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 Pruning Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry'
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: June 2196
Description[?]:
| It is the opiate of the people. If the people are going to be under the influence of any opiates, we'd rather they were purchased for the sake of the economy rather than have 2 hours of their life wasted doing this "praying" and "congregating" nonsense to some "God". |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: Recognized religions are not taxed.
Current: All religious income, despite the use, is taxed.
Proposed: All religious income, despite the use, is taxed.
Article 2
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: Public officials are not allowed to wear religious symbols while exercising their duties.
Proposed: Public officials are not allowed to wear religious symbols while exercising their duties.
Article 3
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 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to prayer in schools.
Old value:: The government leaves this decision up to the schools themselves.
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 | 14:36:08, March 06, 2006 CET | From | Georgeonian Centrist Party | To | Debating the Religion Pruning Act |
| Message | Whilst we are in favour of the separation of religion and government, we believe that people have a right to practice their religion and do not wish to infringe upon that. We feel that articles #3 and #4 go too far for our taste, although we would support the first two articles. |
| Date | 14:42:39, March 06, 2006 CET | From | Fight For Your Right To Party | To | Debating the Religion Pruning Act |
| Message | We believe that this is also a distinct infringement of people's right to party, even if most religions do it in a boring way. We agree with the GCP about the separation of religion and government, but believe that restricting people's right to wear religious symbols etc is clearly giving the government a religious position, albeit an atheistic one. The Fight For Your Right To Party does not support this bill. |
| Date | 21:34:49, March 06, 2006 CET | From | THEM | To | Debating the Religion Pruning Act |
| Message | "It is the opiate of the people. If the people are going to be under the influence of any opiates, we'd rather they were purchased for the sake of the economy rather than have 2 hours of their life wasted doing this "praying" and "congregating" nonsense to some "God"." ...and you guys call me fascist. |
| Date | 03:58:06, March 07, 2006 CET | From |  Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry' | To | Debating the Religion Pruning Act |
| Message | Notice the conditional "If the people are going to be under the influence of any opiates...". We're not forcing them to be under their unfluence, hence how we differ from fascists. |
| Date | 03:59:17, March 07, 2006 CET | From | Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry' | To | Debating the Religion Pruning Act |
| Message | *influence. You see? My "u" key has made the choice to elect for the economy-promoting method, clearly ; ) |
| Date | 09:22:33, March 07, 2006 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Religion Pruning Act |
| Message | It is the view of the Libtertarian party to reject all proposals. Regarding 1&2, Taxation, and regulations must be kept to a minimum, to ensure responsible government. Regarding 3, individiuals should have the choice of which school they wish to go to, whether or not they are religiously inclined, or not, and regarding 4, the administration of a school has the choice to decide which practices should take place on their premises, without threat of interference from the government. |
| Date | 19:06:18, March 07, 2006 CET | From | Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry' | To | Debating the Religion Pruning Act |
| Message | Oh well, can't please everyone... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 48 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 251 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When it comes to creating a Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation, players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map. |
| Random quote: "A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar." - H. L. Mencken |