It is a bit awkward for an article to have the same name as a category. I know that in the formant we have article:xxx and catergory:xxx, but still, unless someone does some editing quickly, this "article" is a bit premature. At least it is now just a proposal. We writers that have included religion in our articles need to edit the wazoo out of this new proposal and get it up as a graduated article when it has at least a synopsis of the known religious activity on each of the continents and/or political alliances.SouthWriter 16:49, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
when I created this I lost interest so it looked sloppy TY for pointing this out Owen1983 18:32, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
Your synopsis looks reasonable. The reversion of the church in Ireland and surrounding area to the "Celtic Church" is the only real change that has come. I suggest that we put in a section of this article to allow a listing of groups practicing in different states on each of the continents -- being a reference for the general reader of the 1983: Doomsday wiki. This could be as simple as updating the article when people add an article under the category "religion." Presently, there is an extensive coverage of DD Catholicism in the article on the new Vatican City. Likewise, the article on the Celtic Church is coming along nicely and should have a paragraph in the Religion article. It may be better to leave individual articles about religious leaders off, or perhaps have a short paragraph that lists links to all such articles. This would encourage articles geared to religious groups apart from their leaders.SouthWriter 05:49, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
Fair arguments. Right now I am taking Mitro's suggestion and trying to get the article jump-started. We can certainly amend it however is needed; I would be in favor of abandoning my synopsis in favor of a better idea!BrianD 05:58, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
seems a great idea pple Owen198318:00, January 26, 2010
Spin offs[]
I too am wondering if we should we spin off the respective religions into their own pages. BrianD 02:53, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
- That is always a possibility, especially if the description for an individual page gets long enough. However I think we should wait and see if there is an individual editor who wants to create the article first. He or she might be discouraged from adding to the article if they see someone has made a start. Better to give them a chance to start from scratch. Mitro 02:57, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
Spiritualism and local cults[]
And I mean cult in the non-perjorative sense, "a group of believers with common practices". Humankind has felt a burning need to fit the senseless World War into a spiritual framework that makes some kind of sense. This has no doubt led to some local practices developing and thriving that would seem "odd" to us. So far, the only example that's been described in detail has been the deification of Abraham Lincoln, which developed in Nebraska as we know. What has been happening in the cultures that you all take care of? In Hawaii, the most unchurched US state before DD, elements of the traditional religion have been widely adopted by the non-indigenous, especially cultic practices connected with place. Since Hawaii and Maui have been lifeboats for the nation, holy places on both islands (such as the temple at Pu'ukohola Heiau) have come to be seen as even more sacred. Another thing I was thinking of was the growth of local millenarian cults in the US. Many Christians, especially Evangelicals, would probably try to fit DD into existing prophecies about the end times. This was already happening with contemporary events: 1970 was the year of The Late, Great Planet Earth, after all. So I think that some of the "survivor communities" in the US are religious as well as as political centers - for whatever reason, they draw religious pilgrims from surrounding communities. Doomsday would have caused such an intense spiritual crisis for so many, I bet there are local cultic centers all over the former US, including outside the traditional "Bible Belt". An event like DD would make millenarian ideas more attractive to many people. Benkarnell 17:52, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, Ben. Perhaps some of the communities would have turned into Koresh or Jonestown-type camps, a few going the direction that Jonestown went in, many in a more positive direction. In the U.S., I could see survivalist camps; communities built by churches or powerful, charismatic religious leaders/people; communities founded by such out-of-the-1983-mainstream groups as hippies, gays and lesbians, Amish, anyone who saw Doomsday as their opportunity to build their perfect society. These communities probably would number in the hundreds, a few in the thousands. Christianity would be represented among these groups, but there would be at least a substantial minority of groups that were non-Christian. My take as a Christian on the Hal Lindsey stuff is that the whole end-times thing would have been turned upside down. One point of emphasis by "prophecy" teachers like Lindsey is before the return of Christ, a charismatic figure would take the world stage and become the leader of a unified global government controlling everything and everyone, even while things gradually fell apart leading up to the second coming. Doomsday would have eliminated, albeit temporarily, many of the venues that were seen as enabling a global government to control people and commerce (or, could Antichrist really be Antichrist if he only were in charge of Australia and South America)? Undoubtedly some Christians would hold to the "premillenial" view espoused by the likes of Lindsey, but look for that chain of events to occur far into the future, once technology was restored to a 1980s level around the globe. More Christians would perhaps adopt the amillenial view held by mainline and Reformed Protestants, that allows for a literal return of Christ but not for a literal Antichrist, world government, 3 1/2 years of destruction, mark of the beast, et al. BrianD 20:49, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Is the one world government concept that central to most of that theology? That surprises me a little - after all, there were millenial movements long before the 20th century, and therefore long before a world government was even a remote possibility. But admittedly I'm not very well versed in that (i'm Lutheran, and we almost never focus on such things). But scanning through WP's list of theories, it seemed that a post-tribulationist worldview could easily accomodate the world war. The war would certainly fit my idea of a Tribulation, anyhow. Another thought I had: the Cold War system, which taken together encompassed most of the world, could replace a single world government in the conceptual framework.
