Replace Pacifism?

[Phallus]

Replacing Pacifism with Humanism is another worthy suggestion. It's the logical precursor to Secularism and it may also allow us to keep Pacifism's GP bonus, but - and here's the problem - what historical nations have adopted religious Humanism?

 

[Prestidigitator]

I abstained, not too bothered to look at it . But if it became "Atheism", wouldn't it be contradictory if a nation was Christian while it had the "Atheistic" civic?
perhaps something to look at.

 

[Phallus]

Easy - don't give it a state religion.

 

[Stacmon]

Like Rhye, I support a Pacifism ---> Atheism change as well as a Free Religion ---> Secularism change.

There's one thing I need to point out to those of you that may think Free Religion and Secularism are the same. They are certainly NOT.

For instance, one could argue Canada embodies the Free Religion civic. Here people are permitted to demonstrate their religion, even to the point of wearing ceremonial knives to school as children (Sikhs). Naturally some (mainly Christian/Atheist) parents were greatly concerned, but in the end, the freedom of religion clause in our constitution trumped them. The bottom line is, there was no reason to suspect a Sikh child was more likely to maliciously hurt others with their ceremonial knife rather than any other weapon. Naturally, it is no problem for Muslim women to wear Hijab or full body Burkas here either.

When it comes to Secularism, France or Turkey are prime examples. Religious symbols are banned in many places, particularly those directly related to the state (such as educational institutions). This means a lower degree of freedom to outwardly demonstrate religious belief.

That's just my two cents .

 

[Phallus]

We're talking about State Secularism here as secularism within the government and national laws, not secularism in everyday life or misguided PC zeal (where I'd place French attempts to ban crosses and headscarfs in schools). Canada has a secular government where there is a separation of church and state, yes?

(If it hasn't, I'd wager us Limeys are responsible. Britain never officially separated from the Church of England, but the position of the church in politics is vastly compromised and we are a far more secular society than the USA. In 1928 Blasphemy was still sentencable by a year's hard labour, but nobody takes these laws seriously anymore.)

 

[Stacmon]

I see exactly what you're trying to say Phallus. What I was hoping to clarify is that the implementation of the concepts of free religion and secularism can lead to very different results.

 

[Phallus]

Ah yes I understand. However, any civic from Hereditary Rule to Organized Religion can be interpreted differently, so I suppose we might as well merge Secularism and Free Religion in much the same way we have merged Feudalism with Imperialism (and even a Constitutional Monarchy, depending on how you define Representation).

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

[off-topic]
Wait, the Canadian system of letting someone justify carrying a dangerous weapon into a school on the basis of their religion isn't PC gone awry? "The bottom line is, there was no reason to suspect a Sikh child was more likely to maliciously hurt others with their ceremonial knife rather than any other weapon." True, but then I'd argue that they're not much less likely and I'm not a big fan of being surrounded by weaponry at all, ceremonial or otherwise.
[/off-topic]

I think that the civic should be 'secularism' implying that the state has seperated itself from people's personal beliefs and guaranteeing the right to free religion.

 

[mitsho]

Are there really that many examples where Atheism was actually used in history? As pointed out, the Soviet Union didn't endorse Atheism in the sense of the word, instead, it rather replaced religion with ideology. And beside the Soviet Union, were there that many examples? I don't like a civic Atheism (what bonusses would you give? Where would you put [the gameplay-wise] necessary Great People Bonus?).
I instead want to propose the following: A Humanism/tolerance civic. I'm thinking of a lesser Secularistic system, an example could be Rome (tolerant to all the sects that agreed to the state "constitution"). The bonus would be that you could keep the Great People Bonus.

I'd rather prefer this to something unhistorical as Atheism ("Personality Cult or Ideology" on the other hand would be something else!).

mitsho

 

[Spearthrower]

*Going back to Phallus's first reply to me!*

Sorry I think we may in some ways be arguing the same thing - it seems to me that you are only talking about state enforced Atheism, while I am not debating that this has ocurred, I am specifically not suggesting that this is what atheism here would imply.

Free Religion would indicate a religious society that has developed tolerance for other religions. It still implies that religion and religious morality is a significant part of the state and of the education system. Thus we have the idea of ecumenism, i.e. the acceptance of multitudinous religions contributing to the social well-being. It just doesn't maintain one over another - it doesn't hold a specific state religion.

