post-war governance of the Temple Lands

n7axw wrote:Nice post, Randomizer. Yeah, my statement was a bit broad, wasn't it... I was referring to religious belief and practice. And you're right. This is going to be messy. For one thing, the division betweeen sacred and secular is alien to Safehold which means that separating beauty and the beast could get complicated.

Don

Nonsense, Don. Separating the sacred from the secular is simple. It will be difficult to do, but simple to envision.

The entire Writ is a plan to enable humanity to live in harmony with God. Everything in the Writ boils down to that. God has a plan for each individual. God has also allowed each individual the ability to reject Him. If He had not, why does the Church need to coerce anyone? He could have denied his children the ability, the choice to reject Him....and yet He did not. God gave Man free will to embrace evil or good and the responsibility to discern between the two.

Why then should the CoGA embrace a power/authority that God himself declined? Is that not the height of blasphemy? Were not the archangels in their imperfect desire to serve God in error just as Shan-wei was in error to rebel? Perhaps Shan-wei's error and Langhorne's error are linked somehow?

The logic is simple, but the process of persuasion and execution will be difficult.

Randomiser wrote:Don, 'no one should be coerced into anything,' is of course a silly statement with which you disagree. As evidenced by your later comments on child sacrifice where you are very happy for the government to coerce anyone so inclined. Governments coerce people all the time, certainly into paying taxes. Which they need to provide for all kinds of essential social and welfare schemes. Many things we regard as functions of government are exclusively handled by the Church on Safehold and there is no other mechanism for dealing with them. (Education, healthcare, welfare, 'industrial safety', international mediation, etc.) These things will have to continue to be run by the church and they will need a secure funding base to do so in the short to medium term at least. So continued tithes in some form. After all there are practically no atheists, yet, on Safehold so everyone will want to be part of some church.

'No one should be coerced into anything by a church' seems much nearer your viewpoint. Although I do wonder why you think governments can be so much more safely entrusted with that power than churches. I suspect you really envisage a government limited in what it can enforce by an enforceable Bill of Rights.

As for the Temple Lands, it seems that election as a Vicar automatically makes one the Knight and ruler of some part of the Temple Lands. The Vicars don't actually need a princely income to be Vicars, it only fosters the kind of delusions of entitlement which got us here in the first place. So in an ideal world that connection would be broken.

I don't really see the Allies conquering and garrisoning the whole of the Temple Lands so it won't happen that way. Perhaps the new vicarate will pass a self-denying ordinance, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Since Cayleb is not going to end up Emperor of Safehold I think there will be lots of messy bits around the edges of any settlement and the Temple Lands may well be one of them

Maybe not in THIS war. If not, it will mostly be because Siddarmark and the EoC are busy garrisoning other annexed lands.

It seems a segment of posters here want Siddarmark and the EoC to be Utopian like states with saintly rulers. Which really is out of touch with even the reality that RFC has created in his stories.

In Safeholds history, when Siddarmark was attacked they took PLENTY of land from Desnair. Not only that, they have had wars of conquest. As the books state that "most" of their expansion was more diplomatic in nature. Most is clearly implying that there was expansion at sword point.

Let's look at the EoC, someone go tell Corisande, Emerald, and Tarot that the great and noble Charis won't annex their lands if they lose their war of conquest against them. That Charis found a way to diplomatically annex Emerald and Tarot doesn't change the fact that they were GOING TO annex them by the sword... and they DID annex Corisande by the sword. Again, it was fortunate that they found a way to move them from conquered to member-in-good-standing. But they were part of Charis anyway, by conquest.

So, now we have reminded everyone that both Siddarmark and the EoC are both willing to annex territory, at swordpoint. Which means that the Border States/Harchong/Desnair/Silkiah/Dohlar should be very nervous. Especially the Border States.

Not only is this not a bad thing, but it is actually a good thing. Taking territory will reduce the Go4's strength and increase their strength.

Another thing, the stronger Siddarmark and the EoC are, and the more territory they control ( which is why I advocate the EoC claiming the islands and very sparsely populated lands ), the easier it will be to lay the groundwork for a unified government. A Safholdian "Terran Federation" world government. Which then would create Safehold colony worlds under the aegis of that government.

Setting the groundwork for a wold government is going to be almost as important as breaking the proscriptions.

Isilith wrote:

Randomiser wrote:I don't really see the Allies conquering and garrisoning the whole of the Temple Lands so it won't happen that way. Perhaps the new vicarate will pass a self-denying ordinance, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Since Cayleb is not going to end up Emperor of Safehold I think there will be lots of messy bits around the edges of any settlement and the Temple Lands may well be one of them

Maybe not in THIS war. If not, it will mostly be because Siddarmark and the EoC are busy garrisoning other annexed lands.

