NATION

PASSWORD

[submitted] The Better Book

A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, snigger at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.
User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 6116
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

[submitted] The Better Book

Postby The Free Joy State » Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:40 am

Based on Andrew Schafly's attempt to remove "liberal bias" from The Bible.

It's a little raw. I don't think I can keep the 3rd effect line and I'm worried the first option may trample over all kinds of headcanon.

May end up scrapping it. Still, at least it got an airing (after all, time practising drafting is never wasted).

Fourth Draft:
[TITLE] The Better Book

[VALIDITY] Has a named faith that is not atheism and not mandatory; has marriage; adult

[DESCRIPTION] The religious texts of @@FAITH@@ are often regarded as a source of inspiration to those @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ who believe. Recently, however, organisation Conservatives without Conservation have questioned about whether one of the oldest and best-selling holy books in @@NAME@@ is quite holy enough.

[OPTION] "How did Adele and Steve marry before they... you know," mumbles organisation head Andrew Rafferty, making suggestive head motions towards your cupboard. "And a man driven mad by infatuation? In a holy book? It encourages premarital whoopie and lust. To prevent misunderstandings, our entirely scriptural version clarifies Adele and Steve were legally wed in a proper house of worship, and the horny guy is cut. As for the rest: violence, liberal lifestyles, uncensored begetting and some hippie guy preaching 'love' and 'tolerance'? Face it, the original does not belong near decent devout conservatives. My rewrite removes all that, crafting a text that's moral, pro-market and has no bad language. I just need a little funding to finish it."
[EFFECT] religious texts assure readers that deities "were all man"
[OPTION VALIDITY] capitalist

[OPTION] "How did Adele and Steve marry before they... you know," mumbles organisation head Andrew Rafferty, making suggestive head motions towards your cupboard. "And a man driven mad by infatuation? In a holy book? It encourages premarital whoopie and lust. To prevent misunderstandings, our entirely scriptural version clarifies Adele and Steve were legally wed in a proper house of worship, and the horny guy is cut. As for the rest: violence, liberal lifestyles, uncensored begetting and some hippie guy preaching 'love' and 'tolerance'? Face it, the original does not belong near decent devout conservatives. My rewrite removes all that, crafting a text that's moral, pro-state and has no bad language. I just need a little funding to finish it."
[EFFECT] religious texts assure readers that deities "were all man"
[OPTION VALIDITY] socialist

[OPTION] "O, Creator, forgive him, for he knows not what he does," pontificates always-dour religious leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "What Rafferty proposes is heresy. To turn 'Hold your peace and think on what you say' to 'Shut your gob and sod off' distorts the meaning and sounds simply stupid. Let our wonderful text be exactly translated into other languages for the benefit of those who might otherwise not be saved, and permit one abridged children's version -- full of pretty images and only the sweetest stories -- for young eyes. But keep the original utterly unaltered, saving the roaring rampages, ceaseless smiting and frantic fornication for our discerning eyes." With a sigh, @@HE@@ tucks the holy book tightly under his armpit.
[EFFECT] foreign governments seize translated holy books under Obscene Publications Acts

[OPTION] "When did @@NAME@@ get so soft?" groans your nephew, underlining naughty words in his copy of the text with red pen. "Editing or translating the original isn't just heresy; it totally misses the point! These texts are the example of how to live. Read it: it's all violence and swears and sex, and war and sex, and old-fashioned stonings and sex. Maybe, if we all adopted and promoted a more authentic religious lifestyle -- not some wishy-washy lovey-dovey mishmash -- more people might realise how interesting our faith is. I think I read some grueso... fun ideas for punishing people who change the text or don't follow it properly and I know of a quarry with lots of stones!"
[EFFECT] religious tracts are mistaken for splatter fiction

[OPTION] "Now do you see the problems with these religious books?" demands atheist Richilda Hawkins, turning another page and blanching slightly. "Not only do they encourage the acceptance of fantastical thinking -- fables featuring talking @@ANIMALPLURAL@@, really? -- they also encourage people to behave in a maladaptive, judgemental and even violent manner and then abdicate responsibility for their behaviour to some imaginary deity. We should discourage supernatural religious-based thinking in society, and move all religious books to the sci-fi and fantasy section, where they belong."
[EFFECT] atheist authors complain that being shelved next to religious texts is "wholly inappropriate"

[OPTION] "Hmm... Not so bad!" mutters your brother, flicking through a copy of the text with a red pen. "Of course, I'd have added thumb-screws to that scene and maybe a little more blood when... I'm sorry, where was I? This text is fairly adequate already; it's just never been finished properly. How about a new last chapter: There Shall Be A Prophet, And That Prophet Shall Be Named @@LEADER@@? Catchy, hmm? All we need is that new chapter, to intercut a few new references to the signs and portents that foretold our glorious births... your glorious birth -- perhaps a new commandment or two on 'obeying thy leader as thy Creator' -- and to remove the old versions from the shelves."
[EFFECT] @@LEADER@@ prophesies a downturn in religious book sales



[TITLE] The Better Book

[VALIDITY] Has a named faith that is not atheism and not mandatory; has marriage; adult

[DESCRIPTION] The religious texts of @@FAITH@@ are often regarded as a source of inspiration to those @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ who believe. Recently, however, organisation Conservatives without Conservation have questioned about whether one of the oldest and best-selling holy books in @@NAME@@ is quite holy enough.

