C2C - Religions discussions and ideas

santa claus was an invetion of coca cola during early 20th century

True. The Victorians (era not state of Australia) invented most of the Christmas traditions in the English speaking world. They changed Father Winter into Father Christmas who wears green and white, although sometimes it was red and white.
 
The cult of Saint Nicolas (who famously gave food to the poor) is very old, while the tradition of people giving each other presents is much more modern and reaches the beginnings of XIX century. It may be that Coca-Cola created the name "Santa Claus" and almost definitely was responsible for creating an image of elderly, fat and red suited man :santa2:

EDIT: OK that's interesting, so it seems that Coca-Cola just popularized existing concept of Santa...
 
just wanted to ask: are plans to split other religions as well??

i mean that if we split christianity to it's various groups (like the christian scientist) will we be dong the same for other religions??? i.e sunni muslims and shia ones being different from each other
 
@SO, no idea, I believe so as I have not changed it.

@anunknownman, I am working on something different, so that people can customise the current religions to their way of playing, sort of. I do not intend to add any more religions or sects at this time.
 
care to explain a bit what you mean??? do you mean something like the gods and kings expansion for civ5??
 
care to explain a bit what you mean??? do you mean something like the gods and kings expansion for civ5??

Dancing Hoskuld is currently working on adding "Faces of God", you can read about that mod here. :)
 
did not want to read 21 pages to see if this is talked about
Has anyone given more thought to having state religious or even all religious buildings reduce crime rate? It makes sense, most religions say crime is a sin and for their followers to not do it, "Thou Shalt Not Steal"
 
did not want to read 21 pages to see if this is talked about
Has anyone given more thought to having state religious or even all religious buildings reduce crime rate? It makes sense, most religions say crime is a sin and for their followers to not do it, "Thou Shalt Not Steal"
Remember the Search button ;) To answer your question, no, it hasn't been discussed. But you are right, religion should decrease the crime. I'm guessing we should give this crime reduction to the temple, as the temple is where the everyday man goes.
 
Remember the Search button ;) To answer your question, no, it hasn't been discussed. But you are right, religion should decrease the crime. I'm guessing we should give this crime reduction to the temple, as the temple is where the everyday man goes.

That would make sense and it should be for all temples. Well not all, some religions, Mesapotamian etc, have several different temples, some just for food benefits. The Religions Great Wonders should give even more, as they get more pilgramage traffic
 
In a perfect world religion might decrease crime but in all fairness it doesn't.
Religion adds rules to follow but so does the law set by a government. People will always find ways to bend them, and will inadvertently break them too, if they feel/think there's need for it.

If it is added then multiple religions temples should increase crime considering that different religions work against each other. At least opposing ones do but then one would have to put up an intricate network of what temples adjust the modifications on which other temples.

In my opinion religions are not good or bad, they simply are, and don't change human nature in particular. Most religions either set up a glorified image of how a person should behave that very few if any attain, or set up basic rules that most people think are "right" anyway but bend or break them if believing a situation warrants going against the set rules.

Cheers
 
In a perfect world religion might decrease crime but in all fairness it doesn't.
Religious cynicism here. In the real world religions that help the poor, the oppressed, the helpless, Do reduce crime. Governments "laws" in almost every society came from a main religion and the "need" to break them is generally from a small percentage of citizens who "feel" they are social outcasts because of reduced opportunities for betterment. Not so the main populace.

Whether multiple religions are present or not Temples, Monasteries, and Cathedrals should help to reduce crime in a city and surrounding tiles. Just strictly from a gameplay stance.

And thirdly though it is only an opinion, again Religious cynicism and/or apathy. And adds little merit to whether religious bldgs should reduce crime or not.

JosEPh :)
 
Religious cynicism here. In the real world religions that help the poor, the oppressed, the helpless, Do reduce crime. Governments "laws" in almost every society came from a main religion and the "need" to break them is generally from a small percentage of citizens who "feel" they are social outcasts because of reduced opportunities for betterment. Not so the main populace.

