Real-world sensitivities and game names

[JimMorrison]

So there is potentially a religion in New Guinea that not seek to spread itself to willing minds to survive? That would rock my entire concept of what the term religion actually means, as opposed to philosophy or just plain reasoning.

I think in a nutshell Badger was simply stating that people are people, and religion didn't change anything intrinsic about our properties as organisms.

I have to admit though, I've been having trouble seeing a difference in the rate at which the vector manifests itself in the darker desires of humanity - but this could just be because of the sheer volume of the population who carry it.


That's why I prefer philosophies and reasonings though, they don't pull guilt trips on you when you grow past them.

[Saxon]

When you talk about religion and state, it is good to look at how Christianity is different than other religions. The “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto god what is god’s,” is fairly unique. It flavors the thinking of most people who grew up in predominantly Christian areas and makes them think that the separation of church and state is normal or at least desirable. In most of the world, that is not the case.

Many other religions either carry an explicit or implicit idea that “our religion is good and we should do what we need to do to make sure society follows the moral ideals of our religion.” This means the state should and even must implement religion. Why would you leave out a very powerful tool when you are trying to change the world?

This is a gap in understanding that I frequently see in Christian/Muslim discussions and it is all the worse because the two sides don’t realize it is there. One side is saying “How can you pass a law like that?” They then argue about the right and the wrong of the law. The other side is “How can you let such things happen in your society?” They then argue about the right and the wrong of the act. Both miss that the actual issue is about how church and state should interact and how a faithful member of the religion should try to make the world a better place.

Also, for those in the West who did not understand why the word “Crusade” caused such a furor in some parts of the world, this is why. If the hearer thinks that all governments reflect the main religion of that nation, they will hear “Crusade” and expect a holy war with all the might of that state behind it. If the hearer is a “separation of church and state” kind of person, they do not expect that at all.

[MaxWilson]

JimMorrison said:
So there is potentially a religion in New Guinea that not seek to spread itself to willing minds to survive? That would rock my entire concept of what the term religion actually means, as opposed to philosophy or just plain reasoning.

I think in a nutshell Badger was simply stating that people are people, and religion didn't change anything intrinsic about our properties as organisms.

HoneyBadger said explicitly, "Religion-and by this I mean the People of the Book (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is like a virus of ideas and ideals." It's explicitly not applicable to our hypothetical weird little religion (it is not, hypothetically, that of the People of the Book).

Anyway, if you equate "religion" = "meme" you are missing out IMHO on some of the richer meaning of the word. I'd probably define it differently, something like: "Religion is that which a person implicitly or explicitly holds to be true independent of social consensus of its truthfulness." From this standpoint, "Jesus was divine" and "humans have a responsibility to conserve resources for other animals" are both religious beliefs for certain people because they are not (easily) subject to disproof or argument from other people. They're simply fundamental to that person's worldview. Note that this definition diverges starkly from the traditional view that "religion is any belief which has something to do with God," but I think it's a nicer, more fundamental definition.

-Max

[thejeff]

JimMorrison said:
So there is potentially a religion in New Guinea that not seek to spread itself to willing minds to survive? That would rock my entire concept of what the term religion actually means, as opposed to philosophy or just plain reasoning.

I don't know about New Guinea, but as a larger example: For most of it's history Judaism has been the religion of the Jewish people. Children were raised in the religion, but outside converts were not sought and depending on the time and particular variant of the religion may not have been allowed.

There are other examples...

[thejeff]

Saxon said:
When you talk about religion and state, it is good to look at how Christianity is different than other religions. The “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto god what is god’s,” is fairly unique. It flavors the thinking of most people who grew up in predominantly Christian areas and makes them think that the separation of church and state is normal or at least desirable. In most of the world, that is not the case.

Many other religions either carry an explicit or implicit idea that “our religion is good and we should do what we need to do to make sure society follows the moral ideals of our religion.” This means the state should and even must implement religion. Why would you leave out a very powerful tool when you are trying to change the world.

While the quote is certainly Biblical it really doesn't reflect the history of Christianity at all. Separation of church and state is a very modern, post-Enlightenment, thing. Consider the "divine right of kings" and similar concepts throughout most of European history. Church and State were very closely intertwined. The separation of church and state is a product of Western secularism and largely of the abuses of state churches.

It's also a concept not particularly accepted by certainly extremely vocal Christians in the US these days.

[thejeff]

MaxWilson said:
Anyway, if you equate "religion" = "meme" you are missing out IMHO on some of the richer meaning of the word. I'd probably define it differently, something like: "Religion is that which a person implicitly or explicitly holds to be true independent of social consensus of its truthfulness." From this standpoint, "Jesus was divine" and "humans have a responsibility to conserve resources for other animals" are both religious beliefs for certain people because they are not (easily) subject to disproof or argument from other people. They're simply fundamental to that person's worldview. Note that this definition diverges starkly from the traditional view that "religion is any belief which has something to do with God," but I think it's a nicer, more fundamental definition.