[OPTION] "There was no minister in the Garden of Untold Delights. How did Steve and Ann marry before they... you know," mumbles organisation head Andrew Rafferty, making suggestive head motions towards your cupboard. "It encourages premarital whoopie. To prevent misunderstandings, our entirely scriptural version clarifies they were legally wed by an ordained @@ANIMAL@@, after a chaste courtship. As for the rest: violence, liberal lifestyles, uncensored begetting and some hippie guy preaching 'love' and 'tolerance'? Face it, the original does not belong near decent @@FAITH@@-practising conservatives. My rewrite removes all that stuff, crafting a religious text that's moral, pro-market and has no bad language. I just need a little funding to finish it."
[EFFECT] religious texts assure readers that deities "were all man"
[OPTION VALIDITY] capitalist

[OPTION] "There was no minister in the Garden of Untold Delights. How did Steve and Ann marry before they... you know," mumbles organisation head Andrew Rafferty, making suggestive head motions towards your cupboard. "It encourages premarital whoopie. To prevent misunderstandings, our entirely scriptural version clarifies they were legally wed by an ordained @@ANIMAL@@, after a chaste courtship. As for the rest: violence, liberal lifestyles, uncensored begetting and some hippie guy preaching 'love' and 'tolerance'? Face it, the original does not belong near decent @@FAITH@@-practising conservatives. My rewrite removes all that stuff, crafting a religious text that's moral, pro-state and has no bad language. I just need a little funding to finish it."
[EFFECT] religious texts assure readers that deities "were all man"
[OPTION VALIDITY] socialist

[OPTION] "O, Creator, forgive him, for he knows not what he does," pontificates always-dour religious leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "The original texts are perfect and pure and must remain undisturbed. What Rafferty proposes is heresy. To turn 'Hold your peace and think on what you say' to 'Shut your gob and sod off' distorts the meaning and sounds simply stupid. Permit one abridged children's version, full of pretty images and only the sweetest stories, for young eyes. But keep the original utterly unaltered, saving the roaring rampages, ceaseless smiting and frantic fornication for we more discerning eyes." With a sigh, @@HE@@ tucks the holy book tightly under his armpit.
[EFFECT] religious books come with an 'Explicit Content' warning

[OPTION] "When did @@NAME@@ get so soft?" groans your nephew, underlining naughty words in his copy of the text with red pen. "Children's versions and edits? Altering the original isn't heresy; it totally misses the point! These texts are so meant to be the example of how we live our lives. Read it: it's all violence and swears and sex, and war and sex, and good old-fashioned stonings and sex. Maybe, if we adopted a more authentic religious lifestyle -- not this wishy-washy lovey-dovey modern mishmash -- more people might realise how interesting @@FAITH@@ can be. Also, the text should totally have a new cover to fully represent the gruesome and cool traditional @@FAITH@@."
[EFFECT] religious texts are mistaken for splatter fiction

[OPTION] "Now do you see the problems with these religious books?" demands atheist Richilda Hawkins, turning another page and blanching slightly. "Not only do they encourage the acceptance of fantastical thinking -- fables featuring talking @@ANIMALPLURAL@@, really? -- they also encourage people to behave in a maladaptive, judgemental and even violent manner and then abdicate responsibility for their behaviour to some imaginary deity. We should discourage supernatural religious=based thinking in society, and move all religious books to the sci-fi and fantasy section, where they belong."
[EFFECT] atheist authors complain that being shelved next to religious texts is "wholly inappropriate"

[OPTION] "Hmm... Not so bad!" mutters your brother, flicking through a copy of the text with a red pen. "Of course, I'd have added thumb-screws to that scene and maybe a little more blood when... I'm sorry, where was I? This text is fairly adequate already; it's just never been finished properly. How about a new last chapter: There Shall Be A Prophet, And That Prophet Shall Be Named @@LEADER@@? Catchy, hmm? All we need is that new chapter, to intercut a few new references to the signs and portents that foretold our glorious births... your glorious birth -- perhaps a new commandment or two on 'obeying thy leader as thy Creator' -- and to remove the old versions from the shelves."
[EFFECT] @@LEADER@@ prophesies a downturn in religious book sales


[TITLE] The Better Book

[VALIDITY] Has a named faith that is not atheism and not mandatory; adult

[DESCRIPTION] The religious texts of @@FAITH@@ are often regarded as a source of inspiration to those @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ who believe. Recently, however, organisation Conservatives without Conservation have questioned about whether one of the oldest and best-selling holy books in @@NAME@@ is quite holy enough.

