America. One nation, under God?

[gsmoove23]

Got into this completely OT discussion in another thread so I'm bringing it here and assuming I can get this poll to work it might be interesting to see.

Are the American civ traits appropriate and most importantly could America be considered a religious civ.

It would be cool if Firaxis used a poll like this for every civ. That way if someone complains they can't be blaimed.

[One_Brow]

I chose "Commercial" and "Expansionist".

America is practically the antithesis of a "Religious" civilization. There is no state religion, there is no popular mandate for a state religion (hence, no extra-cheap temples and cathedrals), there has only been one government type change (from Republic to Democracy), which had a period of a few years of Anarchy.

I don't dispute the game's use of "Industrial", though, since England is even more "Commercial" civ than we.

[Cyclotron]

I could make a case for any one of these, but game balance aside I would choose Ind/Exp.

[Wernazuma III]

I think America could be considered a religious civ in many aspects compared to European civs, but not enough to justify "Religious" being among the 2 most important traits.
I chose Com/Exp, but religious would have come third.

[gsmoove23]

I think America had one of the smoothest and stablest transitions to democracy ever. Its also been argued that the school voucher system currently being experimented with in many states is specificly geared toward supporting religious private schools.

The most telling point for me though is the recent court ruling which claimed the phrase "one nation, under God" in our pledge of allegiance, which children repeat everyday in our schools, was unconstitutional. IMO this seemed apropriate given the supposed separation of church and state written into our constitution, but there was an uproar all around the country, even George W. protested(although this is no suprise, taking into account his stance on gene therapy research and his administration and appointees) and its expected the ruling won't stand.

I don't know if America today could be called a religious civ but there definately is a strong force in the country trying to make it one and christianity and christian beliefs have been at the heart of American life for most of its life despite what it says in our constitution.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I think America had one of the smoothest and stablest transitions to democracy ever.

Smooth and stable, but not productive on the federal level, much like an Anarchy when you have planty of luxuries and no war.

Its also been argued that the school voucher system currently being experimented with in many states is specificly geared toward supporting religious private schools.

That may be the intent of many of it's sponsers, but it will help secular private schools equally well.

The most telling point for me though is the recent court ruling which claimed the phrase "one nation, under God" in our pledge of allegiance, which children repeat everyday in our schools, was unconstitutional. IMO this seemed apropriate given the supposed separation of church and state written into our constitution, but there was an uproar all around the country, even George W. protested(although this is no suprise, taking into account his stance on gene therapy research and his administration and appointees) and its expected the ruling won't stand.

I don't know where you heard this. From what I've read, everything that was said about the change in the pledge in the 1950's showed the phrase "under God" was added to promote monotheism. There just isn't much to overturn.

I don't know if America today could be called a religious civ but there definately is a strong force in the country trying to make it one and christianity and christian beliefs have been at the heart of American life for most of its life despite what it says in our constitution.

There is a force, but it is more vocal than strong, like small dog with a loud bark. For example, the idea of state-enforced prayer in schools scares almost as many conservative Christians as it pleases, not to mention liberals. The attempt to boycott the army into disallowing Wiccans to practice their riturals has been completely ineffective.

As for the "heart of American life", this has always been a country where you could be anything you wanted (except perhaps a politician) wiothout worry that you were atheist, deist, Muslim, etc., with relatively little discrimination. It's a tradition going back to the founding of the Rhode Island colony. In fact, deists were at least as central to the founding of the country as Christians.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I think America had one of the smoothest and stablest transitions to democracy ever.

Originally posted by One_Brow

there has only been one government type change (from Republic to Democracy), which had a period of a few years of Anarchy

Which change are you talking about? The war of independence? The civil war?

[gsmoove23]

One_Brow, I don't think whether the federalists won out or not is any indication of whether it was anarchic or not. Production, research and trade still continued with revenue being collected by the individual states. The lack of a strong centralized government might have limited efficiency but it certainly wasn't anarchic. Its more representative of an overlarge civ without an FP or perhaps even a palace. (These conversations all sound so geeky)

The most major hitch to the government change was the Civil War which came almost a century later but was primarily fought over the still unresolved question of centralized government or no. Whether you want to call this anarchy due to government change or not its really up in the air.

You're right about the school vouchers, but the religious backers of these bills are the important point. They also influence our current policy on gene therapy research and have a strong influence on US support of Israel, the logic being securing the right of the Jewish people to their homeland as stated in the Bible. This isn't an insignificant voice, its quite strong and pointing out insignificant losses they've suffered will not change that. Take a look at recent appointees in the Bush administration, and consider that a couple supreme court Justice positions should be opening up pretty soon, its very worrysome to me at least. Here is one article that I found interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,820528,00.html

As for my statements on the pledge of allegiance ruling I'm sorry I didn't back them up. Here is the day of the ruling story on cnn.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/

'Outraged lawmakers on both sides of the aisle blasted the ruling as "outrageous," "nuts," and "stupid." The U.S. Senate was so outraged by the decision that it passed a resolution 99-0 "expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance" and asking Senate counsel to "seek to intervene in the case."'

But even more interesting is the day after...

