Pavel Young's and Lord Burdette's options

In fact, at the end of the day . . .

The Doctrine of the Test

IS

The Separation of Church and State.

cthia wrote:THERE WILL ALWAYS BE AN IMPLIED AND INHERENT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Even on Grayson.

The State acts on Caesar's behalf . . .

Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

I'm not sure we can make that statement. You and I, living in secular nations at the beginning of the 21st century probably subscribe to that notion. But even right now, that concept is not completely widespread nor even as upheld as we may want it to be. There are still quite a few nations on Earth that do not subscribe to it or do have some remnants of it, like an official state religion.

But the main point is that it need not apply to Grayson. That was founded by a religious group who wanted to be away from others with different religions. It wasn't a secular colony like Manticore or Haven. So it's entirely reasonable to expect that Grayson's Constitution does not contain clauses of separation between Church and State. Their long isolation from the rest of humanity coupled with their hostile world might have made the religious life even more important for Grayson citizens, reinforcing the Doctrine of the Test.

The only thing I'll allow you is that the younger, more progressive generation in Grayson, especially those born after the reopening and the Mayhew Restoration, might agree with you that there should be a separation. Those people have been exposed to the Manticore society and may have chosen it as the standard to emulate. So as time goes by, Grayson society may see a de facto separation happening, which may turn into de jure after a while.

Incidentally, the people exposed to Manticore are also the first people to receive prolong treatments. So yes, change in Grayson society is likely.

cthia wrote:THERE WILL ALWAYS BE AN IMPLIED AND INHERENT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Even on Grayson.

The State acts on Caesar's behalf . . .

Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I'm not sure we can make that statement.

We can make that statement because God or Tester (accepting that God exists) demands that we do so. One cannot serve two masters. Either you serve God or you serve Mammon, whatever your flavor of Mammon. Again, the Doctrine of the Test essentially gives the power to follow your religious convictions because man will never be perfect. Protectors are human as are all politicians. When a Protector becomes corrupt, he has failed the Doctrine of his Test, and it becomes the responsibility of another of Tester's people to rise to his Test. Man with all of his imperfections will never displace God.

ThinksMarkedly wrote: You and I, living in secular nations at the beginning of the 21st century probably subscribe to that notion. But even right now, that concept is not completely widespread nor even as upheld as we may want it to be. There are still quite a few nations on Earth that do not subscribe to it or do have some remnants of it, like an official state religion.

True. And there is no need to exit America's own borders to cite examples of falling from grace, as the Masadans (who may end up being correct in the long run) and Burdette so charge. But that strengthens my notion that Caesar - and his machinations - is fleeting. God and Tester is not fleeting. Grayson's worship Tester. They do not worship idolatries and Protectors. Protectors can not be blindly trusted to choose Tester's path, nor can they be blindly trusted not to be swayed by Mammon. In certain eyes of the Keys, Manticore has always represented Mammon.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:But the main point is that it need not apply to Grayson. That was founded by a religious group who wanted to be away from others with different religions. It wasn't a secular colony like Manticore or Haven. So it's entirely reasonable to expect that Grayson's Constitution does not contain clauses of separation between Church and State. Their long isolation from the rest of humanity coupled with their hostile world might have made the religious life even more important for Grayson citizens, reinforcing the Doctrine of the Test.

Separation of Church and State need not be contained in the Constitution. It NEEDS to be and IT IS contained in the true Christian's constitution because it is contained in God's CONSTITUTION. I am certain that all of man's notions are not necessarily the views and wishes of God.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:The only thing I'll allow you is that the younger, more progressive generation in Grayson, especially those born after the reopening and the Mayhew Restoration, might agree with you that there should be a separation. Those people have been exposed to the Manticore society and may have chosen it as the standard to emulate. So as time goes by, Grayson society may see a de facto separation happening, which may turn into de jure after a while.

Incidentally, the people exposed to Manticore are also the first people to receive prolong treatments. So yes, change in Grayson society is likely.

