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: Ban on Religious Clothing for Public Officials
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Radical Union
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: October 2270
Description[?]:
| It does not seem acceptable, for a secular state, that politicians or representatives of the State are still allowed to promote one cult or another. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The state's policy concerning religious clothing.
Old value:: There are no laws regulating the wearing of religious clothing and the wearing of religious symbols.
Current: There are no laws regulating the wearing of religious clothing and the wearing of religious symbols.
Proposed: Public officials are not allowed to wear religious symbols while exercising their duties.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:50:48, July 14, 2006 CET | From | Central Block | To | Debating the Ban on Religious Clothing for Public Officials |
| Message | Against. |
| Date | 15:42:05, July 16, 2006 CET | From | National Radical Union | To | Debating the Ban on Religious Clothing for Public Officials |
| Message | For. Why? Because the State is supposed to be secular. Period. |
| Date | 18:54:49, July 16, 2006 CET | From | Central Block | To | Debating the Ban on Religious Clothing for Public Officials |
| Message | So a jewish person isn't allowed to wear the star of David and Christians can't wear the cross? That's alienating alot of people and I only mentioned two religions. There's nothing wrong with wearing symbols at work as long as your duties are not neglected and the workplace is not disrupted because of them, which I seriously doubt would happen. In other words, this bill is a breach of religious freedom. |
| Date | 15:49:39, July 18, 2006 CET | From | National Radical Union | To | Debating the Ban on Religious Clothing for Public Officials |
| Message | More than their duties, it is the neutrality of public officials that is threatened. If a representative is so attached to his religion that he starts wearing symbols proclaiming it, the next step is acting on religious principles. And that is what we want to avoid. |
| Date | 21:53:16, July 18, 2006 CET | From | Central Block | To | Debating the Ban on Religious Clothing for Public Officials |
| Message | Acting on them how? The NRU seems to consider religious individuals as mindless fanatics who are a liability to our nation. We hope this is not the case. |
| Date | 03:22:41, July 20, 2006 CET | From | Anarcho-Transcendentalist Party | To | Debating the Ban on Religious Clothing for Public Officials |
| Message | It seems to us that knowing the religion of a Public Official in advance is an advantage to the Public itself, for it knows then what to expect, much like electing a party member or a union member for any given post. What should we strip the Officials next? Their beleifs? Their imagination? Their childhood memories? Officials aren't supposed to be more drones than any other worker in the country. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 464 | ||
| 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: "No man can outrun a bullet." - Idi Amin |