Merlin's Upcoming Conversation with Thirsk

I think both are as Evilauthor posts zealous adherents to the Book of Shueler. The distinction that i speculate exists lies in how they integrate the rest of the Writ to their view of the Book of Shueler. I suspect Rayno does believe the Book of Shueler serve a purpose within the context of the Writ. So Clyntahn is destroying the orthodoxy established after the War of the Fallen.

I also agree both men enjoy the power they wield.

Peter2 wrote:Rayno and Clyntahn are a bonny pair. Both are on the “Power through Religion” pathway, but I cannot decide for certain which comes first, the chicken or the egg. If I had to, I would rate the odds are in favour of Clyntahn’s being the true believer, who believes in the religion and uses the power that it gives him to enforce his version of the religion and maintain his licentious lifestyle. I don’t know how keen he’d be if he had to change his lifestyle to a more moral one. Rayno is, I think, the opposite. He likes power, especially covert power. He is quite happy to ride on the coat-tails of Clyntahn’s religion to get it, but my reading is that he is less dedicated to religion than to power, and if he had to change his beliefs and could do so safely, he might be prepared to do just that.

But I’m quite willing to be convinced either way.
.

Keith_w wrote:

dan92677 wrote:Isn't it interesting how extreme zealots of any ilk certainly seem to screw up the works for the rest of us?

Dan Jones

Are not all zealots, by definition, extreme?

I was just thinking of George Bernard Shaw's quote "Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man".

I suppose there is an element of truth in that, but the "reasonable men" make ever so much more comfortable neighbours!
.

Very true!

evilauthor wrote:

Keith_w wrote:Are not all zealots, by definition, extreme?

Nope. Zealots are just filled with zeal. Which is to say they're really passionate about whatever it is they're zealous about.

Extremist abandon common sense in pursuit of their goal. Common sense like, "Wouldn't this action provoke the exact opposite reaction to what I want?"

Example: A zealous equal rights activist goes to rallies, protest marches, hands out flyers explaining why Equal Rights is a Good Thing, and does it all very enthusiastically.

The extremist decides all that isn't working and goes out to violently attack whoever he identifies as being part of the oppressor group (whether they really are or not). In their single minded pursuit of their goal, they often wind up abandoning the very principles that make their goal "good" to begin with.

The former gets sympathy and respect. The latter is more likely than not to create the exact opposite of his end goal.

I looked it up at Dictionary.com, and it had this to say:

1. a person who shows zeal.

2. an excessively zealous person; fanatic.

3. (initial capital letter) a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.

So from your point of view, meaning #1 fills your need, although I would call a person who shows zeal, zealous, which Dictionary.com defines as:

1. full of, characterized by, or due to zeal; ardently active, devoted, or diligent

Which to me is a more precise definition of what you were expressing. In short, in my point of view, a zealot is a extremely zelous person.

My preference is for #2 and of course, #3 definitely doesn't apply here.

Keith_w wrote:
I looked it up at Dictionary.com, and it had this to say:

1. a person who shows zeal.

2. an excessively zealous person; fanatic.

3. (initial capital letter) a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.

So from your point of view, meaning #1 fills your need, although I would call a person who shows zeal, zealous, which Dictionary.com defines as:

1. full of, characterized by, or due to zeal; ardently active, devoted, or diligent

Which to me is a more precise definition of what you were expressing. In short, in my point of view, a zealot is a extremely zelous person.

My preference is for #2 and of course, #3 definitely doesn't apply here.

This subject is still muddy. Tonight on the news we have the attack on Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs. Assume that the motive here is stopping abortions through terror and even murder. The guy is certainly putting it all on the line for his convictions. A zealot? An extreme zealot? What?

Now think of Mother Teresa or Pope Francis who've lived out their lives expressing their faith by caring for the poor. They also have put it all on the line for their convictions. Zealots? Extreme zealots? What?

Then too, who is it who gets to determine extreme or excessive? Possibly a zealot is merely someone showing more commitment than the person making the judgment is comfortable with.

