Replace Pacifism?

[Garashta]

this is a completely unrealistic civic, if a real civilization opted for it, it would be conquered and assimileted by another, and thus it is not an important civilization, and most of them we probably dont even know about.

 

[Phallus]

Thanks for topping the thread to let us know.

 

[kairob]

The is a lot for me to read here and I have to go soon but I just have to comment on this quote;

the US SR is Christianity.

and ask him to read about the first amendment of the US constitution (sp?)

 

[fearuin]

this is a completely unrealistic civic, if a real civilization opted for it, it would be conquered and assimileted by another, and thus it is not an important civilization, and most of them we probably dont even know about.

Along all this thread, you all have been misunderstanding pacifism. Pacifist nations aren't those who lack completely of military, because there's no one, and there hasn't been no one, like this. Pacifist nations were those who have legal or moral restrictions, based on religion, that asks military to have a purely defensive purpouse. That doesn't mean, also, that pacifist states are forbidden to enter in war, even for offensive purpouses. But this generates economic inefficiencies, which are reflected in the game by raising the military mantaining costs.

In these sense, we have several examples. I've said them before, but, please forgive me, I'll repeat them:
-Iroquois, before American's expansion to the west.
-Modern Germany, Japan and Switzerland (OK, these one are not based in religion, but I have already asked for pacifism not needing SR).
-India, during Mughals' rule, and Gandhi's and Nehru's dinasties on power.

 

[OzzyKP]

I voted NO.

Kinda silly to have a religion civics column where half the options are about the absence of religion. We already have a good model for Soviet Union forced atheism. Select no state religion in the religion screen and then adopt theology. Then no religion can spread. I don't know if the +2XP is granted to cities without any religion in them, but if that could be adjusted it'd be perfect.

We do not need an atheism civic. It is a silly concept.

If people don't like pacifism then think of another legitimate religious civic option. Atheism on the state level is a very recent phenomena - in the last 80 years or so - and limited to only a few communist states. Whereas religion has been with all civs in all corners of the globe since the birth of human civilization. Surely we can do better.

Some options for other religious civics:

Pantheist
Orthodox
Crusade
Nature Cult
Blood Cult
Clericalism
Inquisition
Fundamentalism

 

[fearuin]

I agree, OzzyKP. I'm against replacing pacifism, specially for a nonsense "religious" civic like atheism. There were few pacifist states, but none "atheist". The ones who went against religion were:
a) Pagan
b) Had a State or Personality enforced cult (theocracy+non-SR)

So no need for atheism. In fact, as I and Blasphemous agreed above, the better solution is to have religious civics one basic effect, that will be empowered when a SR is triggered. It's very simple to do.

 

[SkippyT]

fearuin all the way!

 

[Spearthrower]

Paganism is a sort of state religion as well, in that everyone in the tribe/locality would have followed it, they would have had Druids as Elders and leaders influencing the decisions of the political leaders.

 

[Phallus]

Yes, but so-called pagan religions were far less exclusive so it wouldn't have been much of an issue that foreign pagans worshipped their own gods.

 

[kairob]

Thats true pagans were much less intolorent of other gods

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

How can you have 'true' pagans? Paganism is a broad name for follower's of many different religions, which originally meant heathen or civilian.

 

[kairob]

I missed out a comma, it should have been "thats true , pagans were..."

and originally it ment "country dweller"...

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

But the fact that it's a generalization still disproves what you just said, it's like saying all Native Americans were hostile, some where and some weren't, it's the same with paganism. Some pagan religions would have been intolerant, but I'm sure there were tolerant ones.

 

[fearuin]

When I said "the only states that were against religion were a) pagans", I wanted to mean that some pagan states have been hostile to foreign missionaries to come along and spread "foreign cults". That's all. Not all pagans were against religion, but some of them indeedly were.

Thats true pagans were much less intolorent of other gods

Only when the new religion fits in the actual one. If, i.e., a viking missionary went to germany and tried to spread the norse religion, as long as german traditional religion was very similar, there was no problem. But when jewish or christian came to Rome with their monotheist cult, the answer was hostile. And there are more examples: again, christianity, trying to spread in Japan; or confucianism under pagan China.

 

[Spearthrower]

Actually, you can draw a pretty clear "tolerance" line between polytheistic and monotheistic religions. Perhaps due to the diaspora of diverse religious practices, polytheistic religions are and always have been far more tolerant than monotheistic ones where power lies in orthodoxy and uniformity.

Even with religions still existant today you can see that the Polytheistic ones, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, are far more tolerant than Monotheistic ones.

If you go back to that time period, fighting over Gods was ridiculous when your own family worshipped a variety of different ones. In fact, peoples tended to assume that their neighbour's Gods were the same as their own, just with different names. You'll note that there was no form of proselytizing in the ancient world. People didn't go out to convert others to their religion - if anything local religions were hoarded, secret affairs not to be disclosed to the uninitiated or unknown.

I'd have to side with the generalisation that "paganism" is far more tolerant of other religions. It may be a generalisation but it fits the truth far better than the other descriptions.

The example given of a Christian missionary coming to preach to the Norse is one of conflict. The missionary would have continuously implied that the locals were ignorant of the true God and would burn in hell or whatever was the more favoured doom of the unbeliever at the time. That kind of thing does tend to upset some people!

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

I wasn't saying most pagans were intolerant I was merely saying that you can't have a "all pagans are tolerant" as a fact, since the definition of paganism is a hazy generalization. I know it's pedantic, but hey, that's the way I am. I also agree it's the best description we've got at the moment Also, at your last paragraph =]

 

[kairob]

Only when the new religion fits in the actual one. If, i.e., a viking missionary went to germany and tried to spread the norse religion, as long as german traditional religion was very similar, there was no problem. But when jewish or christian came to Rome with their monotheist cult, the answer was hostile. And there are more examples: again, christianity, trying to spread in Japan; or confucianism under pagan China.

I dont think viking had that many missionaries, but what I ment was that christians killed many jews for simply being jewish, that sort of thing did not hapopen very often in medeteranian religions

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

I don't think viking had that many missionaries, but what I meant was that Christians killed many Jews for simply being Jewish, that sort of thing did not happen very often in Mediterranean religions

I agree totally =]

 

[kairob]

thanks man

Edit: anyways we should probably get back on topic...

 

[fearuin]

OK, let's get back to topic...: YES to Pacifism!!

I'll repeat it: YES to Pacifism!!

Just for anyone that didn't get it: YES to Pacifism!!

However, if you think there is any other religious civic that can be inside, just say it. But I don't want to go back to the atheism issue. It's more than clear than it isn't an alternative. Any other ideas?