[OPTION] "Look at this: some woman acts like a hussy," grumbles organisation head Andrew Rafferty, making suggestive head motions towards your cupboard, "and this guy says to forgive her? Illicit whoopie is A-OK... that's the lesson here? Such irresponsible texts can be exploited by liberals, so our entirely scriptural version will cut the forgiveness bull. As for the rest: violence, liberal lifestyles, uncensored begetting and some hippie guy preaching 'love' and 'tolerance'? Face it, the original text does not belong near decent @@FAITH@@-practising conservatives. My rewrite will remove all that stuff and make a religious text that's moral, pro-market and that has no bad language. I just need a little funding to finish it."
[EFFECT] religious texts assure readers that deities "were all man"
[OPTION VALIDITY] capitalist

[OPTION] "Look at this: some woman acts like a hussy," grumbles organisation head Andrew Rafferty, making suggestive head motions towards your cupboard, "and this guy says to forgive her? Illicit whoopie is A-OK... that's the lesson here? Such irresponsible texts can be exploited by liberals, so our entirely scriptural version will cut the forgiveness bull. As for the rest: violence, liberal lifestyles, uncensored begetting and some hippie guy preaching 'love' and 'tolerance'? Face it, the original text does not belong near decent @@FAITH@@-practising conservatives. My rewrite will remove all that stuff and make a religious text that's moral, pro-state and that has no bad language. I just need a little funding to finish it."
[EFFECT] religious texts assure readers that deities "were all man"
[OPTION VALIDITY] socialist

[OPTION] "O, Creator, forgive him, for he knows not what he does," pontificates always-dour religious leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "The original texts are perfect and pure and must remain undisturbed. What Rafferty proposes is heresy. To turn 'Hold your peace and think on what you say' to 'Shut your gob and sod off' distorts the meaning and sounds simply stupid. Permit one abridged children's version, full of pretty images and only the sweetest stories, for young eyes. But keep the original utterly unaltered, saving the roaring rampages, ceaseless smiting and frantic fornication for we more discerning eyes." With a sigh, @@HE@@ tucks the holy book tightly under his armpit.
[EFFECT] religious books come with an 'Explicit Content' warning

[OPTION] "When did @@NAME@@ get so soft?" groans your nephew, underlining naughty words in his copy of the text with red pen. "Children's versions and edits? Altering the original isn't heresy; it totally misses the point! These texts are so meant to be the example of how we live our lives. Read it: it's all violence and swears and sex, and war and sex, and good old-fashioned stonings and sex. Maybe, if we adopted a more authentic religious lifestyle -- not this wishy-washy lovey-dovey modern mishmash -- more people might people might be interested in @@FAITH@@. Also, the text should totally have a new cover to show how gruesome and cool @@FAITH@@ can be."
[EFFECT] religious texts are mistaken for splatter fiction

[OPTION] "Now do you see the problems with these religious books?" demands atheist Richilda Hawkins, turning another page and blanching slightly. "Not only do they encourage the acceptance of fantastical thinking -- fables featuring talking @@ANIMALPLURAL@@, really? -- they also encourage people to behave in a maladaptive, judgemental and even violent manner and then abdicate responsibility for their behaviour to some imaginary deity. We should discourage supernatural religious=based thinking in society, and move all religious books to the sci-fi and fantasy section, where they belong."
[EFFECT] atheist authors complain that being shelved next to religious texts is "wholly inappropriate"


[OPTION] "Hmm... Not so bad!" mutters your brother, flicking through a copy of the text with a red pen. "Of course, I'd have added thumb-screws to that scene and maybe a little more blood when... I'm sorry, where was I? This text is fairly adequate already; it's just never been finished properly. How about a new last chapter: There Shall Be A Prophet, And That Prophet Shall Be Named @@LEADER@@? Catchy, hmm? All we need is that new chapter, to intercut a few new references to signs and portents that foretold our glorious births... your glorious birth and remove the old versions from the shelves."
[EFFECT] @@LEADER@@ prophesies a downturn in religious book sales

[TITLE] The Better Book

[VALIDITY] Has a named faith that is not atheism and not mandatory; adult

[DESCRIPTION] The religious texts of @@FAITH@@ are often regarded as a source of inspiration to those @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ who believe. Recently, however, organisation Conservatives without Conservation have questioned about whether one of the oldest and best-selling holy books in @@NAME@@ is quite holy enough.

