Fundamentalist Government

Well, I thought this should be put back into civilisation III. This was my first attempt at adding a new government. Usually I do some minor graphic work but I felt that I could use the image of theology, so this file only alters the civilopedia.

The backup is included.

This is the information included in the files

**************************************************
Fundamentalist Government

Author: Iain Forbes
File Info: This file adds the Fundamentalist government to Civilisation III when the player completes research into Theology. It also alters the civilopedia and for that reason a backup is contained in this zip. just extract the zip to your c: or respective drive

I would also like to stress that I, in no way shape or form, support Fundamentalism. I just thought it should not have been removed from Civ II.

Gov Info:
Fundamentalism is a form of government based on the literal, forceful and uncompromising interpretation of religious dogma. Fundamentalist societies maintain their own beliefs are the only true path to salvation, and tend to be rigidly intolerant of any dissenting views. Under Fundamentalist governments workers are happy to produce more and soldiers to work for less. It gives the player the benefits of communism on the military and democracy on propaganda but at the cost of halving scientific research.

Corruption and Waste: Minimal
Hurry Method: Forced Labour
Worker Rate: 3
Assimilation: 1%
Draft Limit: 2
Military Police: 5
War Weariness: None
Cost/Unit: 1
Free Units Per
Town: 2
City: 5
Metropolis: 10
Immune to Propaganda
Improvements require no maintenance
************************************************** **

didnt you overrate it a bit??

Not really, I thought that I had to account for the effects of greater population loyalty. Therefore I made the production rates higher and military a greater power. If i remember Civ 2, the science was affected. I wanted to reduce this to 10%, but the damn editor only allowed 50% but hey!

I would just like to say that not all fundamentalist governments are backed up by RELIGIOUS dogma. The government of Oceania in 1984 was a fundamentalist government, and it banned it's middle and upper class citizens from practicing any sort of religion.

Fundamentalist regimes tend to be totalitarian, but the reverse is not true: totalitarian regimes are usually Marxist or nationalistic, not fundamentalist. The government of Oceania in 1984 was a totalitarian one, with Marxist and nationalistic elements, and was modelled on the Soviet Union. It was not a fundamentalist regime in any sense.

Fundamentalism is a specific form of religion which seeks to return to the origins of that religion, through the literal reading of religious texts, and strict adherence to them. Where as a modern interpretation looks for moral lessons in religious texts, the fundamentalist one insists all the stories in those texts are true and happened exactly as described, and therefore that any orders given in those stories must be obeyed.

I think Civ3 should have included a Totalitarian form of government instead of a Communist one. Marxism/Communism is, after all, a strange economic theory (some would even say a cult or religion, owing to the use of dogma instead of reason), and not a form of government. Moreover, many important totalitarian movements opposed Marxism (e.g. National Socialism, Fascism).

SMAC was much better in this respect, providing a very flexible architecture in which a wide variety of political and economic systems could be represented. I don´t understand why this system was replaced in Civ3 with one that´s so much worse. It´s very disappointing to have such a poor choice of governments.

Im a Gov-Pol student and would like to inform Caligula that totalitarianism is not a type of government rather a feature of it.

Basically what I'm saying is you would have to place it in a context i.e. a totalitarian maxist government or a totalitarian fascist government, even a totalitarian liberal government

It basically means a government that exercises autocratic control of its citizens and the nations legislation, irrespective of the type of government.

Im am also happy to create a government based on true marxism, but Karl Marx did not actually approve of ANY type of governmental centralisation, let alone totalitarianism.

Post any more ideas if you think of any.

Sorry, but I think you´re wrong: even a dictionary will tell you that totalitarianism is a form of government, and there is often little to distinguish one of these regimes from another, whether the underlying ideology is Marxism, nationalism or religion. Changing the ideology or economic system does not require a change to the form of government either (e.g. China has changed its economic model, but the form of governmemt remains the same).

SMAC reduces this confusion between economic organisation and political organisation by allowing each to be independently set. For instance, it allows a democratic regime with a planned economy (i.e. social democracy), a police-state regime with a free-market economy, etc. It´s a pity Civ3 lacks such flexibility, but if adding a lot of individual political/economic systems can simulate it, that would be an improvement.

