post-war governance of the Temple Lands

Here is a subject that could be interesting to discuss. We know that the vicars are the Knights of the Temple Lands. What else do we know? There is a substantial agricultural economy with serfs tied to the land, although they are no longer called serfs. There is also a large body of freemen who are engaged in a variety of occupatons, many of which are involved with commerce, much of which has ties of varying degrees with the church.

Apart from the vicars being the ruling group, it's not completely clear how that is implemented. So how might all of this work out? Should the vicars retain their political power in the Temple Lands? If so, how might that power be limited? If the vicars are ousted altogether, what might take their place? Who should be making those decisions?

Given Zion's size and status as the largest city on Safehold, it seems inevitable that political power in the Temple Lands will gravitate there regardless of how governance is implemented and who is responsible for it.

So, weigh in...what do you think?

Don

n7axw wrote:Here is a subject that could be interesting to discuss. We know that the vicars are the Knights of the Temple Lands. What else do we know? There is a substantial agricultural economy with serfs tied to the land, although they are no longer called serfs. There is also a large body of freemen who are engaged in a variety of occupatons, many of which are involved with commerce, much of which has ties of varying degrees with the church.

Apart from the vicars being the ruling group, it's not completely clear how that is implemented. So how might all of this work out? Should the vicars retain their political power in the Temple Lands? If so, how might that power be limited? If the vicars are ousted altogether, what might take their place? Who should be making those decisions?

Given Zion's size and status as the largest city on Safehold, it seems inevitable that political power in the Temple Lands will gravitate there regardless of how governance is implemented and who is responsible for it.

So, weigh in...what do you think?

Don

That's a very interesting question.

Even if the Alliance manages to conquer the Temple Lands militarily it'd be naive to assume that they can successfully change just about anything and everything. Any new political order will have to be some sort of compromise if it's got to have a chance to last.

So I think it comes down to two parts:

1) Which political/social changes in the Temple lands are essential for the Alliance and which are just topping but not vital?
2) Which changes are actually realistic?

Clynthan and at least the closest of his cronies have to go obviously.

Aside frome that I would say the most essential part is the installment of a strict separation of church and state.

Installment of religious freedom would be number three on the list.
It is debatable whether it is one of the 'must-have' items or already falls into the 'nice to have but not totally vital' category.
I would think the former because the false doctrine of the church was what started the whole war in the first place and it makes sense to try to contain this ideology in the future.

Everything else is optional in my opinion. The more you change the greater the risk that everything will blow up. So I'd say let them draw up their own constitution, see to it that all groups of society have some input into it and then let them make their own decisions except for the points above which are vital and just have to be in there.

Bruno Behrends wrote:

n7axw wrote:Here is a subject that could be interesting to discuss. We know that the vicars are the Knights of the Temple Lands. What else do we know? There is a substantial agricultural economy with serfs tied to the land, although they are no longer called serfs. There is also a large body of freemen who are engaged in a variety of occupatons, many of which are involved with commerce, much of which has ties of varying degrees with the church.

Apart from the vicars being the ruling group, it's not completely clear how that is implemented. So how might all of this work out? Should the vicars retain their political power in the Temple Lands? If so, how might that power be limited? If the vicars are ousted altogether, what might take their place? Who should be making those decisions?

Given Zion's size and status as the largest city on Safehold, it seems inevitable that political power in the Temple Lands will gravitate there regardless of how governance is implemented and who is responsible for it.

So, weigh in...what do you think?

Don

That's a very interesting question.

Even if the Alliance manages to conquer the Temple Lands militarily it'd be naive to assume that they can successfully change just about anything and everything. Any new political order will have to be some sort of compromise if it's got to have a chance to last.

So I think it comes down to two parts:

1) Which political/social changes in the Temple lands are essential for the Alliance and which are just topping but not vital?
2) Which changes are actually realistic?

Clynthan and at least the closest of his cronies have to go obviously.

Aside frome that I would say the most essential part is the installment of a strict separation of church and state.

Installment of religious freedom would be number three on the list.
It is debatable whether it is one of the 'must-have' items or already falls into the 'nice to have but not totally vital' category.
I would think the former because the false doctrine of the church was what started the whole war in the first place and it makes sense to try to contain this ideology in the future.