[OPTION] "There was no minister in the Paradise of Untold Delights; how did Steve and Ann get legally wed before they... you know?" mumbles organisation head Andrew Rafferty, making suggestive head motions towards your cupboard. "It encourages premarital whoopie. So, in our entirely scriptural version, they'd be married by a friendly, ordained otter. As for the rest: violence, liberal lifestyles, uncensored begetting and some hippie guy preaching 'love' and 'tolerance'? Face it, the original text does not belong near decent @@FAITH@@-practising conservatives. My rewrite will remove all that stuff and make a religious text that's moral, pro-market and that has no bad language. I just need a little funding to finish it."
[EFFECT] religious texts assure readers that deities "were all man"
[OPTION VALIDITY] capitalist

[OPTION] "There was no minister in the Paradise of Untold Delights; how did Steve and Ann get legally wed before they... you know?" mumbles organisation head Andrew Rafferty, making suggestive head motions towards your cupboard. "It encourages premarital whoopie. So, in our entirely scriptural version, they'd be married by a friendly, ordained otter. As for the rest: violence, liberal lifestyles, uncensored begetting and some hippie guy preaching 'love' and 'tolerance'? Face it, the original text does not belong near decent @@FAITH@@-practising conservatives. My rewrite will remove all that stuff and make a religious text that's moral, pro-state and that has no bad language. I just need a little funding to finish it."
[EFFECT] religious texts assure readers that deities "were all man"
[OPTION VALIDITY] socialist

[OPTION] "O, Creator, forgive him, for he knows not what he does," pontificates always-dour religious leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "We must not butcher our holy texts, but keep the full text undisturbed. However, we should shield young eyes from the unexpunged versions. Provide a children's version, attuned to sensitive, young eyes: full of wonderful images and all the sweetest stories. Save the roaring rampages, ceaseless smiting and frantic fornication for we more discerning eyes." With a sigh, @@HE@@ tucks the holy book tightly under his armpit.
[EFFECT] religious books come with an 'Explicit Content' warning

[OPTION] "That's so uncool!" groans your nephew, giggling childishly at something he's sketching. "That first guy was making it sound kind of alright. I mean, I never read the texts of @@FAITH@@ before, but I might if there was sex in it. Is there? I think religious people should market their books by showing they have the the stuff we want. Not people being all boring and holy. But the violence and swears and sex, and war, and sex... You should so have a really exciting new cover to show how gruesome and savage and cool the book could be."
[EFFECT] religious texts are mistaken for splatter fiction

[OPTION] "Hmm... Not so bad!" mutters your brother, flicking through a copy of the text with a red pen. "Of course, I'd have added thumb-screws to that scene and maybe a little more blood when... I'm sorry, where was I? This text is fairly adequate already; it's just never been finished properly. How about a new last chapter: There Shall Be A Prophet, And That Prophet Shall Be Named @@LEADER@@? Catchy, hmm? All we need is that new chapter, to intercut a few new references to signs and portents that foretold our glorious births... your glorious birth and remove the old versions from the shelves."
[EFFECT] @@LEADER@@ prophesies a downturn in religious book sales
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:20 am, edited 18 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

The Writer's Block Possible Issue Error? or Unusual Issue Effects? (check OPs) Current Issues (Spoilers!)

My nation is not representative of my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Baggieland
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 1614
Founded: May 27, 2013
Father Knows Best State

Postby Baggieland » Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:44 am

The Free Joy State wrote:How about a new last chapter: There Shall Be A Prophet, And That Prophet Shall Be Named @@LEADER@@? Catchy, hmm? All we need is that new chapter, intercut a few new references to signs and portents that foretold our glorious births... your glorious birth and remove the old versions from the shelves.


Excellent stuff there Joy! :rofl:
Keep the faith, keep on boinging!

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 6116
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:45 am

Baggieland wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:How about a new last chapter: There Shall Be A Prophet, And That Prophet Shall Be Named @@LEADER@@? Catchy, hmm? All we need is that new chapter, intercut a few new references to signs and portents that foretold our glorious births... your glorious birth and remove the old versions from the shelves.


Excellent stuff there Joy! :rofl:

Thanks! :)
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

The Writer's Block Possible Issue Error? or Unusual Issue Effects? (check OPs) Current Issues (Spoilers!)

My nation is not representative of my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Frieden-und Freudenland
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 1762
Founded: Jul 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Frieden-und Freudenland » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:03 pm

Wait, they'd be married by an otter?
When I write, I don't have an accent.

My issues

User avatar
Trotterdam
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:32 pm

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Wait, they'd be married by an otter?
Why not? There was a talking snake there (or at least, there was one with Adam and Eve - I dunno about these Steve and Ann folks).

Speaking of that talking snake, Adam and Eve not being married was really kind of the point. Eating the fruit of not-being-obedient-robots awoke sinful lust in them, which made God angry. You know, the original sin and stuff. They're not supposed to be role models.