There will always be a separation of Church and State in the hearts of Chsristians because man and his government oftentimes fumble the ball. Christians may be relegated to living with the lesser of evils. Temporarily.

That is why at the end of the day . . .

The Doctrine of the Test

IS

The Separation of Church and State.

Oops, got caught editing.

.

cthia wrote:
sigh

I READ the books Duckk. I agree I need to reread the entire series. A reread is NOT the same as a first read. At any rate, it does NOT violate ALL of my notions. I accepted that I made an error in the timeline upstream. Because I am human. Most everyone else has made mistakes in the timeline as well, even while they have read the series upteen times. So, however you are feeling that if I read the series the same number of times as the average fan, will, or should, excuse me from being human like everyone else is beyond me. I'll consider the source and catalogue your "usual" in the same folder.

The reason people keep telling you to go back and read the books is a very simple one. You don't remember very important parts - which in and of itself is no big deal. The problem is that you fill in the blanks with what amounts to fan fiction and then argue that your FanFic is right and the books are wrong.

And don't bother denying it - you are doing it in this very thread.

zyffyr wrote:

cthia wrote:
sigh

I READ the books Duckk. I agree I need to reread the entire series. A reread is NOT the same as a first read. At any rate, it does NOT violate ALL of my notions. I accepted that I made an error in the timeline upstream. Because I am human. Most everyone else has made mistakes in the timeline as well, even while they have read the series upteen times. So, however you are feeling that if I read the series the same number of times as the average fan, will, or should, excuse me from being human like everyone else is beyond me. I'll consider the source and catalogue your "usual" in the same folder.

The reason people keep telling you to go back and read the books is a very simple one. You don't remember very important parts - which in and of itself is no big deal. The problem is that you fill in the blanks with what amounts to fan fiction and then argue that your FanFic is right and the books are wrong.

And don't bother denying it - you are doing it in this very thread.

Zyffyr, try and understand this. I create lots of obviously entertaining threads. You are welcome. I open many cans of worms having to remain true to myself. Creating many cerebral discussions in the manner that I do will undoubtedly raise the odds that I will screw up the timeline or yadda yadda yadda. As do everyone else. Statistically it stands to reason I will blunder even more, being considerably more active as I am. Exactly how many per couple hundred posts am I allowed, and still remain human? I don't recall forgetting very important parts. Which is very much different from timeline snafus.

And please kill that lameass accusation of fanfic. Every time I make it hot in the kitchen I get accusations of fanfic.

Let Duckk be the filter of fanfic and swayings too close to politics, shall we?

cthia wrote:Separation of Church and State need not be contained in the Constitution. It NEEDS to be and IT IS contained in the true Christian's cinstitution because it is contained in God's CONSTITUTION. I am certain that all of man's notions are not necessarily the views and wishes of God.

And disagreements over interpretation of scriptures never happen, right? It wouldn't be the first time that passages are either conveniently ignored, twisted, or simply -- innocently -- reinterpreted.

Also mind you that language has changed (and the Bible wasn't written in English in the first place). There's a lot of room for change in 2000 years, half of which in isolation.

Anyway, the point is that, according to the books, there is no separation in Grayson. So, as I tell my junior engineers when trying to debug and correct a problem: don't argue with the evidence. You may only argue that the people whose point of view we saw in the books were flawed or had incorrect or incomplete information, in which case please be more precise with your phrasing.

cthia wrote:THERE WILL ALWAYS BE AN IMPLIED AND INHERENT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

"There will always be"? How does that work in a theocracy? How did that work in Iran after the Shah?

All too often you state something as an inviolate rule of human behavior, which MUST hold true even in a book of science fiction, and ignore both the diversity of human behavior and the artistic freedom of the author. By the decision of the author, there is no separation of church and state on Grayson. By the decision of the author the Protector is not working against the the church, but with the full authority and approval of the church.

