Intergalactic Summit

You're the one promoting liberal economic interests over enforcement of traditional values.

Scripture dictates how Holders should conduct business in Amarr.

This is clearly a pet cause of your Samira, I'm sure brought on by your personal experiences. People who are not Holders are already NOT permitted to buy slaves. If such a one does then of course they should be punished.

War is and always will be at the forefront of my family's concerns, not the freeing or comfort of slaves. War demands weapons, and weapons demand raw materials created or mined partially by slaves like the ones working in my mines and factories. It is glorious combat that will enforce righteousness. This is not glorious combat. This is bureaucracy!

You are saying that Holders are somehow currently breaking with scripture by facilitating the ease of putting slaves to honest and Godly work. There is no better work that contributes to the glory of the Amarr, which is the glory of God in the material world, than the work my family and other honorable hard working Holder families puts them towards. We work as hard as our slaves, if not harder.

Furthermore you are saying that we should enforce His Will. I am saying that to enforce that Will, laws have to have been broken. Even if a non-holder should purchase a slave, it may be that that non-holder will deliver it to a Godly market where they know proper Holder will give them a fair price and thus I believe they redeem themselves. I would not punish such a one.

That would be a very minor sin. There are greater sins, for example, fighting against Amarrian people in rebelliousness. I don't see any Amarrians complaining about that sin.

This isn't a "petition" to punish someone who has broken His Law or Man's Law. This is a "petition" to force unnecessary hardship specifically on Amarrian businessmen of the Holder class.

Restricting the passage of slaves through the Empire like this will only hurt my business and the business of other Holders. hurting business for Amarr hurts the War effort, and hurting the War effort is an affront to God's will!

My Ladies,

Perhaps we do things a bit differently in Khanid. Actually, I'm sure we do.

I was raised to believe in the Law of the Conservation Energy, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch and when a Grand Inquisitor or the Council makes a ruling on something, you do NOT argue.

Ms. Vailatti's quote is older, but it is authentic. You may say it's wrong if you like but I'm not going to suggest a Grand Inquisitor does not know what he's talking about in an open forum. Until the Order or the Council redacts and clarifies the issue further I'm going to work under the assumption that they know what they're talking about.

Traditionally, Slaves were the responsibility of Holders alone. Traditions change. Laws change. Treaties change. I'll abide by the decisions of my betters in the Order. I pray all members of the Empire, no matter how Liberal or Conservative follow suit. Now is the time for solidarity, not division.

Slavery in the Kingdom and the Empire is not going to change through our actions. To suggest otherwise is an exercise in ego and futility.

I think you are right in that there might be a little apparent inconsistency, but I think just asking politely why would probably achieve more than just accusing the Civic Court again of... what, if Scripture violation ? Heresy ? Sin ?

"... this should be rectified."

Um...that's actually saying he's wrong dear.

Including everything you've said beforehand.

We're a lot alike. So take the protip. Nod, smile and keep your opinions off GalNet.

I think we can agree that CONCORD's view of slavery is wrong. When people start saying the Empire is wrong with it, is how people end up in a cleansing pit.

Until such a time as the King or Empress says otherwise, the treaties involved were signed for a reason and we must publicly support that 'k?

We respectfully point out that your tone, Ms. Valatti seems uncomfortably close to being disrespectful.



Some of the legal interpretations in this conversation cause us to shudder. We will attempt to offer our amicus opinion instead:

1. The Scripture is very clear about Holders and Holders alone having the right to own slaves. "Own" in this case, is finishing a business transaction at the end of which one comes to legally assume claim of property.

2. The Ministry of Internal Order statement is not rewriting Scripture. In fact, neither the MIO nor the Inquisitor has the authority to rewrite Scripture at all, Scripture which quite literally backs our Statement One. As the faithful, we would be forced to question any interpretation that extends the right of slave ownership to non-Holders, even an interpretation made surreptitiously by the MIO.

3. The Empire's entrance into CONCORD requires certain civic policies that The Empress, and by extension the Ministry must declare as law. This is exactly what Grand Inquisitor Omel is stating. If he was interpreting Scripture, he would have clearly stated so, thus it is our conclusion that he is not discussing a Scriptural matter at all.

4. The Amarr need not offer any apologies for having a more narrow and conservative view of Scripture and Theological Law. Lieutenant Kernher's view is the classic Amarr view on the matter, and this type of belief withstands any Inquisitory scrunity by benefit of its own piety.



The open rules about SCC transactions is a legal burden to bear by The Empress and The Ministry, but it does not mean that CONCORD membership for Empire comes with no moral cost. The moral cost is that we would have to avert our eyes from Scripture to accept the legality of the SCC. We are not sure why this point is under debate at all.

I wonder what the IGS would debate about if slavery were not... a thing...

On the one hand you have the practicioners of a maladjusticed sense of social justice and on the other you have these abnormal Amarrians who apparently find great value in not having to mop their own floors. It's an endless debate really and of course I have no weight on either side but I am greatly amused at the thought of what could replace the infinite topic generator that is indentured servitude...

Who knows, maybe we'd actually get some real world problems ironed out.

I will repeat, this is not an interpretation of Scripture. Scripture very clearly defines the rights of Holders, which includes the sole ownership of slaves.

I obey Amarr. I obey God. Amarr's law, and God's law, is dictated in Scripture, and Scripture comes before all other things.

Scripture does come before all other things.

So, my apologies 2nd lieutenant for pointing this out, but there is also a passage in scripture about code of demeanor which states "Be Careful. Be Watchful. Be Respectful". Most obvious question comes to mind, the faithful who are pushing this petition so vigorously are you being careful or watchful or maybe you are being respectful with all of this?

You know, it's a lot more honest to just say 'I can't argue on the merits so JUST SHUT UP'.

Wastes less time reading, too.