I'd wondered at that, too, but there's really no accounting for Western perception. I mean, just looking at the traffic situation in Mumbai does not give one the impression that Indians are very Ordered, and of course, they never were Communist.
Roleplaying Civs and the Policy Tree
- Thread starter Becephalus
- Start date
your missinterpretation of saying under god (what god are they refering to?) and in god we trust (again what god) as meaning the nation is run by a religion or that a religion in some way has power over the government is just plain silly. the american government is one of the only ones that has truly not been run by religion or religious leaders in its entire existence. a national anthem has nothing to do with the running of the country and in america the declaration of independence is not in any way part of the government or gives rules to the running of the government, it is merely a statement to the world that america became independent of the british empire in 1776. btw any symbols you see on anything from the american government have nothing to do with any specific religion (or religion in general) and saying god doesnt either because every religion has a god or gods.
india is and was a mostly socialist nation and the leader of the neutral countries in the cold war
SemperFi2382
Mitten Marauder
Okay, you clearly do not have a firm grasp of American history and this reply clearly shows it. The National Holidays in the United States are based on guess what? Christianity. It is only a recent phenomenon that people are shifting from Merry Christmas to Happy Holidays.
What do you hear during the swearing in of a President? "So help me God."
The United States military oath says this as well.
However, let us go back to the beginning. Atheism in the colonies was mostly unknown, and rare among 18th Century Europeans. So, what does this mean? 100% of the 55 founding fathers were some denomination of Christianity, although many of the better known founding fathers followed the tenets of Deism and Freemasonry, but still respected the rights of other religionists.
For those unfamiliar with the beliefs of Deists, they believed in God (a singular God) that created the universe, but not any one denominations specific reference. Meaning a more "uninvolved" version, essentially one that made the universe and that is about it. However, respect for that God was given in one form or another (hint hint that is pious behavior), but they believe man is in charge of his destiny. Mind you, Deists are hard to nail down to a singular belief, Washington (both a Deist and Evangelical Christian) is a pretty good example, as he believed prayer worked, whereas Jefferson did not (although Jefferson is very complex).
Your argument is based on the fact that it is not a specific denomination's God that is named. Again, we are talking about Piety and not Theocracy. Which leads us to the separation of church and state. Which it merely protects your denomination from persecution, it does nothing from keeping the church to pursue political interests in the nation, which it commonly does.
Since you conveniently skipped it, look at the very definitions of Piety vs Rationalism (the point of the debate in the first place). Again, the United States is the definition of Piety.
You can cast all the symbolism aside, but it is funny that all these references to God required an act of congress (government) to make it official. If the United States was so secular, why make the motto of the nation, "In God we trust" and print it on your currency?
Also, you say that the Declaration of Independence was not one of the single most important documents in American history, which tells me you do not know your history at all. Not a part of the government? Are you kidding me? That document alone gave the United States a right to go to war with Britain, but you said that has nothing to do with government, except for the whole, revolution thing. Oh, and it played a major role in the whole getting equal rights thing (it being used as a primary document for the arguments).
In addition, with all the founding fathers being Christian, or respecting the beliefs of the Christians (so, no Jewish, Islamic, Hinduism and their multiple deities, etc being represented) with even the Deists believing in one God, they are quite simply referring to the Christian God. In fact, congress voted to rewrite the more secular documents to something more Christian. Funny, that seems pretty pious to me.
You want to say that the National Anthem also has nothing to do with being pious society. Odd, considering that if it was such a big deal Americans would not want to sing it and last I checked things like the National Anthem were a big deal. I grew up saying the Pledge of Allegiance like every other American kid did. It is a pretty recent phenomenon to move to a more secular society that gets offended at a mention of God.
Piety and America go hand in hand. Rationalism? Not so much.
give me one part of the declaration of independence that has anything to do with the running of government. you cant because the only document that outlines the government is the constitution (dont say bill of rights because that is part of the constitution), in fact the revolution started in 1775 which is a year before the declaration is signed. national holidays are based on the fact that the large majority of americans are christian and has nothing to do with some sort christian based government. the fact that the founders were christian also has nothing to do with piety because they didnt force christianity on people they gave freedom of religion. members of a church being unable to attempt to influence the politics and laws of the government would be unconstitutional; you can try to pass any law you want and if it passes and doesnt go against the constitution then it is law. this is not piety because then every single civ would be piety because at least something in every culture and government is influenced by religion (calenders, basic laws against murder, theft, etc.). the founders arent referring to the christian god because they would say something like jesus or the father instead of simply god. god can mean any religion. and no i didnt say the national anthem has nothing to do with society i said nothing to do with running the government. my point is not that america is entirely free of religious influence but rather that pious is not "hand in hand" with america. based on your parameters every civ except for a couple would use piety. america only has freedom of religion in the piety tree and you cant just jump to the last one so even as far as the game goes america does not belong in piety. america also doesnt have that much of the rationalism tree but there would be a couple policies such as scientific revolution. really america shouldnt be either of those policies but rather patronage. why? because we are the most charitable nation in the world both with charity and in the government.
