I cannot help myself but to agree with a statement made by The Logos after the resolution of the matter, to the effect that Shallam deserved some hearty applause for their efforts -- this much is true. They worked hard, fought hard, and died frequently, and that sort of devotion (even if somewhat misguided) is worth applauding in any man.

But lick their boots while thanking them for saving me from myself? I scoff at the notion. Fate and fortune were your guides that day, Iceman, and the sun rarely shines on the same canine's posterier each day.

Is my hatred of others such that I will overlook the compassionless manipulation of myself or others?

Aye, whole-heartedly so.


I would further postulate (though this is all theory and no practice, as I'm not a follower of any particular diety myself) that many of the most devoted followers of any given diety have chosen their allegiances based more upon a sense of personal respect and absolute faith in the guidance of a particular diety, rather than a concern for which elements of the world around us said diety may be the master of.

In either case, such decisions are, at their very base, decisions of Faith, moreso than of Reason. While many of us seek to combine the two in our daily lives, Faith is of the utmost importance in matters of religion, as no mortal can truly know nor comprehend the mind of a God (which I'm certain, being a man of the Church, you know full well already).

So would you, then, challenge the Faith of another man? Would doing so not place in jeapordy the validity of your own personal beliefs? Or would you be able to find a comfortable double-standard to avoid that particular uncomfortable question?

Let he whom is without guilt, cast the first stone, my Holy friend -- and do let me know when that man is finished, that I may cast the last.


-- Raajin

Penned by my hand on the 24th of Ero, in the year 243 AF.