It seems a segment of posters here want Siddarmark and the EoC to be Utopian like states with saintly rulers. Which really is out of touch with even the reality that RFC has created in his stories.

In Safeholds history, when Siddarmark was attacked they took PLENTY of land from Desnair. Not only that, they have had wars of conquest. As the books state that "most" of their expansion was more diplomatic in nature. Most is clearly implying that there was expansion at sword point.

Certainly some. But a lot of what they seem to have taken from Desnair, judging from the condition of the South March, was near-empty land. It does not establish much of a tradition of imposing Siddarmarkan rule on large numbers of people deeply hostile to it.

That "near-saintliness" you're reading isn't so much that as a combination of two major factors. First, population relative to the mainland in the Out Islands is very, very limited. Throwing around the easy annexation of Silkiah whether they like it or not, for instance, seems to ignore the fact that the population of Silkiah is about equal to that of Charis, Chisholm, and Corisande combined. If they could count on a reasonably legitimate local government with its own intact, loyal police and military forces around to maintain order, as in Corisande, they could count on a garrison for Silkiah - alone - perhaps only triple the garrison they needed in Corisande. And double that for Dohlar, under the same assumption. More than double that for Desnair, if you'd like to occupy that quarter of a continent. And carry on for every other mainland realm you'd like under Allied boots. But do remember that practically-friendly-state assumption, and be sure to sell it for each one of those states.

The other major and related factor is that Charis is looking to annex on a basis of legitimacy and near-term full participation in the Empire, and Siddarmark's democratic traditions have similar implications. These are not states that annex much of anything if they're not willing to bet that the annexees will tolerate it and even approve soon. They can work up other relationships for areas where they can't bet on that. All they really need is to separate states that are enemies essentially due to the Church from the Church, and hold areas that they need to use to conduct the war.

Let's look at the EoC, someone go tell Corisande, Emerald, and Tarot that the great and noble Charis won't annex their lands if they lose their war of conquest against them. That Charis found a way to diplomatically annex Emerald and Tarot doesn't change the fact that they were GOING TO annex them by the sword... and they DID annex Corisande by the sword. Again, it was fortunate that they found a way to move them from conquered to member-in-good-standing. But they were part of Charis anyway, by conquest.

Emerald was going to wait til they found an army somewhere for conquest, if not for an alternative arrangement. Zebediah would have been conquered and occupied, if not for Nahrmahn's connections to have the Grand Duke betray Corisande and invite Charis in. You didn't list Chisholm, presumably because conquering it would have been totally ludicrous and because the diplomatic option there was far and away Plan A. And it wasn't so much "fortunate" that they managed a good, friendly-ish deal with Corisande after whomping or isolating their army and surrounding Manchyr - it was simply vital, if they were to be able to support Siddarmark later without having practically all Chisholm's army tied up keeping Corisande and Chisholm itself under control.

Thanks to that diplomatic option in Tarot, Emerald, Chisholm, and Zebediah - and a diplomatic resolution prepared by military activity in Corisande - the Empire has an army that can fight mainland ones - when they maintain mobility and can use their force multipliers very well. They're doing that while occupying no hostile territory. If they have to conduct such occupations, they will lose huge portions of that field army.

The silk glove over the iron fist isn't particularly a matter of them being the good guys, or tremendous virtue on the part of Charisian or Siddarmark leaders. It's a fundamental part of how they have to deal with people without having swords over their heads all the time, so they can point the swords at real, necessary, current enemies.

So, now we have reminded everyone that both Siddarmark and the EoC are both willing to annex territory, at swordpoint. Which means that the Border States/Harchong/Desnair/Silkiah/Dohlar should be very nervous. Especially the Border States.

Not only is this not a bad thing, but it is actually a good thing. Taking territory will reduce the Go4's strength and increase their strength.

It depends on what the territory is like and how the residents feel about you. Afghanistan, for instance, wasn't a territory that served the Soviet Union well, and occupying Spain didn't make for a net benefit for Napoleon. And when the British played a large role in ushering France out of Spain, they didn't propose to claim it for themselves. They didn't need to, and they'd have the same Spaniards who played the remaining role in that liberation coming for them and making Spain just as useless to them, only more so, because Britain had even fewer soldiers to play cop. That's Charis' position, and with Siddarmark so reduced by civil war, it's their position right now too.

Another thing, the stronger Siddarmark and the EoC are, and the more territory they control ( which is why I advocate the EoC claiming the islands and very sparsely populated lands ), the easier it will be to lay the groundwork for a unified government. A Safholdian "Terran Federation" world government. Which then would create Safehold colony worlds under the aegis of that government.

Setting the groundwork for a wold government is going to be almost as important as breaking the proscriptions.

They have had a world government - really, that's what the Church was. It just had private contractors for some local police work - call them emperors, kings, princes, or lords protector. What happened in Charis (and under Charis' influence, in Emerald, Chisholm, and Tarot, and under its demand in Corisande) was the private police contractor going rogue and the local portion of the world government going along with the rebellion.

Relegitimizing a world government is a project now, along with re-integrating one, someday. Demonstrating that the rebel Empire of Charis and Republic of Siddarmark can produce and conduct good government, in association with their churches, is a much bigger part of that than spreading that government back all over Safehold, and it will be compromised if they turn into ravenous conquistadors. That's not a recommendation to be utter pacificists, but it does mean aiming at resolutions that reconcile military and strategic needs with being tolerable to the people you end up governing, however you do end up governing them.

Those strategic and military needs themselves may count against claiming some islands, with little or no population, if the benefits to be had are outweighed by vulnerability - or when they end up being outweighed after all the investment it'd take to reduce the vulnerability enough. And the more political aspects will be more relevant as the population of the proposed annexed territory goes up.

Sometimes, for some places, it will be quite enough to bring the locals into the Charisian sphere of influence - buying and selling with Charis and Siddarmark and not supporting attacks on either. It's working that way for the Raven Lands at least, probably for the Duchy of Fallos, and intermittently on islands in the Gulf of Dohlar. That may well work for Silkiah at least, and if Cayleb and Sharleyan play their cards right, it may well work out in Delferahk, South Harchong, and Dohlar too - before getting into the really optimistic possibilities.

PeterZ wrote:

God has also allowed each individual the ability to reject Him. If He had not, why does the Church need to coerce anyone?

Excellent question. After giving it some thought I believe the answer to be because maybe God wants the Church to coerce. Suppose God wants the Church to coerce people to obey Him. If so, then it would make no sense to create people as automatons who obeyed Him. If they were automatons then it wouldn't be possible to coerce them to do what they were made for. It would be like me saying I'm going to coerce the sun to radiate brightly tomorrow.

So given that God gave people freedom of choice then it's not possible to conclude that the Church shouldn't coerce.

~Tonto

Jeff, the only area, with a population large enough to make occupation problematical, that I have advocated the EoC occupying, is Silkiah. Even with Silkiah, I have stated that the diplomatic union is preferable, and that the EoC should use the large economic carrot/stick with Silkiah, not just military.

But Silkiah as a part of the EoC would give the Empire, and her allies, a damn near unbreakable stranglehold on the trade/economics of Safehold. Yes, I know Charis already leads the world, but that would push it even further ahead.

As far as Siddarmark, I see them annexing the Border States, they already share a common culture, so annexation isn't as far fetched as, say, annexing core Harchongian provinces.

As far as Harchong and Desnair, they might lose snippets of land/provinces, nothing care. At least to Sidd/EoC, in this war.

Dohlar, I can see a kind of joint protectorate status with Sidd/EoC, hopefully going towards alliance, or at least neutrality when they back off on them. I don't know if Dohlar could be easily occupied, long term, much less annexed. Their population is almost equal to all of the Border States, and it seems their national identity is much stronger than the Border States.

Tonto Silerheels wrote:PeterZ wrote:

God has also allowed each individual the ability to reject Him. If He had not, why does the Church need to coerce anyone?

Excellent question. After giving it some thought I believe the answer to be because maybe God wants the Church to coerce. Suppose God wants the Church to coerce people to obey Him. If so, then it would make no sense to create people as automatons who obeyed Him. If they were automatons then it wouldn't be possible to coerce them to do what they were made for. It would be like me saying I'm going to coerce the sun to radiate brightly tomorrow.

So given that God gave people freedom of choice then it's not possible to conclude that the Church shouldn't coerce.

~Tonto

This delightful post assumes the God of the Writ does not prefer willing obedience so much that He allows for some to reject Him. Had the more coercive elements of the Writ been part of the original Writ, you might have a point.

Instead, the most objectionable elements of coercion was added after Shan-wei's rebellion in the form of the Book of Shueler. Had God truly wanted His children to be coerced, He would have included the varieties of acceptable coercion in the original Writ.

Not doing so argues that he is either not omniscient or prefers willing obedience. If the former, God might discover rejecting coercion might well be pleasing to Him. If the latter, then rejecting coercion will indeed be pleasing to Him.