I think you've got a good way of framing this. A quibble - I'm all for separation of church and state, but it may be a step too far too soon in the Temple Lands, given the nature of the Church on Safehold and its role in the Temple Lands specifically. The Church on Safehold is tied up in so many functions that on Earth have nothing to do with religion: health care, education, sanitation, farming, lotteries, cartography, law, and - ahh, how to put the Proscriptions... - industrial safety standards, let us call them.

Unless and until you're prepared to detach all of those from the Church, you've got to let some sort of Church, with all the people in the Church who know what they are doing that way, maintain their functions in those fields.

I suggest it would be better to start putting some distance between all of those and what people believe about the Big Questions religions attempt to answer and over which we get such dispute. On Earth, we can accomplish that with a separation of church and state, because all of them have grown up mostly on the state side since we've been developing them in the Western tradition over the last few centuries. Safehold hasn't had that background. Charis is a better model that way, with the Church of Charis maintaining all those public service functions in partnership with the state while distancing them from matters of conscience.

That will take an intensely reformed Church though, maybe even a kind of split one. It's been relatively easy in Charis, with people getting behind a Church that relinquishes its claims to mastery of conscience and Temple Loyalist partners who practically cooperate in religious toleration. If you can insist on religious toleration and make it work, maybe that kind of effective distinction between the Church's role in matters of conscience and the Church's role in making sure your water barrels do not harbor disease organisms can grow in toleration's shade. Maybe, cross your fingers. It will come down to whether or not people want it and if the powers that be allow it.

Everything else is optional in my opinion. The more you change the greater the risk that everything will blow up. So I'd say let them draw up their own constitution, see to it that all groups of society have some input into it and then let them make their own decisions except for the points above which are vital and just have to be in there.

There may be local governments that exist or organizations close enough to governments to get effective local political organization without the vicarate. Those may be a basis of representatives for provinces, and those provinces for representation in a national assembly. The Church itself is a sort of republic, so republicanism in the Temple Lands isn't such a wild idea. (A lot of those entities on the "town" level may be large monasteries or abbeys, and the province boundaries are likely to be the boundaries of bishoprics, but that's just the way of it in the Temple Lands.) It's really tricky to put a nation together like this, but at least you're not re-drawing borders too.

I do think phasing out serfdom (whatever they choose to call it) is a must-have. The moral authority of the Empire and Church of Charis will stand on their ability, when asked whose side they are on, to point to the people in chains or tied to the land and say, "Theirs." The slave owners, the aristocrats, and the child-labor factory owners can all be invited to participate in soft landings, but they can't be welcome to carry on as they have.

JeffEngel wrote:Snip
That will take an intensely reformed Church though, maybe even a kind of split one. It's been relatively easy in Charis, with people getting behind a Church that relinquishes its claims to mastery of conscience and Temple Loyalist partners who practically cooperate in religious toleration. If you can insist on religious toleration and make it work, maybe that kind of effective distinction between the Church's role in matters of conscience and the Church's role in making sure your water barrels do not harbor disease organisms can grow in toleration's shade. Maybe, cross your fingers. It will come down to whether or not people want it and if the powers that be allow it.
snip

I believe that the Church of Charis has the beginnings of that split you speak of, Jeff. They reject the Book of Shueler. They did this without losing most of their non-inner circle clergy. That argues some theological support for this position without automatically rejecting the Writ as a whole.

The thrust of this move is not distancing the CoC from their congregants' matters of conscience, but to limit the Church to teaching and persuasion as a response to influencing the congregants' decisions regarding their conscience. One might argue that in order to teach and persuade effectively, the clergy must grow closer with their congregants.

I believe forcing the CoGA to renounce the Book of Shueler is essential for any sort of meaningful change in the Temple Lands. Yet, there lies the problem. The Book of Shueler uses compulsion and the CoC would make compulsion unacceptable. If the CoC forces the CoGA to discard the Book of Shueler, are they not undermining their position on compulsion? I suspect enough people would say yes to discourage using force to change the CoGA.

No, better to have some sort of religious council to discuss the theology and argue the merits of prospective doctrines. As the council of vicars argue, any part of the Inquisition described in the Book of Shueler is suspended from operating. Those that are convicted of braking Laws are punished. Those members of the Inquisition that have not broken laws but whose responsibilities are described in the Book of Shueler may participate in the discussions.

