The Future of Your Neighbourhood Church [DRAFT]

[Democracy of Antwerpia]

The Issue:
After complaints of plaster falling off religious buildings' ceilings, mixed opinions on their restoration has been brought to your desk.

The Debate:
1. "The answer is simple," says priest @ as his stare lingers on a photo of your nephew, "we just need more money sent directly to us to improve our mighty churches! Traditions and the divi- eh, uniting power of religion must be kept alive at all costs! Besides, the more beautiful our buildings, the more tourists we attract. Everyone wins! Now, what about that new mega church down town...?"

2. "You aren't going to fall for that, right?" asks sturdy store owner @. "We need to do the opposite of more funding- put a halt to the money stream directed towards those wealthy wolves! For far too long they have been milking peasants of their money. If they really need a big palace to get on their knees, they can scramble every last coin from their followers." With that she leaves, barely fitting through the spacious door frame.

3. Straightforward thinking actress @ dramatically enters your office and slams her hands on a stack of paper. "You know what the people of [state] need? More fun and less dusty, old books!" She excitedly sits on your desk causing pens to roll off the side. "We should transform those huge buildings into places that are ACTUALLY useful- Indoor markets, literature conventions, skateboarding ranges... and ban religious gatherings in general. Sure, those 'religies' won't be happy, but who cares, right? It'll be awesome! Time for progress is now!" she cheers as she dances out of the room.

4. Redheaded multi-national corporation owner @ enters the room gasping for air. "You know... What I... Think?" As he wipes the sweat off his balding head with a tissue, he continues. "Tear it all down, I say! Those smelly, old buildings only cost us money! Invest in some money generating facilities, build the highest offices on the continent and ease off the tax on the wealthy. You'll be grateful once that profit starts rolling in!"


Good idea, meh idea? More options needed? Anything that doesn't add up? Tell me!

[Tinhampton]

My suggestions and complaints in blue.

The Issue:
After complaints of plaster falling off religious buildings' ceilings, mixed opinions on their restoration has been brought to your desk. This needs more expansion. Descriptions usually involve funny scenarios.

The Debate:
1. "The answer is simple," says priest @ The correct code for generating a random name is @@RANDOMNAME@@. Because you're referring to a male, you'll need either @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ or @@HIS@@ (in lieu of "his"). This happens across the draft as his stare lingers on a photo of your nephew, "we just need more money sent directly to us to improve our mighty churches! Traditions and the divi- eh, uniting power of religion must be kept alive at all costs! Besides, the more beautiful our buildings, the more tourists we attract. Everyone wins! Now, what about that new mega church down town...?"
Every option needs an effect - supposed to be funny, realistic, short and comma-free. None of these currently have one.

2. "You aren't going to fall for that, right?" asks sturdy store owner @ Should be @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@. "We need to do the opposite of more funding - put a halt to the money stream directed towards those wealthy wolves! For far too long they have been milking peasants of their money. If they really need a big palace to get on their knees, they can scramble every last coin from their followers." With that she leaves, barely fitting through the spacious door frame. Is this supposed to be an issue directed towards nations with serfdom, or am I taking this too seriously?

3. Straightforward thinking actress @ Should be @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@ dramatically enters your office A "straightforward thinking actress" is "dramatically entering your office"? Is this supposed to be an oxymoron? and slams her hands on a stack of paper. "You know what the people of [state] The correct code is @@NAME@@ need? More fun and less dusty, old books!" She excitedly sits on your desk causing pens to roll off the side. "We should transform those huge buildings into places that are ACTUALLY useful- Indoor markets, literature conventions, skateboarding ranges... and ban religious gatherings in general. Sure, those 'religies' won't be happy, but who cares, right? It'll be awesome! Time for progress is now! That last sentence doesn't sound gramatically correct. "The time for progress is now!"?" she cheers, as she dances out of the room.