JosEPh :)

Most of the early civilizations had a very strong religious following, either a god or several, on to the Emperor as Diety. Each of these religions had rules and laws not just religious in nature, but civil as well. Religious buildings should reduce crime, because the general population will follow those rules, and most goverments will make those rules, into Laws.
 
I'm going to say I think that some religions would do more to combat crime than others. Mesopotamianism would be the original source of law really, so perhaps those temples should reduce crime (particularly Enlil, the Lord God (and to those who noticed that this term is oh so similar to that used to refer to Jehovah/Yaweh in Genesis, I meant it to...)). Judaism was a strongly law based religion and would probably do a very fine job of containing crime. Christianity followed suit... christian churches have done a very good job of reducing crime throughout US history by promoting anti-crime values (unfortunately backfiring for some who take a stance against the religion itself). Mormonism follows suit, perhaps even more effectively among communities that accept it. Buddhism, Taoism promoted inner peace thereby reducing crime to a lesser extent. Confucianism was all about establishing and maintaining strict law. Shinto was a strong law enforcer by promoting a complex rule-based system of honor, making one's family keep him well in check. Islam is about as violent towards crime as any religion and takes it to a whole new level that includes supporting acts that some societies view as crime in the effort to eliminate what it sees as crime.

There are also some religions that would have no effect on crime, or even increase it. Asatru... strength is everything, thus internal violent conflicts were welcome means of settling disagreements. Scientology... doesn't really attempt to address the subject of crime as much as other matters. It does attempt to strongly promote an inner peace achievement method, but I'm not sure about its effect on criminal behavior... it may well promote some narcissism among its members which can support a criminal mentality. Hinduism... honors so many various deities and forces that crime could be easily justified by a hindu mindset that honors more villainous entities. Note Islam above... a toughy. And then there's Voodooism... 'nuff said. A huge volume of its practices would be considered crime in many societies.

Much as I do know about Kemetism, I can't say I can effectively estimate if it would have made an improvement in crime or have supported crime... there were elements of both, particularly among worshipers of the god Set. Druidism was law based on an internal level and was so similar in organization to secret societies that it could be said to have promoted crime when necessary by its followers, and reduced it by establishing expectations on its followers. Kind of worked both ways. Animism wouldn't have even considered crime to be an issue in its belief system, which could well have become a means of criminal justification among some of its followers but would it have created crime? Hard to say. It also promotes some inner peace.

Again, we start getting into realms where what is and what is not a crime must be definable by each civilization to really determine what generates and what helps to control crime. Religions in particular have often been a driving force in the DEFINITION of what a crime is and is not in a society, so if we say that to define an act as a crime is to create the potential for crime, perhaps we have to admit that as much as religions denigrate acts and helps its flock to avoid partaking in them, they also increase crime by giving more behavior the option to BE a crime. In other words, deviant behavior cannot exist if it is not defined as such.

So perhaps some 'crime buildings' should be made accessed by not only the crime volume but also a religion being present that defines it AS a crime.
 
I would see prostitution as being the first to be considered if the religion considers it a crime or as a form of worship, (temple prostitutes, fertility rites and such).
Theft is almost always a crime in every religion I have seen.
Many crimes are NOT crimes if commited against an "Infidel" religion, look at the Islamic terrorists and the fights between Catholic and Protestant in Northern Ireland, and the Native American raids on other tribes to steal horses, food, women.
It will take a lot of research to decide what religion will reduce crime, what will have no effect, and what, such as Voodoo, might even increase the crime rate.

You would also have to consider that in the early religion civics, having non-state religions in your cities will Increase the crime rate, especially for Intollerant, but these will dissappear for Free Religion and later. Consider the Pogroms the Jews suffered through out history, the persecution of the Christians in Rome, the destruction of almost all other religions when Christianity came in during its early and middle years.
 
