Well, let me add my own two isk to the discussion.
The problem of the slavery doesn’t really interest me, so I’ll address the issue of the inheritance.
What does caught my attention is the concept of the generational inherited sin, after all - it sort of covers all bloodlines disregarding their allegiances and Faith, as I imagine it being covered by Imperial beliefs. And I will try to speak with abstract point of view, trying to minimize my personal interest as a non-Amarr who might be a sinner, etc.
And speaking from that point of view, what I do find unacceptable is forgiving somebody without them actually committing any sort of act on their own volition. On the other hand, I do speak about the concept of guilt - you need to actually commit or avoid committing something that you had to commit to be guilty. For example, if one was an Admiral of Federal Navy and rammed a nyx to a station, committing a genocide, act of terror, mass slaughter, warmongering - that surely shall be a guilt. If the nyx went out of the control and Admiral didn’t do anything to stop it from the collision - it would be guilt as well. But if a ship lost control, a captain tried to stop it, but it was unresponsive to the command, ramming something and causing loss of life - there will be no guilt at all. And with this - generational inheritance does not involve action or an inaction of a person. It happens without their own volition. Then how can we discuss whether they shall or shall not be forgiven in the first place?
But, of corse, as I have stated above, I have discussed it from the position of guilt rather than sin. The concept of sin, unfortunately, eludes me and thus it might make my ideas wrong from the start.
And from the position of the guilt you cannot really demand a child to pay for the debts of their parents, because by default they interited only genes - which only enable them to act in one way or another, but do not guarantee the path the children will take. If a father took a debt from a bank, for example, and died, his son has to repay the debt only if he inherited father’s house, father’s hovercar, ship, or anything else. If the child doesn’t put a claim of inheritance on any of parent’s posessions, then the debt could not applied to them as well. If he accepts inheritance, he accepts a debt as well - and does that on his own volition. And for that they will have to answer.
If you break with God, you commit a crime - and as a Caldari I can absolutely understand that, since there’s no really greater crime than a treason. If the God gave you life and everything and you break with Him, you become an ungrateful swine, a filth that deserves a harshest of punishments possible. That is crystal clear. But what about children of these? They didn’t commit the act of treason themselves, so why should they be punished or forgiven for that, since they didn’t do anything themselves? That I don’t understand.
Well, I have said I am not interested in the slavery, yet I will bring it as an example. If you enslave a parent for some crime, you can say you “demote” them in their social status as a punishment, turning them into a certain slave. If they have a children and children will be born as a slave, I can absolutely understand it in terms of castes and social groups. If a children is a born in a certain social group they just belong to it until they commit something to leave that group themselves. But if you say that if parents were slaves, they born a child that is not a slave and is automatically enslaved for the crimes of their parents - that I just fail to understand. I don’t see logic in that at all.