I'd wondered at that, too, but there's really no accounting for Western perception. I mean, just looking at the traffic situation in Mumbai does not give one the impression that Indians are very Ordered, and of course, they never were Communist.
Then your failure to understand American history saddens me. Original colonists aside, perhaps you should look at the original documents that form the basis of the US Government. Declaration of Independence talks about God. Bill of Rights states that there is no laws that govern what religion you may practice, opposite that of a Theocratic Nation (which is not the same as Piety). Then there is the Pledge of Allegiance which is "one nation under God".
Not to mention even before the Star Spangled Banner, My Country, 'Tis of Thee' was the original national anthem (until 1931 signed by Herbert Hoover), which includes the lyrics "Great God our King". Oh, the national motto has been "In God we Trust" since 1956.
However, let us go to the simple root of the discussion of piety vs rationalism.
pi·e·ty n;
1. reverence for God or devout fulfillment of religious obligations: a prayer full of piety.
2. the quality or state of being pious: saintly piety.
3. dutiful respect or regard for parents, homeland, etc.: filial piety.
4. a pious act, remark, belief, or the like: the pieties and sacrifices of an austere life.
ra·tion·al·ism, n;
1. The principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.
2. Philosophy .
a. The doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.
b. (in the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza, etc.) The doctrine that all knowledge is expressible in self-evident propositions or their consequences.
Once again, proof that Piety for America is spot on.
I'd wondered at that, too, but there's really no accounting for Western perception. I mean, just looking at the traffic situation in Mumbai does not give one the impression that Indians are very Ordered, and of course, they never were Communist.
your missinterpretation of saying under god (what god are they refering to?) and in god we trust (again what god) as meaning the nation is run by a religion or that a religion in some way has power over the government is just plain silly. the american government is one of the only ones that has truly not been run by religion or religious leaders in its entire existence. a national anthem has nothing to do with the running of the country and in america the declaration of independence is not in any way part of the government or gives rules to the running of the government, it is merely a statement to the world that america became independent of the british empire in 1776. btw any symbols you see on anything from the american government have nothing to do with any specific religion (or religion in general) and saying god doesnt either because every religion has a god or gods.
JWAT44:
In what way is socialism expressed in India? I'm genuinely curious. AFAICT, it was mostly active in the action of abolishing caste social order, which isn't necessarily alien to American and British modern social sentiments in general.
I believe I explained what God they were referring to, but I guess that is above you. Christians all believe in the same God, but the methods and how one gets to salvation differ. The God in Lutheranism is the same as the Baptist God.
You want to bring Jesus into the mix, but considering how he gets referred to might step on some Christian toes, guess what? Instead, they go with the path of least resistance and use God (who Jesus is one an the same, but this is not a theological discussion).
As far as your view of the Declaration of Independence goes, you must have failed American history big time. This important document not only gets reluctant colonists on board, it lists the grievances, legitimizes the conflict, which in turn allows foreign powers to aid the colonists.
Regarding your "start" of the war, war was not declared until the Declaration came about. While there were skirmishes (Lexington and Concord) before the Declaration, Congress had made attempts to prevent the war (back in 1775 after the Battle of Bunker Hill) and it was not until King George essentially refused to acknowledge a diplomatic solution that the Declaration was proposed. In other words, it was not until the Declaration of Independence that the Revolution really kicked off. The wheel was set in motion, but until the United States said they were independent, it was technically still the British quelling an uprising in the colonies (more specifically Massachusetts).
The Declaration of Independence does outline some of the basis of the American Government if only in ideology, and states they have a God given right to break away from Britain.
I could go on, but since history is not your strong suit, I will boil it down to simply stating that considering that America is a later start civilization in comparison to its neighbors, so using the Free Religion (practice your own thing) and Reformation (which Free Religion had a lot to do with) which are at the end of the Piety Tree are better than those of the Rationalism tree. Rationalism has Sovereignty and that is about it.
However, this discussion is unproductive as I seem to be the only one putting effort into it, so I am gonna just end it here. It's a game with imperfect mechanics and frankly, believe what you want to believe. The facts speak for themselves.
God bless the USA.
I read that already, of course. As I said, as far as I could tell, the gist of Communism mainly was a thrust to obliterate the caste restrictions. I was looking for more. I mean, it's one thing to have a lot of people talking about Marxism, and quite another for that to induce the parliament to actual raise taxes and institute global medical services for everyone - you know, actual socialism.
Wow this sure sparked off some interesting debate. To reiterate my thoughts:
A) Most civs displayed some of each of these elements, something as large as a civilization has many facets and has a lot of countervailing currents.
B) I tried as much as possible to compare civs to cultures from the same era. No the US is not nearly as pious as the Babylon or Egypt, but you need to compare them to their contemporaries. (To be honest the US Piety/Rationalism choice is one of the ones I am most ambivalent about, I could really go either way).
C) I tried as much as possible to even out the representation of the policies and to have lots of different combinations.
D) Some of these civs are quite old and you are trying to represent a very long, very diverse period. For India I chose Order because I needed more order Civs and it was seen as skewing towards order from the 1950s-80s. Could you make an argument for Authoritarianism under the Mughals or Aryans, or Freedom under the current government, sure, but it is a just some abstractions in a game, so I chose what I thought fit best.
As for the discussion of the US's founders. They were a fairly non-religious bunch for their time, particularly the ones we most closely associate with the intellectual work (Jefferson/Madison/Hamilton/et cetera). A lot of them were basically "humanists" and if they were alive today would be non-religious/atheists like a lot of well educated people are. I think when viewing the founders people really take a lot of things out of context and get caught up in literalism, instead of looking at the spirit of what was said. Personally I think the constitution is hopelessly obsolete and that the Supreme Court's attempt to reinterpret it are reaching there limits. I think the founders would be horrified to find out we were still attempting to run today's US with the document they prepared in the late 1700s, they would think it was insane. Of course figuring out a process for having another constitutional convention would be next to impossible, so I guess we will just muddle along.
i disagree with the fact that the constitution is obselete, it has been changed over the years to adapt to a changing world but as the years have gone by the government has grown and become more corrupt but that's not for this thread so back to topic: i still think the US should be under patronage instead of rationalism or piety
What? Firstly, it has to be Piety or Rationalism. Secondly, the counterpart to Patronage is Commerce. I don't think there is a more capitalistic nation in the world than America, so commerce wins hands-down.
PAT OR COM
OP did
His project, not mine.
So, in the choice of patronage and commerce, I have to go with commerce.
I would suggest change China from COM to PAT.
Merchants never played major roles in Chinese history. Although some exceptions do exist in certain periods, in general China emphasizes far less on its navy power (the COM policy tree ingame has many to do with navies and coastal cities).
PAT fits better to Chinese history, especially if we consider the "tributary system", and consider some minor civs adjcent to China as City States.