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 Protection and Freedom Act of -2213-
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
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: September 2213
Description[?]:
| 1) This bill end's the taxation of religion. Religions are not in the same category of private industry and since profits made by religions are used by religions for the day to day operations. Religions also receive no government funding for religious programs or religious schools. 2) Allows for the freedom of religious schools to exist alongside other public and private schools. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: Religions are treated as companies, and all profit is taxed, however, charitable donations are not taxed.
Current: Religions are treated as companies, and all profit is taxed, however, charitable donations are not taxed.
Proposed: No religions are taxed.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The governments stance on religious schools.
Old value:: Religious schools are not allowed.
Current: Religious schools are allowed, but are strictly regulated. Only recognised religions may set up religious schools.
Proposed: Any religion may set up a school, with no regulations.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:17:15, April 10, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Religious Protection and Freedom Act of -2213- |
| Message | Religions are only taxed on their profits. A profit is an income over and above that required for the operation of business, which in the position of a religion is the operation and payment of the church and its workers. We would also point out that "investment" is not stopped as these profits are taxed at the standard rate, so the majority of the profits remain with the religion. A religion is no different than a business, it is just more insidious. Moreso, allowing religious institutions not only a say but to operate educational establishments with no regulations merely increases the risks of dividing this Country between the religious and the "heathens" as there is no control, Government or public, to have any say in what is taught to the pupils, however if such a thing were to be barred from the religious in state schools they would be up in arms. Stop this foolhardy position of calling everything "freedom" and "liberty". This bill is neither of these things, merely a first step toward creating a religious state. |
| Date | 04:53:30, April 11, 2006 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Religious Protection and Freedom Act of -2213- |
| Message | This only allows for religions to have the same protections and rights as citizens. A government calling religion insidious is much more dangerous to a republic then allowing religious citizens to practice their faith regardless of the beliefs of government. Also if religions are taxed doesn't that give them the right as citizens to operate a school or promote religious ideas among themselves? Taxing a organisation while at the same time preventing their right to exist is bias and is bad policy for a democratic government to follow. |
| Date | 09:19:40, April 11, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Religious Protection and Freedom Act of -2213- |
| Message | "Taxing a organisation while at the same time preventing their right to exist is bias and is bad policy for a democratic government to follow." - Who prevents their right to exist? The answer is no-one. There is no law banning religion so this point is moot. "Also if religions are taxed doesn't that give them the right as citizens" - No, that gives them the rights of business. A religion is not a citizen. A religion is a conglomeration of peoples who believe in the same (or similar) spiritual belief system. There is no law stopping people practising their faith. A religion is closer to a business rather than an individual and is treated as such. Businesses do not operate schools, the Government and individual private owners do (or through the Charter system, individual private groups supported by Government). Should a school be operated under business conditions (i.e. private schools) then we see no problem in taxing them as businesses however, just like religion, they are not individuals, they are not citizens. "A government calling religion insidious is much more dangerous to a republic then allowing religious citizens to practice their faith regardless of the beliefs of government." - As already mentioned, at no point have any religions been banned so there is nothin stopping people practising their faith. However, a religion is merely a specific dogma that has the support of a group of people and though this should be taught to school age pupils, it should not be forced onto them. A religious school does not leave open the choice of whether the child wishes to follow the religion, rather it enforces the teachings of that religion onto the child, this is far more insidious than the Government supported system which has checks and balances to guarantee that education is of the highest standard without being used a propaganda, something that does not exist in this bill for religious schools as they are free from any regulations. The child has no choice, surely that is a breach of their rights. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 251 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 149 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Treaty-locking", or ratifiying treaties that completely or nearly completely forbid any proposals to change laws, is not allowed. Amongst other possible sanctions, Moderation reserves the discretion to delete treaties and/or subject parties to a seat reset if this is necessary in order to reverse a treaty-lock situation. |
| Random quote: "The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution." - Hannah Arendt |