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: Local Faith in Schools Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Republican Party
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: November 2069
Description[?]:
| In recognition of the fact that faith and matters of religions is a matter best left to the individual citizens, In recognition of the fact that a one-size-fits-all approach with regard to government mandates to the school is inappropriate, In recognition of the responsibility that teachers can play a complementary role in the spiritual and emotional development of a student, And in recognition of the idea that parents and teachers should determine the extent of religious teaching with in the classroom; Be it resolved that the Likatonian government grants the ability to the parents, teachers, and individual schools to determine what type of religious instruction should be included in the classroom , even if that should include prayer, and that they be permitted to do so. |
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, except in religious schools.
Proposed: The government leaves this decision up to the schools themselves.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 10:28:59, June 18, 2005 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | I believe it is imperative to the moral fiber of our nation that teachers and students should be permitted to learn relgious matters and pray, if the school decide that such activity is appropriate within their school. I believe this bill would allow for the proper balance between promoting the value of prayer where it is desired, and prohibiting prayer where it is not desired. |
| Date | 14:25:05, June 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | This is one of the rare occasions on which I am going to let public opinion sway me. Look how secular our people are! Also, the current legislation is not banning sunday schools or other faith-teaching organisations, so parents who want their kids to have a religious education can still do that. |
| Date | 16:35:06, June 18, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | No way! |
| Date | 16:43:25, June 18, 2005 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | The fact that the mainstream of our nation is so soundly on the secular side of things is precisely why we should allow for local schools to determine such things. It is quite likely that due to the vast secular nature of our nation, most schools would not allow for prayer to be conducted within the classroom. I am perfectly alright with that. However, in the interest of protecting the minority opinion in this nation I believe it is possible that there are some schools in which the minorty opinion, allowing prayer in the classroom, would be wanted. It is in respecting of these members of the minority that I propose this bill, and I believe this bill should be ratified. And certainly, there are sunday schools at churches and private religious schools; this is a good thing. However, some parents of students may not be able to afford a private religious education. Those students should have the benefit of being able to have a teacher-led prayer in the classroom; if the school as a whole agrees. Ultimately, ratification of this bill puts control of the matter of school prayer in the hands of local citizens. Many of our nation's political parties claim to support giving control of decisions to the people. This bill would so exactly that. |
| Date | 19:57:13, June 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | sunday schools, in my experience, are usually free. |
| Date | 21:45:24, June 18, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | This doesn't give control to the very person it should protect - the student. Most very young children have not yet learned any critical thinking by the time they are of school age. Thus, this would result in indoctrination. We won't stop parents from teaching their religion to their children. However, we shouldn't allow teachers to teach children a religion. If a teacher is religious, then they won't care what public opinion is. Much to the chagrin of secular-inclined parents, they'll probably teach the kids all about their religion of choice. Religion is for churches, not for schools. I'm tired of hearing "moral fiber" arguments. "Atheist morals" are as good as any religion. Spirituality is NOT the same as morality. There've been any inquisitions led by religions, and there've been many civil rights movements led by the same. Similarly, there've been unreligious military groups in the past, and there've been unreligious rights campaigners. If we want to improve our nation's morality, we should do it without relying on religions that don't seem to influence base natures anyways. |
| Date | 00:25:23, June 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | I am a perfect living example of why that first point is not necessarily true - i spent a childhood being indoctrinated, was a good little christian until the age of about 9, then suddenly learned to think for myself and became what is very close to atheistic. However, that doesnt mean it was right. Leaving it to the schools would work if the parents had a free choice of what school to send their kids to, but sometimes they dont, so i remain in support of this bill. |
| Date | 03:40:48, June 19, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | I am also an example of why it doesn't always work. Nevertheless, funding religious teaching is not a responsible use of the taxpayer's money. |
| Date | 12:10:15, June 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | oops. got confused. I meant in opposition to this bill, as i am sure you could tell from my arguments! |
| Date | 06:33:27, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | I too am a good example of what good can come out of secular thinking. Yes religion is fine and dandy, but being secular gives you a chance to seek with 360 vision... |
| Date | 08:39:06, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | I'm fully in favor of our nation being a secular nation. I don't believe we should have a state religion. I don't believe a student or teacher should be forced to pray if they do not wish to. This bill completely respects that right. However, I feel that a complete and total prohibition on a practice of faith, prayer, simply because it is a pratice of faith is actually a violation of our nation's committment to the protection of those in minority opinions. To say "No. Our nation is a secular nation, you can't pray in a school," is a violation of one of the concepts we hold most dear: tolerance. Prohibiting teachers from being able to pray is a violation of our citizens' right to freedom of practicing their religion. Such a prohibition on faith does not make our nation a secular nation, it makes our nation an aethistic nation. A secular nation is one in which all faith, and non-faiths, are allowed to be practiced. If the parents of the students along with the citizens that run the school agree that prayer should be permitted, then I don't believe we should deny them that opprotunity just because it is politically popular to do so. I understand it is likely that this bill will not pass, however, I will be putting it to a vote as I feel it is the proper direction our nation should take. Enacting this legislation would show we are committed to being a true secular nation, protection of minority opinions, and tolerate all faiths in a public area. |
| Date | 23:06:29, June 20, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | We do not prohibit teachers from being able to pray. We do not prohibit students from being able to pray. We do not prohibit parents from being able to pray. We don't even prohibit them from being able to pray on school grounds. We just prohibit the teaching of religious classes in public schools. Religion should not be endorse by the government, and religious teachings in a government institution is a very bad idea. It would be a blow against true religious freedom. People must be free to seek their own path, free of government religion. The government is atheistic because any other stance damages religious freedom. When the government is guided by ANY religion, it runs the slippery slope of legislating against other religions. The government having NO religion does not have that problem. Parents are not consulted on every school policy matter. |
| Date | 04:55:33, June 21, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | OOC: Whoa, I'd hit the wrong button on my vote. |
| Date | 07:16:00, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Local Faith in Schools Act |
| Message | To say that the government is atheist isn't even right. The government is secular, and in this case, it means that it is a political state that is governed by democratic laws that aren't influenced by anything other than principles of civil rights, political freedoms and safety. By having forced prayer, we are restricting the rights of those who are either not of that religion or do not practice at all. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 127 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 73 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players consent to the reasonable and predictable consequences of the role-play they consent to. For example, players who role-play their characters as committing criminal offences should expect those characters to experience the predictable judicial consequences of that. |
| Random quote: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible." - Donald Trump |