Real-world sensitivities and game names

[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.

[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.

[JimMorrison]

HoneyBadger said:
Anything beyond that is an offense do-it-yourself-kit.

!!

I am SO offended by your insinuation that my own imagination is offensive..... to me.


You are very right Max, I'd almost simplify it to just "religion is a belief not substantiated by solid evidence".

On the arguments of science as a religion or not, I think it's a matter of the angle of approach. You can claim that the "basis" of modern science is unsubstantiated, but that is not entirely true. While we do indeed lose clarity when we look too far inward, or outward, that does not mean that inward/smallness/universality is the foundation of modern science. In fact, science starts at the middle, in the scope of direct human action. If you called human proportionate existence to be 0, then everything smaller is negative numbers, and everything larger is positive numbers. But our belief in science is not religious in basis, the basis is Newtonian physics, and other very mundane actions/reactions that we can observe, and repeat to observe again ad infinitum. We may not yet know exactly why everything works the way that it does, but we can prove that it does indeed work the way that it does, because that is reality - or at least our communal perception thereof.

This is separate from the concepts that are considered to not be scientific, but are purely religious. Christian Scientists will steal a page, and simply state "observe the world, there is the proof that it was made by god"..... What? That isn't an experiment, and certainly not one that is repeatable. Unless the claim is that pure observation of the wonder of reality, is scientific experiment, observation, and proof, all rolled into one. However, without the human aspect - the self as scientist, defining the rules of the experiment, and narrowing the focus to something that is caused to happen, or is believed to reoccur in a specific and predictable way - there is no actual experiment, and there is no scientific observation. Predicting Halley's Comet returning every 72 years is scientific, pointing a butterfly and saying "God did that", is religious.

[Tifone]

Me very agrees with Jim

[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.

[MaxWilson]

quantum_mechani said:
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.

Right. If you take it all the other way, though, and the government has a right to trump religious freedom whenever it feels like it, what was the point of the 1st amendment? The ID folks are wrong in my book, but I think they have a right to be heard even if I wouldn't vote for teaching their ideas in my school.

(Well, I might teach Fred Hoyle's version of ID as an exercise or something, to make a point about the scientific method and Bayesian priors.)

-Max

[quantum_mechani]

MaxWilson said:

Right. If you take it all the other way, though, and the government has a right to trump religious freedom whenever it feels like it, what was the point of the 1st amendment? The ID folks are wrong in my book, but I think they have a right to be heard even if I wouldn't vote for teaching their ideas in my school.

(Well, I might teach Fred Hoyle's version of ID as an exercise or something, to make a point about the scientific method and Bayesian priors.)

-Max

Oh, I agree they have right to be heard. I'm just saying there is something of a fundamental flaw in the way freedom of religion is layed out. It is built on the inherent assumption some religions are more valid than others, because if they are not, anyone can have their own relegion and be totally free from government control.

[thejeff]

MaxWilson said:

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

We may have to agree to disagree on this. My view is that they are trying to force the government to shove their nonsense into everyone's heads. If you want to keep your child from being taught science, home school or start a religious school of your own. If you're trying to change the larger school system to teach your religious beliefs (and if you look at the writings of the people and institutions pushing ID, it is an open secret it's nothing but a cover for religious creationism) then you're not fighting for the separation of church and state, but trying to use the state to push religious beliefs.

And the only reason ID isn't being taught in schools is that every time creationists have stacked school boards and forced it in, judges have struck it down, so I don't quite follow your comment "I personally don't care if ID is allowed in schools (it's not going to get taught anyway)". It's not taught because it's not allowed.

On a larger scale, the religious right has been openly allied with the Republican party since at least the Reagan years. Blatantly pushing candidates as well as the "values" issues that have come to define the modern "conservative" viewpoint.