4. Redheaded Why do we need to know the colour of this person's head? multi-national corporation owner @ Should be @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ enters the room gasping for air. "You know... What I... Think?" As he wipes the sweat off his balding head with a tissue, he continues. "Tear it all down, I say! Those smelly, old buildings only cost us money! Invest in some money generating facilities You could just use "business" instead of "money generating facilities". People who get this issue will not know if this is supposed to refer to business or central banks., build the highest offices on the continent For the most part, we talk about regions, not continents. and ease off the tax on the wealthy. You'll be grateful once that profit starts rolling in!"

[Australian rePublic]

Hello and welcome to Got Issues. It's always nice to see a new writter. Not bad for a first draft, but to be totally honest, this is quite offensive to some religious people. People put THEIR real faiths into this, and being one of the few religious people in this section, I would hate to see an issue to repurpose my house of worship for my faith. This is offensive. Especially as you want to turn it into a market place. Jesus rarely got angry, and I'm not sure whether or not it was the only time he did (though I think it was) He got very angry when the Temple was converted to a market place. Not just Christianity, a range of religious people put their real faiths into this, and by suggesting they re-purpose their houses of worship, you're playing on thin ice. Be careful not to offend people like that

[Egyptian Pharocracy]

Especially as you want to turn it into a market place. Jesus rarely got angry, and I'm not sure whether or not it was the only time he did (though I think it was) He got very angry when the Temple was converted to a market place.

If I recall correctly, it was one of the only times, if not the only time, in the New Testament where the Christ went into an absolute rage was when they converted the temple into a market, a gambling den, and a forum for money lenders. Not merely "angry." (It wasn't just the marketplace: the gambling and usury in the Temple was what really sent Him over the edge.)

Not just Christianity, a range of religious people put their real faiths into this, and by suggesting they re-purpose their houses of worship, you're playing on thin ice. Be careful not to offend people like that

I know that "not triggering" people is one of the criteria for Issues submissions, but it's one that I don't really agree with.

And I'm speaking as someone who would probably dismiss this issue if it came up for me out of hand, merely because I find all of the various options unpalatable. And I'm an atheist, not a Christian nor a Churchian.

Of course, I'm pretty thick skinned by this point in my life: I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the Universe doesn't care if I'm offended.

[Egyptian Pharocracy]

Okay, on to the Issue itself, needless digressions into theological discussion out of the way.

I agree with Tinhampton: all of these really need an effects line. Without an idea of what funny, outrageous, or over the top NationStates style effects you have in mind for them, it's really hard to judge the various options.

Option number 1:

1. "The answer is simple," says priest @ as his stare lingers on a photo of your nephew, "we just need more money sent directly to us to improve our mighty churches!

Doesn't really apply to all nations.

The U.S., for example, that wouldn't apply at all - it's not an issue that would cross the President's desk. While religions are tax exempt here, they're not government funded: the Priest (capitalized) would be talking to his congregation, Diocese, or private donors, not the Government.

(Might be different in a theocracy, but not all nations here at NS are modeled that way.)

Options 2 through 4:

Unlike Aussie, I don't really see a problem with those as such. They sound like real life comments I've heard or read about curtailing religious organizations and practices both here in the U.S. and in Europe.

And I say that as someone who is both pro Christianity and for religious freedom, despite my personal atheism.

The problem is that you have three options that are anti-religion and for tearing down the churches, defunding them, or banning religion all together, and one that's not the government's function (1). There's no pro-religion side of the argument presented.

I would suggest the following:

Option 1: rework it somehow to note that it's not really the government's job to be involved in this and it should be left up to the Diocese, congregations, and philanthropists. (The Libertarian option.)

Eliminate at least one or two of the anti-religion options, or combine a couple of them into one effective one. Keep the banning religion option (#3), and the Privatize and Commercialize it all! option (#4). Those work with a bit of revision and rewriting.

Add in a completely out of left field insane but funny NS style wacky option in place of the one you got rid of. Something batcrap crazy but workable - just as long as you tilt your head sideways and look at it cockeyed enough.

And add in effects lines for all four options. It really needs those.