The State Atheism Civic

[TriMiro]

Atheism would be a god way to block the influence of someone else's religion on your country. I hate it when I have to defy an AP decision for example. That however does not happen often enough to justify adding another civic. Atheism would imho be something to consider adding in civ V.

Having said that:
- Atheism should give at least as much boost on science as free religion. Half of the cold war was technological and USSR lost the tech part because of the economy not religion. Atheism and Free Religion should remove the risk of "excess" of religion that hampers technology.
- Negate any influence of religion on your cities (happy and unhappy).
- I would go for removing the happiness created by temples, but adding a fixed 1 happy per city (I don't need god to be happy).
- May decrease the culture from religious buildings, but do not destroy it. Something could be part of your cultural heritage even you deny it now. No one in Mexico makes human sacrifices anymore, but people go to see the temples.

Espionage defense would also be something to add and from a game play point of view it could be the most useful thing.

[Common Sensei]

Originally posted by TriMiro
Atheism would be a god way to block the influence of someone else's religion on your country.

If you'll pardon the good-natured ribbing, this was an amusingly ironic typo.

[Fleme]

Atheism by choice and atheism enforced by state are distinctly different. One is because of personal preference and lack of belief in anything supernatural and the other one a doctrine enforced by the state, by the help of the police and the military if necessary. I had these confused in my earlier ideas but would like to think that if the Atheism is enforced by state as suggested here, there should not be any research or other similar bonuses related to it. As such I stand by my latest suggestion of making Jails and Courthouses give increased happiness (through criminalizing those who rebel against the atheism and have them put away), increased espionage output in all cities through increased citizen surveillance (we don't want them exercising their faith now do we?) and lastly reduce city maintenance cost, from both number of cities and from distance to the capital (resources freed from maintaining a state church). Naturally with enforced atheism should come exemption from all religious effects, all of which have been covered previously on this very thread.

[TriMiro]

Yep, Common Sensei I made the typo by accident, but I thought I had it corrected before the post.

Anyway, I believe everyone god my point.

[Fleme]

Originally posted by TriMiro
Yep, Common Sensei I made the typo by accident, but I thought I had it corrected before the post.

Anyway, I believe everyone god my point.

I see what you're doing here.

[blazephemik]

had to register here to comment this a bit.

I don´t see why state atheism would be connected with oppression and police state. As I see, state atheism is most positive thing. In free religion religious groups still have their say in ethical and legislational guestions. Ok, it´s democracy, but it restricts personal freedom if some religious group gets to dominate political field.

I thought positive atheist state/secular humanism would have following effects;

-democratic nation with secular constitution. Religion is free and personal, but has no part in the political life. Look modern turkey. Islamic party is in control but legislation is pretty much secular. Army keeps most radicals in line. At least to this point. Spirit of Kemal Atatürk lives.

-No happiness bonus from religions, but also no penalty. There is unrest among religious communities but they don´t add unhappiness since they are free to believe anything they want as long they don´t hurt anyone.

-Boost to science. No religious ethical bs. This would also draw some science from most religious states. (like stem cell research. it goes to countries where it is allowed). Would allow genetic engineering, cloning and longevity.

-People won´t reproduce as fast, lowering growth but better health and major scientifical progress counters this by adding productivity.

-difficult to wage war. Atheists know they have only this life, making them peaceful and not ready to make personal sacrifices for their country. Major unrest and rioting if you declare war to another state. I don´t know can game engine to do this, but only exception to rule would be invasion to country that is one era behind atheist nation. That would be seen as "nation building and humanitarian operation". (and to put it straightly, "safe" in terms of human losses)
---

This was just my suggestion. I´m atheist myself, and can not see the negative points you mentioned. I have friends from differend religions, own Quran and at last week I got the Book of Mormon from couple of nice Mormon chaps. We had no conflict in whole time we knew each other, which was fairly nice since I understood americans generally hate atheist.

What comes to the suggestion of 98% of japanese being religious, it is near correct. Only problem is that they have way differend view of religion than westerners or muslims. Religion plays almost no role in their everyday life, being only used to comfort in times of loss or in traditional rituals. There have been some researches of differend religous cultures, and religious japanese really don´t fit in the mold of typical religious conservative as we westerners see it.

If you want to make "sane" atheistic state to civ, take a look of scandinavian countries in wikipedia. Majority of people claim they believe in "higher force", 75% of people still belong to lutheran church. But what one has to understand, is that generally these "religious" people have no idea of the dogmas their religion holds. Church doesn´t really condemn abortion, premarital sex, contraception, divorce, gay-weddings or any other traditionally "sinful" action. As I see it, religious circles are mature enough to keep their noses off from other´s businesses and concentrate on their own behaviour.

Actually you could have in effect "state atheism" without any negative effects by making civic "regulated religion" "democratic state religion" or "religion as tradition preserver". Because this is what modern state atheism is. State run religious infrastructure without actual "hard" religious feelings.

As one of our religious authorities put it, "everyone goes to heaven despite their actions or beliefs. God saves everyone, so much he loves us." Modern radical theologians argue that jesus actually never existed and many high figures admit that bible is result of political agreement.

I don´t know, but that sounds like our church is pretty much secular. In effect, we practically have atheistic christianity as state religion.

And while it would seem odd that religion is taught on school in secularized nation, I must admit that as future teacher I would like to keep religious message in hands of sane teachers instead of fundamentalistic circles to keep it calm and rational. I´ll be teaching religion to little kiddies despite my own unbelief.

so forget that police state and faschism, please

[The Priest]

Thanks blazephemik, and I can certainly see why all this 'state atheism' stuff reads a bit unfairly if you are an atheist.

I think what is going on here, though, is all about words. The kind of 'secularist' sitution you describe is really what is called 'free religion' in Civ - state non-interest in religion.

What people were trying to have was a civic to match those states which we had several of in the twentieth century where the state actively oppressed religion (and in the process gave atheism a bad name).

These states definnitely existed, and it would add to variety to have them in civ. In game terms they would be quite different from free religion, because in free religion you still benefit from having religions, where in the proposed civic you basically didn't. It certainly represents a missing option.

What your reply highlights though is that not only is talking about religion sensitive (and hence Civ was right in not giving unique features to the different religions) but talking about 'atheism' is just as sensitive!

[TriMiro]

I think we have a problem in defining different terms and different regimes.

USSR and the Communist world, the church existed as a monument of past culture that was often ridiculed. It was against the law to go to church on religious holiday such as Christmas and Easter.

The example of Scandinavia and some of the post communist countries: religion is a private and personal thing, noone is oppressed, prosecuted or ridiculed, and religion does not play any significant role in the political life.

Modern day USA, there are strict laws to enforce religious freedom or more often religious tolerance. People vote on based on their religious believes and often purely religious issues become the driving force of politics.

Consider the above cases, if implemented in civ which country would be what?

Organized Religion: religious + tolerant, no oppression, and religious in a productive way. Ex: USA

Theocracy: religious + religious oppression. People are fanatics and want to go to religious war. Ex: Medieval Europe

Pacifism: religious + tolerant, but somewhat introvert. Pacifist are more spiritual and "Philosophical" more concerned of exploring and improving oneself rather than "working together" as OR. Hence more GP and less war. Ex: India and Gandhi come to mind.

Free Religion: or "Religion Free" society. Make it a private matter and thus the more choices one has the better off he/she is. Ex: Scandinavia

So the USSR model does not fit any of the above, hence the state atheism civic.