SultanRedSnake
Warlord
Can you tell we're kind of a wee bit maybe too excited?
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
One often-overlooked side effect of plagues is they halt / reset cottage/hamlet/village development.
I suggest the discovery of urban planning should halt this effect. Unsure of how difficult to implement as presumably the plague effect is legacy / Rhys code.
I suggest the discovery of urban planning should halt this effect. Unsure of how difficult to implement as presumably the plague effect is legacy / Rhys code.
Darnokthemage
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
- Messages
- 124
What we thinking, new Pre-Columbian civ in Amazon?
Alexius08
Emperor
- Joined
- May 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,143
One Rhye-era plague effect that has been removed from DoC is killing units with the plague. Disabling its impact on cottage growth should be doable.
Publicola
King
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 741
We'd need a lot more information about them before I think we could justify adding them as a civ or even as an independent city (cities) in the Amazon. The jungle has more or less reclaimed everything they once built, and I'm not sure there's any way to restore the sites or rediscover their culture. It's still really cool, and definitely makes sense that the Amazon would give rise to its own river valley civilization, but I don't think it belongs in this mod.
Minor suggestion but America could start with secularism instead of toleration now that they begin with the tech for it?
Historically, the U.S. constitution was secular from the start and from a gameplay perspective, the player inevitably will just switch into it upon spawn anyway, so this saves him/her the trouble.
Historically, the U.S. constitution was secular from the start and from a gameplay perspective, the player inevitably will just switch into it upon spawn anyway, so this saves him/her the trouble.
Dracosolon
King
It seems to me that the Secularism civic corresponds to the concept of legal separation of church and state that started (in the West) with the Enlightenment (since it's the only religious civic that forbids a state religion), not "how religious is the culture of the country, either broadly or in the political sphere". If the latter is the case Secularism should be associated with a tech from the Global era and remains rare across the globe for the entire game.
Of course it's a secular society. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution since 1791. There's never been a state church except very early on in a handful of states, all disestablished by 1818. In fact this separation of church and state and freedom of religion is hypothesized to be the reason there's a high level of religiosity in the country, since there were no major religious conflict and religious diversity has always been fairly high. I agree with the above, the US civ should have Secularism from birth.
Publicola
King
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 741
It really depends on how we're defining 'Tolerance' vs. 'Secularism'. My instinct was to say that 'Tolerance' implied a state religion / strong religious presence that nonetheless allowed for non-state religions to exist/spread, where 'Secularism' was more like 'No State Religion' / minimal religiosity where faiths exist but marginalized and out of power. Tolerance would includes countries like the UK (from Elizabethan Settlement to present day) or modern Indonesia (Muslim-majority population with constitutional monotheism, though other faiths are tolerated), where Secularism might include the 'state atheism' of the USSR, or the official secularism of modern France.
If that's the spectrum, I'd argue that modern America (and America at its founding) falls far closer to the idea of 'Tolerance' than 'Secularism'. Yes, First Amendment, yes, separation of church and state, but when America was founded, the First Amendment was to prevent the federal/national government from imposing a single state church on the entire country -- most of the 13 original states had some form of state church within their own borders. America is far more religious (by participation) than pretty much any country in modern Europe, and religion has consistently played a much larger role in public life and the national identity than most other places in the First World. That is certainly changing in present day -- church attendance has been dropping for decades and religious symbolism in public life is fading away (cf. Ten Commandments in courthouses) -- but that represents a new phenomenon, not how the country was from its founding.
If that's the spectrum, I'd argue that modern America (and America at its founding) falls far closer to the idea of 'Tolerance' than 'Secularism'. Yes, First Amendment, yes, separation of church and state, but when America was founded, the First Amendment was to prevent the federal/national government from imposing a single state church on the entire country -- most of the 13 original states had some form of state church within their own borders. America is far more religious (by participation) than pretty much any country in modern Europe, and religion has consistently played a much larger role in public life and the national identity than most other places in the First World. That is certainly changing in present day -- church attendance has been dropping for decades and religious symbolism in public life is fading away (cf. Ten Commandments in courthouses) -- but that represents a new phenomenon, not how the country was from its founding.
Hickman888
Prince
I think questions on the religiosity of a culture are better determined by the presence of religions, temples, and cathedrals. The question of civics seems to be referring to the state’s/ruling apparatus and its relationship to religion.
I want to preface this with the disclaimer that I don't mean this post to be harsh. The tone can come across poorly because I'm frankly a little peeved that something like this could be controversial, but it's not meant as an attack on the previous poster in any way, shape, or form. I just feel this one reasonably wide-spread misunderstanding needs to be addressed head-on.
