Sanguis Astroism

[Chenier]

Determining if FR is or isn't a theocracy as far as the church is involved really seems like it should be debated IC, not here on the forums. This whole debate seems utterly pointless... not to mention extremely repetitive in argument.

[Glaumring the Fox]

Good, seems like the framework to allow Asylon to join SA as a monarchy/theocracy with multiple religions is ok then?

[Indirik]

This debate has hapened IC, and I have no doubt it will again. I am really not sure how it will end up. There are big names on both sides of the debate.

[Stabbity]

Good, seems like the framework to allow Asylon to join SA as a monarchy/theocracy with multiple religions is ok then?

They're about as close the definition of a theocracy as FR is.

What everyone is missing here, well at least the mootlings on the Elder council, is that the charter identifies there is a difference between a realm such as FR and the theocracies, and despite what they seem to have convinced themselves: Provides zero definition of what constitutes a theocracy. It outlines privileges and responsibilities sure, but if a bird and glaumring have the same privileges and responsibilities, does it stand to argue that glaumring is a bird, or stand to argue that glaumring is only a bird if he lays eggs, has feathers, and flies around all day? Sure, Glaumring and the bird can sit in a cage all day nibbling at seed and crapping on everything, required only to sing an occasional song but that doesn't make the bird a raving blood moon fruit consuming lunatic with a persecution conflict and bad taste in allies.

[Penchant]

No, he's saying that she can't be an elder because FR isn't a theocracy. It's a provable IC fact, because government style *is* an IC thing. It is obvious that the label is more important to FR than being a full partner in the church. That's fine, it's their choice.

This is something that I consider BS. For one, there is not a single theocracy of SA not led by a heretic. There are though some ecclesiocracy's of SA. Btw, theocratic Republic is a government form that would make FR fitting to the definition of a theocracy, which they are so bam. That's like saying D'hara is a just a monarchy. We are a monarchy technically, but we are very specific in our type as it changes it greatly to the extent we are the opposite of a traditional monarchy. Found it:

D'Hara is a constitutional monarchy with strong republican traditions. The realm is known as the Kingdom of D'Hara or the Merchant Republic of D'Hara, though the latter is generally preferred at present

So touting around that one of the BS things that can't be changed makes them it impossible for FR to be a theocracy while a republic, is BS. Btw, the charter does not specify that FR is in the third catergory, nor does the lack of a defintion of a theocracy mean that FR can't be one.

[Bjarnson]

They're about as close the definition of a theocracy as FR is.

What everyone is missing here, well at least the mootlings on the Elder council, is that the charter identifies there is a difference between a realm such as FR and the theocracies, and despite what they seem to have convinced themselves: Provides zero definition of what constitutes a theocracy. It outlines privileges and responsibilities sure, but if a bird and glaumring have the same privileges and responsibilities, does it stand to argue that glaumring is a bird, or stand to argue that glaumring is only a bird if he lays eggs, has feathers, and flies around all day? Sure, Glaumring and the bird can sit in a cage all day nibbling at seed and crapping on everything, required only to sing an occasional song but that doesn't make the bird a raving blood moon fruit consuming lunatic with a persecution conflict and bad taste in allies.

I love your example! =D

[Penchant]

I love your example! =D

Stabbity is pretty !@#$ing awesome with things like that.

[Stabbity]

This is something that I consider BS. For one, there is not a single theocracy of SA not led by a heretic. There are though some ecclesiocracy's of SA. Btw, theocratic Republic is a government form that would make FR fitting to the definition of a theocracy, which they are so bam. That's like saying D'hara is a just a monarchy. We are a monarchy technically, but we are very specific in our type as it changes it greatly to the extent we are the opposite of a traditional monarchy. Found it:So touting around that one of the BS things that can't be changed makes them it impossible for FR to be a theocracy while a republic, is BS.

Saying "So bam" doesn't prove a point, especially when there is little, or no evidence or explanation backing any of your arguments.

Every SA theocracy is lead by a heretic? Let me check.... Oh wait, they're not. However, when you look at D'hara, it is beyond all doubts, a Monarchy. It has a King. Granted it has a constitution, and embraces some vaguely republican ideals, but it is still a monarchy.

FR had a chance to be a theocracy. They spit in the church's eye and chose to place Republican ideology above the Church. That is the most important thing everyone is missing here. If you place another ideal above the church, guess what the makes you? Not a theocracy. That is the absolute most defining portion of a theocracy, is that the Church is held above all else.

[Marlboro]

Really hope the IC arguments against FR's rights go as venomously as they do on the forums. I really do. 

[cenrae]

I'm sure they will i'm getting ready to address the faithful...

[Indirik]

Oh, they usually are. Arguments in SA are legendary.

[Glaumring the Fox]

They're about as close the definition of a theocracy as FR is.

What everyone is missing here, well at least the mootlings on the Elder council, is that the charter identifies there is a difference between a realm such as FR and the theocracies, and despite what they seem to have convinced themselves: Provides zero definition of what constitutes a theocracy. It outlines privileges and responsibilities sure, but if a bird and glaumring have the same privileges and responsibilities, does it stand to argue that glaumring is a bird, or stand to argue that glaumring is only a bird if he lays eggs, has feathers, and flies around all day? Sure, Glaumring and the bird can sit in a cage all day nibbling at seed and crapping on everything, required only to sing an occasional song but that doesn't make the bird a raving blood moon fruit consuming lunatic with a persecution conflict and bad taste in allies.

I had to read that a few times to wrap my head around it.... You rock.

[JeVondair]

...the charter...Provides zero definition of what constitutes a theocracy.

[Stabbity]

It does not define a theocracy. Outlining privelleges and responsibilities is not defining something.  Plus we all know Rynn doesn't have a good history with charters though .

[Indirik]

The charter also doesn't define the word "is". It's not a dictionary.