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: The Family Bill of Rights
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Conservative 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 2251
Description[?]:
To strengthen family bonds across the nation, providing for better environemnts for our children to grow up in. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The policy regarding eminent domain is left to local governments.
Current: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Proposed: The government may not seize private property.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards the cloning of human beings.
Old value:: Research in cloning technologies is legal, but regulated.
Current: Research in cloning technologies is not regulated.
Proposed: The cloning of human beings is illegal.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: Religious taxation policy is left to the local governments.
Current: No religions are taxed.
Proposed: No religions are taxed.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Singing the national anthem in schools.
Old value:: Children are never made to sing the national anthem.
Current: Children are made to sing the national anthem at the commencement of school each day.
Proposed: Children are not made to sing the national anthem, but are required to show respect when it is played at the commencement of school each day.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 01:39:10, July 07, 2006 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the The Family Bill of Rights |
Message | We admire the principle of the first article but fear it could not work in practice. Road construction would be impossible, as well as powerlines, rail, etc. We find it better to improve the method of payment if a change needs to be made. The second article limits medical advancements and research thus we could not support this article either. We should be looking at any method to improve the lives of our citizens. Not give into fear of the unknown. The third we can support. Though we prefer recognized religions only to receive tax benefits. The last we are not concerned over, though we do not see the need in forcing anyone to show respect if they do not wish to. Respect is earned not forced. |
Date | 08:43:36, July 07, 2006 CET | From | United Conservative Party | To | Debating the The Family Bill of Rights |
Message | I understand the concern on the first, and we were left with the choice of deciding, before penning this bill, of what is more important? Making it easier on the government, or securing the rights of the people to own property, which is almost a God given right? Yes, it will certainly make expanding infrastructure much harder, but from now on, we'll just have to take a good hard look at land use and zoning before any new projects, which I believe, in a round about way, is a good and sound long term policy. The second amendment, we fear not for religious reasons, but for moral ones. When a human being is cloned, technically, they are the property of whoever cloned them. Be it a person, a family, whatever the case. That, my colleagues, is slavery. Furthermore, I don't wish to impress the "God's Will" speech on this Assembly, however experiencing the cards that the human body and genetics deals us, is what makes us stronger people. Yes, there is great tragedy in losing someone to sickness, or disease, but in the same way, we all benefit from it in making us stronger. We also fear that this could lead to a race of superhumans that are created out of a template, thus ending the genetic variety that this nation enjoys, and ending things that make people who they are by being born with certain traits and faults. We feel that all these reasons are far too precious to lose over possible medical and technological gain. Article 4 is to teach children to understand their country, understand why they're here, and to respect the laws and the history of this land. We can agree that we shouldn't have to force it upon them, but in some instances, especially with children, traditions and respect for the law must be forced on them. If they don't learn young in their lives, and see that it's okay for nobody to care a lick about this country, how can we expect them to respect what this nation stands for at an older age? |
Date | 07:49:27, July 10, 2006 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the The Family Bill of Rights |
Message | (OOC: sorry missed vote was out of town for weekend) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||
no |
Total Seats: 145 | |||
abstain | Total Seats: 156 |
Random fact: References to prominent real-life persons are not allowed. This includes references to philosophies featuring the name of a real-life person (eg. "Marxism", "Thatcherism", "Keynesianism"). |
Random quote: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson |