Thoughts from a Newbie: Rose Reads Safehold

n7axw wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
Strong conviction and faith in the service of a bad cause are one of the most damaging things in the history of humanity. No, they do not in and of themselves deserve respect. They deserve respect *only* in the context of the justification that exists for holding and applying them.

Agreed. The difficulty here is that humanity almost never agrees on what a good cause looks like. In most conflicts, there are good people acting in good faith on both sides. What is happening on Safehold rather vividly demonstrates that.

Don

Is that so? So then disagreement of both the belief and the justification for that belief is sufficient to disqualify the believer from any consideration at all? Sounds like looking for an excuse to be intolerant, Don. Very much like Clyntahn, really.

PeterZ wrote:

n7axw wrote:Agreed. The difficulty here is that humanity almost never agrees on what a good cause looks like. In most conflicts, there are good people acting in good faith on both sides. What is happening on Safehold rather vividly demonstrates that.

Don

Is that so? So then disagreement of both the belief and the justification for that belief is sufficient to disqualify the believer from any consideration at all? Sounds like looking for an excuse to be intolerant, Don. Very much like Clyntahn, really.

You appear to be spectacularly missing the point.

The only thing that was stated was that faith and conviction are not automatically praiseworthy. They don't get automatic respect just by existing. They have to earn it, just like everything else.

They can be applied well or poorly. How they are applied damn well matters. You don't just get to declare "Look! I have faith!" and expect applause on that basis alone. What you have faith in and your justifications for applying it as you do are important.

We cannot judge people by their beliefs, only by their actions and the consequences of their actions. I remember reading this once, though I cannot remember where: 'evil done in the name of the light is still evil, just as good done in the name of the dark is still good'. Or something to that effect. And it is very true.

n7axw wrote:

Isilith wrote:I think some of you are making wild assumptions about my motives. I don't hate her, I don't want her to suffer... I said I was looking forward to her meeting the royal executioner. Which is what her actions, and the consequences of her actions, say she DESERVES.

By her actions, she has helped bring about the death and suffering of THOUSANDS of innocents. I don't care what her convictions were, that is evil, and the world will be a better place without that kind of mentality.

To the person who tried to do the "If someone did what she did in support of Charis, they would be a hero"... ummmm, no. Charis has never even thought about committing atrocities against innocents, and acts of terror against civilian targets. So that is an absolute red herring. But, to answer it, if someone on the side of the EoC committed acts that led up to the same, they would not be considered a hero. Not even by the characters in the books.

But someone is doing what she is doing in support of Charis. Not only is Merlin gathering info through the snarcs, Nynian has her covert network. In fact, the allies intel network leaves the other side in the dust.

The lady didn't cause the death of thousands. Her brother did. She may have passed a message from Zion to her brother, but we don't even know that for sure. And if she did, I'm sure she had no idea what was going to happen.

The lady is guilty of treason. The common penalty for that is death. I wouldn't exact it in her case, but your point of view is understandable. Maybe it's best all around if I'm not making the decision.

Don

Well, aren't you a preacher? Preachers are supposed to display a merciful attitude.

One thing that really bothered me about her character was her lack of inner consistency. By the writ, suicide is a mortal sin ( sort of like it is in Catholicism )... yet when her brother killed himself, murdered her cousin ( that she was raised with as a brother ), as well as all the rest that she didn't even try to condemn it, it didn't horrify her as it should have.

Did she stick to the teachings of the "faith" that was supposedly so important to her? That was the reason for her treason? Nope, she was like "Ok god, forgive him for breaking all your laws because he thought it was ok... in fact god, I am going to carry on his work".

That sort of hypocrisy just drives me bat-shit crazy, because that kind of thinking allows you to rationalize ANY action and allow ANY level of atrocity.

hanuman wrote:We cannot judge people by their beliefs, only by their actions and the consequences of their actions. I remember reading this once, though I cannot remember where: 'evil done in the name of the light is still evil, just as good done in the name of the dark is still good'. Or something to that effect. And it is very true.

Very true.

Isilith wrote:

hanuman wrote:We cannot judge people by their beliefs, only by their actions and the consequences of their actions. I remember reading this once, though I cannot remember where: 'evil done in the name of the light is still evil, just as good done in the name of the dark is still good'. Or something to that effect. And it is very true.

Very true.

Indeed it is, yet evades the issue. Who decides what is evil? If that definition cannot be agreed to, what does one use to define evil?

That's my point. Absent an absolute definition or measure, some relative measure must be used. That is essential in being tolerant. In the context of Safehold this idea is captured in Sharleyan's speech in the Judgement Hall in Corisande. She recognized those that fought her believed in their purpose enough to fight. Some were overt in their disagreement and that was laudable. Some were duplicitous and that was contemptible. Holding a belief strongly enough openly declare enmity to Charis earned her respect. Strength of conviction can be a bridge between the two sets of loosing.

Because unless some values are shared, even the most basic negotiations are impossible. All that is left is the imposition of one set of views on the other when there is no common ground to judge the actions of the parties in conflict.

Isilith wrote:One thing that really bothered me about her character was her lack of inner consistency. By the writ, suicide is a mortal sin ( sort of like it is in Catholicism )... yet when her brother killed himself, murdered her cousin ( that she was raised with as a brother ), as well as all the rest that she didn't even try to condemn it, it didn't horrify her as it should have.

Did she stick to the teachings of the "faith" that was supposedly so important to her? That was the reason for her treason? Nope, she was like "Ok god, forgive him for breaking all your laws because he thought it was ok... in fact god, I am going to carry on his work".

That sort of hypocrisy just drives me bat-shit crazy, because that kind of thinking allows you to rationalize ANY action and allow ANY level of atrocity.

At a guess, the sort of suicide that the Writ condemns is the "screw this, I'm outta here" sort, rather than the guy jumping on the live grenade to save his buddies, or going on some other vital mission the planning for which doesn't leave much room for survivors. It's a distinction that a lot of people today would make, to the point that they'd refuse to categorize the grenade-coverer as suicidal at all. (Consider Operation Ark's covering fleet, whose role was to be discovered and killed to decoy the disappearance of the fleet. They're not likely to be condemned for suicide by most people at all inclined to condemn suicide.)

Mind you, there's certainly room for hypocrisy and irresponsible rationalization when it comes to sorting an action into one or the other of those categories.

But anyway, if I recall correctly - I haven't looked back at the text for the occasion - Sahlavahn wasn't eager to die to be gone, he just didn't have a way to live and remain outside of custody (where he might be made to reveal things that would compromise his mission) consistent with getting what he needed to do done.

Don't read this as much defense of him, please. When you've betrayed your country, when your mission has you having to kill a lot of unsuspecting people who trust you personally, when you've diverted lots of gunpowder to people to do very explosive things to unsuspecting noncombatants (specifically: everyone in the large blast radius), it's long past time to reconsider if you're doing the right thing. And Sahlavahn was killing his friends and helping terrorists for Zhaspyr Clyntahn; if Mother Church was speaking through that mouth, anyone should be ready to wash the Temple's mouth out with soap.

I just think that the suicide charge (again, if my recollection is sound - I can certainly be off), or his sister not leveling it at him, isn't a solid hit on either of them. It's not out of the blue, but the wiggle room there is the same sort of wiggle room that would be used in a whole lot of situations by a whole lot of people, who would not ordinarily by judged to have lousy moral judgment on that basis.

In response to Isilith: Yes, I am a preacher and am supposed to show mercy. But that statement is by itself incomplete. By the mercy I am called to show I exemplify the mercy to which God calls everyone. God has made brothers and sisters, one family, of all humankind. Mercy is not merely the province of preachers.

More generally, I remember my mother offering a rule of thumb which seems to fit here: You can't claim to do the work of God at the same time you are acting like the devil.

Words to ponder and live by...

Don

PeterZ wrote:
Indeed it is, yet evades the issue. Who decides what is evil? If that definition cannot be agreed to, what does one use to define evil?

That's my point. Absent an absolute definition or measure, some relative measure must be used. That is essential in being tolerant. In the context of Safehold this idea is captured in Sharleyan's speech in the Judgement Hall in Corisande. She recognized those that fought her believed in their purpose enough to fight. Some were overt in their disagreement and that was laudable. Some were duplicitous and that was contemptible. Holding a belief strongly enough openly declare enmity to Charis earned her respect. Strength of conviction can be a bridge between the two sets of loosing.

Because unless some values are shared, even the most basic negotiations are impossible. All that is left is the imposition of one set of views on the other when there is no common ground to judge the actions of the parties in conflict.

I believe that the laws of God are written on the human heart. That meams that however we might try to rationalize them away, there are indeed values we share. Don't kill, don't steal, don't defraud, don't envy. Don't be abusive of others, honor the humanity of those who stumble. Care for and shelter the vulnerable, especially the very young and the elderly. Give of yourself in loving service to others, shun grudge bearing, shun the temptation to judge others. Offer those who have erred a helping hand up.

I know of no creed that does not enshrine these things in one way or another.

Don

PeterZ wrote:
Indeed it is, yet evades the issue. Who decides what is evil? If that definition cannot be agreed to, what does one use to define evil?

That's my point. Absent an absolute definition or measure, some relative measure must be used. That is essential in being tolerant. In the context of Safehold this idea is captured in Sharleyan's speech in the Judgement Hall in Corisande. She recognized those that fought her believed in their purpose enough to fight. Some were overt in their disagreement and that was laudable. Some were duplicitous and that was contemptible. Holding a belief strongly enough openly declare enmity to Charis earned her respect. Strength of conviction can be a bridge between the two sets of loosing.

Because unless some values are shared, even the most basic negotiations are impossible. All that is left is the imposition of one set of views on the other when there is no common ground to judge the actions of the parties in conflict.

Offer violence only in defense of self and others, never in pursuit of power or greed. That is a value everyone could agree upon, I'd think.

Try to avoid harm to innocents.
Respect the person and property of others.
Remember that we're not the last generation to exist.
Humankind is a social species.
Even the weak have worth.

I can go on and on, but the abovementioned statements represent values that are precious to just about every culture I can think of, and reflect the good in human nature.

I understand and respect your point, though. I even agree with it. Yet the very fact that the values I mentioned above are held dear by the every society and every creed does indeed confirm that there is a very pragmatic, tangible and rational standard that we can apply when we wish to determine 'good' vs 'evil'.