Secularism (instead of atheism) on the other hand in no way denotes *any* religious requirement - quite the opposite..... from Cambridge Dictionary:

Secularism
noun
the belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country.

Secular
adjective
not having any connection with religion

It doesn't mean that you can't worship but that religion is constitutionally separate from the state - no religious affiliations can have any effect on governmental policies.

In game terms, I personally dont see a need for the enforced Atheism, but a secular society is one whose "religion" is science. This is a great end game situation for those civs that either havent developed their own religion/s or who need to get out of religious conflict and wish to pursue a scientific victory. Religions present in a city would offer no benefit - potentially they could even offer a negative due to conflict with the state idealogy (similar to what has happened in the education system in some states of the US over evolution / intelligent design)

Free Religion as I specified above would be more geared to someone with multiple religions that they have worked throughout their society or for extremely large populations (+1 Happy per Religion). This would apply more for the person working towards Cultural victory. Having a large variety of religions present in a city would actually be of benefit under this civic as they engender the cosmopolitan culture and the free flow of beliefs (+x% GP growth).

 

[fearuin]

Well, I voted NO, even when I'm not actually using that civic (too frequently I'm going Theocratic or Organized Religion). Pacifism did existed, but too few times to become a mayor "state politic". We have Native Americans, or, actually, the Swiss or the Japanese. In fact, an "Humanism" civic would be very unrealistic.

what historical nations have adopted religious Humanism?

This is it. We have Italy, during the Reinassance, and maybe the Netherlands a little time after. But no more. And Humanism is no more than a type of Pacifism. Humanist philosophers were pacifists, but there were pacifists who weren't humanists, like Gandhi's followers, or the Native Americans mentioned above, or even current Japanese.

The other option, Atheism, is better. However, it should not give science if Free Religion does. What can be made is to have a bonus with Atheism (science becomes the only true belief) and a bonus with Free Religion (morality keeps religion on the private sphere, so bussiness and corporations are more free to adapt to the country; e.g.:mcDonalds had a lot of trouble to establish in Islamic countries and India, but none in European countries, or in China, where religion is free).

 

[thenooblet22]

Free religion and State Secularism are the same thing

How are these two things the same? I don't want to quote dictionary.com, but you forced me to

Secularism - secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship

Free Religion - a guarantee by a government for freedom of belief for individuals and freedom of worship for individuals and groups; also includes the freedom not to follow any religion or not having any belief in any god

Beware of my quoting powers

EDIT: Didn't see second page, someone beat me to it

 

[Phallus]

In turn I suppose I'll have to use wikipedia to explain what I mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

and don't give me an Idaho's Portugal about wikipedia being inaccurate. A few years ago Dictionary.com defined Atheism as 'a lack of morals'.

Free Religion would indicate a religious society that has developed tolerance for other religions. It still implies that religion and religious morality is a significant part of the state and of the education system. Thus we have the idea of ecumenism, i.e. the acceptance of multitudinous religions contributing to the social well-being. It just doesn't maintain one over another - it doesn't hold a specific state religion.

This occured even in governments which saw the separation of church and state as vital (well, not about the state, but about the education system at least). These were all secular governments even if the role of religion in everyday lives was considered important. As I've said before, non-secular governments have a hard time enforcing true freedom of religion - history can prove this. We are talking about secularism within the government and constitution, not outside it.

Free Religion as I specified above would be more geared to someone with multiple religions that they have worked throughout their society or for extremely large populations (+1 Happy per Religion). This would apply more for the person working towards Cultural victory. Having a large variety of religions present in a city would actually be of benefit under this civic as they engender the cosmopolitan culture and the free flow of beliefs (+x% GP growth).

As I've said, for civic reasons a Secular government and Free Religion are for the most part identical. We have merged far stranger things together and as for this about Secularism being a good name for state-enforced atheism - how? Secularism sees religion as irrelevent - all they wish to affirm is that religion will not interfere with politics. Atheistic Communist States are established with the deliberate intention of destroying religious institutions.

Also, just for the record:

As well as being the world's largest democracy, India's government is totally secular. You'd think that, if we were going on the above, the nation that would benefit most from 'Free Religion' as opposed to 'Secularism' (let's ignore the similarities for a moment) would be India.

What can be made is to have a :Science: bonus with Atheism (science becomes the only true belief)

First of all, science is not a belief, but let's drop that for now. There isn't a single example of a state which enforces Atheism leaving everything alone once it has done its 'job', so to speak. The states that have done this tend to be built around the personality cult and so the only true belief is in the state.