- Anyway, I was mostly raising the question because I want to explore the idea of local religious centers; the specific theology involved is important, but could probably be glossed over. (And it might indeed be a smart idea to gloss over it: I'm already afraid I've offended people here.) Benkarnell 23:10, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
The world government view is predominant in the thinking of many premillenial, pre-tribulation folks. But this isn't really the place for that discussion; I agree with you on that. Back on topic: many people would look to some form of religion or spirituality to help them get through the crisis, and would flock to surviving centers, such as the ones you mentioned. I also wonder if there would be a rise in atheism or agnosticism, and communities based on humanist ideology. Along with new, post-DD sects (like Lincolnism) becoming influential in larger survivor nations; nations based on a particular interpretation of a religion (the NOI-based state of Anderson); and the few communities based on the post-DD TL equivalents of Marshall Applegate and David Koresh. BrianD 00:08, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the mention of Anderson. I've been thinking of introducing a proposal for Anderson. I will be using what is now the somewhat successful United Nation of Islam (founded by the ALT's own Royall Jenkins) as my model. As far as millennialism and pre-tribulation folk, it is quite a temptation to turn Bob Jones University into such a cult. However, I believe that the facts would probably lead them to "put off" the tribulation until some point that better fits their understanding of the end. Since the bulk of them did not disappear in a rapture, it would follow (to them) that the rapture had not happened yet. Some would then argue for a mid-tribulation or post-tribulation rapture akin to "historical pre-millennialism." But, after seven years, it would be clear that the present disaster was NOT the "great tribulation." And then things would continue as if that future event was still in the unknown future. A time of rebuilding would have to come in Europe, for instance, before an Antichrist could arise there. I have chosen to "avoid" such possibilities while building up to the present with as much order as necessary. I am approaching 2000 in my record, having passed the seven year mark with the then-Mayor of Greenville as the governor in 1990. It won't be until 2008 that "Bob Jones IV" (who choses to be called Robert in the ALT) becomes governor. In OTL he was already separated from the university for several years when his brother Steven became the fourth president of BJU in 2008. It would be "ironic" I guess, if the "religious" leader and the "secular" leader of Piedmont were brothers, huh?
- That being said, I agree with Brian. Religion would be a very big part of surviving this world-wide crisis. I am sure that some cults (take it positively or negatively) would seek to use the crisis for their own purposes.SouthWriter 22:33, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks. BrianD 05:17, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
just a small bit of advice. when writing about religions, lets remain unbiased. no "islam is worse then christianity" or "atheism sucks" kind of thing. just don;t give an opinion. --HAD 09:24, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Your opinion sucks and is worse than mine! :-D Benkarnell 12:29, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
IMHO you have a good point HAD My friends Have different religions and it doesnt mean there bad people and just because somone believes in something else does'nt make him a bad person Owen1983 18:29, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
- On the other hand, since this wiki is NOT wikipedia, our articles do not necessarily have to conform to the "unbiased" point of view that is insisted on there. However, in providing a "supporting article" to a developing timeline, the article should seek to be balanced. In presenting an alternate history, though, we need to follow the logical consequences of the nature of religions and political movements as the scenario unwinds. In a proposal, each article must pass the perusal of the editors before it becomes canon. If, for instance, someone were to present a scenario in which a Quaker leader rises up as rabid militaristic madman, and has a religious following, I would object on the bounds that even if a Quake was crazy and a warmonger, he would not have a following of Quakers, for they are passivists.SouthWriter 19:59, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
excuse me, ben? HAD 00:26, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
He's merely showing what not to say in a joking manner in response to the comment above his. In no way does he actually mean he believes his idea is better than anyone else's, HAD. Well, that is if Ben lets me speak for him :D Mr.Xeight 00:53, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, yes, I was joking, and that's why I made the "laughing face". I think we all know to be objective when writing about sensitive issues, religion above all. Not to be overly narcissistic or anything, but I've been thinking lately what a fine job we've done treating some very touchy subjects in this TL project but doing it in an unbiased way, from religion to racial tension to genocide and slavery. Benkarnell 02:22, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