I don´t mean to be critical of adding more governments, which is a good thing, as long as they´re balanced and are different enough to be useful. The problem I´ve had with them is that the anarchy when changing governments is so destructive that I usually only change twice (Despotism to Republic, then Republic to Democracy). Another problem is balance: if the AI always uses one modern system of government over others, it´s probably unbalanced.

As for Marx, he prophesied the forced overthrow of the existing order and the creation of a dictatorship of the proletariat which would abolish private property and classes. Such things can only be done by totalitarian regimes, so any claimed opposition to centralisation is a sign of further inconsistency within already irrational theories. This is why Marxist regimes tend to be totalitarian, and why most social democrats have long rejected Marxism. The Civ3 Communism is therefore accurate in that sense, but should, I think, be a general totalitarian system, independent of the economic organisation (unless using a lot of more specific forms of government works well).

Totalitarian is used to describe the governments who repress the people... it isn't a form of government, but it's a characteristic of a government...

The model of Karl Marx wasn't totalitarian, Stalin government was totalitarian...

Communism not necessarily is totalitarian...
When the repression is too hard... and there are politic prisoners , terrorism by the government, then it is when a form of government become totalitarian...

If in a democracy the government decides to repress people who are protesting for a decision taken by the government, and then the government repress them with the police, then it's totalitarian too...

Hi - any chance you can do a mod containing both your Fundamentalist and Fascist Governments ? While not subscribing to either ideology, I think Civ III lacked in the this area - too PC - and variety is the spice...

Too many governments in a mod is overwhelming but these two forms probably add the right balance.

Have you done much play testing with these governments to see how the AI adopts them ? For example governments at game end ? Just curious.

Keep up the good work :goodjob:

Thanks in advance :)

Look, totalitarianism is not a government! You can have a totalitarian government, but that is a description. As sebanaj said

it isn't a form of government, but it's a characteristic of a government...

And in response to your comments on Marxism, I will say again that Karl Marx was opposed to centralised government. However Stalins interpretation of Marx, meant that he felt that centralisation or in his case totalitarianism was acceptable.

All I am saying is, no-one can make a government in civ 3 that is just called totalitarian because it is a description of government, rather than a government itself.

And to anwser Pufffer Fish, I will put both govts together, some time this week

any form of government can be totalitarian if taken in the wrong way, and handled by mad people...

When adding a government to Civ III does it replace an existing one? I hope not...

Anyway thanks for making Fundamentalism a government. It was my favorite in Civ II and I'm glad someone else liked it too. Is there a way to add the Fanatic back in? As I recall in Civ II you could only build it under Fundamentalism. I don't think it was too powerful but it had good defense...I might have to install it again and check it out.

Well I will probably download your mod soon but please tell me if it replaces a different government.

Originally posted by FBMan
Look, totalitarianism is not a government! You can have a totalitarian government, but that is a description. As sebanaj said

it isn't a form of government, but it's a characteristic of a government...

And in response to your comments on Marxism, I will say again that Karl Marx was opposed to centralised government. However Stalins interpretation of Marx, meant that he felt that centralisation or in his case totalitarianism was acceptable.

All I am saying is, no-one can make a government in civ 3 that is just called totalitarian because it is a description of government, rather than a government itself.

And to anwser Pufffer Fish, I will put both govts together, some time this week

I don´t think you know more than these guys: http://encarta.msn.com/ (http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=76157481)

Totalitarianism, in political science, system of government and ideology in which all social, political, economic, intellectual, cultural, and spiritual activities are subordinated to the purposes of the rulers of a state. Several important features distinguish totalitarianism, a form of autocracy peculiar to the 20th century, from such older forms as despotism, absolutism, and tyranny.

Totalitarianism is more fitting with other general systems of government, like depotism, monarchy, republic and democracy, than is communism, which is a particular form of totalitarian system, with a particular ideology. I think the `communist´ system in Civ3 is equally good for representing totalitarian systems which are not Marxist in ideology.