"Secularism" has a binary definition in Webster's dictionary: n. the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.
This is literally (as in people can read it) enshrined in the first amendment to America's constitution. It requires a sideways reading of America to get to the conclusion that high levels of religiosity change the meaning of the English language.
Tolerance in an academic sense typically describes states like the Ottoman empire (the poster child) where the emperor was Caliph but other faiths were tolerated and even given a degree of self-government. The Netherlands would also count as embracing "tolerance," as would Prussia and France for intermittent periods of the 17th and 18th centuries. The Holy Roman Empire after the Peace of Westphalia might also count as "tolerant" since multiple faiths were considered equal although Austria was officially Catholic. In Qing China there was a similar "Eastern variant" of Ottoman or European "tolerance." (This was not true in other Asian states like Japan.) Tolerance means there's a state religion, but if you don't subscribe to it you won't be prosecuted.
America at its founding had no state religion, and even by one of the binary definition ("No State Religion") given, America would be secular. "Minimum" religiosity is not synonymous with "No State Religion." Religiosity is not a gov't policy. Some colonies did have official religions as colonies, but the America civ begins with the independence of the colonies, otherwise it would spawn ~1600. To use reductio ad absurdum, we don't spawn the Dutch with the civics that they embraced in 1360, so why would we rewind the clock on America?
As for the specific cases of the USSR, France (and Turkey; Atatürk deserves his due), Britain, and Indonesia see below:
USSR: state-sanctioned atheism as a requirement to hold public office is arguable closer to its own religion than secularism since it actually introduces a religious requirement as a condition of holding political office.
French Laïcité / Turkish Laiklik (Atatürk!): This is one brand of secularism, it isn't close to the most prominent globally. The French doesn't get to claim a monopoly on secularism anymore than Mormons can claim to be the only true Protestants.
Britain: This is the one very weird case where scholarly definitions break down. The Church of England is the official church of England---but only of England.
Indonesia: Modern Indonesia explicitly has no official state religion. Ipso facto the state-sanctioned faith cannot be considered "tolerant" of minority faiths since there is no state-sanctioned faith.
The people may be more or less tolerant or religious in a country but how people feel is not civil policy.
I've attached a map of where there is an official state religion. It's colored based on religion.
"Secularism" has a binary definition in Webster's dictionary: n. the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.
This is literally (as in people can read it) enshrined in the first amendment to America's constitution. It requires a sideways reading of America to get to the conclusion that high levels of religiosity change the meaning of the English language.
Tolerance in an academic sense typically describes states like the Ottoman empire (the poster child) where the emperor was Caliph but other faiths were tolerated and even given a degree of self-government. The Netherlands would also count as embracing "tolerance," as would Prussia and France for intermittent periods of the 17th and 18th centuries. The Holy Roman Empire after the Peace of Westphalia might also count as "tolerant" since multiple faiths were considered equal although Austria was officially Catholic. In Qing China there was a similar "Eastern variant" of Ottoman or European "tolerance." (This was not true in other Asian states like Japan.) Tolerance means there's a state religion, but if you don't subscribe to it you won't be prosecuted.
To address the specific misunderstanding of what secularism is outlines above I want to hit this post point-by-point.
America at its founding had no state religion, and even by one of the binary definition ("No State Religion") given, America would be secular. "Minimum" religiosity is not synonymous with "No State Religion." Religiosity is not a gov't policy. Some colonies did have official religions as colonies, but the America civ begins with the independence of the colonies, otherwise it would spawn ~1600. To use reductio ad absurdum, we don't spawn the Dutch with the civics that they embraced in 1360, so why would we rewind the clock on America?
As for the specific cases of the USSR, France (and Turkey; Atatürk deserves his due), Britain, and Indonesia see below:
USSR: state-sanctioned atheism as a requirement to hold public office is arguable closer to its own religion than secularism since it actually introduces a religious requirement as a condition of holding political office.
French Laïcité / Turkish Laiklik (Atatürk!): This is one brand of secularism, it isn't close to the most prominent globally. The French doesn't get to claim a monopoly on secularism anymore than Mormons can claim to be the only true Protestants.
Britain: This is the one very weird case where scholarly definitions break down. The Church of England is the official church of England---but only of England.
Indonesia: Modern Indonesia explicitly has no official state religion. Ipso facto the state-sanctioned faith cannot be considered "tolerant" of minority faiths since there is no state-sanctioned faith.
The people may be more or less tolerant or religious in a country but how people feel is not civil policy.
I've attached a map of where there is an official state religion. It's colored based on religion.
