Civ III Fundamentalism

[MetalChild]

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.

 

[Wolfshanze]

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.

 

[MetalChild]

well, i for myself - one of the true supporters of this government being included in civ3 - 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.

 

[homegrown]

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

 

[LordAzreal]

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.

 

[Dreifels]

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.

 

[Dreifels]

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).

 

[MetalChild]

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?

 

[Dreifels]

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.

 

[MetalChild]

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.

 

[Shastram]

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

 

[LordAzreal]

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.

 

[Shastram]

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

 

[LordAzreal]

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.

 

[Shastram]

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

 

[grungephreak]

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?

 

[Yiannis]

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

 

[frekk]

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.

 

[Cabbit]

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.

 

[civilleader]

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.