If you want to know what a Marxist system is, look at systems created by people who believed in it: Stalin and Lenin were not alone in their intepretation, you see. I don´t in fact know of any Marxist regime that was not totalitarian. This is why, I suspect, the `communist´ government in Civ3 reflects totalitarianism.

Anyway, enough ranting. I´d like to try your combined patch to see how it plays, and if is improves upon the defaults.

then msn is wrong, that's not what my books and what i learnt in college...

Originally posted by sebanaj
then msn is wrong, that's not what my books and what i learnt in college...

Yes, yes, along with britannica.com, dictionary.com, dictionary.cambridge.org... are you sure they´re all wrong?

Did you know that `democratic´ is a characteristic of many government forms? Does that mean `democracy´ is therefore invalid as a government form itself, and should be replaced in Civ3 with `capitalistic presidential republic´ (e.g. USA), or some such thing? What then about democracies that are not capitalistic (nor republics, nor presidential) and capitalisms that are not democratic?

My opinion:

Fundamentalism is a characteristic of some governments and also a type of government. The problem with defining this is that some countries' governments claim to be other than they are. Like "President" Musharraf of Pakistan: can he really be President if he wasn't elected?

Anyway...

I just downloaded this and am going to try it out...hopefully it will be able to load into games that have already started?

Originally posted by Genuis
My opinion:

The problem with defining this is that some countries' governments claim to be other than they are. Like "President" Musharraf of Pakistan: can he really be President if he wasn't elected?



The same applies also to non funtamentalistic governments.
How many of the African or south American presidents for example, are elected?

Anyway I believe funtamentalism is a form of government that not only exists in our world, but allso has played a great part in the way this world is today. I wonder why they didn't put it in civIII, (It' s not politically correct , I guess)

"President" isn't a label restricted to leaders of democratic governements.
Anyone can be named "President", or "King", or "General", or ....
this only depends of his power he has/represents.

But what I really miss in Civ3 iare the two government models of Fundamentalism and (Military) Dictature are. Both a very important role had been all over the world.

so just in time to get back to the original subject of this thread, i would suggest to set monotheism as the prerequisite for fundamentalism rather than theology - assuming that fundamentalsim relies on religious motives, that is (since this is exactly what today's fundamentalist governments are).

while fundamentalists 'take literal what is written' (to put it *intentionally* THIS SIMPLE), theology seems to me the exact opposite, for it tries to rather interpret those things in a more scientific approach and so practically eliminating a fundamentalist government's chances (much rather than anything else).

When I think fundamentalist government, I think Taliban, Khomeni's Iran, many other Islamic states. How about calling it "theocracy?" Or is that a totally different thing?

Nick

Originally posted by NickSD
How about calling it "theocracy?" Or is that a totally different thing?


well, yes and no. a theocracy is a form of government, where religious and governmental elements are melt into one, and so having their religion's representatives (i.e. priests) being also their government's ones. fundamentalism instead is actually a form of some kind of "religious ideology", where - simply put - religious texts and writings are understood and carried out literally.

then again, (today's) theocracies are based on fundamentalism, and it usually happens that we actually think of a "fundamentalist theocracy" when talking of a fundamentalist government.

Never liked Fundamentalism being in Civ2, and glad it's gone in Civ3... not because of any "political correctness" reasons, but rather, I never believed there's such a thing as a Fundamentalist government in the first place. Secondly, in Civ2 Fundamentalism was a GAME-BREAKER... frankly, it was WAAAAYYYY over-rated, and way too strong... no point being anything other than Fundamentalist in Civ2.

I hate to say it, but I haven't really seen any downside to Fundamentalism in this patch either... much as it was over-rated in Civ2, it seems rather over-rated in Civ3 too. What's the downside to using this goverment?

I agree with some of the previous posts here... if you want a religous government, what's wrong with a "Theocracy" form of government? As long as it's properly balanced for Civ3, I see no problem adding a "real" government.

well, i for myself - one of the true supporters of this government being included in civ3 :cool: - did not use this patch, either.

i created a fundementalist government by myself, and carefully balanced it out. so along with advantages when raging war (free unit support, high draft rate, etc.) it comes with halfed worker and science rates, for example.

i can post my complete stats if anyone's interested.