"Just one day after he stunned the nation by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a federal appeals court judge on Thursday blocked his own ruling from being enforced indefinitely."

from

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56367,00.html

and here is an article discussing why the pledge decision may be reversed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/06/27/pledge-hold.htm

The scary thing is the ruling makes perfect sense, as you stated. Certainly more then an insignificant force.

[Gangerolf]

you forgot scientific

[Gangerolf]

Scientific: They've invented alot of stuff.

and

Commercial: It's the high castle of capitalism.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Which change are you talking about? The war of independence? The civil war?

The change from being the Civ equivalent of Monarchy to Democracy, under the Articles of Confederation.

I'm not saying that this was an anarchy in real life, but it was a very good approximation of Anarchy in Civ III.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
One_Brow, I don't think whether the federalists won out or not is any indication of whether it was anarchic or not. Production, research and trade still continued with revenue being collected by the individual states. The lack of a strong centralized government might have limited efficiency but it certainly wasn't anarchic. Its more representative of an overlarge civ without an FP or perhaps even a palace. (These conversations all sound so geeky)

I think we agree here. Remember, I used "Anarchy", not "anarchy", to indicate the Civ III government. Every city supports itself in Anarchy, and growth continues, but there is no support for Civilization-wide projects and development. This sounds very much like the US under the Articles of Confederation.

You're right about the school vouchers, but the religious backers of these bills are the important point. They also influence our current policy on gene therapy research and have a strong influence on US support of Israel, the logic being securing the right of the Jewish people to their homeland as stated in the Bible. This isn't an insignificant voice, its quite strong and pointing out insignificant losses they've suffered will not change that.

On issues like gene therapy and Israel, I think you'll find a lot more popular support for their causes, and that is why they seem to lead the nation. The most vocal group opf the majority opinion, so to speak.

When they stand alone, they have little influence.

The scary thing is the ruling makes perfect sense, as you stated. Certainly more then an insignificant force.

Again, the reaction to PoA ruling shows a w-de-sprectrum support for reversing, with consevratives merely being a loud voice in the response. I doubt Kennedy and Wellstone voted in favor of the Senate resolution from the pressure of religious conservatives.

[ruby_maser]

someone suggested in another thread way back when that you should be able to choose any civ's 2 traits from a list of 3 possible traits. At least you would get some choice in the matter of what aspects of a civilization you really wanted to maximize.

[gsmoove23]

Oops, big gaffe on the scientific, sorry. Knew I was missing something.

One_Brow, I was referring to the Anarchy government form. I don't think the initial period could be argued as that form for the reasons I stated. The central government was not strong yet but as I said this is like a Democracy with no FP or even no palace, which would stand to reason since DC wasn't there yet. Not only did the cities and states take care of themselves but they fielded a significant federal army to challenge the British Empire. Anarchy is a drastic example where 0 production or taxes can be harnessed by the federal government. This was not the case.

Your reference to wide spectrum support for the obviously unconstitutional addition of "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance seems to support my arguement. Its this wide spectrum Christian support for many policies that makes the Christian Right such a power, of course the large number of christians in the country are their powerbase.

You suggested earlier that because of freedom of religion through much of American history (there are some significant periods of persecution of certain religions) it could not be a religious civ but I wouldn't define willingness to persecute antoher religion as a religious civ. The Arab civ is certainly religious but through much of its history it was relatively tolerant to other religions, certainly compared to its contemporaries.

ruby_master, I agree actually. I would prefer that you could choose any of the traits in the beginning of the game, no matter what your civ.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
One_Brow, I was referring to the Anarchy government form. I don't think the initial period could be argued as that form for the reasons I stated. The central government was not strong yet but as I said this is like a Democracy with no FP or even no palace, which would stand to reason since DC wasn't there yet. Not only did the cities and states take care of themselves but they fielded a significant federal army to challenge the British Empire. Anarchy is a drastic example where 0 production or taxes can be harnessed by the federal government. This was not the case.

Under the Continental Congress, I would agree it was not the Civ equivalent of Anarchy. I was referring to the periord of the Articles of Confederation, which saw a different currency in every state and virtually no national agenda.

Your reference to wide spectrum support for the obviously unconstitutional addition of "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance seems to support my arguement. Its this wide spectrum Christian support for many policies that makes the Christian Right such a power, of course the large number of christians in the country are their powerbase.

The thing is, they don't have a large number of Christians within their powerbase, rather, probably less than 10% of the poplulation. There are a large number of Christians, but far more are liberal/moderate than conservative. I agree that a wide spectrum of Christian support on certain issues translates into political power (such as the "under God" phrase), but the conservative movement here is simply the most vocal component. They are not directing the issue.

Again, note their complete lack of influence on issues that liberal/moderate Christians do not support (such as suppression of Wicca in the Armed Forces).

You suggested earlier that because of freedom of religion through much of American history (there are some significant periods of persecution of certain religions) it could not be a religious civ but I wouldn't define willingness to persecute antoher religion as a religious civ. The Arab civ is certainly religious but through much of its history it was relatively tolerant to other religions, certainly compared to its contemporaries.

I was responding to a comment about the "heart of American life". I just don't see any religion as being the "heart of American life", unlike Islam would be in an Arabian civ. Tolerance is but one measure of that. However, given tolerance, you need to have some strong positive reason for a civ being "Religious", which I don't see for the USA.