Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Radio Free Radio Free Eutopia: Free Radio Free Eutopia!

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I would, but for the chance that God is a rabid Calvinist who shall smite the demonic Bishop of Rome and all his sinful followers. Unless that's not what Calvinism is about, I forget. In fact, I'm just saying this because I found it in the dictionary this morning. I think Lutheranism sounds funkier.

Did you know that "calx" is a powery substance left after heating a metal or a mineral?
 
Msgr. Dornez snickers

"You never know what you'll find in a dictionary! Anyways, if it's smiting your looking for, look no further than Roman Catholicism! We've been "saving" heretics for ages now. Hold on, what exactly do you boys do besides host this radio show?"
 
What do we do? Well, I'm the owner of several Farpointian Sports Teams, and the Man in Black? I dunno, what does he do?
 
If you ask him, he's probably the first line.

Anything else to add?
 
"Yeah, I think I called for a reason, though I'm not really sure what it wa......OH! As you may or may not know, I'm an ENP politician who serves in the GA. You wanted an interview, so I called. Ask away!"
 
Oh. Uh, right. Just a tick.

After waiting for a few seconds, the listeners hear the voice of Bacon again

So Msgr Dornez, you're an ENP Frontbencher, yes? Could I ask you what your position is on the Property Defense Rights Act, and it's various amendments?
 
"Well, even though the act condones killing, which the Church is against, I fully support it as it defends a God-given right. Sir, that's the right to personal property and any man who seeks to violate that right indeed seems to deserve whatever comes to them. I am not yet familiar with all the amendments proposed, but the one I do have a position on is the Conjuanco Admendment, which is preposterous and foolish. As Rev. Pollos mentioned to me in the ENP Caucus, 'The Cojuanco amendment is clearly a nerf amendment , which would in reality end up being poison to our people , as the judiciary could decide how "they" wanted to define every part of this law. That is not safe , making and defining law is the legislatures job.' It's just activist judges wanting their say in the law-making process! Their job is to interpret law, not make it! The ELP and its leftist lapdogs seek to take away our rights, one at a time. It seems these days that the ENP are the only true Eutopians in the government, those who actually care for its citizens."

Msgr. Dornez catches his breath

"And let me say this: Eutopia, the ENP has your back. We will not let you down. Any more questions?"
 
Berenguerr phones up.

"I have a question for Dornez. Why exactly is a Catholic priest condoning killing so as to defend the root of all evil?

Incidentally, if you ever want to interview someone from the left of the political spectrum with no interest in pixies, I'd be honoured to come on your show."
 
Uh, sure. Come whenever you want, Berenguerr.

You can answer him Dornez, though I'd like to play Devil's Advocate my self.
 
Alrighty-o.

Are you saying that the Right to Property comes before the Right to Life? And that the ELP are seeking to "Poison the People"? And I don't see what the Cojucano Amendment does differently to the other amendments, make alot more sense, perhaps?
 
"No! I'm not saying that at all! Both rights are equal and no rights should ever be greater than the others. Violation to both rights mentioned can be considered a sin both to the man offended and in the eyes of God. The Cojucano Admendment and the ELP are trying to let activist judges decide what the individual citizen should. It is completely absurd to let our judicial system decide the precepts of this law fully. As I have mentioned, I am not familiar with the other amendments and will take a look at them tonight. Now, I'd like to answer Mr.Berenguerr's question."

Msgr. Dornez takes a deep breath and continues

"Mr. Berenguerr, Exodus 22:2 tells us ""If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed". Clearly, God's own words on the subject of debate at the moment. So, we see not only the concept of private property being affirmed here but also the idea that restitution for theft was not simply a returning of the goods, but apparently involved restoring even more than what was stolen. Also, the 8th Commandment clearly states "Thou shall not steal"! The godly will respect others property rights and privacy rights, the ungodly will violate others property rights and privacy rights. It's that simple."
 
Berenguerr?
 
Antonin strolls in, takes the seat next to Bacon, and puts on the headphones, and turns to Bacon.

"Hey Charlie! Guess what! I'm completely cured of my temporary insanity."
 
"It's nice you've got a quote to support your argument. Trouble is, I don't have your years in a cemetery and I can't help thinking of the biblical verses misused to condone such appalling evils as genocide and racism. I'm not attempting to conflate the issues, but the Bible is far too large and complex a text. It's got three answers to every issue, so I'm not going to quote it directly.

However, I would argue this:
Firstly, that in Eutopia today we should not be following the laws of Canaan 3500 years ago.
Secondly, that Jesus came and lived amongst the poor, the whores and the thieves. Clearly he placed no great value on property. Certainly, if we compare the number of times he is said to have raised the dead as compared to how many times he apparently prevented a theft, we can get the impression that he may not have considered loss of property to be as bad as loss of life. Of course, his tailor probably wasn't as good as Msgr. Dornez's.
Thirdly, that my atheism does not make me a natural violator of property rights, and that the godly may have moments of weakness and commit theft.

Nevertheless, this is Per Bacon's radio show, not the floor of the GA. If he wants us to debate this issue, that's fine, but until then I shall hold my peace until he is ready to address a question to me."
 
[ring]

Hello, this is Commander Cojuanco, author of the Cojuanco Amendment, and, ironically enough, a member of the Honorable Monsignor’s congregation. Good evening Father, by the way, can you schedule a confession for tomorrow? Well, that’s neither here nor there, but I have a question: What is Rome going to say to you? The Holy Father will not be happy at your stance, I’m afraid. Remember Exodus 20:13? “thou shalt not kill”. We are sinners, and myself have killed in battle, but they are sins, and we should not revel in sin, right, Father?
 
Per Cojucano, I think we've got enough callers as it is. Try again later, see ya.

Cojucano is cut off

I'd like to ask Per Bereungerr why, if he is so against the Property Defense Rights Act, is he supporting a bill which says almost exactly the same thing? What does the Cojucano Amendment do that saves lives instead of the other bills?
 
"I was against the original Property Defence Rights Act because I believe in the rule of law, and there's no connection between that concept and the original proposal.

I am against Per Pollos' amendment because it tries to make a very complicated issue appear simple. It's a certainty that there will be cases which do not fit his template exactly. I'd rather we gave a brief outline of what the law is supposed to do and let the courts consider each case on its own merits rather than using a framework that simply isn't adequate.

You see, I'm not opposed to citizens being able to defend themselves. If they're in danger, the Cojuanco amendment would let them defend themselves. As to the clause on property, I see nothing wrong in citizens acting proportionally to protect what is theirs. Their wealth is far less important than their health, because the police can get your money back but they can't raise you from the dead. Nevertheless, provided it is understood that they are not trained law enforcement officers and should not behave as such, I don't object to people protecting their own. That, I believe, is what the Cojuanco amendment does and the other amendments do not do."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back