Interesting points Apotheoser. I applaud your diligence here and your attempts to improve the game, although I have to admit that I disagree on many of your points. As you point out, there are really two parts to your posts; in my words, the first deal with whether the civics are logically representative of actual civic implementation, and the second is that their effects are poorly done in the game.
For the first part, as some people have said, I think you may be overly concerned with the naming, that is, semantics. I understand a desire for accuracy, so I can understand that you feel a crusade has a religious connotation. I have two points for that. First, my dictionary has the third meaning of crusade as being A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse. So, Im not sure that even in English, a crusade infers a religious war. More importantly, though, we need to separate its efficacy as a Civic from its name. If Kael changed the civics name from Crusade to Sabathials call to arms would it really change anything?
I also disagree fundamentally in an underlying point, concerning whether civics should be tied to specific Civilizations. I think an error made by many Mod makers is that they start at the low level, designing Civs, units, buildings, etc. but not looking at their interplay and how they affect the mod as a whole. Sabathals call to arms IS THE Bannor Strategy. You cannot remove it without fundamentally changing the Bannor. So, in my opinion, good design starts with the following thoughts: I think it would be neat to have a powerful civilization that is very lawful (in D & D terms) that is characterized by extreme loyalty and single-mindedness. They dont have a lot of individual powerful attributes; their power is their ability to sacrifice everything for making war. OK, that is the idea, a neat idea. How do we implement it? If the best way to implement the idea for the civilization is through a Civic, then my view is that is good design. And, indeed, the Bannor are my favorite (not most powerful, my favorite to play) as the challenge is to have the infrastructure necessary to call the crusade (sorry, Im using that name) and it impacts how you build, war, and develop from the first turns.
Again, I think we ought to look at Arete by its effects, not by what the word arête means. Im not a programmer or designer, but I suspect it is much easier to change the name of a civic than to actually change how it is implemented.
I also disagree fundamentally on a few points because my view is that you have to give some latitude to the difference between living in Erebus and living in a world like ours. For example, with religion,, in Erebus, we have a REAL pantheon of gods and priests with extraordinary powers and impacts on life. So, I disagree fundamentally that following religion and non-state temples is equivalent to Liberty, representing free choice.
Why cant building temples mean that you are actually getting favor from the god and the priests that follow it? If a civilization decides that it will include the powers of the local religions in the government, wont the priests there be performing services for the populace, like healing diseases which may increase life expectancy by 45 years? Wouldnt this make people happier? My view is that without the religion civic, the priests are only healing members of their own congregation, a limited use, and it is hard to get priest to work the temples; but when the religious civic is run, and they effectively are invited to participate in the government, they open their doors to all comers. Perhaps even more important, the gods themselves are honored, and in FfH, all of the gods have real power. I view this as fundamentally different form simply the desire for free religion or liberty.
Likewise, it is not simply cultural value. Your statement that The alternative is that people seem to just be happy that the temples are there, even if they're not using them. Again, this is a weird sort of semi-"Liberty" concept - diversity provides happiness or something is, in my opinion, plain wrong. When the plague comes into the town the mothers are taking their children to all of the priests who are up to their eyeballs curing it, but fortunately, with lots of temples and open religion, there are many priests and many people are cured. I have similar comments about your other views of religion in FfH here.
I also disagree with your view on Social Order, again because I feel it represents something far different from your view which is more abstract. My view is that Social Order means that the government is handing (some) power over to the Order religion, and with it its stranglehold on many things, but with its tremendously well run bureaucracy. So, I dont think of it as the value of stability and order in their life, as you say; I think of it as the priests of Order eliminating the prevalent corruption which would be rampant in an FfH type world.
I can go on with other specific picks, but I think you understand my general point I think when you enter a new world or experience and you see effects, the game designer should be given the benefit of the doubt. Instead of concentrating on the words used, think of the effects of the civic and see if you can make sense of how it fits into this strange world.
Civics and Play
As far as balancing the civics from a play standpoint, this is always an interesting and important topic. Im not sure how to interpret Suffice it to say, the Civics don't really seem balanced. More to the point, they're so similar that's it's generally obvious which ones are mathematically superior to the others, even if you're playing the game the same way. This seems a little contradictory.
My view is that civics are best if they are balanced. However, I dont view balanced as the same as not mattering. If one civic gives more food and the other gives more science, they are different. A key to strategy is using the civics to match your strategy using workers, building, wonders, and type of victory. So, in regular BtS, we can build a cottage economy or a specialist economy. If you use a specialist economy you want representation but this doesnt mean that it is simply an accounting problem. Civ IV in all of its incarnations is dominated by focus. You focus your civ on a specific type to achieve your strategy. In FfH, the importance of synergy is even greater, so we see the Calabim-agrarian-aristocracy and we decide if we want Ashen Veil and sacrifice the weak, etc. The point is that these decisions are integrated, and at competitive levels (meaning the level played is competitive for the given player), they matter quite a lot.
I have to admit I do think the civics can be improved from a game play perspective, but the issue for a game designer is experience across many players, civs, map-types, etc. I think we already see differences of opinion as to how good the civics are. People who like to play the Hippus on Pangaea maps may say foreign trade is useless, while people playing the Lanun on Large archipelago will say otherwise. I know I always am either at City-states or god-king; however, I suspect that Im not using aristocracy and theocracy more because of poor play on my part than from a lack of balance; however, Im not sure so these kinds of threads can be useful to find the experience of other players.
Finally, you said, Even if everyone thinks I'm a long-winded moron, hopefully people start a discussion based on what I've said, generating some more interesting and coherent Civic ideas, for what is otherwise a great mod. I think it is a good post and I think the debate here is helpful. Im probably one of the most long-winded guys here! I do admit I think you should have started the post more objectively, saying, I think the civics can be improved instead of a thumbs down and the civics are a total mess. You may say this is just semantics itself, but to me it isnt. When you wrote a very long post, people will react viscerally to the impression they get early. You wrote a very thoughtful piece, so Im recommending that you think about how to get your ideas out most effectively; I think you have a lot to add even if I disagree on a lot of it!
Best wishes,
Breunor
and more 
equals more Population. And Population means almost everything.
from Aristo. You also lose 1 
from farms in agri, but if you build farms on grasslands, there are no 
in capital. No 
in capital. Increased maintenance penalty for distance from capital, decreased for number of cities.
in each city. Forts grow to Citadels twice as fast. 
and reduces city maintenance costs. Adepts, mages, and archmages provide 
.
spread. Unlimited Priests. Cities with state 
for 
. 
. Moves alignment down one step (Neutral -> Evil).