(Though since God created Eve specifically to be Adam's consort, you could argue that they were married by God himself... Still, they did something wrong enough that God felt the need to punish all of humanity in perpetuity. So "not supposed to be role models" still stands.)





Anyway, I notice that currently all options are pro-religion or pro-religious-texts in some form. Maybe someone should point out that all this offensive content in the holy text is a reason to shun the religion entirely, rather than trying to whitewash it? On the other hand, I think the pro-offensive-content speaker could be made more religious, not just liking the sex and violence as entertainment but insisting that it is fundamental to the religion, and should inform modern practice of the religion.




Also, you need serial commas. Lots of 'em.

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15175
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Capitalizt

Postby Australian rePublic » Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:15 pm

No religious nation would allow this kind of intentional heresy
Disclaimer: In-Character posts are NOT a reflection of the real world Australian government, any government departments, or any Australian states or territories. I have no authority over real world government decisions.
From Sydney, NSW. From Greek ancestry. Orthodox Christian
Why stylised as "rePublic"
14 Published Issues
Fantastic Song Quotes
Issue Ideas You Can Steal

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 6116
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:51 pm

Trotterdam wrote:
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Wait, they'd be married by an otter?
Why not? There was a talking snake there (or at least, there was one with Adam and Eve - I dunno about these Steve and Ann folks).

Speaking of that talking snake, Adam and Eve not being married was really kind of the point. Eating the fruit of not-being-obedient-robots awoke sinful lust in them, which made God angry. You know, the original sin and stuff. They're not supposed to be role models.

(Though since God created Eve specifically to be Adam's consort, you could argue that they were married by God himself... Still, they did something wrong enough that God felt the need to punish all of humanity in perpetuity. So "not supposed to be role models" still stands.)

Still not sure about the first option. In retrospect, it would mean a "has marriage" validity (and I'm not keen on too many validities).

I quite liked the "married by an otter" ad absurdium reference. I'm currently thinking if there's another reference I can use.

Anyway, I notice that currently all options are pro-religion or pro-religious-texts in some form. Maybe someone should point out that all this offensive content in the holy text is a reason to shun the religion entirely, rather than trying to whitewash it?

Good idea. An irreligious option might bring better balance to the issue.

On the other hand, I think the pro-offensive-content speaker could be made more religious, not just liking the sex and violence as entertainment but insisting that it is fundamental to the religion, and should inform modern practice of the religion.

I like that idea.

Also, you need serial commas. Lots of 'em.

Nope :p

Australian rePublic wrote:No religious nation would allow this kind of intentional heresy

This is based on a real project, Aussie, to which some Christian conservatives have rushed with great vigour. I could easily see a conservative nation that wanted to push their political principles "re-evaluating" their faith along political lines similarly (different nations and people prioritise faith and politics differently).

An article, with examples (other examples include replacing all apolitical usages of "liberal" with "generous", apparently)
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

The Writer's Block Possible Issue Error? or Unusual Issue Effects? (check OPs) Current Issues (Spoilers!)

My nation is not representative of my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Queen YUNo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 560
Founded: Dec 30, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Queen YUNo » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:23 am

This is a good issue. How about an issue option that bans religious alterations to the religious text/bible?
Supreme Loligarchy
I do free grammar checks! Telegram me for Discord!

"Vote early, vote often." -Pallaith
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Galiantus III wrote:


...is there a reason the logo for the anti-NPO New Year's jumpers looks like the butt and legs of a kneeling naked lady? :unsure:


Imperium Anglorum wrote:Lol badge hunting accusations against people who already have the badge. You don't get your whole page covered in badges when you pass more resolutions, you know.


Vancouvia wrote:
Vancouvia wrote:

Alright my bad I guess I'll check back in December 21st


No way

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 6116
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:17 am

Queen YUNo wrote:This is a good issue. How about an issue option that bans religious alterations to the religious text/bible?

Thanks. :)

I've incorporated that idea into the reworked second option.

EDIT: Second draft is up. The Adam and Eve reference has gone, being replaced by a kind of reference to "stoning the adulteress" (which the thing referenced did take out). Thinking about things that are biblical references and don't call for an extra validity is hard.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

The Writer's Block Possible Issue Error? or Unusual Issue Effects? (check OPs) Current Issues (Spoilers!)

My nation is not representative of my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:31 am

The Free Joy State wrote:EDIT: Second draft is up. The Adam and Eve reference has gone, being replaced by a kind of reference to "stoning the adulteress" (which the thing referenced did take out).
That still doesn't work. A culture without a concept of marriage wouldn't have a concept of adultery either.

Fact is, most religions (not just Christianity) have been rather insistent on the sanctity of marriage. Some only tolerate it for people unwilling to go to the even more pious lengths of celibacy, while others actively encourage you to get married and have kids, but either way, nearly all religions think sex belongs in marriage. So if your nation doesn't practice marriage - and your national religion is implied to be okay with this (whether according to its official holy texts, its modern de facto practice, or both) - then it's a pretty unusual religion already.