It's also a very nice definition for theists who don't want to actually deal with other's arguments. "The basic tenets of science have to be taken on faith, so that's just your religion." "Atheism is just another religious belief." etc, etc.
(I'm not saying that's your intent, but I've run into it often enough that I'm wary.)
It's more useful to leave religion dealing with God and have other words for other types of philosophical worldviews.

[Tifone]

thejeff said:

[...]It's also a concept not particularly accepted by certainly extremely vocal Christians in the US these days.

...And you don't live in Italy, my dear friend...

On an historical basis, you can even just think about the excommunications to the kings, which were used by the church to forbid non-controllable kings to ruling their countries; the Papal States (which fighted not to be annexed in the Italian territory, and excommunicated whoever wanted to partecipate to Italian political life after being annexed); the Opus Dei; and many other things... even now in Italy certain priests from the hierarchy of the Church, say on a daily basis to politics that a country cannot be ruled without their God and that they are ready to "fight" (!) to defend their (expecially economical) advantages (many of which are plain absurd)

Just to show you that certainly that quote from 3 of the 4 gospels, surely didn't, and don't, interest at all the ideas of many Christians, about the separation between church and State.

[HoneyBadger]

I guess I'd better clarify that statement I made about the Abrahamic religions. Just to further muddy these waters. First of all, these talks have seemed, atleast to me, to revolve around the Abrahamic religions. Nobody has said a whole lot about Shinto, Buddhism, the various Shamanistic traditions that are still around, Scientology, etc.

And from my perspective, it's the Abrahamic religions, and what's taken from their traditions, that seem to be concerning people, as offensive in such a way that might expose the game to reaction. Nobody's suggested anything negative about how the Buddhists might feel about the portrayal of Asian or Indian-flavoured nations, or about how modern citizens of Greece or Egypt might be bothered by the direct exploitation of their revered ancestors' religions, atleast past the first thread. There have been nationalistic issues-and by these I mean that people don't seem to like the name "Adolf", and feel that Machaka lumps most of Africa together (which I tend to sympathise with, since Africa's an awfully big, old place).

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there's not a whole lot of difference between religion and mythology. All mythologies were once religions, and probably will be again, someday. So it wasn't said to mean that the Abrahamic religions were exclusive, only that they applied and were familiar both to me, and to the rest of the posters, as a major form of religion. So I limited my statement to Judaism and it's offspring, for the sake of the useability and pertinance of the statement.

But I don't really think the Abrahamic religions even apply. Why? Because they're not actually present, anywhere in the game. There's nations based on the Bible, but no Jewish nation, no Islam-themed nation, and no Christian themed nation. What? No Christian nation? well surely Marignon or Ermor or even...let me restate, there are no Christian nations in the game. They're all religions that might resemble something you'd attach to Christianity, like something out of the Bible, or the Inquisition, or whatever, but in every case, they're still worshipping Pretenders, and in no case are they worshipping Allah or the Trinity or YHWH. Anything beyond that is an offense do-it-yourself-kit.

[MaxWilson]

thejeff said:
It's also a concept not particularly accepted by certainly extremely vocal Christians in the US these days.

I dunno, I think the most vocal Christians do accept the concept, which is why they're being vocal. Look at the Intelligent Design debates. Most ID apologists are fools (Niven's Law guarantees that--and of course most Darwinian apologists are fools too) but the key issue is that they're afraid the state is trying to shove atheistic ideas into their kids' heads. Most of them wouldn't care if YOUR school doesn't point out flaws in Darwinian theories as long as THEIR school can. It's about freedom from government interference, which is very much an issue of separating church and state.

The issue is muddied by the fact that public schools are now funded by the state, so arguably the ID folks are wrong, but that's where they're coming from. I personally don't care if ID is allowed in schools (it's not going to get taught anyway) but I would rather see the scientific method being taught rather than science as fait accompli. That's not a religious concern though and so a bit OT.

-Max

[quantum_mechani]

MaxWilson said:

I dunno, I think the most vocal Christians are concerned about the issue. Look at the Intelligent Design debates. Most ID apologists are fools (Niven's Law guarantees that--and of course most Darwinian apologists are fools too) but the key issue is that they're afraid the state is trying to shove atheistic ideas into their kids' heads. Most of them wouldn't care if YOUR school doesn't point out flaws in Darwinian theories as long as THEIR school can. It's about freedom from government interference, which is very much an issue of separating church and state.

-Max

The thing is, freedom from the government, if you take that idea all the way, means no meaningful government. Since any aspect of the government conceivable could fall under someone's religion, you are left with nothing.