Isilith wrote:Jeff, the only area, with a population large enough to make occupation problematical, that I have advocated the EoC occupying, is Silkiah. Even with Silkiah, I have stated that the diplomatic union is preferable, and that the EoC should use the large economic carrot/stick with Silkiah, not just military.

But Silkiah as a part of the EoC would give the Empire, and her allies, a damn near unbreakable stranglehold on the trade/economics of Safehold. Yes, I know Charis already leads the world, but that would push it even further ahead.

As far as Siddarmark, I see them annexing the Border States, they already share a common culture, so annexation isn't as far fetched as, say, annexing core Harchongian provinces.

As far as Harchong and Desnair, they might lose snippets of land/provinces, nothing care. At least to Sidd/EoC, in this war.

Dohlar, I can see a kind of joint protectorate status with Sidd/EoC, hopefully going towards alliance, or at least neutrality when they back off on them. I don't know if Dohlar could be easily occupied, long term, much less annexed. Their population is almost equal to all of the Border States, and it seems their national identity is much stronger than the Border States.

All right, that sounds a lot closer to what I'd expect than I've read you as suggesting before. I'd tend to picture Silkiah less as a willing-enough annexation target and more as a plausible third (somewhat junior) partner alongside Siddarmark and Charis. Being the owner and arbiter of oceanic trade through the Salthar Canal, the connection for land-based trade between Howard and Haven, would leave it a natural and powerful partner for the two somewhat larger friendly states. I doubt Silkiahans need much of a stick to become an engaged, useful part of a collective security and trade system, and they'd need a bigger stick than Siddarmark and Charis can spare to become an unwilling annexation target. Save the stick for liberating Silkiah and maybe knocking around Desnair for whatever territory "Greater Silkiah" needs or can use to stand up as a genuine peer. Geographically, it would be a bit peculiar for the Empire to embrace the Out Islands plus this chunk of mainland with its own identity, nearly as much population as the rest of the Empire, and a whole lot of potentially hostile land border. (Compare the Angevin Empire, too cumbersome to live.)

I'm open to hoping the Border States could be that willing to become Siddarmark's new western frontier, but I'm less confident of it than you seem to be. Culturally, are they West Siddarmark, East Temple Lands, or North Dohlar? They're all live possibilities as far as I can tell. What sort of relationship they'd accept with how much trouble will matter for what Siddarmark may reasonably do with them.

Frontier chunks of Harchong or Desnair may not be critical parts those empires would be determined to regain, and those provinces may not have much of a national identity that would be offended. Maybe. We'd have to discuss particulars and know more about them to say. Desnair's North Watch and Harchong's southern islands are particular questions. I just don't want to make the optimistic assumption that the residents are quite content (or even content enough) to move the national borders and become (e.g.) good Silkiahans or the most remote but proud part of the Empire of Charis.

I'm at least as pessimistic as you are regarding occupying Dohlar, so the options that detach them from Zion and work toward friendly, fruitful cooperation with Charis, Siddarmark, and Silkiah really appeal: that kind of option looks like pretty nearly the only practical sort.

Some of these relationships meant to be friendly may well start with a bit of arm-twisting. Tarot's pre-OAR treaty with Charis looks to have been something of the sort. That went badly, but mostly because the Church had so much more carrot and stick to wave under Gorjah's nose and Gorjah felt put-out by the treaty. Rahynld of Dohlar, arm-twisted into a similar treaty, would likely have his nose even more out of joint about it, but if Charis eats all Zion's carrots and breaks their sticks, Rahnyld and Dohlar would have plenty of leisure to relax and enjoy the relationship and Cayleb and Sharleyan the same time to make it comfortable. (Rahnyld is also entirely welcome to abdicate, of course. Heck, he can be encouraged to do so to save personal face if he wants when Dohlar has to surrender. His heir won't necessarily have his ego, especially coming to the throne under that sort of circumstance.)

PeterZ wrote:

This delightful post...

Wow, thank you very much! I'm flattered. In return let me say that I really appreciate your posts, I admire the amount of thought you put into them, the eloquent way you present them, and your willingness to share them with us.

assumes the God of the Writ does not prefer willing obedience so much that He allows for some to reject Him. Had the more coercive elements of the Writ been part of the original Writ, you might have a point.

I disagree. Let's be Euclidean about this and go directly to the most difficult case. Let's assume that the God of the Writ exists, that we're pre-Book-of-Scheuler and pre-Book-of-Chihiro, and that God gave man free-will. The question becomes, "does God want the Church to coerce?" The answer is, at least my answer is, that there isn't enough information to decide. The way I worded it earlier is, "it's not possible to conclude that the Church shouldn't coerce."

Restated without the double negatives it becomes, "it's possible to conclude that the Church should coerce." That's true in the sense that the conclusion doesn't contradict the premisses. It's also possible to conclude that the Church shouldn't coerce, in the sense that this conclusion also doesn't contradict the premisses. Whether the Church should coerce is independent of the premisses. It's possible for all of the premisses to be true and for the conclusion (either one) to be true.

Had God truly wanted His children to be coerced, He would have included the varieties of acceptable coercion in the original Writ.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I'm certain that given a week or so I could think of multiple scenarios where God could have wanted man to be coerced, but wouldn't have included it in the original Writ.

Not doing so argues that he is either not omniscient or prefers willing obedience.

I can see other possibilities as well. Perhaps God's omniscient but the archangels aren't. Or perhaps they wrote the more important books first. Or perhaps the coercive books weren't needed until later, despite their importance. Or perhaps writing the coercive books earlier would have some bad results that could have been avoided by delaying them. Or, heck, perhaps the God of the Writ isn't omniscient.

~Tonto

Tonto Silerheels wrote:PeterZ wrote:

This delightful post...

Wow, thank you very much! I'm flattered. In return let me say that I really appreciate your posts, I admire the amount of thought you put into them, the eloquent way you present them, and your willingness to share them with us.

assumes the God of the Writ does not prefer willing obedience so much that He allows for some to reject Him. Had the more coercive elements of the Writ been part of the original Writ, you might have a point.

I disagree. Let's be Euclidean about this and go directly to the most difficult case. Let's assume that the God of the Writ exists, that we're pre-Book-of-Scheuler and pre-Book-of-Chihiro, and that God gave man free-will. The question becomes, "does God want the Church to coerce?" The answer is, at least my answer is, that there isn't enough information to decide. The way I worded it earlier is, "it's not possible to conclude that the Church shouldn't coerce."

Restated without the double negatives it becomes, "it's possible to conclude that the Church should coerce." That's true in the sense that the conclusion doesn't contradict the premisses. It's also possible to conclude that the Church shouldn't coerce, in the sense that this conclusion also doesn't contradict the premisses. Whether the Church should coerce is independent of the premisses. It's possible for all of the premisses to be true and for the conclusion (either one) to be true.

Indeed it is possible that the God of the Writ does want man to be coerced...logically anyway. Whether this coincides with or is contradicted by what else is written in the Writ is for RFC to say.

It is however, easier for the layman to believe that God prefers willing obedience rather than compulsion. That preference of God's would then create a hierarchy of values to argue for a given position pending the great reveal.

Had God truly wanted His children to be coerced, He would have included the varieties of acceptable coercion in the original Writ.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I'm certain that given a week or so I could think of multiple scenarios where God could have wanted man to be coerced, but wouldn't have included it in the original Writ.

Indeed so. Yet the point is not really to present an unassailable argument but to create a forum where the fundamental values of the Writ atre discussed openly in this fashion.

Not doing so argues that he is either not omniscient or prefers willing obedience.

I can see other possibilities as well. Perhaps God's omniscient but the archangels aren't. Or perhaps they wrote the more important books first. Or perhaps the coercive books weren't needed until later, despite their importance. Or perhaps writing the coercive books earlier would have some bad results that could have been avoided by delaying them. Or, heck, perhaps the God of the Writ isn't omniscient.

~Tonto

Absolutely. The method to separate the secular from the sacred is simple. Engage in these discussions and undermine the perception that CoGA interpretation of doctrine is the catholic one. It may be the correct one but it is not the universal one. These sorts of logical exercises are but one of the many simple but difficult ways in which Safeholdians will define what is sacred and what is secular about the religion they give their faith to.

PeterZ wrote:

Indeed it is possible that the God of the Writ does want man to be coerced...logically anyway. Whether this coincides with or is contradicted by what else is written in the Writ is for RFC to say.

I agree.

It is however, easier for the layman to believe that God prefers willing obedience rather than compulsion. That preference of God's would then create a hierarchy of values to argue for a given position pending the great reveal.

I agree.

Yet the point is not really to present an unassailable argument but to create a forum where the fundamental values of the Writ atre discussed openly in this fashion.

I see.

The method to separate the secular from the sacred is simple. Engage in these discussions and undermine the perception that CoGA interpretation of doctrine is the catholic one. It may be the correct one but it is not the universal one. These sorts of logical exercises are but one of the many simple but difficult ways in which Safeholdians will define what is sacred and what is secular about the religion they give their faith to.

I agree. On balance I would have to say that God's grant of free will to man provides strong evidence that God doesn't want the Church of God Awaiting to be coercive, depending, as you say, on what else is in the writ.

~Tonto