Lord Burdette failed his test when, in his arrogance of power, he ordered the death of innocents.

cthia wrote:Separation of Church and State need not be contained in the Constitution. It NEEDS to be and IT IS contained in the true Christian's constitution because it is contained in God's CONSTITUTION. I am certain that all of man's notions are not necessarily the views and wishes of God.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:And disagreements over interpretation of scriptures never happen, right? It wouldn't be the first time that passages are either conveniently ignored, twisted, or simply -- innocently -- reinterpreted.

Nonsequitous???

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Also mind you that language has changed (and the Bible wasn't written in English in the first place). There's a lot of room for change in 2000 years, half of which in isolation.

I wish there was a forum for Religion, but alas there isn't. I wouldn't recommend you create one to argue aspects of the Bible with this unholy crowd. But threads are not the place to argue what most people and scholars accept as the meaning of passages in the Bible. But I am NOT one to deny you the Test of your own convictions.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Anyway, the point is that, according to the books, there is no separation in Grayson.

Again you missed my point for the trees. There IS a separation ON Grayson. It is inherent in the hearts of people. You cannot take someone to Heaven with you. You must rely on your own convictions. You will NOT be excused at the Pearly Gates because you say "The Protector made me do it." Or the convicted Nazis could have claimed Hitler made them do it.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:So, as I tell my junior engineers when trying to debug and correct a problem: don't argue with the evidence. You may only argue that the people whose point of view we saw in the books were flawed or had incorrect or incomplete information, in which case please be more precise with your phrasing.

Take time to properly digest my, oftentimes, very cerebral and oftentimes controversial posts, because I dare look under the skin.

But, as in other threads, the masses usually come around eventually. Oftentimes without even knowing. Please note, I am comfortable being a lone wolf arguing truth. It is easy because Truth supports itself.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:THERE WILL ALWAYS BE AN IMPLIED AND INHERENT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

"There will always be"? How does that work in a theocracy? How did that work in Iran after the Shah?

Why would a Theocracy change the notion?

Theocracy: a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

Does not mean they cannot become corrupt or are corrupt from their founding. Stop looking at this through secular eyes.

tlb wrote:All too often you state something as an inviolate rule of human behavior, which MUST hold true even in a book of science fiction, and ignore both the diversity of human behavior and the artistic freedom of the author.

Guilty as charged, except that part about the author. I oftentimes have to point out the human element in human nature because the masses ALWAYS forget it. But in this case, the artistic freedom of the author cannot change the Will of God. But yes, I've often stated that I have trouble swallowing many pills prescribed by authors. You don't? It is simple, I got balls to respectfully disagree even with the author and bigger balls to admit it. Somewhere on the forum is a thread I created specifically about pills that are hard to swallow. You didn't admit to having any such pills in your medicine cabinet?

tlb wrote:By the decision of the author, there is no separation of church and state on Grayson. By the decision of the author the Protector is not working against the the church, but with the full authority and approval of the church.

sigh

There is no Separation of Church and State in Grayson's laws or Constitution.

Again, it is found at the core of the Doctrine of the Test and the teachings of Tester. The fact that Grayson law allows for man to speak for God does not mean man's tongue will always speak truth. The bullet holes found in the Protector's Palace (?) confirm that.

tlb wrote:Lord Burdette failed his test when, in his arrogance of power, he ordered the death of innocents.

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. Centuries will surely tell. From my vantage point the Protector also failed his.

Orchestrating murder is a gross failure of his Test.

Honor as People's Champion failing to divulge her secret of being able to detect the crease is murder.

Pair that with, paraphrasing, "Benjamin, what do you wish done to this man?"

"I want his head."

cthia wrote:And please kill that lameass accusation of fanfic. Every time I make it hot in the kitchen I get accusations of fanfic.

Sorry, I will refrain from being polite in caliing it fanfic. I will instead use the more accurate term - delusional ramblings.