Pavel Young's and Lord Burdette's options

cthia wrote:The Protector's Champion should, at the very least, have been chosen from a pool of Tester's people. Honor should never have been made Protector's Champion.

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

cthia wrote: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."

The Protector had only two choices: either to allow Honor to fight Burdette or to drop the charges against Burdette. In what way was the Protector countenancing murder by allowing the fight, when he had no expectation that Honor would win? Wouldn't he be countenancing murder, if he let Burdette walk away?

She could not divulge that secret, because she had no surety that she would recognize that crease; as I believe the text makes clear. From Flag in Exile, chapter 29:

She never knew, then or later, what William Fitzclarence's "crease" was. She simply knew she'd recognized it. That something deep inside her saw the moment he committed himself, the instant his arms tightened to bring his blade slashing down.

The instant in which he was entirely focused on the attack, and not on defense.

I have included the earlier quote, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that Honor was the Champion solely through the Protector's choice. That is wrong, she may have been nominated by the the Protector; but that had to be ratified by a vote of the Chamber, the same as the creation of her Steading.

From The Honor of the Queen, chapter 35:

the Chamber has, at my request, authorized the Grant in Organization of a new steading on our southernmost continent. With your permission, we intend to call it the Steading of Harrington, and I ask you to assume the office of its Steadholder for yourself and your heirs.

Her objection was whether it was legal under Manticore law for her to accept the honors of being made a being made a Steadholder and accepting the Star of Grayson, for heroism in the service of their world. She did not know that she had become the Champion, although the Steadholders that voted her the award should have.

PS. The Kentucky Clerk, who refused to be a party to gay marriages because of religious convictions, should have quit in protest; rather than breaking her oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the state. Her actions ended up costing the state about a quarter million dollars in damages.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:The Protector's Champion should, at the very least, have been chosen from a pool of Tester's people. Honor should never have been made Protector's Champion.

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

cthia wrote: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."

The Protector had only two choices: either to allow Honor to fight Burdette or to drop the charges against Burdette. In what way was the Protector countenancing murder by allowing the fight, when he had no expectation that Honor would win? Wouldn't he be countenancing murder, if he let Burdette walk away?

She could not divulge that secret, because she had no surety that she would recognize that crease; as I believe the text makes clear. From Flag in Exile, chapter 29:

She never knew, then or later, what William Fitzclarence's "crease" was. She simply knew she'd recognized it. That something deep inside her saw the moment he committed himself, the instant his arms tightened to bring his blade slashing down.

The instant in which he was entirely focused on the attack, and not on defense.

I have included the earlier quote, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that Honor was the Champion solely through the Protector's choice. That is wrong, she may have been nominated by the the Protector; but that had to be ratified by a vote of the Chamber, the same as the creation of her Steading.

From The Honor of the Queen, chapter 35:

the Chamber has, at my request, authorized the Grant in Organization of a new steading on our southernmost continent. With your permission, we intend to call it the Steading of Harrington, and I ask you to assume the office of its Steadholder for yourself and your heirs.

Her objection was whether it was legal under Manticore law for her to accept the honors of being made a being made a Steadholder and accepting the Star of Grayson, for heroism in the service of their world. She did not know that she had become the Champion, although the Steadholders that voted her the award should have.

PS. The Kentucky Clerk, who refused to be a party to gay marriages because of religious convictions, should have quit in protest; rather than breaking her oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the state. Her actions ended up costing the state about a quarter million dollars in damages.

A quarter million dollars in exchange for saving her soul. What is your soul worth to you?

Dunno if infidels value or acknowledge a soul. Therein lies the disconnect.

Besides, she didn't cost the State anything. The State's own error in the matter cost them. Her actions caused a rewrite of the legal proceedings to what it should have been originally. She won her case.

tlb wrote:The Kentucky Clerk, who refused to be a party to gay marriages because of religious convictions, should have quit in protest; rather than breaking her oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the state. Her actions ended up costing the state about a quarter million dollars in damages.

cthia wrote:A quarter million dollars in exchange for saving her soul. What is your soul worth to you?

Dunno if infidels value or acknowledge a soul. Therein lies the disconnect.

Besides, she didn't cost the State anything. The State's own error in the matter cost them. Her actions caused a rewrite of the legal proceedings to what it should have been originally. She won her case.

So she would have lost her soul if she had quit in protest, how does that work? Perhaps Kentucky does not have an oath of office for country clerks; but if they do, then breaking a sworn oath should also have some effect on that soul.

Essentially your are making the same argument for her as you have for Lord Burdette: that if a person believes they have a higher calling, then it does not matter what secular laws they break (even murder) in the pursuit of that calling. So obeying laws created by society (even a basically religious society) is optional depending on personal belief. In neither case was the individual's soul in danger: she could have quit rather than issuing a license and Burdette could have held firm in his Steading, but their personal pride was not satisfied with that.

