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 Affirmation Act of 4450
Details
Submitted by[?]: Three Acres 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: November 4451
Description[?]:
| This bill will encourage the promotion of strong moral and traditional values in our nation. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on public nudity.
Old value:: There are no laws with regards to public nudity, it is allowed.
Current: Public nudity is illegal, but private nudist colonies and beaches are permitted.
Proposed: Public nudity is illegal and prosecuted as a civil offence.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to polygamy.
Old value:: Polygamous marriages are accorded equal recognition to monogamous marriages.
Current: There is no explicit government policy on polygamy.
Proposed: The government does not recognise polygamous relationships.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: All religious income, despite the use, is 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 4
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: Wearing religious clothing or religious symbols in public is illegal.
Proposed: There are no laws regulating the wearing of religious clothing and the wearing of religious symbols.
Article 5
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: Only recognised religions may set up religious schools, with no regulations.
Article 6
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, except in religious schools.
Proposed: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden, except in religious schools.
Article 7
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning religions.
Old value:: There is no government policy concerning a state religion.
Current: There is no official state religion, but the government only allows recognized religions. 'Cults' are persecuted.
Proposed: There is no official state religion, but the government only allows recognized religions. 'Cults' are persecuted.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:54:51, September 06, 2018 CET | From | Democratic-Social Party | To | Debating the Religious Affirmation Act of 4450 |
| Message | Why would you even want to create a religious-fundamentalist State? Our current religious policy is sensitive to the fact that we respect religious diversity in our country. The only article we actually agree on is article 10, but other than that I believe this bill would lead out nation into a downward spiral of repression and marginalization. Eunice Fowler Democratic Party House Speaker |
| Date | 20:37:01, September 06, 2018 CET | From | Three Acres Party | To | Debating the Religious Affirmation Act of 4450 |
| Message | None of the proposed articles would establish anything resembling a religious or fundamentalist state. The proposed bill would not actually bring religion government, but would promote the idea of religion in general, not any particular religion. It would also promote moral values in our nation, not to establish a state religion, but to improve the spiritual and moral health of the nation, which we feel is important for national stability. |
| Date | 21:43:21, September 06, 2018 CET | From | Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Religious Affirmation Act of 4450 |
| Message | I only support articles 5, 7 and 10. The rest is just an outrage. We are not a religious-fundamental nation. |
| Date | 21:43:22, September 06, 2018 CET | From | Democratic-Social Party | To | Debating the Religious Affirmation Act of 4450 |
| Message | Yes, it would enforce a religious State, by persecutting cults you're denying citizens the freedom to believe whatever they like. Moral values in our nation are very well established. I can assure that. Eunice Fowler Democratic Party House Speaker |
| Date | 22:14:09, September 06, 2018 CET | From | Three Acres Party | To | Debating the Religious Affirmation Act of 4450 |
| Message | Cults are dangerous. They are rarely based on actual belief, instead they are attempts to extort money from gullible people. They are more like loan sharks or pyramid schemes than religions. Not to mention all the examples of cults abusing their members, or even their member’s children, and then covering it up. The government should not allow such heinous organizations to operate freely. It is akin to legalizing crime rings. |
| Date | 23:43:59, September 06, 2018 CET | From | Three Acres Party | To | Debating the Religious Affirmation Act of 4450 |
| Message | I have decided to remove the first three articles of the original bill. These articles were: Art subsidies only for religious art, stem cell research may only be done on adult stem cells, and divorces only for good cause (abuse or adultery). The scope of the bill was too wide. I still feel strongly about the remaining articles. 1. Public nudity should not be allowed for obvious reasons, and I’m surprised it hasn’t already been banned. 2. Marriage should be a union of two peopl, allowing polygamous marriages would encourage tax fraud. 3. I already stated why cults should be banned. 4. It is unfair to tax religious institutions as they are not businesses, and their goal is not to earn money so taxing them would harm their ability to operate, and so impedes religious freedom. 5. For similar reasons, public officials should be allowed to wear religious clothing, forbidding them from doing so is unfair discrimination against religious people. 6. Excessive regulation of religious schools makes them too similar to public schools, making their existence moot and discouraging people from attending. 7. Prayer should absolutely be allowed in religious schools, I have no idea why it’s banned. |
| Date | 23:44:39, September 06, 2018 CET | From | Three Acres Party | To | Debating the Religious Affirmation Act of 4450 |
| Message | Also: I will call the bill to a vote after the elections in November. |
| Date | 00:11:51, September 07, 2018 CET | From | Three Acres Party | To | Debating the Religious Affirmation Act of 4450 |
| Message | On second thought, I am calling the bill to vote prior to the election. |
| Date | 01:14:15, September 07, 2018 CET | From | Democratic-Social Party | To | Debating the Religious Affirmation Act of 4450 |
| Message | Despite many of the changes you've made and the fact that the scope got a lot smaller, we still feel there are certain proposals in this bill that feel radical and too religious. Moral guidelines aren't strictly isolated to religious people, we've had pastors and ministers caught cheating on their wives and stealing money from their followers. Being religious does not provide a strict moral guideline, rather a spiritual relationship with God does. And a relationship with God or whatever deity you believe in can be achieved without being religious. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 70 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 182 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 13 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not implement nation renaming requests where the proposed name does not comply with the requirements set out in the Nation Renaming Guide: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6364 |
| Random quote: "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli |