Would you be offended
- Thread starter Ghafhi
- Start date
oagersnap
Emperor
Invisible Rhino said:
That's true, but there was a "fundamentalist" unique unit for that government, which was clearly based upon islamistic fundamentalists; it's not as extreme as having a "suicide bomber" unit, but on the other hand, that they removed the fundamentalism government shows that they would never add a "suicide bomber" unit.
dannyevilcat
DESTROYER OF FURNITURE
I voted yes, but that's because I think it's a lame idea, not because I find it offensive.
Xia
Warlord
Ghafhi said:
Muslims aren't the only people who can send suicide bombers into battle, just like Christians aren't he only crusaders. Etc. What Im trying to say is I wouldn't find it offensive if they did that, but I wouldn't find it historically acurate either.
Hyena
Chieftain
This wouldn't offend me because nothing does. I do feel though, that there should be later era units that don't reveal their nation of origin. Terrorists (be they religious or secular in nature) would fit the bill perfectly. Ciao, e buona fortuna.
Firaxis obviously can't do non-generic religions, but I hope we can mod religions to be different. That will be used by some to make terrorist-units and the like, which offend some people, but no one is required to play mods they don't like. In civ3 you can f.ex. easily mod the arabians to get a suicide-bomber-unit, but I have not seen that in many mods, so I don't think that would be seen offen in civ4 either.
The ability to mod religions to be different could however open up new strategic roads just like the different leader-abilities. How would you as an expansionistic leader, manage an empire where most people has a religion that are against building any units exept workers? Or would you, being a scientific leader, be able to cope whith a religion focused on war or agriculture?
And, as suggested by others, if religions could change over time it would be great. That could force a leader to chance focus and strategy in mid game. I would like that.
The ability to mod religions to be different could however open up new strategic roads just like the different leader-abilities. How would you as an expansionistic leader, manage an empire where most people has a religion that are against building any units exept workers? Or would you, being a scientific leader, be able to cope whith a religion focused on war or agriculture?
And, as suggested by others, if religions could change over time it would be great. That could force a leader to chance focus and strategy in mid game. I would like that.
Superkrest
Hero of the Soviet Union
it is just a game..but taht only furthers the debate...why create so much contraversy over a game when you can just avoid it.
and the second most famouse(only as of very recently) suicide bombers were khamikazi's and were in no way muslim. and lenins older brother was involved in a suicide assination of the tsar
and the second most famouse(only as of very recently) suicide bombers were khamikazi's and were in no way muslim. and lenins older brother was involved in a suicide assination of the tsar
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
I would be offended with the choises you put there. Sure, Christians can have their crusaders, but Muslims should not have suiside bombers. They only make up a small portion of people who belong to that religion, and they incite racial steriotyping. You can get Christian suiside bombers, Jewish ones, black, white... anyone can be a suiside bomber. I think that Muslims should have a Jihadist, which is basically the equivalent of a Crusader, as they both mean the same thing.
The Zionists, again, are of poor taste, although, at least this time, it sways against the common beleifs of the public, and the media, but in yet a bad way. Instead of Zionists, they should have a special type of slinger. Maybe one with an extra bombard ability, extra attack, etc...
The point of my post, is not that I don't beleive that things like this go on in the world, or that we should run away fromthings like this, but because there is already too many racial pregedist(SP?) at specificly these 2 religious groups, and those 3 units make Christians seem the 'good' choise, whereas Jewish people and Muslims 'evil bad guys'
Special units should go like this, IMO:
Christian: Crusader
Islamic: Islamic Jihadist
Jewish: *name needed* special slinger*
Buddah: Shoulin Monk (Any other ideas?)
Confusious(SP?): NO idea
Hindu: Again, NO idea
Tauist: When I find out what this religion is...
The Zionists, again, are of poor taste, although, at least this time, it sways against the common beleifs of the public, and the media, but in yet a bad way. Instead of Zionists, they should have a special type of slinger. Maybe one with an extra bombard ability, extra attack, etc...
The point of my post, is not that I don't beleive that things like this go on in the world, or that we should run away fromthings like this, but because there is already too many racial pregedist(SP?) at specificly these 2 religious groups, and those 3 units make Christians seem the 'good' choise, whereas Jewish people and Muslims 'evil bad guys'
Special units should go like this, IMO:
Christian: Crusader
Islamic: Islamic Jihadist
Jewish: *name needed* special slinger*
Buddah: Shoulin Monk (Any other ideas?)
Confusious(SP?): NO idea
Hindu: Again, NO idea
Tauist: When I find out what this religion is...
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
How do one determine what things are right to represent a religion? Neither the crusaders or the jihadists did things that were all good... and crusades aren't, to my knowledge, taught anywhere in the bible, yet it's seen as a christian event in history (and modern day too in some cases). It didn't involve everyone or reach everywhere and took place only for a relatively brief period in history.Virote_Considon said:
Is there some timeperiod that must pass before it is appropriate to connect events to a religion?
Anyone can suicidebomb, but in recent years they have 'all' been muslim extremists, they haven't tried to hide the fact, their goals are 'Islamic' and their actions have had worldwide consequences. I'm counting 9/11 as suicidebombs btw, suicidalactions....
I am again not saying that there should be a muslim suicidebomber in the game, but I'm getting a little annoyed with everyone denying any-what-so-ever connections between suicidebombs and Islam - the muslimworld, in which there are a lot of views and in which extremists also are a part.
Japanrocks12
tired of being a man
The linking of religions to units is utterly fallacious. Different regions of the world have different ideals. For example, the previously mentioned Christian crusaders.
Ignoring all banter that the Muslim word jihad means something similar, would the western
idea of a crusade sit well with the Ethopians, who are mostly Christians?
What about African Muslims? Are they the "suicide bombers" that the rest of the world connects Muslims to be?
Ignoring all banter that the Muslim word jihad means something similar, would the western
idea of a crusade sit well with the Ethopians, who are mostly Christians?
What about African Muslims? Are they the "suicide bombers" that the rest of the world connects Muslims to be?
Japanrocks12 said:
I agree completely with this sentence. Nations, religions, and cultures find themselves in different situations and thus resort to different tactics. To the Christians the Crusades served (non-religious) purposes, such as dealing with primogeniture in Europe.
The Crusades and suicide bombers are just responses to circumstances and shouldn't be predetermined by the game
Nobody
Gangster
i wouldnt be offeneded. but really religions in the new are meant to be like civs, totally neutral everyone is equal this has been changing with uniuqe units, but still everyone civ is equal. the religions should be exactly the same, they dont even need real names. that could just be called ReligionA ReligionB ect.
Japanrocks12
tired of being a man
Nobody said:
Here's the point. The members of one religion are never meant to be all of one race. If the game has anything at all to do with religion, then it should play a VERY minor role. We do not want to end up treating them like governments and have hated and shunned religions for each civ. People would be offended then. But we also do not want religions to work like civs, for the sake of avoiding fallacy.
Religions are meant to be open to interpretation. No one interpretation can be the prevailing interpretation.
Japanrocks12
tired of being a man
apatheist said:
Primitive time? You mean, like, right now?