All things considered this is more central to most religions then whether they support capitalism or socialism, though I guess you used that as your option-variant validity because of how important it is to the modern religious conservatives who get up to this kind of thing.

The Free Joy State wrote:
Trotterdam wrote:Also, you need serial commas. Lots of 'em.

Nope :p
Yep.

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 6116
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:40 am

Trotterdam wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:EDIT: Second draft is up. The Adam and Eve reference has gone, being replaced by a kind of reference to "stoning the adulteress" (which the thing referenced did take out).
That still doesn't work. A culture without a concept of marriage wouldn't have a concept of adultery either.

Fact is, most religions (not just Christianity) have been rather insistent on the sanctity of marriage. Some only tolerate it for people unwilling to go to the even more pious lengths of celibacy, while others actively encourage you to get married and have kids, but either way, nearly all religions think sex belongs in marriage. So if your nation doesn't practice marriage - and your national religion is implied to be okay with this (whether according to its official holy texts, its modern de facto practice, or both) - then it's a pretty unusual religion already.

All things considered this is more central to most religions then whether they support capitalism or socialism, though I guess you used that as your option-variant validity because of how important it is to the modern religious conservatives who get up to this kind of thing.

Option one is definitely still not there. I'm trying to think of a reference that people will get and which doesn't call for a lot of different validity tags or make excessive assumptions.

Traditional religions' do tend to focus on marriage, celibacy and abstinence... all of which carry implications about the national religion. That's definitely proving a bit of a problem on this draft.

Unless I can think of something completely different, I might just end up putting a Has Marriage validity on the whole draft and going back to something nearer the original #1 on the next draft.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

The Writer's Block Possible Issue Error? or Unusual Issue Effects? (check OPs) Current Issues (Spoilers!)

My nation is not representative of my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Socio Polor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 850
Founded: Nov 28, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Socio Polor » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:45 pm

A good issue you got here. However I was thinking if it'll be a good idea to add a option where you don't discard the religion itself, but simply discard the "Holy Book" itself and replace it with a document that was written by the government and essentially have @@FAITH@@ be controlled by the government instead of religious organizations that support and believe it. Other than that this draft is looking good
"Man is nature. What we create is an extension of nature. God is nothing more than a symptom of an irrational fear of the unknown."
-Alvecia

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 6116
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:16 am

Socio Polor wrote:A good issue you got here. However I was thinking if it'll be a good idea to add a option where you don't discard the religion itself, but simply discard the "Holy Book" itself and replace it with a document that was written by the government and essentially have @@FAITH@@ be controlled by the government instead of religious organizations that support and believe it. Other than that this draft is looking good

I think adding an option would make the issue too full, and that the government taking over the national religion's book would overlap with the last option (wherein the book is rewritten to praise the leader).

Though I've taken on your suggestion by adding a line to make it more of a rewrite to the book, geared up more obviously at @@LEADER@@-worship.

Third draft up. I've gone back to my first idea Garden-of-Eden-ish first option, and added a marriage validity.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

The Writer's Block Possible Issue Error? or Unusual Issue Effects? (check OPs) Current Issues (Spoilers!)

My nation is not representative of my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 17401
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:20 am

Hmmm.

If you go through this issue, and fill in the faith field with various RL religions (like Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism) it has the potential to read really oddly. Like, why is my Buddhist nation referencing the Garden of Eden? Or why is my Islamic nation faced with someone wanting to rewrite the Quran, and the possibility even being considered seriously rather than us talking about what severity of punishment is appropriate?

Not sure what the solution is here. For something like issues where we use @@ANIMAL@@, it's quite funny when the field creates inappropriate humour. For a field like @@FAITH@@, where a lot of people use real life religions, I think it's hard for us to argue we didn't predict that it could throw up some seriously edge-case offensive satires.

Of course, as an atheist, I'm not entirely against satirising major world religions, but as a pluralist I'm worried that forcing a Christian-shaped issue on Muslim nations (for example) may look bad.

What do you think?

User avatar
Trotterdam
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:58 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Or why is my Islamic nation faced with someone wanting to rewrite the Quran, and the possibility even being considered seriously rather than us talking about what severity of punishment is appropriate?
Is rewriting the Quran really more unthinkable for Muslims than rewriting the Bible is for Christians?

