Replace Pacifism?

[Rhye]

This seems to me a silly civic.
I mean, I can't think of any civ in history which "adopted" this civic.
It could be easily replaced by a forced "Atheism", in the sense USSR meant.
It would make more sense regarding civics combinations too, as you know I'm working on stability now: the combination state property+atheism would sound good.

 

[Riker]

yes, but I don't know if it's appropriate the effect.

 

[Spearthrower]

What would its effect be?

I take it that it would add to science.... would you then need to modify Free Religion? If so, I'd suggest that the latter worked more towards a cultural bonus than a scientific one, leaving Atheism to be the scientist's religion.

 

[shawne3386]

I'd say Pacifism has to go, unless there was a way to either halt military production or delete units as part of an upswell of opposition to military service.

 

[werttrew]

?

Are we talking purely game-term or realism terms?

I use pacifisim all the time in the game--I don't think I could have ever made India's five-religion goal without pacifism pumping out great prophets in order to get Islam. So, in terms of replacing the 100% GP bonus, I'm not in favor.

If it is simply calling it something else, than sure, I'm all for it.

 

[Spearthrower]

What about switching Free Religion and Pacifism's position in the civics tree, allowing Free Religion to come earlier. Then Free Religion (arriving with Philosophy) could do +1 Happy per city with the state religion and a boost to GP growth. Pacifism could then be changed to Atheism (arriving with Scientific Method?) and be at the end of the Religion tree (realistic) and be a boost to science.

 

[Elhoim]

What about switching Free Religion and Pacifism's position in the civics tree, allowing Free Religion to come earlier. Then Free Religion (arriving with Philosophy) could do +1 Happy per city with the state religion and a boost to GP growth. Pacifism could then be changed to Atheism (arriving with Scientific Method?) and be at the end of the Religion tree (realistic) and be a boost to science.

This is a good idea!

 

[Spearthrower]

This is a good idea!

I can sometimes be accused of having them..... not too often for it to become a habit though!

 

[Phallus]

Good suggestions but the name should be more specific than plain 'Atheism' which is simply a lack of belief. I'd suggest calling it a 'Personality Cult' (Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Turkmenbashi all made use of it). It doesn't necessarily have to conflict with religion - in the case of Turkmenbashi, he has attempted to interfere with religious beliefs rather than eradicate them - but for all that it's worth, the cult of personality tends to be a vicious enemy of religious institutions. Even in Turkmenbashi's case, he's quick to punish those who don't include him in their worship.

I also suggest renaming 'Free Religion' to 'Secularism'. The current effects represent that of a modern secular government, after all.

 

[Rhye]

yes I would swap the two first, and later change some effects to make them fit the new name. I like the change to Secularism too. Not the Personality cult instead (while Stalin and others made use of it, it wasn't the idea of atheism Marx had).
Do you have any idea for the 1 or possibly 2 new icons?

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

It is true that rarely has there been enforced state atheism where the state hasn't created a religion out of the ideology involved (or rather, since the ideology was often meant to be Marxism, creating a religion in the name of the ideology). Perhaps the phrase "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State" is the kind of thing, a subjugation of religion to the State. I don't see the functional difference between Nazi and other Fascist (Italian, Spanish, Vichy, Ustase) integration of religion by the state and USSR, China, DPRK cults of communism. Not sure that 'personality cult' is wide-ranging enough. And it certainly doesn't fit with current 'pacifism' modifiers.

Edit: Marx doesn't argue for enforced atheism (i.e. indoctrination ; you might feel that pushing empiricism and materialism might result in atheism, I suppose), he argues against religions. Not belief itself, the structures, churches etc.

 

[Spearthrower]

On the other hand, we do have many states that are constitutionally separate from religion - this is part of the catchall for Atheism I would suggest. Secularism as Rhye indicates - that's the final step in the Religion tree and follows pretty realistically with history as scientific reasoning becomes more inherent in society (or at least, Western society)

Free Religion is a progressive ecumenical acceptance of all denominations but is inherently religious with everyone basically accepting a creator of some sort (as an example based in reality, Constantinople would be a model for this type of society - several organised religions living side by side and generally tolerated by each other), while Atheism is the general disbelief in any organised religion and the overriding systematic acceptance of a scientific explanation for our existence - this denotes that the education system teaches evolution for example. From my perspective, it doesn't denote the enforced atheism of say communist Russia.

