Worldbuilding: Immigration and Religiosity

A thought or two inspired by part of this comment seen via /r/bestof, said part being:

Where it gets extremely tricky and sensitive is how non-fundamentalist Muslims fit into the picture. The same for non-fundamentalist Christians, or Jews. Because the fundamentalists would argue, and in a way I agree with them, that the beliefs of these people are so far removed from the original message and meaning of the religion that they are not truly Muslims, or Christians or Jews. In order to achieve a form of Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism that is acceptable to ‘Western society’, you have to reshape and twist the doctrine of that religion SO MUCH that it can start to not make sense at all.

(You may also want to read the surrounding paragraphs for context, but I don’t think you really need to.)

…and which, in the finest spirit of “everything gets used for worldbuilding”, I shall now use to illustrate something of the nature of non-native religiosity in the Empire and one particularly characteristic problem people run into at immigration.

‘Cause here’s the thing.

The Empire is an unabashed ideostate, neither an ethnostate nor a volumetric geostate. It is the contractual association of the Freest of the Free, which certainly anyone is permitted to join – the advertised immigration policy is, after all, “just turn up” – but they do have to  be able to sign the associative contract in good faith. Like so:

I, affirmer’s full name and/or identifier, hereby affirm my agreement and attachment to the principles of the Fundamental Contract; that all sophonts are endowed with certain absolute and inalienable rights; that these rights are to life and property, liberty, and the pursuit of eudaimonia; that all sophonts are equal in their exercise and retention of these rights, without privilege or priority; that sophonts cooperate amongst themselves in separate and coadunate action to secure them; and that they do so freely and by their own sovereign will.

Therefore, as a free and self-sovereign sophont of recognized competence, I hereby agree, consent and reaffirm my binding to the rights and obligations of the Fundamental Contract which underlies the civilization of the Empire, on my own behalf as well as that of my guardianship; consenting to be guided first in my actions by the Rights of Domain, of Defense, of Common Defense, and of Fair Contract; and accepting freely the obligations attached thereto to guard the absolute and inalienable rights of my fellow sophonts as my own; and in full understanding that should I Default from this, my own rights shall therefore be abeyed until the default is amended.

Given under my hand this day date,

affirmer’s signature

Witnessed this day by witness’s full name and/or identifier, who, as a citizen-shareholder in good standing of the Empire and an adherent of the Contract, pledges surety in the light of the Flame for the competence of the signatory and the validity of this Affirmation.

witness’s signature

In good faith, for these purposes, implies “under alethiometric analysis”. Which is a problem, if you believe in the fundamental doctrines of many religions, ’cause however in good faith you may feel you’re being because obviously such considerations couldn’t possibly be meant to apply when you’re quarter-valuing women, abominating homosexuals, or stoning those buggers who wear mixed fabrics, your mental reservations will light the alethiometer up like a Christmas tree.

(We pause briefly while the House of Exemplars pats itself on the back for its collective foresight, inasmuch as everyone from Merriéle Herself [1] on down to the present day were careful to note that they were just writing down their best perception of what the eikones wanted and expected ongoing contemplation and future generations to revise accordingly with the benefit of further thought – and thus avoided binding their seven-millennia-later successors to a bunch of Bronze Age mandates labeled the ineffable, eternal, unchangeable TRVTH. Dodged a bullet there, eh?)

But here’s the catch-22. There are also a lot of non-fundamentalist people around who would pass that test, because they don’t literally believe in the aforementioned things, but they’ve never really repudiated them either. They exist in the shadowy doctrine-twisting world in which, sure, this is the ineffable word of God and the scriptural basis for our religion, except that it obviously doesn’t mean what it says and what He really wants is peace, love, charity, fluffy bunnies, and other things more in accord with modern thinking that don’t explicitly punch the Contract in the face.

…yeah, that won’t get you in either. Because regardless of how self-aware you are about it, that is going to light up the alethiometer with the information that you, sir, ma’am, herm, or neut, are someone who espouses Serious Philosophical Commitments to Ideals and then ignores said Ideals for some stuff you and your chums just made up, belike.

That doesn’t play very well with people who take notions like “obligation” and “self-integrity” and so forth seriously. And it plays even less well with the Imperial Guard of Borders and Volumes – being the people asking you to affirm a Serious Philosophical Commitment to an Ideal – who will bounce you and your admittance request right back out the door and onto the next starship to Hypocrisia.

Which leaves as admissible only those whose ancient theogonists happened to luck out and hit enlightened libertism – or at least values that don’t gratuitously offend enlightened libertism – by chance or revelation, or else those religions flexible enough to engage in theologically supported reform as they go. (There are more than a few Christian sects that would qualify under this clause, because what they believe and what they espouse are aligned with each other, and that theological and doctrinal evolution were intended; equally, of course, there are more than a few that wouldn’t.)

The combination of these effects leads to both a tendency to cooperative niceness where non-native religiosity is concerned, and to many-much vigorous denouncing from outworlders. But then, they’re used to that [3].

[1] Whose own writings reflect a certain willingness to argue with the divine, and indeed to look Heaven in the eye and judge right back. The Church of the Flame followed [2] in this initial tradition.

[2] The ripple effect this has had on ecumenicalism and religious diplomacy by producing a religion whose representatives, while more than happy to go along with civilized polyhenotheism, also have no problem whatsoever with saying out loud the equivalent of “Man, your god’s kind of a giant celestial asshat, huh?”, is left as an exercise for the reader.

[3] A standard cadet exercise at the Stratarchy of Warrior Philosophy is constructing memes to get the people denouncing them on the extranet for being tolerant and the people denouncing them on the extranet for being intolerant (of the intolerant) flaming each other instead. This is both good introductory-level practice and kind of funny, so.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://eldraeverse.com/2016/03/22/worldbuilding-immigration-and-religiosity

Comments migrated from WordPress:

I feel like stuff like ‘turn the other cheek’ (particularly where more substantial wrongs are concerned) and ‘have faith in God that things will work out’ (as opposed to taking matters into one’s own hands) would also rankle them something fierce as well, no?
Particularly given the lack of their putative all-powerful god acting to materially aid their people/followers, at least in ways which can be separated from the independent acts of others or pure random chance? Which is to say, giving up personal agency of action to a being that is only dubiously capable of providing the required assistance/services/resources.

As opposed to the Transcend, which as I understand it, while it certainly prefers to act as subtly as it can (for various reasons), is perfectly willing and able to act overtly if need be. IIRC, that is up to and including playing silly buggers with linear time to help out an early… faith leader, I think?
Though it may also be in-universe speculation, it’s still significantly more overt than almost any miracle that I can think of. Certainly any miracles that cannot also be tied to historical natural disasters/celestial phenomena.

Or, if one is inclined to be more provocative:
“My God is better than/can beat the shit out of your god (lowercase intentional).”

(Though that might provoke an unamused “Your god also expects you to act the part of a civilized gentlesoph, and not to start fights over religious beliefs for your own entertainment.”)

Different department, though, since those aren’t indicators of bad faith in making one’s commitments. (Unless your turning of the other cheek is sufficient that you won’t perform your obligations to the Common Defense¹, but I’m presuming for the sake of argument that if you’re that type of theological pacifist you would actually say so.)

Which is to say: while Imperial culture will not respect your commitment to victimhood or passivity (the Flamics in particular call the latter the Antithetical Heresy of the Deedless Cripple, while the Eupraxic Collegium would diagnose hypothelema), they’re not defects that the IGBV feels the need to exclude someone for.

(Especially since they’re probably going to enjoy the local culture sufficiently little to remove themselves ere long.)


  1. You aren’t, of course, obliged to exercise your right of personal defense. You are permitted to consent to be a victim up to the point at which doing so becomes misprision of felony or other types of passive accessorism. Imperial culture will not respect this particular choice at all, to be clear, but it’s still your choice to make.

(post deleted by author)

And my question was already answered.