that's okay then. HAD 11:14, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
If I may add another word of congratulations to Ben's comment, this TL is a great way to bring awareness to people on topics like religion and cultures. For instance, my own Orthodox Christian Church is barely heard of in the United States, and on the other side I myself only know what I'm taught in religion at a Catholic school about Catholicism, and virtually nothing else on other religions. Now if I ever get around to talking about the statelet of the Holy Mountain and how the New Patriarchate came to be established there, then I might raise awareness on a very small, yet very old Church in America. Mr.Xeight 16:01, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
Is it me, or are you about to start preaching, Mr.X? my only comment is that heir are better places to do such things, not that i'd not like to learn more. i love learning new stuff, even if i don't believe/agree with it! --HAD 16:05, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
- You are right, Xeight. As long as the article follows the known facts as they were in September of 1983, awareness of those subjects is an excellent "purpose" of this wiki. This is not wikipedia, and such our articles don't necessarily have to be "balanced." However, as we are discussing religion, let us hope that we will stick to the truth as it unfolds.
- HAD, you are entitled to be "offended" by the religious beliefs as depicted in the articles. However, I don't think we need to seek to "agree" with your non-religious world view. If the facts show that an Islamic world view would lead in a certain direction (based on the past), or if an atheistic world view could might lead to disaster (see the direction of soviet and Chinese communism has taken in the past ninety years), then let us display this in our articles. For better or for worse, the message is made and our creativity is unmuzzled.SouthWriter 22:05, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, here's my two-cents. I think that it's actually a very valuable thing, because I think that religion, for good or ill has had a major impact on the world of Doomsday. It's because of the organizational level of the LDS church that I suggested that Utah survived and thrived - and I think that this would be the case in many strongly religious areas, so, good or ill, I think that this is definitely an issue we should address, but I will agree that we need to make sure that we're not violating the unwritten "No Cross, No Crown" rule that we've been working under. Louisiannan 23:46, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
- ps: For the uninitiated, "No Cross, No Crown" (besides being a history joke) is a rule we inherited from the Conlang mailing list, our internet grandparent. It means that discussions on religion and politics should center on our fictional realms and not devolve into debates on politics and religion *here*. So talking about the atheistic worldview of one of our constructed cultures on this site is a great thing; generally saying that "atheism always leads to disaster" comes close to crossing a line and will quite possibly cause disharmony within the group. It's a blurry distinction, definitely not a precise one, especially since this particular conculture - a world that began diverging from ours only 26 years ago - is so close to real life, so some discussions on controversial topics *here* are inevitable. ... that's why it's a general rule of thumb or a guideline, not an ironclad rule. Say: maybe a page on "No Cross No Crown" would be a Good Thing, what do you say, Dan? Benkarnell 00:33, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- My, Ben, you've really picked up in IB-isms. Makes me smile. Yes, I think that a page on "No Cross, No Crown" would be a Good Thing, even a Very Good Thing. And I agree with your take that some things will have to be discussed here, but so long as everyone ascribes to Voltaire's "I disagree with everything you say, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it.", I think we'll be in good shape. Would you draft the page, Ben? I think we may have something like it on the IB wiki. Louisiannan 16:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Ha ha! Yes, "Good Thing" in caps is, well, a Good Phrase, and it conveys a lot of meaning for such simple words. I often find myself using it in everyday conversations, although admittedly, other people can't see that I'm speaking in capital letters.
- I think that Conlang's guideline pages have a description of NCNC. I'll try to find and use that, then modify it for Alternate History. That's the source, after all. 207.177.213.142 17:14, February 3, 2010 (UTC) (Benkarnell)
i agree with "no cross, no crown" and as an aside, I'm not offended. at all by religious beliefs. to quot Voltaire "i disagree with everything you say, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it." and that is that. i have my views and you have yours. lets not have an argument. lets be civil, unbiased and accurate. --HAD 14:52, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Fastest Growing Religion and the Largest Religion[]
What is the fastest growing religion in this TL? And what is the largest religion in this TL? P.S. I made a few slight edits. is this okay? RandomWriterGuy 22:49, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
Growing, Christianity of some sort- likely, Catholicism.