It doesn't appear to me that the label is particularly useful without a bit more clarity about what it is trying to describe.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:

Keith_w wrote:
I looked it up at Dictionary.com, and it had this to say:

1. a person who shows zeal.

2. an excessively zealous person; fanatic.

3. (initial capital letter) a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.

So from your point of view, meaning #1 fills your need, although I would call a person who shows zeal, zealous, which Dictionary.com defines as:

1. full of, characterized by, or due to zeal; ardently active, devoted, or diligent

Which to me is a more precise definition of what you were expressing. In short, in my point of view, a zealot is a extremely zelous person.

My preference is for #2 and of course, #3 definitely doesn't apply here.

This subject is still muddy. Tonight on the news we have the attack on Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs. Assume that the motive here is stopping abortions through terror and even murder. The guy is certainly putting it all on the line for his convictions. A zealot? An extreme zealot? What?

Now think of Mother Teresa or Pope Francis who've lived out their lives expressing their faith by caring for the poor. They also have put it all on the line for their convictions. Zealots? Extreme zealots? What?

Then too, who is it who gets to determine extreme or excessive? Possibly a zealot is merely someone showing more commitment than the person making the judgment is comfortable with.

It doesn't appear to me that the label is particularly useful without a bit more clarity about what it is trying to describe.

Don

-

He is attempting to achieve his goal by terrorizing abortion providers. Therefore, I would describe him as an anti-abortion Terrorist or Zealot or even extremist. I would not describe him simply as a fanatic. I would describe those who stand outside abortion clinics and harass the women who have had to make a very difficult choice, for whatever reason, as "fanatics". Now let's leave this subject alone, as it is not an appropriate subject for this forum.

Keith_w wrote:
He is attempting to achieve his goal by terrorizing abortion providers. Therefore, I would describe him as an anti-abortion Terrorist or Zealot or even extremist. I would not describe him simply as a fanatic. I would describe those who stand outside abortion clinics and harass the women who have had to make a very difficult choice, for whatever reason, as "fanatics". Now let's leave this subject alone, as it is not an appropriate subject for this forum.

If it makes you more comfortable, consider it in a Safehold context, cuch as the contrast between a Maikel Staynair and Zhaspahr Clyntahn. The point I was making about the utility of the word still stands.

Don

-

Just a quick thought on Clyntahn. One point I think has been missing in the discussion to this point is how his domain of operations has changed. He is clearly intelligent, knowledgable about human motivations up to a point, has zero faith that given a choice people would behave as the Writ (in his view) calls for, an absolute believer in the Writ and proscriptions, and absolutely believes that anything he decides is in line with the Writ and God's will.

Until the end of the OAR, he also operated almost entirely within the Church hierarchy and the Inquisition as these institutions operated normally over the last 500 or so years. In other words, he is a political actor within the Church, and an extremely successful one, as are the other members of the Group of Four. In that context, his instincts were correct that Charis was a danger, although not for the reasons he thought.

With the end of OAR and the success of Charis in repelling the invasion sponsored by the Knights of the Temple Lands, he and the rest of the Group of Four were operating in a sense in the "real world" for the first time, and the limits of their power, and particularly Clyntahn's, were revealed. He is off balance, and has been for most of the series, trying to use what levers of power he has or thinks he has, with limited or no success, except for the Sword and Rakuri, both of which were ultimately irrelevant or unsuccessful.

Magwair on the other hand, rose within the ranks as a political actor, but as it is turning out actually can be an effective military leader, and is recognized as such by the more intelligent officer core, who also recognize the constraints he is dealing with.

The finance position has always required competence, and the church would not let a purely political actor there - they actually have to know what they are doing. Being a good priest is of course of no consequence for that role. Might be a nice to have if anyone bothered to think about it, which I doubt, and many others would share Clyntahn's attitude that caring for the poor is a waste of resources.

Trainer is of course a pure politician, but also a bit more aware of the secular issues at hand. Had he had more backbone, he should have realized the potential outcome of an order to destroy Charis and perhaps prevented it.