I would recommend that the current Grand Vicar be removed from office/be allowed to resign. The discussions should take place without a Grand Vicar presiding over it. His replacement should be named after the council decides on those pressing issues. I believe the council should be comprised of bishops and archbishops from all the dioceses of Safehold rather than simply the current crop of Vicars.

PeterZ wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:Snip
That will take an intensely reformed Church though, maybe even a kind of split one. It's been relatively easy in Charis, with people getting behind a Church that relinquishes its claims to mastery of conscience and Temple Loyalist partners who practically cooperate in religious toleration. If you can insist on religious toleration and make it work, maybe that kind of effective distinction between the Church's role in matters of conscience and the Church's role in making sure your water barrels do not harbor disease organisms can grow in toleration's shade. Maybe, cross your fingers. It will come down to whether or not people want it and if the powers that be allow it.
snip

I believe that the Church of Charis has the beginnings of that split you speak of, Jeff. They reject the Book of Shueler. They did this without losing most of their non-inner circle clergy. That argues some theological support for this position without automatically rejecting the Writ as a whole.

And, for that matter, the Charisian Temple Loyalists don't seem to be eager to inflict the Punishment on their neighbors, so even the Temple Loyalists there aren't too attached to the Book of Schueler. But yes, some sort of replication of the Church of Charis' position on freedom of conscience is essential, and if you address disagreements with the Punishment, you don't have that.

The thrust of this move is not distancing the CoC from their congregants' matters of conscience, but to limit the Church to teaching and persuasion as a response to influencing the congregants' decisions regarding their conscience. One might argue that in order to teach and persuade effectively, the clergy must grow closer with their congregants.

Well - it does mean that the part of the Church that provides your health care isn't as interested in what you believe as the part of it preaching from the pulpit. I'm not suggesting a distant, uncaring Church. I'm here just suggesting making sure that the public-service branches of the Church are non-denominational, as it were, and that the matters-of-conscience branches aren't wielding coercive power. I don't think you mean to be disagreeing with the former. (Maybe you do disagree - I just don't think it's what you mean to communicate yet.)

I believe forcing the CoGA to renounce the Book of Shueler is essential for any sort of meaningful change in the Temple Lands. Yet, there lies the problem. The Book of Shueler uses compulsion and the CoC would make compulsion unacceptable. If the CoC forces the CoGA to discard the Book of Shueler, are they not undermining their position on compulsion? I suspect enough people would say yes to discourage using force to change the CoGA.

But sheesh - they're free to say that precisely and entirely because no one is compelling them not to! If you have the power to remove the gun that A is holding to B's head, you're not compelling B by doing so, nor are you a generously neutral party when you do leave A with that gun to B's head.

I do think a council to thrash this out is appropriate. As you say, the lack of upset in the Empire under the CoC over "suspending" the Book of Schueler suggests there's room in the Writ for that position. (I'd add a possibility that the Book of Schueler runs too harshly into people's normal sense of right and wrong, beside and apart from the Writ, that they will accept some compromise on the Writ to be rid of it, as at least a contributing factor too.) But if a lot of senior clergy does come out and say that torturing people to death to change their minds is quite all right, it just means that you've identified a lot of senior clergy who need to be kept away from positions of authority: it doesn't mean you've worked up an acceptable theology.

No, better to have some sort of religious council to discuss the theology and argue the merits of prospective doctrines. As the council of vicars argue, any part of the Inquisition described in the Book of Shueler is suspended from operating. Those that are convicted of braking Laws are punished. Those members of the Inquisition that have not broken laws but whose responsibilities are described in the Book of Shueler may participate in the discussions.

I would recommend that the current Grand Vicar be removed from office/be allowed to resign. The discussions should take place without a Grand Vicar presiding over it. His replacement should be named after the council decides on those pressing issues. I believe the council should be comprised of bishops and archbishops from all the dioceses of Safehold rather than simply the current crop of Vicars.

It would be appropriate for either a reconstituted world church, or a friendly group of churches that want to work out just where they agree and disagree about the theology. I don't think that reconstituted world church is going to happen - well, not unless it is so decentralized as to barely count as a single church anyway.