@Joseph:
Hi again Joseph. *smile*
I'm not disputing that it's only a few that break civil or religious laws but there's more than a few that bend them, and this goes over to the general populace too. Adultery? False testament (lying)? Respecting your neighbours and elders?
I'm not saying that everyone does these things (well, except lying perhaps, but that's another discussion and debate) but that they are just as common among religious people than among non- or irreligious people. Catholicism even has a system built in to deal with it (confessions) after the fact rather than trying to stop it. Smart actually. *grin*
As for helping the poor, homeless, and oppressed I can't help but feel that it's only a minute amount of religions that might actually have done so from the start (see, "feel", meaning it's only my opinion even if I do have a few facts under my belt), mainly Buddhism and, ehm, well, not sure about any others. Most that do it now have not been doing it very long, it's a rather modern phenomenon actually. Not to mention that some religions still oppress people directly too. I'm loathe to name names though but women still don't have full rights in every country/religion still.

In short I believe every person has a built in moral compass (which in a few individuals is broken) which they at least try to follow. Religion might or might not assist in this endeavour, that I'll leave open to own opinions, but things that lie outside a persons moral compass will be hard for any person to ignore (temptation). In this only a few pious believers will be able to follow the strictures while the main body of people will do what for them feels "right and good", aka bending the rules and laws.

In some ways, and this I don't like (even makes me feel ill at times) religions have forced morals on people, morals that live on still today.

Alert, don't read spoiler if sensitive, contains explicit material
Spoiler :

The big one for me here, which does make me feel sick just knowing it's been done, is the oppression of female sexuality in several religions, some of this still living on today in the belief where female masturbation is considered "wrong" while male masturbation is considered al-right.
It's so bad still that a lot of women grow up believing what society infers as truth so strongly that they actually physically feel like they are doing something wrong when even just touching themselves in a sexual manner.
I dare anyone to state that it actually is wrong for women to masturbate...


@Anyone/Everyone:
I suppose I view the word crime differently than most. For me something is a crime if it has a detrimental outcome on a society, a group, or an individual, regardless of whether it is a written rule or law, a verbal rule or law, an implied rule or law, or not in any way stated as a rule or law.

So for me and my moral compass some things are not crimes even if they are written rules or laws, and some things are crimes even if they are not in any way implied.
For instance I view war itself as a crime even if it's not a written rule or law, while bearing false witness in some cases is not a crime if it only serves to protect an innocent while not having a negative effect on someone else (of course the rules and laws doesn't agree with me here).

But putting that aside and returning to temples/monasteries having a reduced effect on crime rate:
I can agree that mostly throughout the eras the religions have had a reductive influence on crime but in my opinion not because of what they are, how they operate, or what their beliefs are but because they give people something to do and a reason to feel good about themselves.
Sports, youth centres, organised activities, most +:) buildings in C2C even, should then have the same effect as temples in reduction of crime.
Why not even go as far as setting excess :) in a city as reducing crime in that city? Keep the people happy and they have less need of committing crimes.
That could be pretty good actually as bigger cities then would tend to have a lot more crime than smaller cities (which is mostly true) regardless of what crime influencing buildings are built there. But that discussion belongs in another thread.

Thank you for listening, though I did not particularly like having my opinion being referred to as cynical. *grin* In my opinion it is not cynical as I do think religions are and have been mostly for the better, just not all good.

Cheers
 
I always listen to you BG. :D But I also like to "debate" with you too! ;)

I agree with your assessment here:
Sports, youth centres, organised activities, most + buildings in C2C even, should then have the same effect as temples in reduction of crime.
Why not even go as far as setting excess in a city as reducing crime in that city? Keep the people happy and they have less need of committing crimes.

Problem is, it's Hydro's final decision as to what reduces crime or adds to it. And he's the final sayso no matter how much we "debate".

JosEPh :)
 
Top Bottom