86 réponses à ce sujet

[Eveangaline]

You're quibbling over semantics. The King doesn't legally have the authority to declare the Circle of Ferelden free.

 

I never said he did? I said calling his action a violation of the seperation of church and state was 100% wrong and that having the chant make laws is a violation of church and state. Which it is.

 

Although technically if the laws of ferelden say the King can overturn previous laws, like allowing the chantry to make laws, then yes he would have the legal authourity to declare the circle of ferelden free. We don't really know the specifics of Ferelden law enough to know if they allow for that, do we? (Seriously do we I haven't read the books and if they go into the specifics of what the law says kings can and can't do that'd be helpful to know)

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Well, it's similar in that the head of state can't tell a religious organization how to conduct their business.

[Eveangaline]

Well, it's similar in that the head of state can't tell a religious organization how to conduct their business.

It really isn't because there's a difference betweren a religion conducting their business and a religion getting to make laws. For instance, probably any mage that wanted to be part of a chantry run circle could still approach a chantry and be like "hey send me to some place where templars and chantry run the show". And the chantry would be allowed to do so.

 

They just can't legally force people who don't want to follow part of their religion that involves locking up mages to do so.

 

Like ok lets say in the US someone said "my religion says I should go make everyone part of my religion" if the law said 'no you can't go preach and tell people they should join or burn in hell' then that's violation of church and state.

 

HOwever if the law said "preach all you wan't but you can't make laws forcing people in other religions or people who don't follow your religion that strictly to follow the strictest version of your religion" that would be upholding the seperation of church and state.

 

The chant is probably free to build a big building and call it the circle and talk willing mages into staying there. THey just can't force people.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I understand how there isn't a separation of church and state in Ferelden. I'm saying certain aspects of how the Chantry and the secular ruler of Ferelden divide up governing responsibilities are similar.

[Eveangaline]

I understand how there isn't a separation of church and state in Ferelden. I'm saying certain aspects of how the Chantry and the secular ruler of Ferelden divide up governing responsibilities are similar.

Except it's not similar at all because letting a church have governing responsabilities at all is a violation of church and state. Letting a church have any LEGAL authourity over others or say in the creation of laws over others is a violation of church and state. It doesn't matter if they divide up governing responsibliities any legal governing responsabilities being held by a church is a violation of church and state.

 

What do you think the seperation of church and state is, exactly? It's not "Well the church gets to make some laws and the state gets to make some laws" It's "The state makes all the laws so you can't force others to follow your religious rules but they can't force you not to practice your religion or force other peoples religious rules on you"

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Are you guys seriously squabbling over this? I removed it from my post. Happy now, Eveangaline?

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I think you're overestimating how closely related I think the situations are when I say "similar." They are similar. Just in a very vague sense.

 

The King can't tell the Chantry how to handle certain matters.

The President can't tell churches how to handle certain matters.

 

That's all I meant. The rest of the differences are beside the point.

[Eveangaline]

Are you guys seriously squabbling over this? I removed it from my post. Happy now, Eveangaline?

 

Now I am off to argue with people who say it violates their freedom of speech when their opinion gets called dumb! Pedantic arguer awaaaaaaaaaay! Ahah but seriously it's not like this is a big blowout it's just a discussion of what terms mean.

[Chari]

Ahem. Chantry has more authority than even royalty does. Even kings would have to go to a circle if they suddenly gained magic abilities
And in Thedas a concept of civil rights is non existent.

[Eveangaline]

I think you're overestimating how closely related I think the situations are when I say "similar." They are similar. Just in a very vague sense.

 

The King can't tell the Chantry how to handle certain matters.

The President can't tell churches how to handle certain matters.

 

That's all I meant. The rest of the differences are beside the point.

 

But if the king is telling the chantry not to enforce or make laws then he is literally doing the exact opposite of violating the seperation of church and state. Like, those "certain matters" make all the difference. You can't say him doing literally the exact opposite of violating the seperation of church and state is similar to violating the seperation of church and state.

[Chari]

But if the king is telling the chantry not to enforce or make laws then he is literally doing the exact opposite of violating the seperation of church and state. Like, those "certain matters" make all the difference. You can't say him doing literally the exact opposite of violating the seperation of church and state is similar to violating the seperation of church and state.

He does go against the chantry's rules and laws. So he doesn't do the opposite. He does the exact thing

[Eveangaline]

He does go against the chantry's rules and laws. So he doesn't do the opposite. He does the exact thing

Letting the chantry make legal laws at all is a violation of church and state. Telling them they can't make legal laws forcing their practices on people who don't want to partake in the chantrys religious custom of locking up mages is upholding the seperation of church and state.

 

Like I said if you think the chantry getting to make legal laws on mages is good, that's fine, bu say that, don't say it violates the seperation of church and state because that's entirely innacurate.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

But if the king is telling the chantry not to enforce or make laws then he is literally doing the exact opposite of violating the seperation of church and state. Like, those "certain matters" make all the difference. You can't say him doing literally the exact opposite of violating the seperation of church and state is similar to violating the seperation of church and state.

 

I don't understand. Do you really think I'm arguing that Ferelden does have separation of church and state? I pointed out the one small thing that both situations have in common. The differences are irrelevant to my point.

[The Night Haunter]

But if the king is telling the chantry not to enforce or make laws then he is literally doing the exact opposite of violating the seperation of church and state. Like, those "certain matters" make all the difference. You can't say him doing literally the exact opposite of violating the seperation of church and state is similar to violating the seperation of church and state.

That only applies to your definition of church and state. There are other definitions, especially since Thedas isn't the real world.

