NationStates

Here is a topic for the first new Beta!

Please use it if you have feedback on this change.

Update: This beta has been implemented.

> Banning religion in the first place

Absolutely degenerate

Reaching 100% secularism suddenly becomes much easier.

Bedetopia wrote:Reaching 100% secularism suddenly becomes much easier.

In theory or do you have examples?

[violet] wrote:

Bedetopia wrote:Reaching 100% secularism suddenly becomes much easier.

In theory or do you have examples?

In theory. It's clear that it becomes exponentially harder the closer you are to 100, but I got a notable boost:

Thanks. That looks correct to me. You have completely outlawed religious worship, so it should be a noticeable change.

Current Most Secular is Uniserve, who also completely outlaws religious worship, and would rise from 99.46% Atheist to 99.53% under this change. So still not quite 100.00% .

I think that this is a good change, because religiousness is not exactly the same as spirituality. You can be spiritual but not religious, but a) it’s not easy, and b) the stat is called religiousness. Therefore the change is a logical one.

makes sense to me. No immediately crazy results

I did find a nation whose atheism would go up 242%- Russki
Actually, a lot of nations I’m finding are having their atheism rate go up by 100%+

Fauxia wrote:I did find a nation whose atheism would go up 242%- Russki
Actually, a lot of nations I’m finding are having their atheism rate go up by 100%+

This will be the case when the nation hasn't taken any other particularly strong positions on religion -- the act of officially banning (or restricting) religious worship makes more of a difference.

Shouldn't the effect of banning religion on Religiousness depend on how high Religiousness was in the first place?
For nations where Religiousness was high, I'd expect the effects of the government trying to outlaw religion being a major surge in public unhappiness with the government rather than most of the people just saying "okay" and changing their views overnight...

Fauxia wrote:I think that this is a good change, because religiousness is not exactly the same as spirituality. You can be spiritual but not religious, but a) it’s not easy, and b) the stat is called religiousness. Therefore the change is a logical one.

"The spiritual not religious" thing is probably the biggest joke people have come up with recently. By the definition of religion it's not possible, it's just that people wrongfully associate religion with dogma when the dogma depends on the religion. Many Christians today have actually began to reject the term "religious" because Christianity is about Christ and salvation, not legalism. They miss the point that religion is religion if there's law or not.

If it isn't religious it isn't spiritual, if it isn't spiritual then it most certainly isn't religious. Stop trying to redefine terms.

Bears Armed wrote:a major surge in public unhappiness with the government rather than most of the people just saying "okay" and changing their views overnight...

NationStates actually operates on the reverse principle. You don't have to pass laws to keep your people happy; instead, their views change to fit your nation's ideals.

The Protestant Union wrote:If it isn't religious it isn't spiritual, if it isn't spiritual then it most certainly isn't religious. Stop trying to redefine terms.

I disagree. "Spiritual" refers to a belief in and response to non-material phenomena. A religion is an organized body with a particular set of beliefs and spiritual practices. It is quite possible to be spiritual without accepting any particular religion.

Almonaster Nuevo wrote:

The Protestant Union wrote:If it isn't religious it isn't spiritual, if it isn't spiritual then it most certainly isn't religious. Stop trying to redefine terms.

I disagree. "Spiritual" refers to a belief in and response to non-material phenomena. A religion is an organized body with a particular set of beliefs and spiritual practices. It is quite possible to be spiritual without accepting any particular religion.

I agree. There is a clear difference between believing in something or someone supernatural and believing that it/they ask you to live a certain way or do a certain deed.

[violet] wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:a major surge in public unhappiness with the government rather than most of the people just saying "okay" and changing their views overnight...

NationStates actually operates on the reverse principle. You don't have to pass laws to keep your people happy; instead, their views change to fit your nation's ideals.

There is a Cheerfulness stat, though. So it's possible to make your citizens unhappy. Maybe this is because you're teaching them to be dour laborers who think hedonism is a sin, and they fully agree with this point of view, but they're still not happy.