Hildum wrote:With the end of OAR and the success of Charis in repelling the invasion sponsored by the Knights of the Temple Lands, he and the rest of the Group of Four were operating in a sense in the "real world" for the first time, and the limits of their power, and particularly Clyntahn's, were revealed. He is off balance, and has been for most of the series, trying to use what levers of power he has or thinks he has, with limited or no success, except for the Sword and Rakuri, both of which were ultimately irrelevant or unsuccessful.

He's also, I think, off-balance because the key Inquisition role of enforcing the Proscriptions has been practically cast aside: anyone can see that lots of innovation that is supposedly demonically-inspired on the other side can be approved as just fine on the Church side, for the needs of the jihad. The Inquisition is effectively saying that their core role in peacetime is usually unnecessary, and "dangerous" innovation is dangerous solely because the Inquisition doesn't like it and will come get you for it - if the armed people it taps to do the threatening heavy-lifting comply.

I don't think Clyntahn's unaware of that, which just makes him more sour, more inclined to hurt people for relief, and more inclined to hurt them to renew the Inquisition's power through fear.

Magwair on the other hand, rose within the ranks as a political actor, but as it is turning out actually can be an effective military leader, and is recognized as such by the more intelligent officer core, who also recognize the constraints he is dealing with.

Prior to the current unpleasantness, the Temple Guard wasn't one of the movers and shakers in the Temple's upper echelons. Magwair's appointment surely owed a lot to political connections, but he's never been in the league of the other three members of the Group of Four for political maneuvering. I think his position leading the Temple Guard owes at least something to an interest and a competence in the Temple Guard's traditional security operations. Given how much difference there is between those and the operations of the Army (much less Navy) of God, that's not a perfect professional background for what he's doing now, but it's vastly better than, say, Trynair's would be for running them. In a way, he's risen to the political aspects of his position - having the confidence and cunning to handle Clyntahn as well as he's been able - as much as to the military leadership ones.

The finance position has always required competence, and the church would not let a purely political actor there - they actually have to know what they are doing. Being a good priest is of course of no consequence for that role. Might be a nice to have if anyone bothered to think about it, which I doubt, and many others would share Clyntahn's attitude that caring for the poor is a waste of resources.

Chances are someone who'd cared that much about that would have been shunted into a role where he wasn't wielding that much power, and would have been happy to be there and been able and expected to use what power he did have the way he wanted to. Duchairn being able to do what he cares to - in that regard, at least - with the resources under his control may owe a lot to the lateness of his moral regeneration.

The old, genially corrupt Church wouldn't have let the monster Clyntahn get where he is - he's far, far too removed from the genial bit! - but it wouldn't've let the saintly-enough Duchairn in his either - not corrupt enough. Magwair's poise and skills wouldn't've been a problem, but they wouldn't've had an outlet either. Trynair's the only one who would still be at home in that Church, and he's the one who's least at home in the one he helped create.

Trainer is of course a pure politician, but also a bit more aware of the secular issues at hand. Had he had more backbone, he should have realized the potential outcome of an order to destroy Charis and perhaps prevented it.

Yeah, but Clyntahn arranged the shock and surprise of his "revelation" of things stinking in Charis to keep the others from having the time or balance to step back and think.

It probably also helped that the Out Islands had been nearly off the Temple's radar for so long. Otherwise - and if the Temple hadn't been so confident and satisfied - the Temple Guard, Temple diplomatic corps, and Treasury may have had their own information sources out there to tell a different story.

Wow that's a first-rate point.

Trynair should be getting lots of ground truth and outright espionage from the Church diplomats, in every realm where Merlin and OWL still allow espionage to operate. It's part of what diplomats are for.

Duchairn controls auditors in every loyal area who have authority to go over any books that might be used to conceal tithe-dodging, which means everything governmental, which means he's got information and the power to investigate ("What's this ledger entry for 'special projects', anyway?").

Maigwair is starting from scratch, but the smarter he is the more likely that he's telling liaison officers to ply their contacts with gifts and drinks.