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Of course, as an atheist, I'm not entirely against satirising major world religions, but as a pluralist I'm worried that forcing a Christian-shaped issue on Muslim nations (for example) may look bad.
As a pluralist, you want to satirize all religions equally :)

If we really want to get picky, not all religions even have a canonical holy text. A lot are a collection of folk beliefs and multiple passed-down legends, sometimes with local variations, rather than a single unquestioned truth. Such a religion might actually be less hostile to the kind of changes proposed in this issue, since they would likely consider respecting core themes of the tradition more important than sticking to the exact wording, plus it's easy to imagine that an oral tradition has been corrupted over the centuries and you're simply "fixing" it to be closer to the gods' intent.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:What do you think?
I don't know. It's hard to avoid any religious implications without being extremely blandly generic about what the group wants to change... especially without actually reading some texts from non-Abrahammic religions to see what kind of things are common.

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 6116
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:19 am

The extent to which this is a problem is really up for debate, IMO.

We already have an issue assuming that the religion does missionary work (not every religion, specifically Hinduism and Sikhism, does; in fact some smaller religious groups are adamantly opposed to it). #298 refers to @@FAITH@@ as having Churches and Bishops, #520 calls @@FAITH@@'s creator the distinctly Judeo-Christian "the Almighty", #570 assumes women already can't serve as clerics.

(As for the lack of holy texts in some religions; true, but there are also pre-existing referencing to religious texts: they have previously been burned and put in hotel rooms)

These are all fairly large assumptions, most of which imply a Judeo-Christian tradition.

And, if all of those assumptions are found in the issue base, I don't personally see why this issue can't proceed.

While I am aware of religious sensitivities, there's no way to rewrite the issue with precisely zero assumptions that wouldn't be really, very dull.

EDIT: The only way I could see avoiding any possible sensibilities would be to use an NS religion. Although we have no named NS religion that is a major force and has been analogous to Testament religion (I'm not anxious to rewrite all the references) and which doesn't -- in and of itself -- bring new validities.

Also, I'm not sure that would be overly desirable; not only because it would entail (in effect) changing the way we treat @@FAITH@@, but it could easily make the issue lose its teeth and "why is this @@LEADER@@'s issue" factor. If it's not the national religion, why does @@LEADER@@ care? If it's not a major religion, definitely -- why does @@LEADER@@ care?

I incidentally decided against Violetism from the start.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:18 am, edited 5 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

The Writer's Block Possible Issue Error? or Unusual Issue Effects? (check OPs) Current Issues (Spoilers!)

My nation is not representative of my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 17401
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:38 am

Trotterdam wrote:Is rewriting the Quran really more unthinkable for Muslims than rewriting the Bible is for Christians?


On a tangent here, but yes. Miscopying the Arabic of the Quran is a grave sin in Islam, and it's even frowned upon to translate the Quran without providing the Arabic text alongside that translation. The Bible, on the other hand, has been revised a multitude of times through it's history, and has any number of editions and translations. Retelling bible stories into more relatable contexts is actually encouraged by many Christians.

As a pluralist, you want to satirize all religions equally :)


Heh. As a pragmatist, I'd rather satirise the ones that don't kill you for it.

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15175
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Capitalizt

Postby Australian rePublic » Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:09 pm

The Free Joy State wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:No religious nation would allow this kind of intentional heresy

This is based on a real project, Aussie, to which some Christian conservatives have rushed with great vigour. I could easily see a conservative nation that wanted to push their political principles "re-evaluating" their faith along political lines similarly (different nations and people prioritise faith and politics differently).

An article, with examples (other examples include replacing all apolitical usages of "liberal" with "generous", apparently)

Hmmm... Interesting. I wonder how they plan to translate the following passages:
Deut 4:2
Deut 12:32
Rev 22:18
Amos 8:11-12
Last edited by Australian rePublic on Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Disclaimer: In-Character posts are NOT a reflection of the real world Australian government, any government departments, or any Australian states or territories. I have no authority over real world government decisions.
From Sydney, NSW. From Greek ancestry. Orthodox Christian
Why stylised as "rePublic"
14 Published Issues
Fantastic Song Quotes
Issue Ideas You Can Steal

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15175
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Capitalizt

Postby Australian rePublic » Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:18 pm

Options 1/2- I don't think you should name the characters "Steve" and "Anne". Many people put their real faiths into this. In the Abrahamic Faiths (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, etc. Any of which could be put into this), everyone knows it's Adam and Eve. In the non-Abrahamic faiths, they have a completely different creation story all toghether. For thos with made up faiths, it takes away player autonomy/imagination. Try to be more vague
Disclaimer: In-Character posts are NOT a reflection of the real world Australian government, any government departments, or any Australian states or territories. I have no authority over real world government decisions.
From Sydney, NSW. From Greek ancestry. Orthodox Christian
Why stylised as "rePublic"
14 Published Issues
Fantastic Song Quotes
Issue Ideas You Can Steal

User avatar
Trotterdam
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:23 pm

The only way I can think of to be support multiple religions without being unreasonably vague is to mix-and-match: use the Abrahammic Adam and Eve story as one example of something that the speaker wants to edit, then a story from some other religion entirely as another example (kind of like how #324 portrays its supposed disaster). No, I don't have any suggestions for what such a second example could be.

