Don't get me started on them, hahaha.
Jews do not have to be liked. Historically, they are one of the earliest, most persecuted groups on this earth. Their likability in NO way effects their ability to survive.
Sure they can survive, and always have, by getting along and keeping their head down, but do they thrive? We're not talking about mere survival, societies must grow to sustain themselves (or in rarer cases, act as a parasite on a neighboring society). As in, a nation of people united by common interest? It's one thing to survive as in "never get wiped out" (there are still Zoroastrians and Roman/Germanic pagans to this day) and another to build and assimilate. When I meant survive I did have the underlying assumption that growth and subjugation would be a part of the people's modus operandi included in surviving.
Mormonism is still to this very day, considered a minor religion, its amount of followers nowhere near as prolific as the adherents to the catholic or protestant faiths, etc.
Of course. But it's also the fastest growing religion (I'm pretty sure though not absolute) which would also correlate with its emminence by the time the apocalypse happened in 2077. But consider the geography. The East Coast is the most "progressive" area of the United States today, and that usuallly includes abandonment of religion for atheism or some flavor of vague spirituality. The people with the strongest faith in most of the Eastern US are usually either Mormons or Fundementalist Protestants (mostly in Arizona). Assuming this roadmap of religious faith also existed in the Fallout universe, that would leave any holdover fundementalists getting wiped out by the Legion, leaving the rest of humanity in that whole area to either invent tribal mystcism, or the Mormons, or none at all.
Yes you got a Mormon majority in Utah but Obsidian CHOSE to do an expansion game in Utah.
Cause Zion Valley NP is a really cool place that is rather close to Las Vegas? It could even be someone came up with the characterization of Joshua Graham as the "wounded vindicator" (one of the best characters in the series for my money) and the setting/theme made the most sense. From a character/story perspective, ancient tales of Christianity are firmly imbedded into the Western psyce and as such they make good storytelling devices, to help make connections. Mormonism, while not specifically the same, carries some of that weight and character representation also has a similar effect. It's a character development shortcut, simply. (I don't know if I'm explaining this adequately, I'm speaking about this extending to other art forms like music and film). You keep reading in bias towards Mormonism as if that's the goal, all I can see are character elements and world building.
They CHOSE to give the Mormons a vault because Utah = Mormons
Yeah.
And where do you get this from? Since Honest Hearts is obviously on our mind, I can think of two examples - Joshua Graham, whose coolness comes from the fact that he was a ruthless Legionary, and maybe his religious phrasing is the slight sprinkle on top. Daniel, while a good person, is not very interesting and kind of wimpy. Mormonism isn't cool
or bad in this context, it's just kind of
there as a character development element.
That maybe not direct favoritism but can surely be seen that way.
I suppose. The question is, is it reasonable to think so? Perhaps somewhere on Obsidian's invoice there lies a huge donation from a Mormon church, or maybe half of their staff re Mormon. Then I would give your perspective a lot more creedence. But as f now, it seems unlikely.
If you want to go stereotypes route, a lot of Jews are rich, run the media, AIPAC. Their spending power puts the Mormons to shame. As another poster stated, Jews also have a tight knit community, to say otherwise is to be willfully ignorant. You want to talk about Mormon persecution, that is NOTHING compared to the holocaust. Look at one of the most memorable remarks all Jews/Israelis have in common, 'NEVER AGAIN'. I hate to use these extreme examples but your Mormonism is better than other religions out there is exactly the kind of bias I want to point out.
Yes, Jews are tight knit. But let's not go that route, I don't want to say something that will get me banned again.
I guess that comes down to semantics. Not all governments are theocracies. Many governments in the world today are secular. The very foundations of organization, a rallying cry of factionalism, can be anything from non-religious causes TO religion. But it is definitely not religious ONLY.
I absolutely agree. The point I've been trying to make is that healthy, mutually respectful societes do require religion in order to be that level of civilization higher than any other. That may change in thhe future with changes in philosophy and technology, but as of now we are still rather basic animals with the same old instincts.
The better question to ask your friend is, 'Hey, since you stole from them, then its ok for me to steal from YOU right?' Your answer most likely will be a resounding 'fuck no'. He KNOWS stealing is bad. He wouldn't do it to innocent people. His reasoning allowed him to bypass common sense/etiquette.
Conceded, partially. Of course everyone has their own conception of right and wrong, but the point is that their personal values are arbitrary until molded. How do you get them all to adopt a more or less /equal standard with equal rules, without a religion or, less ideally, organized force?
Lets say I am a born leader. People follow me. Why? Because I provide order. Order is not inherently religious unless you go the route, 'god made everything so god made order'. Order IS law. Any decree backed by FORCE, is law. Laws are easy to make and to enforce if one has the resources to do so.
Agreed.
Order also inherently means some system of amicable treatment. It may not be necessarily equal throughout, but it is absolutely REQUIRED. You have to appease your enforcers, your political allies if your government/system is at that point. Ever heard of Panem et Circenses? Breads and circuses, law and order through amicability. Amicability can be seen as morality but its more about common sense/efficiency.
Absolutely disagree. You can have order in a dystopic society in which amicabilty is not required whatsoever, either basic instinct to survive or fear of force can fill that role.
But who made this civilization? Did it just magically come out of thin air?
Usually a military coup or communist revolution, was what I specifically had in mind. Or invasion + occupation.
Order and compromise made this civilization.
Or brute force. But when I have been positing religion as a building block of society, I meant it as an organic evolution of said society from basic family, to basic tribalism, to wider city-state, etc. Violent takeover of already existing societies certainly doesn't fit that bill.
Morality has a place but thats after the basic needs to survive have been met. Life in America is vastly different than during the early 20th century and before. We had sweatshops, child labor, no rights for workers, no fairness, etc. Only when America stabilized out of the ashes of WW2, became a power, did the great baby boomer/golden age begin. The golden age then led to discussions on civil rights, etc.
I agree, but how is this relevant to the main point? Honestly I feel we're getting a little off track here.
And I have mentioned how your rationalization for the Mormons can extend to other religions as well.
It
could, but is that
likely?
___________________________________________________EDIT
whoa whoa whoa hold the phone.
but your Mormonism is better than other religions out there is exactly the kind of bias I want to point out.
What are you talking about? I have said nothing pro-Mormon at all. "Your Mormonism"? I'm not a Mormon.
