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: Religious Freedom and State Neutrality Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Republican 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: December 4423
Description[?]:
| The Republican Party proposes that we move away from recent trends to prohibit religious belief and afford greater freedoms for citizens to choose their destiny. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to prayer in schools.
Old value:: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden.
Current: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden.
Proposed: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden, except in religious schools.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The governments stance on religious schools.
Old value:: Religious schools are not allowed.
Current: Only recognised religions may set up religious schools, with no regulations.
Proposed: Any religion may set up a school, but they are strictly regulated.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Old value:: The government determines which missionaries are permitted to visit on a person by person basis.
Current: The government has no policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Proposed: The government has no policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 10:34:51, July 13, 2018 CET | From | Secular Humanist Party | To | Debating the Religious Freedom and State Neutrality Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We shouldn't allow schools to teach that unicorns are real and we shouldn't allow our children be taught to believe things without sufficient evidence. This means we shouldn't allow religion a place inside schools. We wouldn't teach our children that matter consists of only four elements like the Kalopian philosophers believed, as evidence contradicts this. Thus we shouldn't allow the fallacies of religion in class either. What superstitions are believed outside of school are up to the people, but school is a place of learning and reason. Faith, which very definition means belief without sufficient evidence, has no place in school. Alexander Prince Leader of the SHP |
| Date | 10:48:03, July 13, 2018 CET | From | Liberal Progressives | To | Debating the Religious Freedom and State Neutrality Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We see the merits of this bill. Giving citizens greater freedom in choosing their schools and allowing for these schools to match the wishes of those it teaches are a good idea in our opinion. We’ll support this bill on one condition: that the Republican Party promise that students are allowed to participate in teacher-led prayer as they wish, without being disrespected of the other students. This way, if a student is not an adherent to hosianism, for example, they can still participate in the school prayer. George Windsor, Shadow Minister of Education and Culture for the Liberal Progressives |
| Date | 10:52:21, July 13, 2018 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Religious Freedom and State Neutrality Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, The Leader of the SHP talks nonsense. The SHP argues for an educational system that shuts down freedom of thought, an education system that must surely reject any morality that isn't rooted in "evidence", what place for literature and any other subject that isn't rooted in "evidence". His proposition is absurd. They propose a stale system of education in which no belief or value can be articulated. How on earth would new scientific discoveries ever be taught, surely they would challenge the "evidence" already incorporated into the curriculum. We must resist the close minded nature of the SHP. Thomas McDonald Leader of the Republicans |
| Date | 10:58:29, July 13, 2018 CET | From | Lodamun Labour Party | To | Debating the Religious Freedom and State Neutrality Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, The LLP opposes this change. The LLP supports the right of Lodamese to have a religion. We think that the first to articles are in line with the current liberalization of our education system. We will however not support this if article 3 stays in this bill. We do not wish for Religious extremists to enter our nation unrestricted. The current law allows us to keep those who are a danger to Lodamun out of Lodamun. Cathy Durand, LLP Leader |
| Date | 11:07:51, July 13, 2018 CET | From | Secular Humanist Party | To | Debating the Religious Freedom and State Neutrality Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Non-religious literature doesn't claim to be true without evidence. It is not the SHP that shuts down freedom of thought, that is the nature of religion. As long as there can be an evidence based discussion one can have freedom of thought. If evidence and the scientific method are ignored there is no longer a framework for discussion. Claims without proof should not be admitted into these discussions. Belief can be articulated if reason for the belief can be articulated. Belief without reason or evidence is unjustified belief. Scientific discoveries can easily be taught, as they come about by provision of new evidence. If religion can provide the same, it becomes scientific canon and can be taught in schools. Regarding value, religion is not required for value, it is actually detrimental to determining value. Morality does not require Elyon, or any Deity. Morality can be based on naturalist experience, for example the basis could be "That which is good for society", or "That which is good for Human Well-Being". These are both systems of morality that do not require a deity. Hosianism provides moral laws, which cannot be debated if one believes they come from an infallible diety. That is the death of freedom of thought and the death of determining value. We want our children to articulate their own reasoning for what is valuable. Alexander Prince Leader of the SHP |
| Date | 12:10:20, July 13, 2018 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Religious Freedom and State Neutrality Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, Once again the SHP reiterate that if something does not match their own scientific canon then it cannot be taught. So ends the teaching of philosophy or morality or literature or any number of subjects. Thus ends freedom of thought, heaven forbid that somebody has ideas the SHP do not approve of. They favour reducing freedom in order to defend the purity of the beliefs that they hold dear. The Republicans will defend freedom of belief over the bigotry of the SHP. Schooling should not be subject to the bigotry of the SHP. It should allow the opening of minds and the discussion of different points of view. It should provide a safe place to develop an understanding of the world around us, not an opportunity for small minded persons like the SHP to force belief on others. Essentially these proposals boil down to the idea that citizens should have the freedom to decide for themselves, or whether the views of a section of the community should be forced upon others. As per current legislation, we have policies in place that decide the national curriculum that schools should teach, regulation is proposed to contain what religious schools should teach, therefore the only issue at stake here is whether the state should discriminate against its own citizens? Thomas McDonald Leader of the Republicans |
| Date | 12:22:19, July 13, 2018 CET | From | Secular Humanist Party | To | Debating the Religious Freedom and State Neutrality Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Philosophy is studying that which has evidence and reason. It means loving knowledge and knowledge is defined by Piletos as "justified true belief". The justified in this part means that which has come by through evidence and reason. I would ask the Republican Party to refrain from using straw man arguments when presenting the views of the SHP. We do not oppose philosophy, we want philosophy to be the basis of all education. We do not oppose but promote literature as it has cultural value without claiming truth. Different point of views should be promoted but reasoned. Religion does not allow for reason as faith is directly opposed to justified true belief. We do not want to force our view on the population, we want te people to be able to reason for their position, which faith does not allow. Alexander Prince Leader of the SHP |
| Date | 12:47:16, July 13, 2018 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Religious Freedom and State Neutrality Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, This is nonsense, the SHP have now restated several times that they do want or trust individual citizens to establish their own values. This is confirmation that the current ban on religious schools is pure bigotry based on a premise that reasonable faith cannot allow reason, which is contrary to the development of science and any of number of other disciplines in which religious people have been perfectly capable of combining religious belief with reason. The SHP complain of straw man arguments while ultimately using a straw man argument to justify their beliefs. Thomas McDonald Leader of the Republican Party |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 173 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 282 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 144 |
| Random fact: Make sure to check out Particracy's wiki. http://particracy.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page |
| Random quote: "Once again, we will wage war against fascism, only this time a civil war of words and politics." - Vladimir Borisov, former Trigunian politician |