The Free Joy State wrote:We already have an issue assuming that the religion does missionary work (not every religion, specifically Hinduism and Sikhism, does; in fact some smaller religious groups are adamantly opposed to it).
The reason they are is often that they were historically a persecuted minority religion, and making very sure to not seem threatening to the local majority religion by trying to convert any of its followers was the only way to avoid suffering a genocide.

Then even when religious tensions ease up a bit, they adamantly stick with the rule because they forgot why it was originally implemented, and end up breeding themselves to extinction because they completely refuse to accept converts even when it was the convert's idea while also excommunicating anyone who marries outside the faith.

Australian rePublic wrote:Hmmm... Interesting. I wonder how they plan to translate the following passages:
Deut 4:2
Deut 12:32
Technically, all of Christianity has already violated that one by adding the New Testament, and by deciding that most of the laws of the Old Testament no longer apply to them (except when it's convenient for them to quote it to advance their agendas).
Last edited by Trotterdam on Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 6116
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:23 am

Australian rePublic wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:
This is based on a real project, Aussie, to which some Christian conservatives have rushed with great vigour. I could easily see a conservative nation that wanted to push their political principles "re-evaluating" their faith along political lines similarly (different nations and people prioritise faith and politics differently).

An article, with examples (other examples include replacing all apolitical usages of "liberal" with "generous", apparently)

Hmmm... Interesting. I wonder how they plan to translate the following passages:
Deut 4:2
Deut 12:32
Rev 22:18
Amos 8:11-12

Well, they may have cut it, considering they cut anything that disagreed with them. Alternatively, they could've left it (anything that disagreed with them was considered a later "liberal addition"), so -- by that logic -- they weren't changing anything.

I know... it's strange logic, but that was the logic they used. Just roll with it.

Australian rePublic wrote:Options 1/2- I don't think you should name the characters "Steve" and "Anne". Many people put their real faiths into this. In the Abrahamic Faiths (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, etc. Any of which could be put into this), everyone knows it's Adam and Eve. In the non-Abrahamic faiths, they have a completely different creation story all toghether. For thos with made up faiths, it takes away player autonomy/imagination. Try to be more vague

I actually realised we have an Adam and Eve reference -- Adele and Steve in #495. Though one of the Editors has privately suggested I remove the phrase "Garden of Untold Delights".

Trotterdam wrote:The only way I can think of to be support multiple religions without being unreasonably vague is to mix-and-match: use the Abrahammic Adam and Eve story as one example of something that the speaker wants to edit, then a story from some other religion entirely as another example (kind of like how #324 portrays its supposed disaster). No, I don't have any suggestions for what such a second example could be.

Neither do I.

I think that's the main reason that @@FAITH@@ uses Testament religion pretty heavily -- because those references are widely known (regardless of whether people believe them or not).

EDIT: To respond to CWA's concern about people's sensitivities around amending holy books, the next draft -- whenever I think of something to do with 1A/B -- will be adapted so that there's an option that bans any alterations.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

The Writer's Block Possible Issue Error? or Unusual Issue Effects? (check OPs) Current Issues (Spoilers!)

My nation is not representative of my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:52 am

The Free Joy State wrote:I actually realised we have an Adam and Eve reference -- Adele and Steve in #495. Though one of the Editors has privately suggested I remove the phrase "Garden of Untold Delights".
There's also the plain Adam and Eve in #200, probably because the reference is fleeting enough that it would be confusing if it were anything else (and because it derives a little humor from missing the more obvious pun that debaters usually use in real life).

The Free Joy State wrote:I think that's the main reason that @@FAITH@@ uses Testament religion pretty heavily -- because those references are widely known (regardless of whether people believe them or not).
Widely known in the West, anyway, where most of our players and staff are from. I imagine people living in, say, India or China have entirely different ideas of what religions they consider "common knowledge", even if they don't believe in them.

The Free Joy State wrote:EDIT: To respond to CWA's concern about people's sensitivities around amending holy books, the next draft -- whenever I think of something to do with 1A/B -- will be adapted so that there's an option that bans any alterations.
Isn't option 4 basically that? Just fix "altering the original isn't heresy" to "altering the original isn't just heresy".

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 6116
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:25 am

New draft up.

In the end, kept Adele and Steve (as that's canon), cut the garden. Went with a vague theme found in multiple theologies (of a man driven to extremes by infatuation).

Made multiple other changes to 1A/B, 2 and 3. 2 now encourages translations, and 3 now overtly forbids any amendments to the text.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

The Writer's Block Possible Issue Error? or Unusual Issue Effects? (check OPs) Current Issues (Spoilers!)

My nation is not representative of my beliefs or politics.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads