NationStates Jolt Archive

Why does it seem like one out of every 3 issues, the opposition in the debate is a priest? Gods wants this, God wants that, you're all blasphemers, oh noes infidels, we're doomed to hell if we pass this law.

This happens even if you outlaw religion entirely, or set up your own religion (Church of Amadari). It's annoying that every time a medical or personal freedom debate pops up, there's Reverend I. R. Fanatic to tell you how much God will hate it if you let people choose or treat their diseases.

Gripe, gripe, gripe. :mad:

It's all in how the Issues are coded. Take it up with the wrighters of the issues, not us here.

Don't like the right Reverend Wrong? Vote against his point of view.

One thing politicians learn REALLY early is that there is always SOMEONE whose opinion they disagree with... and real life is a lot like that too.

Shazbotdom - Just generally grumping about how it's always the fanatics who say 'No!' to everything even when you've outlawed religion. =P
Katganistan - Err, yes. =p I invariably do, even if I prefer the perceived outcome of the priest's argument. It's the principle of the thing, anyway. =P

Just flaming the religious issues, folks. Mainly because they're all based on Catholicism/Purism. Where are all the Buddhists?! =( (Yeah, I know, a Buddhist wouldn't be protesting)

Shazbotdom - Just generally grumping about how it's always the fanatics who say 'No!' to everything even when you've outlawed religion. =P
Katganistan - Err, yes. =p I invariably do, even if I prefer the perceived outcome of the priest's argument. It's the principle of the thing, anyway. =P

Just flaming the religious issues, folks. Mainly because they're all based on Catholicism/Purism. Where are all the Buddhists?! =( (Yeah, I know, a Buddhist wouldn't be protesting)

Good point. If I ever write an issue I'll be sure to include a Buddhist point of view. Perhaps ahimsa or something...

Just flaming the religious issues, folks. Mainly because they're all based on Catholicism/Purism. Where are all the Buddhists?! =( (Yeah, I know, a Buddhist wouldn't be protesting)

Everyone in the world is a Catholic or an atheist. Everyone who thinks they aren't one of these two things has been misled by vandalised Wikipedia articles or something.

I know it's true because I made it up myself.

Shazbotdom - Just generally grumping about how it's always the fanatics who say 'No!' to everything even when you've outlawed religion. =P
Katganistan - Err, yes. =p I invariably do, even if I prefer the perceived outcome of the priest's argument. It's the principle of the thing, anyway. =P

Just flaming the religious issues, folks. Mainly because they're all based on Catholicism/Purism. Where are all the Buddhists?! =( (Yeah, I know, a Buddhist wouldn't be protesting)

Buddhists protest too. Sometimes in more extreme ways than Christians.

Linkage. (http://www.mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/vb/Monks.HTM)

I stand in the face of overwhelming evidence. I concede to GMC Military Arms.

On another note, I'm thinking about actually writing a series of issues - probably 10-20 all together. The first might be a few different religious groups appealing to the government for support, or just acceptance. (We'll say the Catholics want tax exemption, Mormons want advertising rights, Islaams want people to stop burning crosses into their lawns, and some cultists want recognition as a major religion) The fifth option would be to tell them all 'no'. The rest of the issues would be based on this one - which you chose. The issues you got would be geared more toward the after-effect of that one decision.

For instance, people might start complaining about Mormons handing out flyers at stop lights and that not rolling down your window for them is a crime. I know *I* would.

Anyway, thoughts or suggestions? This is a rough example; ideas for polishing it (like a better choice of religions to glorify/strike down) are welcome!