Perhaps using the term "Secularism" instead of Atheism might fit all the holes?

 

[SadoMacho]

Rhye, have you checked the RFC++ thread. We have been discussing about a new civic system overthere with pascifism (with new effects) and atheism (and many more new civics).
I have noticed that there are many people how want to keep pascifism and others (like myself) who want it replaced.

 

[Wilhelm II]

What about switching Free Religion and Pacifism's position in the civics tree, allowing Free Religion to come earlier. Then Free Religion (arriving with Philosophy) could do +1 Happy per city with the state religion and a boost to GP growth. Pacifism could then be changed to Atheism (arriving with Scientific Method?) and be at the end of the Religion tree (realistic) and be a boost to science.

An interesting idea, indeed.
But I would not link the benefits of free religion to the state religion. Afterall it's FREE religion, isn't it?

 

[Spearthrower]

Oops yeah, somehow I typed that when I meant with +1 Happy with *any* religion present in the city - possibly even +1 Happy *per* religion (?)... thanks for picking that up!

 

[Phallus]

Free religion and State Secularism are the same thing. State-forced Atheism is completely different.

Free Religion is a progressive ecumenical acceptance of all denominations but is inherently religious with everyone basically accepting a creator of some sort (as an example based in reality, Constantinople would be a model for this type of society - several organised religions living side by side and generally tolerated by each other)

Non-secular governments are rarely able to maintain a stable system of religious freedom for long. There are exceptions such as the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires (who still held very negative opinions of breakaway sects from their own religions), but it is certain that religious freedom and religious equality were two very different things in empires where church and state were combined.

Perhaps using the term "Secularism" instead of Atheism might fit all the holes?

This distorts the very meaning of Secularism. States that enforced Atheism tried to fill the 'religion gap' among the working classes either with the cult of personality described above, or with utter devotion to some far-fetched ideal which usually ran contrary to what the state was actually doing. Secularism, however, is the separation of church and state - the replacement of law derived from scripture with a secular law all people can follow.

 

[Stile]

What would the effects for atheism be? Progressive loss of temples, cathedrals, and Shrines; no use of priests or Great Prophets; lower relations with non-atheist civs. And the benefit would be stability with state property, and improved science? I'm skeptical of improved science. Why would it be better than secularism and simply ignoring religion? Albania attempted to become the first atheist state about the same time as modern Israel was created. Where are Albania's universities rated? (Sure there are other factors, but the soviets didn't fair much better and collapsed with State Property.) I don't see how after enforcing the eradication of religious parts of your empire (which must happen for the civic to have any meaning) that there can be enough benefits to make it worthwhile to choose. No upkeep? Seems like forcing a negative would cost more than Secularism

I like the Free Religion to Secularism change, but atheism as a civic doesn't seem like a viable alternative to Pacifism.

 

[Phallus]

Yes, that's a problem. I would suggest a source of income due to the money you can make in dismantling ornate religious structures and siphoning money out of religious institutions, but that isn't exactly an ongoing event and as you say it should at least have a similar upkeep to Theocracy. I think the 'Personality Cult' may allow for more benefits than plain State-Atheism, but even then I don't see how they would outweigh the benefits of the other civics.

Edit: To confirm, I don't mind Pacifism and I tend to use it if I want a Great Person rush. Wasn't it suggested that each civic category would have an extra civic slot anyway?

 

[Stile]

How about Humanism? Less hostile to religion (still insidious I suppose), but could provide some serious help with happiness and relations to third world countries. More likely to get Vassals?

 

[McA123]

Well I voted no, since I do use it from time to time, namely as India... But meh. I suppose it isn't really realistic and Atheism would be a better addition.