Though it does seem like something that some Imperials at least would very much disapprove of, particularly given the contrast between such ‘nebulous higher powers’ which, when they do act, rarely act in a way distinguishable from either random chance or the will of others, and such Powers as the Eldraeic Transcend.

Although, somehow I doubt that even they would be the type to thusly refer to someone else’s religion and theology as espousing an ‘alleged god.’ Not unless they were deliberately spoiling for a fight, at least.

A thing that’s worth remembering is that the Church of the Flame is old. It traces its origin back to the vision of -1,119, which is over six millennia before the full flowering of the Transcend gave the eikones (who are, as you recall, information entities) their technological ochemata.

[Theologically speaking, the eikones are the pure informational concepts which exist beyond; the archai-eikones are ochema, shadows of them. Technically, they’re perfect and perpetual saints¹ of themselves, which should render them inerrant echoes in all cases other than mechanical failure, but unless you happen to be a theologian of high degree, theotechnican, sorcerer-engineer, forge-cardinal, or the like, this is a distinction without a difference.]

It’s also worth pointing out that in addition to the emulation of eikones, the Flamic church itself incorporates the Imperial Respect, animism, ancestor-worship, the mos maiorum, and negentropism, even before we get to its complicated ecumenical relationships with kaeth faiths both old and new, the ciseflish Path of Ever-Growing Plenitude, and myneni animagranulism.

And we haven’t even contemplated minority religions yet. So let’s stipulate that the religious impulse was alive and well long before any gods had access to effectors.

(That’s not really how gods are supposed to work, anyway.

“A god – a real god – is a verb. Not some magnified elder soph with ‘supernatural’ powers. Not some sophomorphic mask hung on the laws of the cosmos. It’s an idea and a force. It’s a concept so strong that it warps reality just by existing. It doesn’t have to want to. It doesn’t have to think about it. It doesn’t even have to be self-aware or volitional or instantiated in any physical way. It just does.”

Miracles are cheap. If you were to ask a Flamic for proof of divinity, they’d not cite those; they’d gesture at everything around them, the works of everyone whose lives have been shaped by those particular immanent ideas, and say “What hath the gods wrought? Look upon their emulators’ works, and know them for truth.”)


When it comes to conflicts with other religions, well -

At the top of the list, of course, is that the relationship with divinity is rather different, inasmuch as the eikones are far more concerned with emulation rather than worship, which they disdain. You’re supposed to become more godlike, which enlightenment is the point and purpose of religion to a Flamic.

“Know, postulant, that the eikones of the true faith desire no worshipful subjection, no flattering prayers or praise of their magnificence rendered meaningless by the praiser’s offered lack of worth. Such things insult the Flame that burns within you as within Them; as above, so below. They desire rather that you grow along Their path of principle so that you may stand in Their sight and have your worth be known.”

“They are the light by which we see the perfection of the Twilight City, and hope to emulate it in ourselves. To worship the light, to bow before the light, rather than aspire to the light, rather than seek the light, is to condemn your soul to a base nature, forever lost in shadow.”

So when considering other religions², the question they ask is, essentially, “Is your god worthy?³”, which is an ethical rather than metaphysical question. Do they beckon their followers towards enlightenment? Volition, creation, excellence, energy, the fulfilment of their highest potential? Or do they push them towards chaos, destruction, and entropy - or even gray neutrality, apathy, helplessness, self-satisfaction, or other diversions from the path?

Do they ask you to stand, or demand that you kneel?


  1. Sainthood, in a concept inspired by the Chalion series, is effectively when one gives up one’s will by mantling an eikone, allowing their concept to manifest through your actions. Since the archai-eikones are designed as eternally self-refining versions of that concept as their core drive, they are de facto perfect and perpetual self-saints.

  2. Either as the Enquiry After Truth do professionally, or from an amateur perspective.

  3. Sadly, this question cannot be answered by a simple hammer-based test.

(Although it might be worth noting that Earth’s ancient paganisms get more respect here. Thor wasn’t interested in groveling, while some more modern religions seem to care about little else.)