In response to @mccp77, noting of course the risk of this thread becoming a real 2000s style Christianity-Atheism style debate, I want to offer a rebuttal as I think earlier definitions of secularism and tolerance were more in line.
Using binary definitions of civics is a false path to go down. My preferred dictionary, Wiktionary, gives at least three pertinent definitions, "not specifically religious; lay or civil, as opposed to clerical" being the most relevant here. Your mistake is that you describe the civic as being about "religiosity is not a gov't policy", which is the real problem, as the religiosity civic describes the structure of religion, its role in society, and its relation to society, and not just the state. After all, deifiction, clergy and monasticism were rarely hard and fast rules. Medieval England was known for its vast, wealthy monasteries rich on wool exports, while also maintaining a highly structured clergy system. The Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian societies embodied paganism and the deification of a God-King, while also having advanced and organised clergy systems to enforce their beliefs, so on.
Again I would avoid literalism by looking at the other civics, most notably Conquest. "An act or instance of achieving victory through combat; the subjugation of an enemy" - well shouldn't the US have Conquest as its main civic for much of the 18th and 19th centuries then?
@Publicola is correct. While it's undeniable the Founding Fathers were motivated by deistic if not atheistic reasoning, they were all Christians who would fall under the banner of Protestantism in RFC DOC. If the social structure of that society whatever its form spits out an elite that is a single religion, then that Civilization in game has that religion as its State Religion. Tolerance then fits as either a policy of pragmatism, like as you said in (at least our popular conceptions of - I know many scholars (and also nationalists) of the Balkans and India that would greatly dispute this)) the Ottomans or Mughals, or arising out of debate and reason such as in the United States, or in the United Kingdom following Catholic Emancipation in 1829.
Where does secularism lie, then? I think we've touched on it above, with the USSR's State Atheism, French Lacite, Ataturk's reforms being the prime examples. The state here takes active role to exclude religion from civil society. It does not Tolerate it - it Secularises against it. Should the US and UK fit this definition? Murky waters. I'm from the UK and frankly I think most Brits would be uncomfortable describing our state and society as totally secular, faith schools are prominent throughout society, the House of Lords includes the Lords Spiritual, the King is the embodiment of the church. The US lies far closer to a secular society today, but that's not true in memory. As mentioned above many states embodied faith in their constitution, the Federal Government considered recognising the rights of the Mormons to Deseret, candidates and judges swear on bibles, and numerous Presidential candidates as recent as Ronald Reagan were brought to power promising stringent adherents to values of faith. If the US is to be secular ingame, it's much more appropriate under when the Warren Court repeatedly established secular principles in its rulings, and the failure of the American right to overturn those in the 1990s.
Lastly, I think that map is deeply erroneous in its implications. Russia today has an incestuous relationship between Presidency and the Moscow Patriarchate which has intimately endorsed the Putin regime and invasion of Ukraine - Russia is an Orthodox State. India demolishes Muslim mosques and protects the rights of cows - India is a Hindu state. Indonesia and Malaysia introduce laws regulating behaviour on the basis of Islamic values - they are Muslim states. To summarise: it is not solely the relationship between religion and the state, but religion and society that the religion civic should represent. I'll say no more to not get into a flame war.
Using binary definitions of civics is a false path to go down. My preferred dictionary, Wiktionary, gives at least three pertinent definitions, "not specifically religious; lay or civil, as opposed to clerical" being the most relevant here. Your mistake is that you describe the civic as being about "religiosity is not a gov't policy", which is the real problem, as the religiosity civic describes the structure of religion, its role in society, and its relation to society, and not just the state. After all, deifiction, clergy and monasticism were rarely hard and fast rules. Medieval England was known for its vast, wealthy monasteries rich on wool exports, while also maintaining a highly structured clergy system. The Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian societies embodied paganism and the deification of a God-King, while also having advanced and organised clergy systems to enforce their beliefs, so on.
Again I would avoid literalism by looking at the other civics, most notably Conquest. "An act or instance of achieving victory through combat; the subjugation of an enemy" - well shouldn't the US have Conquest as its main civic for much of the 18th and 19th centuries then?
@Publicola is correct. While it's undeniable the Founding Fathers were motivated by deistic if not atheistic reasoning, they were all Christians who would fall under the banner of Protestantism in RFC DOC. If the social structure of that society whatever its form spits out an elite that is a single religion, then that Civilization in game has that religion as its State Religion. Tolerance then fits as either a policy of pragmatism, like as you said in (at least our popular conceptions of - I know many scholars (and also nationalists) of the Balkans and India that would greatly dispute this)) the Ottomans or Mughals, or arising out of debate and reason such as in the United States, or in the United Kingdom following Catholic Emancipation in 1829.