Church laws and state laws could be thought of as Federal laws and state laws (for US citizens, or others who are familiar with our system). Federal Law applies to all the US, but state laws apply to only a specific state. Chantry law applies to all Thedas (bar Rivain and Tevinter, and Qun occupied land), while State laws apply within a nation. The seperation of church and state in this case is the separation between globally applied laws that are restricted to religous matters (including magic in all its forms) and laws upheld by a Monarch.

[Chari]

Letting the chantry make legal laws at all is a violation of church and state. Telling them they can't make legal laws forcing their practices on people who don't want to partake in the chantrys religious custom of locking up mages is upholding the seperation of church and state.

Like I said if you think the chantry getting to make legal laws on mages is good, that's fine, bu say that, don't say it violates the seperation of church and state because that's entirely innacurate.

So government having more power than chantry is OK and the opposite is terrible
I'm so done with imbecilic religionphobia on this forum

[Eveangaline]

I don't understand. Do you really think I'm arguing that Ferelden does have separation of Church and State? I pointed out the one thing that both situations have in common. The different are irrelevant to my point.

 

No I don't think you're saying that at all. We all know Ferelden does not yet have any laws about the seperation of church and state.

 

I'm saying that you can't say one person upholding a seperation of church and state is similar to another person violationg the seperation of church and state.

 

That's like saying "That one time that guy robbed someone is similar to this time a guy gave money to someone, because money was involved. That's why giving someone money is similar to robbing them".

[Eveangaline]

So government having more power than chantry is OK and the opposite is terrible
I'm so done with imbecilic religionphobia on this forum

 

I..didn't say that? If you're pro-church and state not being seperate that's fine? That's your call. I'm saying that seperation of church and state means "State makes all the laws so you can't make laws to force your religion on other people, but also does not prevent you from preaching or practicing your religion, and keeps you save from other people trying to make laws to force their religion on you". Letting the Chantry make laws and force mages to comply with them is a violation of church and state. That's pretty much the exact definition of a violation of church and state.

 

 

That only applies to your definition of church and state. There are other definitions, especially since Thedas isn't the real world.

Church laws and state laws could be thought of as Federal laws and state laws (for US citizens, or others who are familiar with our system). Federal Law applies to all the US, but state laws apply to only a specific state. Chantry law applies to all Thedas (bar Rivain and Tevinter, and Qun occupied land), while State laws apply within a nation. The seperation of church and state in this case is the separation between globally applied laws that are restricted to religous matters (including magic in all its forms) and laws upheld by a Monarch.

 

But in this case this doesn't make it not a violation of church and state it just means that the church and the federal law are one in the same. Obviously there aren't laws in Thedas barring seperation of church and state and I'm not arguing they do, I'm just saying that calling what Alistair did 'a violation of the seperation of church and state' is innacurate.

[The Night Haunter]

I..didn't say that? If you're pro-church and state not being seperate that's fine? That's your call. I'm saying that seperation of church and state means "State makes all the laws so you can't make laws to force your religion on other people, but also does not prevent you from preaching or practicing your religion, and keeps you save from other people trying to make laws to force their religion on you". Letting the Chantry make laws and force mages to comply with them is a violation of church and state. That's pretty much the exact definition of a violation of church and state.

That's your definition of separation. Nothing in any dictionary says that is the only (or even correct) definition. Other nations besides America have varying views on this, many of which could still be considered a separation between church and state.

[Eveangaline]

That's your definition of separation. Nothing in any dictionary says that is the only (or even correct) definition. Other nations besides America have varying views on this, many of which could still be considered a separation between church and state.

 

What nations say there's a seperation of church and state but still let religions make legally enforceable laws? Don't pretty much all countries that let religions make laws just say that church and state don't have a reason to be seperate?

[The Night Haunter]

Turkey has a seperation between Church and State (very much so when compared to most other Islamic nations), but there are still laws dictated in the past by religion that are enforced (in the more inland areas at least). Other Eastern nations have varying levels of this as well.

[Eveangaline]

Turkey has a seperation between Church and State (very much so when compared to most other Islamic nations), but there are still laws dictated in the past by religion that are enforced (in the more inland areas at least). Other Eastern nations have varying levels of this as well.

 

And what do these countries define the seperation of church and state of? The US defines it how I did upthread but we often find ourselves having to overturn old laws that still exist that are religion based (or having to take new ones to court to get overturned because they're religion based), so the existance of antiquated laws isn't necessarily a sign that they define the seperation of church and state differently, just that they haven't gotten around to updating those laws to fit with their stance of seperation of church and state.

[Wolfen09]

it was my understanding that the chantry governed the mages, not the nation they were in...  i see the circle as more of an embassy, yeah they have to obey the basic laws like no killing etc, but when it comes to judgement within, it falls to the governing body, not the nation

[AkiKishi]

Alistairs doing a Henry VIII. 

[Eveangaline]

it was my understanding that the chantry governed the mages, not the nation they were in...  i see the circle as more of an embassy, yeah they have to obey the basic laws like no killing etc, but when it comes to judgement within, it falls to the governing body, not the nation

True but mages are still citizens of the countries they are in. So if the chantry gets to take them from their homes as children without being prosecuted under the basic laws like "Don't take children from their homes that's kidnapping" or take mages that don't want to go with them without being charged with holding people against their will, that means that the chantry does get to make some rules in regards to the law or at least get to be allowed to break them. I mean I'm assuming other agencies aren't allowed to take children or adults who don't want to go with them. 

 

Plus an embessy generally is dealing with their own people. A circle in ferlden gets annulled and that ruling is being handed down by a non-mage in orlais.

 

Heck if they could get their hands on dalish mages they'd take them to the circle, and they don't even follow the chant of light.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The ruling for the Right of Annulment would come from the Ferelden Grand Cleric in Denerim.