 

[Ravellion]

Pacifism is perhaps quite rare, but Atheism makes no historical sense whatsoever (and I am an Atheist, so I am not just saying this to bash atheists). It will also upset the balance of the religious civics, having two non-religious religious civics.

How about calling pacifism "Religious Pluralism", and then perhaps give it a medium upkeep instead of the military unit penalty?

 

[REDY]

Pacifism is perhaps quite rare, but Atheism makes no historical sense whatsoever (and I am an Atheist, so I am not just saying this to bash atheists). It will also upset the balance of the religious civics, having two non-religious religious civics.

How about calling pacifism "Religious Pluralism", and then perhaps give it a medium upkeep instead of the military unit penalty?

I think that USSR and other countries were atheist, the religous churchs were persecuted.

Pacifism, I see there point. It was not used thanks that country within army couldnt be too long time Maybe extra + attitudes with all other civilizations and where is attacked, attitudes extra minus to agressor

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Yes, but the state religion of the USSR was a dogma which included atheism rather than just an indoctrination into atheism ; the USSR, China, Nazi Germany etc. persecuted or took over (obvious example of this is Chinese Catholic Church) religions because their brand of crap interfered with the state's own.

It's much more accurate to describe the Communists' or Fascists' 'religious' civic as being an extension of the espoused political ideology.

 

[knigh+]

Yes, but the state religion of the USSR was a dogma which included atheism rather than just an indoctrination into atheism ; the USSR, China, Nazi Germany etc. persecuted or took over (obvious example of this is Chinese Catholic Church) religions because their brand of crap interfered with the state's own.

It's much more accurate to describe the Communists' or Fascists' 'religious' civic as being an extension of the espoused political ideology.

I voted Yes, but not for Atheism. As I agree with the quote above, I think it should be called "Ideological Indoctrination" or something like that, rather than Atheism. In my opinion religious civics should be ways of implementing religion to the country's policies (such as theocracy, organized religion, free religion, secularism/free religion etc.). Pacifism does not qualify as such. Atheism is a religion, not an implementation, so it does not qualify either.
But "Ideological Indoctrination" is like Theocracy with the religion replaced by government ideology. So it has more of a "civic" feeling.

 

[Spearthrower]

It's much more accurate to describe the Communists' or Fascists' 'religious' civic as being an extension of the espoused political ideology.

Exactly what I was trying to say: An "enforced atheism" isn't really in the religious branch of civics, it is more in the governmental one.

 

[Stacmon]

In my opinion religious civics should be ways of implementing religion to the country's policies (such as theocracy, organized religion, free religion, secularism/free religion etc.). Pacifism does not qualify as such. Atheism is a religion, not an implementation.

I disagree with you about part of this statement. You say that the civics column should relate to the implementation of religion, well one approach to the implementation of religion is to actively oppose it. This in effect then, is state sanctioned atheism, and its intent is to prevent the spread and practice of religion. Just as a state can have an organized religion or act as a theocracy, it can take what I see as the exact opposite approach. The discussion about whether "atheism" as a civic title is sufficient is entirely different. In my opinion, that name is preferable to something needlessly more complicated (I don't think we need to go as far as "Personality Cult" or "State sponsored Ideology"). However, I think it's something that should certainly be discussed, as I'm on the fence about it anyway.

Anecdote: There was some discussion about the USSR earlier and whether or not they really promoted atheism aggressively. I was actually born in St. Petersburg during Soviet Times (part of the last generation to get Soviet Citizenship), and I had an Orthodox mother. We traveled all the way from St. Petersburg down to a small, secluded village in Ukraine where my grandmother and great grandmother (serving as a witness) had me baptized. In fact, these gatherings had to be kept so small that my godparents were my great grandmother and my great uncle, the only other two people present at the ceremony.

Soviet times saw the suppression of all forms of religion, be it Christianity or Islam. Jews were reduced to an ethnicity and granted an "ethnic" homeland in South Eastern Russia. Many churches and other religious buildings were demolished, though many of the most beautiful and grand were retained because of their cultural significance.

Personally, I think there is great validity to a (State Sponsored) "Atheism" civic. The bottom line is, some states/rulers do or could want to stamp out religion.

 

[a1Basco]

How about we just make Communism a religion.

hehehehe..

Then the Soviet Union can be Theocratic with a communist government.


Ok, that doesn't really cut it.. Nevermind...