Where does secularism lie, then? I think we've touched on it above, with the USSR's State Atheism, French Lacite, Ataturk's reforms being the prime examples. The state here takes active role to exclude religion from civil society. It does not Tolerate it - it Secularises against it. Should the US and UK fit this definition? Murky waters. I'm from the UK and frankly I think most Brits would be uncomfortable describing our state and society as totally secular, faith schools are prominent throughout society, the House of Lords includes the Lords Spiritual, the King is the embodiment of the church. The US lies far closer to a secular society today, but that's not true in memory. As mentioned above many states embodied faith in their constitution, the Federal Government considered recognising the rights of the Mormons to Deseret, candidates and judges swear on bibles, and numerous Presidential candidates as recent as Ronald Reagan were brought to power promising stringent adherents to values of faith. If the US is to be secular ingame, it's much more appropriate under when the Warren Court repeatedly established secular principles in its rulings, and the failure of the American right to overturn those in the 1990s.
Lastly, I think that map is deeply erroneous in its implications. Russia today has an incestuous relationship between Presidency and the Moscow Patriarchate which has intimately endorsed the Putin regime and invasion of Ukraine - Russia is an Orthodox State. India demolishes Muslim mosques and protects the rights of cows - India is a Hindu state. Indonesia and Malaysia introduce laws regulating behaviour on the basis of Islamic values - they are Muslim states. To summarise: it is not solely the relationship between religion and the state, but religion and society that the religion civic should represent. I'll say no more to not get into a flame war.
Civics are about the rights and duties (rights being the key one here) of a citizen in relation to the state and an element of political science. The relation between religion and society would fall under the purview of sociology. That relationship is not a civic one.
Last edited:
Agreed with Banefire here in the gameplay sense / historical sense. More specifically the contrast between allowing religious culture to be associated with the government and the state excluding religion entirely from government.
A classic case in Canada is the federal RCMP (mounties) allowing (tolerating) observant Sikhs to wear turbans in uniform contrasting with Quebec's ban on any and all religious iconography and head coverings for public facing provincial employees.
The recent Paradox game Victoria 3 implements this well as religious toleration vs state atheism. In state atheism, atheism becomes the official religion - other religions are persecuted.
Back to the topic - per the recent "state of civics" poll - now that religious tolerance and secularism are unlocked around the same era, there are suggestions to improve tolerance. I agree the improvement should be under tolerance religions should behave like in vanilla Civ IV: blanket + happiness and culture per religion in a city (+for all cathedrals) - not just favoring the official religion.
This would lead to a true trade-off between happiness & culture for toleration and science & faster buildings for atheism. Insert Marx's opiate of the masses quote here.
Hypothetically this could allow civs to convert to religious tolerant and no official religion to foster diplomatic ties. One could argue that most modern nations are currently religious tolerant yet have no official religion.
A classic case in Canada is the federal RCMP (mounties) allowing (tolerating) observant Sikhs to wear turbans in uniform contrasting with Quebec's ban on any and all religious iconography and head coverings for public facing provincial employees.
The recent Paradox game Victoria 3 implements this well as religious toleration vs state atheism. In state atheism, atheism becomes the official religion - other religions are persecuted.
Back to the topic - per the recent "state of civics" poll - now that religious tolerance and secularism are unlocked around the same era, there are suggestions to improve tolerance. I agree the improvement should be under tolerance religions should behave like in vanilla Civ IV: blanket + happiness and culture per religion in a city (+for all cathedrals) - not just favoring the official religion.
This would lead to a true trade-off between happiness & culture for toleration and science & faster buildings for atheism. Insert Marx's opiate of the masses quote here.
Hypothetically this could allow civs to convert to religious tolerant and no official religion to foster diplomatic ties. One could argue that most modern nations are currently religious tolerant yet have no official religion.
Dracosolon
King
This is the Republic vs Democracy debate all over again.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
No, that is a nonsensical debate only spawned by a semantic oddity of the USA, this is actually interesting to read (in my opinion).
The posters above looked up "secular" not "secularism" on Wiktionary, which is the in-game civic. (Screenshot below.)
1. It appears they made up a counter-definition based on a faulty starting point.
2. I will have to go in and edit Wiktionary now though. "Laicity" is not a synonym of "secularism" but a sub-type or "brand." It's only synonymous if one is speaking French, and this dictionary is supposedly English-language. (I teach this.
) Wiktionary readers everywhere stand in the posters above's debt. 
JHLee
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2013
- Messages
- 580
This is a suggestion I made for the Tolerance civic some years ago.