Bears Armed wrote:Shouldn't the effect of banning religion on Religiousness depend on how high Religiousness was in the first place?
For nations where Religiousness was high, I'd expect the effects of the government trying to outlaw religion being a major surge in public unhappiness with the government rather than most of the people just saying "okay" and changing their views overnight...

Well, [violet] said that this change would make banning religion affect Religiousness, not completely override all other factors. So you could probably still have a nation which banned religion where Religiousness is still high, it'd just be harder than before.

Assuming that "high religiousness despite having banned religion" is indeed a thing that continues to be tracked, it would in principle be possible for that to affect Cheerfulness, but that would be a separate change.

Trotterdam wrote:

[violet] wrote:NationStates actually operates on the reverse principle. You don't have to pass laws to keep your people happy; instead, their views change to fit your nation's ideals.

There is a Cheerfulness stat, though. So it's possible to make your citizens unhappy. Maybe this is because you're teaching them to be dour laborers who think hedonism is a sin, and they fully agree with this point of view, but they're still not happy.

Yes, and it even used to be called "Happiness," because the idea that national leaders should have to pass laws to keep demanding citizens happy is a powerful one, which keeps seeping back in from time to time in different ways. But I try to beat it out wherever I see it.

Cooperslovakia is a good example for large effects here.

[violet] wrote:Here is a topic for the first new Beta!

Please use it if you have feedback on this change.

It confused meeeeee

Banning religion affects religiousness?

I think this should be added. If religion is banned, there would be no religion and so would there be no religiousness.

Bluelight-R006 wrote:Banning religion affects religiousness?

I think this should be added. If religion is banned, there would be no religion and so would there be no religiousness.

I disagree. Even if Religion is banned, it tends to still exist in pockets of underground movements. There are countless historical examples of religious groups meeting in secret when their religion was outlawed. Not to mention that religion tends to pop up in times of existential crisis for people. People can become religious in a myriad of circumstances and for all sorts of reasons, whether the government allows it or not. It's unlikely that you will ever have 100% atheism.

Wikipedia's definition of religion, by the way, is
"Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental. Religions relate humanity to what anthropologist Clifford Geertz has referred to as a cosmic "order of existence". However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion"

I would suggest that this ties in religion with spirituality and the two cannot be separated, since it does not merely mean a church or other organised body. Any type of belief that relates to a change in behaviour would constitute religion, and belief is not something that disappears just because the government bans religion.

Pandect wrote:

Bluelight-R006 wrote:Banning religion affects religiousness?

I think this should be added. If religion is banned, there would be no religion and so would there be no religiousness.

I disagree. Even if Religion is banned, it tends to still exist in pockets of underground movements. There are countless historical examples of religious groups meeting in secret when their religion was outlawed. Not to mention that religion tends to pop up in times of existential crisis for people. People can become religious in a myriad of circumstances and for all sorts of reasons, whether the government allows it or not. It's unlikely that you will ever have 100% atheism.

Wikipedia's definition of religion, by the way, is
"Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental. Religions relate humanity to what anthropologist Clifford Geertz has referred to as a cosmic "order of existence". However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion"

I would suggest that this ties in religion with spirituality and the two cannot be separated, since it does not merely mean a church or other organised body. Any type of belief that relates to a change in behaviour would constitute religion, and belief is not something that disappears just because the government bans religion.

I agree. But they could soon later be found out. Or could be known. Such was the case for JW. They were banned in several countries, yet they still exist. But their local authorities do know and sometimes take care of it. So yes, banning religion would not ban the whole thing but would affect severely.

well i do like the idea of banning religion affecting religiousness i don't think it would get rid of it completely but should make policy outcomes affect it a more hyperbolic way

Banning religion should definitely decrease religiousness: indoctrination among young people would become much rarer. But it shouldn't make the nation 100% secular. There will always be some who hold on to their beliefs.

Southern Southerland wrote:Banning religion should definitely decrease religiousness: indoctrination among young people would become much rarer. But it shouldn't make the nation 100% secular. There will always be some who hold on to their beliefs.

doesn't. decreasing it avg. about 50%.