NationStates

This is vaguely based on my experience living in rural Wisconsin. In some places churches are held together by the community and not participating in one is social suicide, in some towns they are the only place to get things like counselling or a food bank, and other towns are just sad and empty. In any case, few of these towns raise enough taxes to be self sufficient and people's health suffers for it.

Version 1


Version 2




[TITLE] Small Town Living

[REQUIREMENTS] Religion is neither outlawed nor mandatory, nation has no welfare, or low to mid welfare

[DESCRIPTION] In an area of rural @@NATIONNAME@@, small towns of fewer than 1000 people have traditionally been built around a center of worship. They receive everything from social services to socialization from these centers. Recently they have been closing at a high rate as communities are no longer able to support them.

[OPTION] A rural priest approaches your desk. "Leader, our group holds our community together. Without us the people have nothing to bring them together and have to drive for hours for access to social services. Would it be too much to receive a small subsidy from the government? Surely that's less expensive than providing these services yourself?"
[Effect] Being an Atheist is a lonely life in rural @@NATIONNAME@@

[OPTION] "Subsidize a religious organization? Are you insane?" Cries your scientific adviser, "I don't care how the community feels, that is not an acceptable solution. We can absolutely provide any needed services"
[EFFECT] Government buildings outnumber houses in many small towns

[OPTION] "Well I don't see why I need any government getting involved anyway" says @@RANDOMNAME@@ a farmer who came to your office straight from work and is covered in what you hope is mud, "We've always been self sufficient, so you people can just butt out!"
[EFFECT] Rural areas are proud of their crippling poverty

[OPTION] @@RANDOMNAME@@ a particularly fervent religious leader who nobody invited, walks up to your desk and slams his hands down on it. "None of you are looking at the real issue here! We are turning out backs on God and suffering for it! Leader, the answer is simple, mandate all people attend their nearest services at least once per week and tithe 10% of all @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ earned! Simple!"
[EFFECT] The poor struggle with paying their tithes

This assumes that your government doesn't help people in snall towns

Australian rePublic wrote:This assumes that your government doesn't help people in snall towns

Good call, a requirement would have to be low Socialism as well

Slackertown wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:This assumes that your government doesn't help people in snall towns

Good call, a requirement would have to be low Socialism as well

I think you mean "welfare"

Replace "churches" with "places pf worship"

Australian rePublic wrote:Replace "churches" with "places pf worship"

OK I updated those

Where do people in big cities get their welfare from?
Also, is this due to an increase in atheism?

Australian rePublic wrote:Where do people in big cities get their welfare from?
Also, is this due to an increase in atheism?

In cities you can set up a free clinic or a food bank, or public transportation and easily serve tens of thousands of people. Or you can have social events around specific interests and there are dozens of people in the area who share those interests. In rural areas, that's not the case.

I wouldn't necessarily say that rural Wisconsin towns are having an increase in atheism, nearly everyone will still say they're either Catholic or Lutheran. But very few people actually practice their religion in most towns.

An old timer told me a story once where a Lutheran Church the next town over had a dance. The Lutherans from his town attended. While there he danced with a girl from their town instead of one from his town. A couple of guys from that town beat him up badly for it.

Something like that would never happen today. People don't socialize through their Church. They don't give money to the church who in turn gives it to needy people (and the priest's hefty salary). Church's sometimes host events but they're not well attended, my friends would have found it strange to attend a social event at a Church. And there are plenty of empty buildings from bankrupt churches. The thing is there isn't really a replacement like there is a cities. That's what I'm trying to replicate with this issue.

Slackertown wrote:This is vaguely based on my experience living in rural Wisconsin. In some places churches are held together by the community and not participating in one is social suicide, in some towns they are the only place to get things like counselling or a food bank, and other towns are just sad and empty. In any case, few of these towns raise enough taxes to be self sufficient and people's health suffers for it.

[TITLE] Small Town Living

[REQUIREMENTS] Religion is neither outlawed nor mandatory, nation has no welfare, or low to mid welfare

I think this is a truly interesting topic to look at. It's definitely a fact that services vary wildly between different economic and social areas of the same region, and that people with less access can suffer for it. I also think it's an interesting issue because there isn't a clear "right answer" that matches 1:1 with particular political affiliations. All sides can see benefits of multiple angles.