Largest, Islam, no question.
The Islam part is something most think, but is not true in the least - there's at least eight of them. The voodoo part.... not really needed, and you made it sound like both of those were. They've been removed.
Lordganon 00:06, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
Christianity: Is this because of re-population efforts?
Islam: I agree since it has been rarely target during Doomsday, but I think they will still retain fastest growing religion in the world because it's always been like it. RandomWriterGuy 00:15, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
The various Christian churches are using missionaries on a very large scale. It's not re-population, but conversions.
Islam is likely decreasing in number, or at least barely growing, atl. In many areas of the world, it is getting replaced by atheism or Christianity.
No, it has not always been the fastest. It isn't today, even, and hasn't been in centuries.
Lordganon 01:20, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the vast majority of this planets nearly 2 billion Christians live outside of North America and Europe. Latin America is the de facto bastion of Catholocism and the United States is of Protestantism OTL because athiesm and a general hatred towards religions is on the rise in mainland western Europe. In the ATL, your losing only around 250-400 million Christians at most.
Although keep in mind that Latins, expecially Mexicans and Central Americans have incredibly large amounts of kids in their lifetime and the indisputed reign of Roman Catholocism means that your rebounding all the Christians lost by around 2015. With Liberalism being a minority due to the loss of major cities the conservative rural areas would continue to practice their face.
Islam is a different issue. With an even greater collapse of Africa than in OTL you would see curious rises and drops in certain religions. Islam and Christianity are both missionary faiths in Africa although they do make up most of the population. North Africa would likely remain with the same religions while the Saharan region would go back to local beliefs as the Islam practiced there is largely a fusion religion to begin with.
Judaism is another topic worth bringing up. I can imagine that theres only a handful of Jews out there since Israel is in pieces and the places with more Jews than others are all gone. I imagine it being in the hundreds of thousands or around there.
Arstar 01:51, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
Various brands of atheism are spreading in Central Asia, and I've no doubt that there was a major backlash against Muslims in India post-DD.
Islam is also without question falling rapidly in former Egypt and Libya - it's also dropped, likely, in Tunisia and the Rif, given the Sicilian occupation, and outside influence, respectively. Same goes for the Sudan, since the non-Muslims have the power there now. Also for areas of former Turkey controlled by the Federation, and the Southern Caucasus. Same applies for some areas of former Iraq.
Many cities in the Middle East also got hit, further lowering the population.
Israel is not in pieces. There still several million practitioners of Judaism there.
Lordganon 02:26, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. I am in the middle of something else right now, but I might just jump right in later. Good points, LG. Keep up the good fight. SouthWriter 03:27, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
I think we might have struck a controversy about this issue.
For me, I think atheism would grow in the survivor states in Central Asia because of communist influence.
For Christianity, Arstar may be right: the high growth rate would make it possible to truly make Christianity that fastest growing religion- but what about other places like Christian portions of Africa uneffected (or barely effected) by Dommsday, the Philippines, or other Christian areas in Asia, Africa, and Oceania? What about them?
For Judaism, it will only decline as part of the casualities for Jews in other countries greatly effected by Doomsday (especially America, Europe, and USSR). It still would survive though.
For Islam, the reason they had the position of fastest growing religion was the fact of their high birth rates in OTL. Even in Muslim areas not effected (or barely effected) by Doomsday, how does this decline?
RandomWriterGuy 06:16, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
No, no controversy.
Without question, atheism is expanding in Central Asia - areas that were never under the communists before, or were part of other religions, now are. This applies for Orthodox Christianity too.
The other areas would either stay the same, or have an increase, in Christians. Africa would have more, no question.
There is very few Muslims areas not effected by DD. The prosperity of otl, which has fueled the rates of growth, do not exist atl, either. Those that have been effected in some direct way often will have large numbers going the other way, as already noted. Add to that the massive death toll in Egypt, and other large tolls in Turkey, Afghanistan, the USSR, Jordan, and Libya. A lack of food only makes in worse - remember, the territories inhabited by most Muslims are not very fertile.
Lordganon 06:41, January 31, 2012 (UTC)