Defense of Monastic Schools Act: Abstain
Chilean Airforce Bill 2: Yes
"I would vote in favour of the DMSA, but for two reasons; firstly, it only recognises Catholic Church property as ecclesiastical property, which I find disrespectful of Chile's history of religious tolerance; secondly, because it only respects Catholic, Jesuit, and Orthodox (of all denominations) schools, whereas I believe it should extend to all religious schools. Therefore, the only amendment to be made before I support it is ensuring the immunity of all religious property, not merely the ones stated. If Catholic property belongs to the Vatican, then why should Anglican property not belong to Britain? Make no exceptions or make them all."
Dr. Sebastian Montenegro
Chile is a very cosmopolitaine country and I believe in multiculturalism. I believe we should defend other religious minorities as well, but this bill applies to the catholic church and we should make another separate one for the other religions. Why? Because the catholic church is a sovereign entity with
Fuentes, I want to clarify some points of my church bill that you didn't understand:
1°st point: The point is that if by any chance there's a political upheaval once again, the cathedrals and monasteries that are controlled by the Catholic church should be considered just like foreign embassies and shouldn't be attacked by the government or an angry mob.
3°rd point: The point isn't to make all bishops immune to the law and give them a special status. No, you failed to understand (or I failed to explain) that bishops are directly appointed by the Vatican to a certain area and office, and such act as a representative of the Holy See and of the Pope. They respond to the Pope as an emissary responds to his head-of-state. And as such they shouldn't participate in local politics and they should be bound by the Vatican's law. In case of a problem with the law they should really be extraditated to Roma and the Vatican should take the necessary measures, just like if an foreign embassador commited a crime here they should be sent to their nation to face punishment as they were acting as representatives, not as citizens. I want the bishops and high clerical authorities, who are appointed by the Vatican and obey it's laws, to be seen as foreign entities rather than locals. I hope my intentions are clear.
And finally two minor explanations: a) The Catholic Church has special status not because I am a follower of it's faith, but because it has a special diplomatic and international position that other faiths do not have. They are an independent and sovereign political entity and therefore they can own land, unlike muslim mosques and jewish sinagogues. The other faiths deserve representation, I know, but the catholic church has a different status and therefore should have a different treatment. b) In case of social and political upheaval, and if the state is controlled by a not-so-pacifist-and-democratic communist group, then guarantees like these will hold together the church and the nation. Having our churches siezed by a communist government would be like having your trade-unions and social benefits banned under a fascist government: it would upset too many people to let things stay that way. That's why we need to make sure both sides are happy for democracy to suceed. Otherwise, everything goes to hell.
I want to amend my bill. I ask the speaker for guidance, as I do not know: what must I do to fix my bill? I'm afraid it wont pass if it's misunderstood. Can't I wait it to fail and put an improved version to vote some years later?