SemperFi2382
Mitten Marauder
I believe I explained what God they were referring to, but I guess that is above you. Christians all believe in the same God, but the methods and how one gets to salvation differ. The God in Lutheranism is the same as the Baptist God.
You want to bring Jesus into the mix, but considering how he gets referred to might step on some Christian toes, guess what? Instead, they go with the path of least resistance and use God (who Jesus is one an the same, but this is not a theological discussion).
As far as your view of the Declaration of Independence goes, you must have failed American history big time. This important document not only gets reluctant colonists on board, it lists the grievances, legitimizes the conflict, which in turn allows foreign powers to aid the colonists.
Regarding your "start" of the war, war was not declared until the Declaration came about. While there were skirmishes (Lexington and Concord) before the Declaration, Congress had made attempts to prevent the war (back in 1775 after the Battle of Bunker Hill) and it was not until King George essentially refused to acknowledge a diplomatic solution that the Declaration was proposed. In other words, it was not until the Declaration of Independence that the Revolution really kicked off. The wheel was set in motion, but until the United States said they were independent, it was technically still the British quelling an uprising in the colonies (more specifically Massachusetts).
The Declaration of Independence does outline some of the basis of the American Government if only in ideology, and states they have a God given right to break away from Britain.
I could go on, but since history is not your strong suit, I will boil it down to simply stating that considering that America is a later start civilization in comparison to its neighbors, so using the Free Religion (practice your own thing) and Reformation (which Free Religion had a lot to do with) which are at the end of the Piety Tree are better than those of the Rationalism tree. Rationalism has Sovereignty and that is about it.
However, this discussion is unproductive as I seem to be the only one putting effort into it, so I am gonna just end it here. It's a game with imperfect mechanics and frankly, believe what you want to believe. The facts speak for themselves.
God bless the USA.
You want to bring Jesus into the mix, but considering how he gets referred to might step on some Christian toes, guess what? Instead, they go with the path of least resistance and use God (who Jesus is one an the same, but this is not a theological discussion).
As far as your view of the Declaration of Independence goes, you must have failed American history big time. This important document not only gets reluctant colonists on board, it lists the grievances, legitimizes the conflict, which in turn allows foreign powers to aid the colonists.
Regarding your "start" of the war, war was not declared until the Declaration came about. While there were skirmishes (Lexington and Concord) before the Declaration, Congress had made attempts to prevent the war (back in 1775 after the Battle of Bunker Hill) and it was not until King George essentially refused to acknowledge a diplomatic solution that the Declaration was proposed. In other words, it was not until the Declaration of Independence that the Revolution really kicked off. The wheel was set in motion, but until the United States said they were independent, it was technically still the British quelling an uprising in the colonies (more specifically Massachusetts).
The Declaration of Independence does outline some of the basis of the American Government if only in ideology, and states they have a God given right to break away from Britain.
I could go on, but since history is not your strong suit, I will boil it down to simply stating that considering that America is a later start civilization in comparison to its neighbors, so using the Free Religion (practice your own thing) and Reformation (which Free Religion had a lot to do with) which are at the end of the Piety Tree are better than those of the Rationalism tree. Rationalism has Sovereignty and that is about it.
However, this discussion is unproductive as I seem to be the only one putting effort into it, so I am gonna just end it here. It's a game with imperfect mechanics and frankly, believe what you want to believe. The facts speak for themselves.
God bless the USA.
I read that already, of course. As I said, as far as I could tell, the gist of Communism mainly was a thrust to obliterate the caste restrictions. I was looking for more. I mean, it's one thing to have a lot of people talking about Marxism, and quite another for that to induce the parliament to actual raise taxes and institute global medical services for everyone - you know, actual socialism.
jesus would step on every non-christian religion's toes and they didnt want that because they believed in freedom of religion. it may seem religious now but during that time most people were active members of some religion or another. the founders werent creating some christian based country which from what you are saying they did. as far as what i said about the declaration goes you are pulling words out of thin air. never did i say it was umimportant i said that it has nothing to do with the government and its functions. the declaration may have gotten it going but the revolution started the previous year and it took victories for france and spain to join.
ok here is india's government according to its constitution "India is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic." this is from the US department of state website http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3454.htm
Becephalus
King
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2005
- Messages
- 725
Wow this sure sparked off some interesting debate. To reiterate my thoughts:
A) Most civs displayed some of each of these elements, something as large as a civilization has many facets and has a lot of countervailing currents.