[DESCRIPTION] In an area of rural @@NATIONNAME@@ small towns of fewer than 1000 people have traditionally been built around a center of worship, receiving everything from social services to a social club from the center. However these centers have been closing at a high rate as fewer and fewer people wish to support them.

A comma would be beneficial after @@NAME@@. Some rewording would help ease of understanding - people don't "receive a social club" from something, for example... they use something as one. I would probably put a period after "center of worship," and then start a new sentence saying that religious houses provide everything from social services to socialization.

More important than that though, I think the final sentence undermines the importance of the issue a bit. If centers are closing because people no longer want to support them, then why are they being saved? The people must have found something better. It may be able to be phrased in a more sympathetic manner by saying they are closing because the low populations they serve simply can't support them in the face of rising costs, or similar. Something where it's clear they're still effective and desired, and therefore worth saving.

[OPTION] A priest of one of these small centers of worship approaches your desk. "Leader, our group holds our community together. Without us the people have nothing to bring them together and have to drive for hours for access to social services. Would it be too much to receive a small subsidy from the government? Surely that's less expensive than providing these services yourself?"

[Effect] Atheists are social outcasts outside of major cities.

The long description of the speaker could be easily shortened to something like "A rural priest." That would compass the same information, given the rest of the description. I would also try to find another phrasing for the effect to avoid putting the similar words "outcasts outside" next to each other.

[OPTION] "Subsidize a religious organization? Are you insane?" Cries your scientific advisor, "I don't care how the community feels, that is not an acceptable solution. We can absolutely provide any needed services"
[EFFECT] Taxes in cities pay for services in the country

For the effect text, that is the same thing that would be happening with option 1, just via a different route, so it doesn't feel unique or punchy enough in my mind. An alternate route to pursue might be commenting on how many new government offices and facilities would have to be provided to supplant the centralized houses of worship - something like "government buildings outnumber houses in many small towns."

[OPTION] "Well I don't see why I need any government getting involved anyway" says @@RANDOMNAME@@ a farmer who came to your office straight from work and is covered in what you hope is mud, "We've always been self sufficient, so you people can just butt out!"
[EFFECT] Suicide rates in rural areas are rapidly rising

I get why suicide rate is used here, but that might feel like a bit of a harsh step for some, as "social services" is the only mention of anything related to that in the issue text. It might go over better if it's a bit more directly linked to the argument made - "rural areas are proud of their crippling poverty" or "rural children are taught never to ask for help" or the like.

[OPTION] @@RANDOMNAME@@ a particularly fervent religious leader who nobody invited, yet heard about this meeting somehow and showed up walks up to your desk and slams his hands down on it. "None of you are looking at the real issue here! We are turning out backs on God and suffering for it! Leader, the answer is simple, mandate all people attend their nearest worship center at least once per week and pay it 10% of all @@CURRENCY@@ earned! Simple!"
[EFFECT] Televangelist is considered a respectable profession

I know that using "worship center" is meant to avoid picking a word like church or temple that has specific implications, but it's still awkward as a term. Perhaps it could say to mandate people attend their nearest "services" at least once per week? That's neutral still, I believe. Also, this would be a good time to use the word "tithe" in playing of "pay it." @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ will be the desired macro. I would probably drop the text " yet heard about this meeting somehow and showed up" as it doesn't add any information - the fact that he was not invited but is there contributing implies this part. I would also look at reworking the effect text here to be related to the issue, rather than spinning off on a side bit about televangelists. Maybe saying the poor only just break even after giving 10% to the church, or collection plates ring loudest in the areas that are poorest.

With all the effects, remember that they aren't stand-alone sentences, so don't need periods at the end or capitals on the beginning.

Verdant Haven wrote:

Slackertown wrote:This is vaguely based on my experience living in rural Wisconsin. In some places churches are held together by the community and not participating in one is social suicide, in some towns they are the only place to get things like counselling or a food bank, and other towns are just sad and empty. In any case, few of these towns raise enough taxes to be self sufficient and people's health suffers for it.