If Safehold is going to resolve itself into national churches, then such a council is going to have to take place for each of them. I could certainly see the Temple Lands, or any other state, remaining occupied by CoC-friendly troops until they did renounce or suspend indefinitely the practice of the Book of Schueler. "You're free to think that kinda thing is okay, but as long as you do, we're keeping you away from sharp objects...."

I could see the Knights of the Temple Lands becoming the TL equivalent of the House of Lords in most of the other lands, with a House of Commons to balance their power.

JeffEngel wrote:Well - it does mean that the part of the Church that provides your health care isn't as interested in what you believe as the part of it preaching from the pulpit. I'm not suggesting a distant, uncaring Church. I'm here just suggesting making sure that the public-service branches of the Church are non-denominational, as it were, and that the matters-of-conscience branches aren't wielding coercive power. I don't think you mean to be disagreeing with the former. (Maybe you do disagree - I just don't think it's what you mean to communicate yet.)

Indeed I do mean that. Yet, I also would prefer to have these functions under the control of a separate Church ministry rather than a government agency. This assumes that because government will still have the monopoly on the use of force, that Church and State MUST be separate. So, the Church(s) of Safehold become the conscience of Safehold to counter the governments of Safehold monopoly on the use of force.

The separation of Church and State for Safehold is a remedy against the sorts of corruption Clyntahn embraced. The ministries would be more multi-denominational rather than non-denominational. The functions of those support ministries would still be Church functions rather than government ones. In this way the ministries would be incentivized to help those that needed it rather than incentivized use other misfortunes for political ends.

On the one hand, you've got the short-term requirements of governance, and on the other, you've got Merlin's determination to ultimately end the Church that Langhorne and co built in all its forms forever. Nimue presumably shares this determination in full, and the others of the Inner Circle likely share this determination to a less immediate extent.


You also have the knowledge amongst the Inner Circle that there is likely to be another war in the probably not too distant future when the Truth gets uncovered, and/or in 20-ish years when the Return happens. Any settlements and arrangements that get made for ending this war and cleaning up the aftermath that they have significant input on will take into account their expectations for those future events.

Starsaber wrote:I could see the Knights of the Temple Lands becoming the TL equivalent of the House of Lords in most of the other lands, with a House of Commons to balance their power.

One issue with that is that the Knights are the Vicarate, and the surviving Vicarate is Safehold's problem. It's a workable structural arrangement, but staffing will require at least a thorough revision of the Vicarate, and quite possibly a reform such that the Knight of a given Temple Land district/province is in some real sense representative to it or responsible to it.

Even then though, it's got some issues. If you don't erect a new hereditary landed aristocracy, you don't get something that's too distinct from the House of Commons. If you do, well, it's arguably backward and certainly an imposition that will be regarded as an invader's idea for some time.

Some sort of bicameral legislature may still work. Having a senior chamber where voting has a hefty property requirement may reassure the powers-that-be, and reconcile Temple Lands Church families to let go Church power and become something still very like an aristocrat. Having a junior chamber without much if any property requirement for voting would give the vast majority of the Temple Lands a direct say in the direction of their own state. And if you plant a long-term Allied viceroy atop the system with the power to legislate in case of deadlocks between the chambers, you give the assembled population of the Temple Lands reason to cooperate with one another (or the viceroy). The viceroy's powers could devolve, over time, in whole or in part, to a prime minister and cabinet selected by those chambers, so that the Allies can eventually get out of the Temple Lands entirely.

The same sort of arrangement may work in some Border States, though they can substitute an actual landed aristocracy, or not.

JeffEngel wrote:One issue with that is that the Knights are the Vicarate, and the surviving Vicarate is Safehold's problem.

Is the Vicarate the Knights of the Temple Lands, or are the Knights just automatically Vicars? That will make a difference how/when the Vicarate is purged and reformed.

In the end, though, the Temple Lands are essentially Feudal Fiefdoms and each will have to be handled independently. Probably they will initially be handled the same as the various fiefdoms in Corisande, Chisholm, and Zebidiah(sp?) were handled: an oath from the feif-holder to refrain from hostile actions against Charis and local autonomy with right-of-departure for dissidents.

A few examples will have to be made, a la the Duke of Zebidiah(sp?), but in general the Temple Lands will simply become independent fiefdoms without the automatic appointment to/from the Vicarate.