I would love to see some other people's ideas for the settings to make this a balanced gov't choice. I haven't used this mod because I'm not sure it's balanced personally. Maybe this is why they left it out... no one could decide exactly *what* is was :confused:

Yes. Thank you for reestablishing Fundamentalism as a government. I think that it was a stupid thing for it to be omitted. Indeed, it was the best government for already technologically advanced warmongers in Civ II.

However, I don't believe that Theology should be the prerequisite for it as Theology is a study of religious TRUTH. I quote from the Civlopedia (with key words and sentences in capitals):

<b><i>'Theology is the study of God and religious TRUTH. Theologians take a more or less SCIENTIFIC APPROACH to questions of religion, deeply studying the underlying meaning of scriptures and religious teachings rather than "taking them on faith"... Theological study HELPED TO REMOVE some of the SUPERSTITIONS THAT HAD SURROUNDED RELIGION for so long, and brought religious study into a more enlightened age.'</i></b>

Most of the crap that fundamentalists believe isn't truth, but religious superstition. They seem to believe that killing who they call 'infidels' is right. Take Osama Bin Laden for example. Bin Laden may believe that the conflict is between the 'faithful' and the 'infidels', but in truth, it is against him and his terrorist cronies. He is so blinded by his superstitions, that he doesn't realise this. How can fundamentalism be a product of the study of religious truth?

So therefore, Fundamentalism should either require Monotheism or have its own Civ advance like in Civ II that goes after Monotheism.

Originally posted by LordAzreal
So therefore, Fundamentalism should either require Monotheism or have its own Civ advance like in Civ II that goes after Monotheism.

Also not correct. We well know all the Islamic fundamentalism, however, we most time forget that there are also Christian and Hinduism fundamentalistic groups, which have at last the same ideology.

The main point which is common for all fundamentalism, as well as for all facism and socialism, is, that all are fanatic ideologies.

So we have 2 great groups of thinking in our world, and both reflect in their special style of governments:
the one, not fanatic but more practic government systems, like kingdoms, democracy, and the more or less fanatic *ideologies* like socialism, facism, fundamentalism.
All the last mentioned groups/governments/ideologies one common point have: they propagate the luck of the people by dogma, and all who don't agree are enemies.

They all dream for a "better world" and try to reach it by depress other arguments/positions/people. That the main common point is of all these fanatism.

Originally posted by MetalChild


well, yes and no. a theocracy is a form of government, where religious and governmental elements are melt into one, and so having their religion's representatives (i.e. priests) being also their government's ones. fundamentalism instead is actually a form of some kind of "religious ideology", where - simply put - religious texts and writings are understood and carried out literally.

Best sample in younger time for a Theocracy has been the Iran under Khomeni, until today. Same we had in Christian countries ages ago (or, remember the history of Utah).

Originally posted by Dreifels


Best sample in younger time for a Theocracy has been the Iran under Khomeni, until today. Same we had in Christian countries ages ago (or, remember the history of Utah).

so, dreifels, did you actually agree with me just now, or was this the beginning of a new discussion? ;)

Originally posted by MetalChild
so, dreifels, did you actually agree with me just now, or was this the beginning of a new discussion? ;)

partially only, as I explained more a posting later. Your explanation doesn't include the aspect of fanatism but copies the excuses of the fundamentalist only. In fact (and such you can learn in the discussion for islamic fundamentalism very good by leading isamic scientists) that what the fundamentalists set as "originate" very often *so* never is noted in the koran.
And same you can see for the other fundamentalic ideologies.

Means, all fundamentalists (independent what religion) do say they would go back to the origin text, but in fact all they manipulate that for their argumentation.

And such an expression of fanatism is, being unable and unwilled to discuss other opinions, and at last just that the big danger is, as the other people always believe/think that their way (to argument and find a solution by arguments) in such cases no effect has, what makes all discussions with they worthless.

To bring that back to the original Civ3 topic: The more I think abotu it, the more my opinion is, that "governments" like Socialists, Facists, Fundamentalists do not be right in the game in relation to the other governments.

