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: Protection from Indoctirination 2069
Details
Submitted by[?]: People's Progressive 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: August 2070
Description[?]:
| See as how the current law allowing teacher led prayers in the public school classroom is against the rights of all citizens to be free from religious or anti-religious propoganda by the government, we must forbid public school teachers from being allowed the lead prayers during class time. |
Proposals
Article 1
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, except in religious schools.
Proposed: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:25:14, June 20, 2005 CET | From | People's Progressive Party | To | Debating the Protection from Indoctirination 2069 |
| Message | You just had to expect this one to come up again. Anyways, ocne again we make the arguement that allowing the schools to decide this for themselves is not fair to the democratic principle of "equality under the law for all, special privledges for none." If a public school is located in an area where the students are of one religion and the school's administration decides to allow teacher led prayer, then the religious minorities present in the public school would not be protected from indoctrination during class time. As such we must not allow our public schools to be able to endorse a any type of religion to the student. Since the public schools are state institutions, public school teachers endorsing a certain type of religion during their work hours can be seen as the government endorsing a state religion. |
| Date | 07:34:30, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Centre Party of Gaduridos | To | Debating the Protection from Indoctirination 2069 |
| Message | We respectfully disagree. First of all, there is no reason to call teacher-led prayer "indoctrination". We are not talking about mandatory prayers - any student may chose not to join in the prayer, or to start their own prayer reflective of their faith. Second, I fail to see how this acts as an endorsement of a particular faith. Teachers are allowed to have a religion, and simply expressing that religion does not mean they are forcing or even asking anyone else to join in. In practical terms, an absolute ban on teacher-led prayers in school could extend to after-school activities as well. School sports teams are often coached by teachers, and games are almost always played on school grounds, which would mean the coach could not participate in team prayers or blessings before games. Banning religious expression is hardly a good way to defend the rights of citizens. In trying not to favour one or another religion, the state would here end up favouring those with no religion, by showing its clear disdain for those of faith. |
| Date | 08:25:59, June 20, 2005 CET | From | People's Progressive Party | To | Debating the Protection from Indoctirination 2069 |
| Message | Well since the public school teachers salaries are paid with public money. The government is of the public and for the public, which is a diverse group of individuals of different faiths. Thus, why should employees of the public, teachers, be allowed to endorse any type of religion or no religion during class time? They should not. The state would not be favouring those of "no religion" because the teacher's would also be prohibited from indoctrinating students with anti-religious propoganda. |
| Date | 10:45:58, June 20, 2005 CET | From | National Democratic Party | To | Debating the Protection from Indoctirination 2069 |
| Message | We believe that the current law is sufficient. The DCP brings up a number of good points. |
| Date | 21:12:43, June 20, 2005 CET | From | People's Progressive Party | To | Debating the Protection from Indoctirination 2069 |
| Message | How are students protected from the potential overzealous behavior of a teacher by the current law? They are not. In fact the current law allows for teachers to preach as much as they want without regard for the religious diversity of the student population. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 115 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 179 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 61 |
| Random fact: Unless otherwise stated, monarchs and their royal houses will be presumed to be owned by the player who introduced the bill appointing them to their position. |
| Random quote: "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles." - Niccolo Machiavelli |