Wow. The whole basis of your religion, infasct the only one thast you probably affect is nothing more than a placebo effect. Fuck, just give money to me and I'll give you special water which will balance your spiritual energy and make Gaia energy flow through you. Makes about as much sense as what you're doing right now. It honestly doesn't sound terribly much different from psychological therapy, except for the person you're seeing probably isn't trained in psychology, and doesn't actually help you with serious emotional and mental issues that you may be dealing with. If you have some serious issues with your past, go see an actual doctor. |
| Date | 19:33:41, March 11, 2006 CET | From | New Theta | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | RE: "So you give them money and they give you nothing? You just destroyed yourself. You admitted that scientology does nothing" Eh? All I said was that Scientology makes no scientific claims for itself. That doesn't mean it has no benefit. On the contrary lol. RE: "It honestly doesn't sound terribly much different from psychological therapy, except for the person you're seeing probably isn't trained in psychology, and doesn't actually help you with serious emotional and mental issues that you may be dealing with. If you have some serious issues with your past, go see an actual doctor." <sigh> It's clear to me that you really don't have a good understanding of what Scientology is or does. Until you do, and until you study it for yourself, I see no point in any further discussion of it in this way. |
| Date | 15:07:54, March 12, 2006 CET | From | National Progressive Party | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | "Eh? All I said was that Scientology makes no scientific claims for itself. That doesn't mean it has no benefit. On the contrary lol." Placebo benefit. "<sigh> It's clear to me that you really don't have a good understanding of what Scientology is or does. Until you do, and until you study it for yourself, I see no point in any further discussion of it in this way." Tell me when you stop being a cultist. |
| Date | 15:30:52, March 12, 2006 CET | From | New Theta | To | Debating the Religion Bill |
| Message | That's lovely. What a charming, tolerant individual. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 176 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 359 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 215 |
| Random fact: Particracy has been running since 2005. Dorvik was Particracy's first nation, the Dorvik Social Democrats the first party and the International Greens the first Party Organisation. |
| Random quote: "How we can possibly be giving £1bn a month, when we're in this sort of debt, to Bongo Bongo Land is completely beyond me." - Godfrey Bloom |