It's a bit difficult to have one without the other, unless you're willing to increase societal hypocrisy.
That won't be difficult as religion and hypocrisy go hand in hand.
hahahhaa to true, I wonder how long it will take for the relevant issues to pop up for you.
God knows. It took a while for me to get the taxation issue yesterday which allowed me to gut my tax rate and increase employment. I have a few issues to wait on as I want to pass some social reforms.
I finally got the issue that lets me eat my national animal...my geckos not only frolic in my forests, they are also in lasagna.
I'm not sure what my policy will be towards my national animal yet (eagle)
Hey now. Some of us are religious both in-game and IRL. Hypocrisy knows no race, creed, nationality, or orientation. It goes hand in hand with being human, anything more specific than that is ignoring some cases in favor of acting like others are more significant.
Literally as you started seeing people having the boldness to nobly speak out against religion in general (such as Voltaire or other luminaries of the Enlightenment), you also had active antireligious violence, like the specific hunting and executing of priests during the French Revolution and Great Terror, and these acts of antitheist violence have not ceased to be a concern since. The 20th century had enormous amounts of antireligious violence in Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and other places besides.
To err is human.
My national animal used to be the newt. Now it's dragons because dragons are awesome. Since I do imagine them being more like D&D dragons though, it makes some of the issues feel a little weird, since the game assumes your national animal is nonsapient and not really capable of mounting a counter-offensive if your people decide to be violent toward them.
There's no need to feel triggered. I know hypocrisy is a human trait, not just a religious one. I'm just saying it's especially prevalent among the religious who love to claim moral superiority.
It really, really isn't "especially prevalent." That's my whole point.
Talk to a proselytizing vegetarian/vegan sometime.
They're not as common as the idiots who scream at me in the street that I'm going to hell for not worshipping their particular sky fairy.
Well if you want to see religious oppression, look at the history of Christian actions against Pagan faiths all around the world, or the Jews (Christians also enslaved the Jews for along time).
"Prevalent among the religious" means a higher percentage of religious people are hypocrites than others. "Common" means that there are more of them as a total percentage of all people. The two are very different things. There are more religious people than non-religious people; ergo, you are going to encounter more hypocritical religious people than hypocritical nonreligious people purely because religious people are more common. To say that religious folks are more likely to be hypocrites is, frankly, just wrong. They're as likely to be hypocrites as any group that
I live in an area that is very liberal, nonreligious, and counter-culture. I do encounter more nonreligious hypocrites than religious ones (particularly the aforementioned vegan crusaders, though "science is like, such a downer man" types and "communism is great and never causes problems" are also quite common). That doesn't mean hypocrisy is more common among people who don't consume animal-sourced materials. It just means I see more of them. Hypocrisy is a potential problem for anyone who has a commitment to an ideology, and that's a majority of humankind.
Did I even once claim that religious people HAVEN'T done bad things? Did I even remotely imply that bad things AREN'T the direct result of horrible behavior from Christians specifically, and theists or religious people in general? No. I did not. I did not do that because it would be blatantly false to do so. Christians, theists, and religious people in general have done horrible, monstrous, frightening, sickening things throughout history. But they aren't special for having done so. Bringing up the fact that they have in this way only has two motives: you're trying to skewer me for acting like religious people (and Christians in particular) never do anything wrong, or you're pulling blatant Whataboutism.
My point is not, was not, and will never be that religion is flawless. Because that would be monumentally stupid. My point is, was, and will always be that hypocrisy is not in any way special to religion, which is what was originally claimed. The original claim was not "religious people CAN BE hypocritical." It was that religious people straight-up ARE, fundamentally, MORE hypocritical than anyone else: "That won't be difficult as religion and hypocrisy go hand in hand." I then brought up examples of hypocrisy, such as the French Reign of Terror that was supposed to be about Public Safety (since that was literally the provisional government's name, the Committee of Public Safety), which slaughtered thousands of political opponents, and which was EXPLICITLY anti-religious in nature.
I am a religious person. I strive, every day, to be as honest, forthright, and upstanding as I can be. That means always being critical about my faith and what it asks of me. It means continually re-evaluating my positions and asking whether what I am doing is morally right, and genuinely considering the possibility that what I do or have done could be morally wrong. I absolutely will not defend the horrific actions of some fellow believers; I will never defend the rank hypocrisy that some religious people demonstrate. But I will not stand idly by when someone blanket accuses me, and everyone like me, of being an inherent hypocrite simply because we are religious. There are religious non-hypocrites, and non-religious hypocrites. Unless you've got some scientific data to back up your assertions--and yes, I am genuinely willing to listen if you do, and will genuinely strive to avoid unfair burdens of proof in this regard--all you're doing is defaming a group of people to which I belong.
I know you're religious. There's no need to so vociferously defend yourself. I wasn't personally attacking you. I'm just a random guy on the Internet who is shaped by his experiences and environment like everybody else.
sooo, hi from joseviano :)
Mate I don't know why you're going on a rant there, I didn't even mean that the way you think..
Pretty long text tho, really long..
It really isn't. Unless you've got more than "well that's what I've seen," you're just tarring an entire--and enormous--group of people with the brush of its worst offenders. This is like saying that men in Florida must be predominantly substance-abusing, violent, mentally-unsound people because that's the only time you hear about Florida Man.
Keep in mind: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Chinese folk religion* collectively cover more than 80% of the human race. Even the most generous estimates say that no more than 25% of the global population is some flavor of nonreligious (atheist, agnostic, secular or secular humanist, "not religious,"** non-practicing, etc.) "Hypocrisy is predominant in religion" literally means that you're saying the majority of 80% of humanity are hypocrites. That's why I'm arguing.
I get that not everyone thinks this is an important issue. It is an important issue for me.
*There isn't a more precise term than this one, or at least not one universally accepted. "Shenism" or "shendao" may be the next best alternative, but there's really no good option.
**That is, someone who answers a survey with the phrase "I'm not religious," which may include some people who have spiritual beliefs, but who reject most/all religious labels or institutions.
But, y'know what? This is not a fight worth continuing. If you wish to slag on an enormous swathe of humanity due to its worst elements, and pretend that that makes them specially awful, fine. That's up to you. I'm done.
why is the symbol for integrity an unlocked lock but the symbol for corruption a lock
Because a society that is free of corruption is open--like an open lock. At least, that's the logic I'd always assumed.