However, what is missing in Civ3 (and then these the conglomerat would be) is a government of "Dictatur" (by military, ideology, religion, with its different realities.) And that as the opposite to Democracy. In Civ3 they mixed all, and it is not randomly that they just did not take again Fundamentalism like thed had done in Civ2, but now have Nationalism included.
All a mismatch of not well understood things.

well, concerning your claim for a dictatorship: there already is one totalitarian government in the game, which of course is despotism. but, and i agree with you here, there should be a totalitarian government of a more "modern mould" - that is, one that can compete with democracy in later games.

and we all know that despotism can't. :)

This is the first time I have been on this site, and for the record, good job to those who created it. Now on to business.

I fail to understand what is so great about "fundamentalism" as a government that in CIV II it had to be so good. Fundamentalism is fanatisism (like one of the members said), it is purely distortion of religious words or writings allowing the distorter to gain power. Of course, there is always a "HEAD", a "LEADER" in a fundamentalism regime, who has all the power. What does it lead to? Nothing but destruction, i dont see any advances in fundamentalist regime, I cant see why it can be such a good regime to have. A Fundamentalist goverment simply wants to rule and make sure that all others are either converted or killed. Obviously, its based on religion, and the best example to give is Islamic Fundamentalism which is so prevalent. Someone mentionned Christian and Hindu Fundamentalism, I can understand that Christian fundamentalism existed, but where exactly is the Hindu fundamentalism? Just because a party in power favors Hinduism as a religion of "CHOICE" in India, doesnt make them fundamentalist. Then again, religion fanatics are in every religion, there will be people who will kill for their religion, no matter which one it is. Fundamentalism or Fanaticism is far well illustrated in Islamic societies than any other societies.
Now coming back to the issue at hand, the issue of Fundamentalism as a government in the game:
Firstly, it should be MONOTHEISM leading to Fundamentalism. I'm basing this on the assumption that fundamentalist goverments are based on religious fanaticism.
There should be a standard tile penality with no corruption (because the religious POLICE controls it all) and coming to military police of perhaps 4. The worker rate should be less, the assimilation chance should be less as well. Draft limit should be higher because people can be easily ask to kill or be killed in the name of the religion. Forced labor with no war weariness. Spies should be elite (and they are good these damn fundamentalists in spying). Diplomats Regular.
I think that makes more sense as a fundamentalist goverment.
Just because a goverment is fundamentalist doesnt mean that people are happy in that regime, often general public is just oppressed. For example Afghanistan, what we see is a relief in the mindset of general public after the Taliban ousting. Taliban, of course, a fundamentalist regime didnt really let Afghanistan grow a lot, as a matter of fact, following their religious texts (or their distorted version of the religious text) they made sure that their country belonged to the era when the text was written! Hey at least the goverment officials enjoyed power.. corruption has to be high in the high rank where those officials were probably doing whatever they pleased to do (for sure!)
Should Fundamentalism be a goverment, yeah, but if you are looking for a Totalitarian regime, I think we can do better than fundamentalism, how bout a MARTIAL LAW ? Is there a name of that kind of goverment? Pakistan was under Martial law for a long time. Indira Gandhi declared Martial Law in India once, for a short period of time, following a calamity. A Military regime is probably the best kind of totalitarian regime. Fundamentalism is just fanaticism, propagating distorted version of religious text and beliefs and the propagation is done by some really charismatic leaders followed by a bunch of illiterate and poor people who are easily led to believe what these leaders say.

Shastram

Originally posted by Shastram
Someone mentionned Christian and Hindu Fundamentalism, I can understand that Christian fundamentalism existed, but where exactly is the Hindu fundamentalism? Just because a party in power favors Hinduism as a religion of "CHOICE" in India, doesnt make them fundamentalist.

Yes, but during the time when Gandhi was around trying to separate them from the British, there was plenty of conflict between muslims and hindus (that's why the land was divided into India and Pakistan). Believe me, there were Hindu fundamentalists. One of them killed Gandhi. And what did Gandhi do to make them think he deserved it? He tried to bring unity between the Hindus and Muslims. Now you try and tell me that those hindus responsible for Gandhi's death aren't being fundamentalist.

Yes, but during the time when Gandhi was around trying to separate them from the British, there was plenty of conflict between muslims and hindus (that's why the land was divided into India and Pakistan). Believe me, there were Hindu fundamentalists. One of them killed Gandhi. And what did Gandhi do to make them think he deserved it? He tried to bring unity between the Hindus and Muslims. Now you try and tell me that those hindus responsible for Gandhi's death aren't being fundamentalist.

Yup, that guy was DEFINITELY a Hindu fundamentalist, someone torn by the violence that resulted due to a country's partition, a partition that could have been stopped by Gandhi. He had the power, the attention at the time of freedom, why didnt he do something about it? Why couldn't he get muslims and hindus (in upper politics only) to get united. He couldnt and he didnt. I dont blame that hindu who killed Gandhi. The violence that resulted during the partition was atrocious. Trains full of Hindus were killed from Pakistan. India took a secular stand, but Pakistanis were all over the Hindus residing in their part of the land. So many people killed, orphaned, so many people stripped of their houses, their properties. Could that have been stopped? Was it because Godsey was a HINDU fundamentalist that the killing took place or was it because it wasnt just what happened to the Hindus in the Paki Land? Whats happening in Kashmir or what happened in Kashmir to HIndus, is that just? Would you blame someone, torn by the violence in that valley to react violently against a group of Kasmiri terrorists? Was Gandhi actually a great leader? I dont know. He probably helped India get freedom, Britain had to leave anyway, they were too pressured by German invasion back home, they had to take their army back home. But everybody glorified the Mahatma, he could have tried and put a stop on the partition by uniting the two leaders Jinnah and Nehru, probably given the reign of a soverign India to Jinnah? That would have resulted in bigger riots. The partition was a political issue, it happened, violence resulted from it, and Gandhi got killed because someone got pissed off.

Things like this happen all the time, big leaders get killed, JFK got killed too, was the killer a fundamentalist? Maybe. Even if there is Hindu fundamentalism, its not noticable and FAR LESS violent than any other kind of fundamentalism out there. Afterall, Hindus are peaceful people.

Shastram

Originally posted by Shastram


Yup, that guy was DEFINITELY a Hindu fundamentalist, someone torn by the violence that resulted due to a country's partition, a partition that could have been stopped by Gandhi. He had the power, the attention at the time of freedom, why didnt he do something about it? Why couldn't he get muslims and hindus (in upper politics only) to get united. He couldnt and he didnt. I dont blame that hindu who killed Gandhi. The violence that resulted during the partition was atrocious. Trains full of Hindus were killed from Pakistan. India took a secular stand, but Pakistanis were all over the Hindus residing in their part of the land. So many people killed, orphaned, so many people stripped of their houses, their properties. Could that have been stopped? Was it because Godsey was a HINDU fundamentalist that the killing took place or was it because it wasnt just what happened to the Hindus in the Paki Land? Whats happening in Kashmir or what happened in Kashmir to HIndus, is that just? Would you blame someone, torn by the violence in that valley to react violently against a group of Kasmiri terrorists? Was Gandhi actually a great leader? I dont know. He probably helped India get freedom, Britain had to leave anyway, they were too pressured by German invasion back home, they had to take their army back home. But everybody glorified the Mahatma, he could have tried and put a stop on the partition by uniting the two leaders Jinnah and Nehru, probably given the reign of a soverign India to Jinnah? That would have resulted in bigger riots. The partition was a political issue, it happened, violence resulted from it, and Gandhi got killed because someone got pissed off.

Things like this happen all the time, big leaders get killed, JFK got killed too, was the killer a fundamentalist? Maybe. Even if there is Hindu fundamentalism, its not noticable and FAR LESS violent than any other kind of fundamentalism out there. Afterall, Hindus are peaceful people.

Shastram

Yes. I guess it is all political. The thing is that religion is 'hijacked' and perverted by extremists to be used as a tool to validify the atrocities they commit. Read the bible and you'll see that the all-seeing God promotes peace, condemns violence. This is all of a sudden forgotten by the Pope in the middle-ages as he calls for the crusades, it didn't stop the Spanish Inquisition, and it doesn't stop 20th Century Israel from butchering their Palestinian neighbours (though it is a double-edged sword as Palestinians answer back with unjust suicide bomb attacks on innocent Israeli children trying to live normal lives in a land of violence). The Koran is the same, yet extremists like Bin Laden and Mullah Omar hijack the religion, and then make it into a rigid code of law which only achieves their ends, which is to have supreme power over the people. And as you said, the situation in Kashmir. The Pakistanis there pervert the religion to attempt to validify their atrocities. The same thing with the most exalted mahatma's assassination. The said Hindu fanatic hijacked hinduism to his own end to try and validify his assassination of Gandhi.

Though these religions are allegedly 'peaceful', there are still those who pervert them to their own end for political gain. And the sad thing is that it works due to the xenophobia people have of other cultures.

The only religion I know that cannot possibly be hijacked like this is Buddhism. This is since Buddhism's purpose is to help devout followers to ascend beyond having to feel anger, beyond feeling hate and prejudice. World peace won't happen until religions like this gain dominance. Even then, unscrupulous leaders will find some other way to make their atrocities seem just.

However, I think that Gandhi did everything he could to prevent the partition. Unfortunately, this Hindu fanatic had other ideas. He was probably a pure-blooded native of India with xenophobia. He hated the fact that Arabs were also in his country. He did what was in his power to stop his fellow natives from uniting with the Arabs. He simply used the fact that the majority of natives were Hindu and the majority of Arabs were Muslim to make everyone believe that what he did was for the best. Sadly, the hindu leaders didn't object, as it would give them more power. That would be preferable to share it with the muslim leaders of the country.

LordAzReal:

I agree with you (mostly) .. i just dont think Gandhi did everything in his power to stop the partition. Much more could have been done and a Hindu / Muslim Massacre could have been prevented. But then again, thats politics .. in the Indian subcontinent where religions still regins strongly over the minds of public, mixing religion with politics is just lethal.
These damn politicians :)



Shastram

Well of so fundalmentalism is a charicteristic of a government........So What?!? I mean hey the more in depth this game is the better right?

Good! This was missing from civ3. Only one thing: I'm not sure it's a good idea to make it available with Theology.

I would just like to say that not all fundamentalist governments are backed up by RELIGIOUS dogma. The government of Oceania in 1984 was a fundamentalist government, and it banned it's middle and upper class citizens from practicing any sort of religion.


That would fall more under the category of Fascism, imho.

There are Hindu extremistists in Sri Lanka, calling themselves something like "the Liberation Tigers of Tamil". They kill themselves to avoid being captured alive. I would personally say that though they may not fit everyone's definition of a "fundamentalist" they certainly do for me.

Also I'm pretty sure that there were warrior budhists amongst the Sinhalese. I'm having trouble finding a reliable source on this becuase almost everything I can find that indicates that buddhism might have violent tendancies is on website run by Tamils. At any rate we talked about sinhalese warrior/monks in a religion class I took at College.

I think the moral of the story is that any religion, no matter how peaceful it's doctraine, can be used to justify violence.


By the way: Fundamentalism was a term coined to originally describe ONLY Christian Bilblical Literalists.

There are Hindu extremistists in Sri Lanka, calling themselves something like "the Liberation Tigers of Tamil". They kill themselves to avoid being captured alive. I would personally say that though they may not fit everyone's definition of a "fundamentalist" they certainly do for me.

Also I'm pretty sure that there were warrior budhists amongst the Sinhalese. I'm having trouble finding a reliable source on this becuase almost everything I can find that indicates that buddhism might have violent tendancies is on website run by Tamils. At any rate we talked about sinhalese warrior/monks in a religion class I took at College.

I think the moral of the story is that any religion, no matter how peaceful it's doctraine, can be used to justify violence.


By the way: Fundamentalism was a term coined to originally describe ONLY Christian Bilblical Literalists.

A majority of the LTTE are communists not Hindu fundementalists. If they were fundementalists they wouldn't have allied with Christian Tamils. Communists fundementalists are dangerous too. And anyways the conflict is more ethnic than religious.

Geesh :nono: stop bumping old threads !!! ... and certainly with comments not related to Completed Modpacks