It depends, I think, on whether said faiths have a history of being proselytising faiths. The trick is to avoid someone who intends to use this as an opportunity to convert the other participants.
3 Likes
I have constructed an initial draft and decided to allow the members of the Intergalactic Summit to view it. Feel free to openly discuss and provide constructive criticism on any potential conflicts.
The name of the structure - which we believe will be an âAstrahusâ, based on current needs - will be âHabor Holisticâ, to better illustrate the atmosphere we wish to create.
I appreciate the recommendation of calling the structure âNot Property of Amarr, For Nowâ, but I believe this is incendiary, if merely by consequence.
2 Likes
What is the purpose of forcing patrons to accept religious freedom in order to participate? This would, in fact, be your project actually forcing its beliefs on others. By all means institute policies to prevent outbreaks of violence, but what you have written so far goes quite beyond that. As they stand now, youâve âtechnicallyâ opened the project to Amarr, but then refused it again under the principles.
3 Likes
Madam Kernher, the Amarr are welcome within the halls of the Harbor Holistic and are welcome to convert others as they see fit⌠but they are under no guarantee of success, and therein must accept the wayward souls (as it were) are afforded the same degree of sanctuary as the Amarr. Perhaps âacceptâ is not the right word, so much as âtolerateâ. If the Amarr cannot afford even that for the duration of their stay, then there is not much that can be done, as all patrons - not just Amarr - are permitted the same unalienable rights.
EDIT: Understand that to do otherwise would be favoritism toward the Amarr faith. Something we intend to avoid.
ADDITIONAL EDIT: Also understand that the fifth principle most applies here: Refrain confusion of tolerance and validation.
3 Likes
I was opposed to terms like ârecognize the rightâ, âaccept the liberty to upholdâ, or ârefrain from the beliefâ. That language to me demands someone believe a certain thing, rather than just avoiding uncivilized discourse or overt coercion.
I, as a member of the Rite, can certainly recognize that someone upholds another religious opinion or form of worship, and refrain from acting in a disruptive way because of their belief, but the Imperial Rite does not recognize any âunalienable right or libertyâ to uphold alternative religions and itâd be disingenuous for a follower of the Rite to agree to do so. Nor can I speak of the Rite without also belief in and intent to convince others to convert â that is endemic to the Reclaiming, which is a core part of the Rite.
Simply, the language as written implies validation, to me, rather than tolerance. I cannot, as a member of the Imperial Rite, agree that there is a right to other beliefs. I can only agree not to act in a way contrary to civilized discourse against followers of other faiths on account of those beliefs.
3 Likes
3 Likes
This a genuinely interesting idea, particularly (from my perspective) if it also allowed people who know relatively little about New Edenâs diverse spiritual practices to learn, rather than being a talking shop for experts only.
âCats in a Bagâ might be a more suitable name, sadly, but I suppose thatâs inevitable and, possibly, part of the whole point.
2 Likes
As I have previously stated, the fifth principle of our mission statement is to refrain confusion of tolerance with validation. The subsequent amendments, apart from being in a rough-draft form, are subsidiary to The Grand Principles and cannot override them. Instead, the amendments are meant to further clarify and narrow their definition on a case-by-case basis.
That said, if youâve a suggestion for better wording, I would be happy to hear it.
2 Likes
I offer myself as a more suitable representative of Khanid Amarr. I see offers from lapsed people, accounts of dead people, and people being wretched about the Kingdom, as usual. Ugh. Always you lot do this. It is DEPRESSING!
At any rate, I feel that in this context I may be a proper authority for you, though I specify naturally that my only authority is as a commoner who is only a proud and natural citizen of the Kingdom, a daughter of its water and soil, and a lifelong celebrant of the Rite.
I can state with this authority already that even my brothers and sisters in the Rite are breathtakingly rude about the entire Kingdom and its practices at every chance they get. Pfff.
6 Likes
Good idea, actually! Nomistrav, there is no more qualified capsuleer to talk your brain out of the back of your head about the Kingdom and itâs intricacies than Miss Qerl.
2 Likes
I donât have a different wording. My suggestion is simply to just remove anything that only speaks on beliefs, as those rules are unnecessary to civil discourse. I do not see how it is necessary to have a rule about âprivate judgment of religious mattersâ, as if guests of your facility would have any kind of capability to intrude on another personâs private judgment of religious matters. Or a rule on someoneâs ability to hold their religious opinions, as if the guests will have any capability of infringing on that.
Iâve nothing else to say on this.
4 Likes
Aww, no love for the Gallente Lunaries?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BylPRCyRtdEYMV85T2FDQ2VzUzB0NDdrNjE4cEh3Ynhna29J/view?usp=sharing
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.