[TITLE] Small Town Living

[REQUIREMENTS] Religion is neither outlawed nor mandatory, nation has no welfare, or low to mid welfare

I think this is a truly interesting topic to look at. It's definitely a fact that services vary wildly between different economic and social areas of the same region, and that people with less access can suffer for it. I also think it's an interesting issue because there isn't a clear "right answer" that matches 1:1 with particular political affiliations. All sides can see benefits of multiple angles.

[DESCRIPTION] In an area of rural @@NATIONNAME@@ small towns of fewer than 1000 people have traditionally been built around a center of worship, receiving everything from social services to a social club from the center. However these centers have been closing at a high rate as fewer and fewer people wish to support them.

A comma would be beneficial after @@NAME@@. Some rewording would help ease of understanding - people don't "receive a social club" from something, for example... they use something as one. I would probably put a period after "center of worship," and then start a new sentence saying that religious houses provide everything from social services to socialization.

More important than that though, I think the final sentence undermines the importance of the issue a bit. If centers are closing because people no longer want to support them, then why are they being saved? The people must have found something better. It may be able to be phrased in a more sympathetic manner by saying they are closing because the low populations they serve simply can't support them in the face of rising costs, or similar. Something where it's clear they're still effective and desired, and therefore worth saving.

[OPTION] A priest of one of these small centers of worship approaches your desk. "Leader, our group holds our community together. Without us the people have nothing to bring them together and have to drive for hours for access to social services. Would it be too much to receive a small subsidy from the government? Surely that's less expensive than providing these services yourself?"

[Effect] Atheists are social outcasts outside of major cities.

The long description of the speaker could be easily shortened to something like "A rural priest." That would compass the same information, given the rest of the description. I would also try to find another phrasing for the effect to avoid putting the similar words "outcasts outside" next to each other.

[OPTION] "Subsidize a religious organization? Are you insane?" Cries your scientific advisor, "I don't care how the community feels, that is not an acceptable solution. We can absolutely provide any needed services"
[EFFECT] Taxes in cities pay for services in the country

For the effect text, that is the same thing that would be happening with option 1, just via a different route, so it doesn't feel unique or punchy enough in my mind. An alternate route to pursue might be commenting on how many new government offices and facilities would have to be provided to supplant the centralized houses of worship - something like "government buildings outnumber houses in many small towns."

[OPTION] "Well I don't see why I need any government getting involved anyway" says @@RANDOMNAME@@ a farmer who came to your office straight from work and is covered in what you hope is mud, "We've always been self sufficient, so you people can just butt out!"
[EFFECT] Suicide rates in rural areas are rapidly rising

I get why suicide rate is used here, but that might feel like a bit of a harsh step for some, as "social services" is the only mention of anything related to that in the issue text. It might go over better if it's a bit more directly linked to the argument made - "rural areas are proud of their crippling poverty" or "rural children are taught never to ask for help" or the like.

[OPTION] @@RANDOMNAME@@ a particularly fervent religious leader who nobody invited, yet heard about this meeting somehow and showed up walks up to your desk and slams his hands down on it. "None of you are looking at the real issue here! We are turning out backs on God and suffering for it! Leader, the answer is simple, mandate all people attend their nearest worship center at least once per week and pay it 10% of all @@CURRENCY@@ earned! Simple!"
[EFFECT] Televangelist is considered a respectable profession

I know that using "worship center" is meant to avoid picking a word like church or temple that has specific implications, but it's still awkward as a term. Perhaps it could say to mandate people attend their nearest "services" at least once per week? That's neutral still, I believe. Also, this would be a good time to use the word "tithe" in playing of "pay it." @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ will be the desired macro. I would probably drop the text " yet heard about this meeting somehow and showed up" as it doesn't add any information - the fact that he was not invited but is there contributing implies this part. I would also look at reworking the effect text here to be related to the issue, rather than spinning off on a side bit about televangelists. Maybe saying the poor only just break even after giving 10% to the church, or collection plates ring loudest in the areas that are poorest.

With all the effects, remember that they aren't stand-alone sentences, so don't need periods at the end or capitals on the beginning.

Thank you for the detailed reply! I agree with all of this and updated my post.