B) I tried as much as possible to compare civs to cultures from the same era. No the US is not nearly as pious as the Babylon or Egypt, but you need to compare them to their contemporaries. (To be honest the US Piety/Rationalism choice is one of the ones I am most ambivalent about, I could really go either way).
C) I tried as much as possible to even out the representation of the policies and to have lots of different combinations.
D) Some of these civs are quite old and you are trying to represent a very long, very diverse period. For India I chose Order because I needed more order Civs and it was seen as skewing towards order from the 1950s-80s. Could you make an argument for Authoritarianism under the Mughals or Aryans, or Freedom under the current government, sure, but it is a just some abstractions in a game, so I chose what I thought fit best.
As for the discussion of the US's founders. They were a fairly non-religious bunch for their time, particularly the ones we most closely associate with the intellectual work (Jefferson/Madison/Hamilton/et cetera). A lot of them were basically "humanists" and if they were alive today would be non-religious/atheists like a lot of well educated people are. I think when viewing the founders people really take a lot of things out of context and get caught up in literalism, instead of looking at the spirit of what was said. Personally I think the constitution is hopelessly obsolete and that the Supreme Court's attempt to reinterpret it are reaching there limits. I think the founders would be horrified to find out we were still attempting to run today's US with the document they prepared in the late 1700s, they would think it was insane. Of course figuring out a process for having another constitutional convention would be next to impossible, so I guess we will just muddle along.
A) Most civs displayed some of each of these elements, something as large as a civilization has many facets and has a lot of countervailing currents.
B) I tried as much as possible to compare civs to cultures from the same era. No the US is not nearly as pious as the Babylon or Egypt, but you need to compare them to their contemporaries. (To be honest the US Piety/Rationalism choice is one of the ones I am most ambivalent about, I could really go either way).
C) I tried as much as possible to even out the representation of the policies and to have lots of different combinations.
D) Some of these civs are quite old and you are trying to represent a very long, very diverse period. For India I chose Order because I needed more order Civs and it was seen as skewing towards order from the 1950s-80s. Could you make an argument for Authoritarianism under the Mughals or Aryans, or Freedom under the current government, sure, but it is a just some abstractions in a game, so I chose what I thought fit best.
As for the discussion of the US's founders. They were a fairly non-religious bunch for their time, particularly the ones we most closely associate with the intellectual work (Jefferson/Madison/Hamilton/et cetera). A lot of them were basically "humanists" and if they were alive today would be non-religious/atheists like a lot of well educated people are. I think when viewing the founders people really take a lot of things out of context and get caught up in literalism, instead of looking at the spirit of what was said. Personally I think the constitution is hopelessly obsolete and that the Supreme Court's attempt to reinterpret it are reaching there limits. I think the founders would be horrified to find out we were still attempting to run today's US with the document they prepared in the late 1700s, they would think it was insane. Of course figuring out a process for having another constitutional convention would be next to impossible, so I guess we will just muddle along.
i disagree with the fact that the constitution is obselete, it has been changed over the years to adapt to a changing world but as the years have gone by the government has grown and become more corrupt but that's not for this thread so back to topic: i still think the US should be under patronage instead of rationalism or piety
Omega124
Challenging Fate
What? Firstly, it has to be Piety or Rationalism. Secondly, the counterpart to Patronage is Commerce. I don't think there is a more capitalistic nation in the world than America, so commerce wins hands-down.
what makes you say patronage is the counterpart to commerce? and america is the world's most charitable nation so patronage fits right in with reality more than rationalism or piety because the US would have only a couple policies in both while it has quite a few in patronage but if it has to be between piety and rationalism it could go either way
Omega124
Challenging Fate
OP did
His project, not mine.
So, in the choice of patronage and commerce, I have to go with commerce.
His project, not mine.
So, in the choice of patronage and commerce, I have to go with commerce.
xxhe
Prince
I would suggest change China from COM to PAT.
Merchants never played major roles in Chinese history. Although some exceptions do exist in certain periods, in general China emphasizes far less on its navy power (the COM policy tree ingame has many to do with navies and coastal cities).
PAT fits better to Chinese history, especially if we consider the "tributary system", and consider some minor civs adjcent to China as City States.
Merchants never played major roles in Chinese history. Although some exceptions do exist in certain periods, in general China emphasizes far less on its navy power (the COM policy tree ingame has many to do with navies and coastal cities).
PAT fits better to Chinese history, especially if we consider the "tributary system", and consider some minor civs adjcent to China as City States.
yeah commerce is the better of the two historically no doubt
true most asian societies considered merchants to be of a low class ranking despite their wealth and success because of confucianism
I would say that Piety suits USA in terms of fundamental and historic accuracy. Rationalism suits USA only circumstantially due to it's involvement in WW2 and the creation of the Atomic bomb in establishing it as a super-power. So either way, it's laudable.
Similar threads