PS. It is interesting that you use arguments about Christianity in the conflict between Honor and Burdette; because of the two, it is Honor that is the Christian {specifically Third Stellar Missionary Communion (Reformed)}, whereas the Church of Humanity Unchained is as far from Christianity as Islam (for example).

tlb wrote:The Kentucky Clerk, who refused to be a party to gay marriages because of religious convictions, should have quit in protest; rather than breaking her oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the state. Her actions ended up costing the state about a quarter million dollars in damages.

cthia wrote:A quarter million dollars in exchange for saving her soul. What is your soul worth to you?

Dunno if infidels value or acknowledge a soul. Therein lies the disconnect.

Besides, she didn't cost the State anything. The State's own error in the matter cost them. Her actions caused a rewrite of the legal proceedings to what it should have been originally. She won her case.

tlb wrote:So she would have lost her soul if she had quit in protest, how does that work? Perhaps Kentucky does not have an oath of office for country clerks; but if they do, then breaking a sworn oath should also have some effect on that soul.

So many disconnects in one post. Secular vision blinds.

Christians are charged by their God to fight evil and injustices. She would no more be excused by her God for sitting idly by and allowing injustices to prevail on her watch any more than people who think they are free of having blood on their hands by keeping quiet about Blacks being murdered in the street.

Matthew 25:35-45

When I was hungry, you gave me something to eat, and when I was thirsty, you gave me something to drink. When I was a stranger, you welcomed me, and when I was naked, you gave me clothes to wear. When I was sick, you took care of me, and when I was in jail, you visited me.”

Then the ones who pleased the Lord will ask, “When did we give you something to eat or drink? When did we welcome you as a stranger or give you clothes to wear or visit you while you were sick or in jail?” The king will answer, “Whenever you did it for any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you did it for me.”

Then the king will say to those on his left, “Get away from me! You are under God's curse. Go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels! I was hungry, but you did not give me anything to eat, and I was thirsty, but you did not give me anything to drink. I was a stranger, but you did not welcome me, and I was naked, but you did not give me any clothes to wear. I was sick and in jail, but you did not take care of me.”

Then the people will ask, “Lord, when did we fail to help you when you were hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in jail?” The king will say to them, “Whenever you failed to help any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you failed to do it for me.”

Besides, why should she have to lose her livelihood to religious persecution. Especially in this country which is founded on religious freedom. If she had simply quit, the change to the legal proceedings would not have happened. Plus, she would have wasted a stellar opportunity to speak for God. She passed the Doctrine of her Test.

tlb wrote:Essentially your are making the same argument for her as you have for Lord Burdette: that if a person believes they have a higher calling, then it does not matter what secular laws they break (even murder) in the pursuit of that calling.

Um ::headscratch:: by definition, a HIGHER calling is a no brainer. Especially if the calling is true.

tlb wrote:So obeying laws created by society (even a basically religious society) is optional depending on personal belief. In neither case was the individual's soul in danger: she could have quit rather than issuing a license and Burdette could have held firm in his Steading, but their personal pride was not satisfied with that.

Hell no it ain't optional, neither in the eyes of the State or in the eyes of God. But, a true Christian would rather be true when facing God.

At any rate, and again, God allows for man to give Caesar what is Caesar's. But, do you think there isn't a limit to that? Like when Caesar calls for the extermination of Jews and Blacks?

tlb wrote:PS. It is interesting that you use arguments about Christianity in the conflict between Honor and Burdette; because of the two, it is Honor that is the Christian, whereas the Church of Humanity Unchained is as far from Christianity as Islam (for example).

So secular you are. No matter what the religion is called, if a rose, then by any other name it smells as sweet.

Honor also shows that Christians can stumble. Because man and woman are imperfect. When faced with imperfect man and Christians, one must pass his Test. One cannot pass one's Test if one fails to take one's Test.

tlb wrote:The Kentucky Clerk, who refused to be a party to gay marriages because of religious convictions, should have quit in protest; rather than breaking her oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the state. Her actions ended up costing the state about a quarter million dollars in damages.

cthia wrote:A quarter million dollars in exchange for saving her soul. What is your soul worth to you?

Dunno if infidels value or acknowledge a soul. Therein lies the disconnect.

Besides, she didn't cost the State anything. The State's own error in the matter cost them. Her actions caused a rewrite of the legal proceedings to what it should have been originally. She won her case.

tlb wrote:So she would have lost her soul if she had quit in protest, how does that work? Perhaps Kentucky does not have an oath of office for country clerks; but if they do, then breaking a sworn oath should also have some effect on that soul.

cthia wrote:Christians are charged by their God to fight evil and injustices. She would no more be excused by her God for sitting idly by and allowing injustices to prevail on her watch any more than people who think they are free of having blood on their hands by keeping quiet about Blacks being murdered in the street.

I can see a person calling homosexuality evil (although I do not agree), but where is the injustice that you talk about? How is quitting equivalent to having bloody hands from being silent about murdered blacks? It seems to me that there are orders of magnitude difference between those two actions.

As of October 2020, the courts have allowed the former clerk to be sued over her actions (they denied her claim of qualified immunity). She was voted out of that position in 2018; so if that was her only livelihood, she did lose it due to her notoriety. All in all, she would have been better off quitting in protest.