Soldiers of God

[unmerged(4271)]

This is the HQ of the Soldiers of God organization of Eutopia.

The Soliders of God are an ecumencial organization, composed of individuals of many different religions who are all united under the belief that the society and culture have drifted to far away from the good and moral teachings of a greater diety.

While not united in their doctrine, they are united in their zeal and fundamentalism. The organization is mostly composed of Christian sects, though some Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, especially in the southern provinces, claim active membership.

It is estimated that there are currently 12,000 active members in the Soldiers of God. The organization is quite professional at the national level, but individual grassroots chapters can be quite radical and confrontational.

The Soldiers of God are not a paramilitary group, and they are generally a nonviolent organization. However, with the assassination of their leader Charles DeSpirit, a beloved gentleman who had argued passionately for moderation and acceptance, the organization has become quite fearful and has reverted to the old theology of "an eye for an eye". They are quite critical of the government for their poor handling of DeSpirit's death and the fact that no killer was ever found.

They are very organized at the grassroots level in every province in Eutopia, minus the WET.

Nouvelle Aquitaine (HQ): 2,000
Saint Espirit: 2,200
Isabella: 1,800
Jacobia: 1,600
Gloriana: 950
Nueva Roja: 950
Nouvelle Anjou: 625
New Schlesweig: 575
St. Brendans: 575
New Lancaster: 525
Eutopia City: 200

Their current leader, from Jacobia, is Per Kurt Wagster, a fundamentalist Christian.

Items on the Soldiers of God Agenda:

• 
  - Remove R. Cook from Office, due to her anti-government behavior and shocking lifestyle.
  - Repeal Homosexual adoptions legislation
  - Prevent indecent material on public radio
  - Continued demand for justice in the death of their former leader

(list subject to change and update at any time)


At one time the Soldiers of God, due to a horrible printing error, were circulating material from the "Soldiers of Gof". However, the organization has taken no official position on any sport, whether spelled correctly or incorrectly.

 

[I Killed Kenny]

On the phone

the soldires of god did talked once about the public radio, but we had the locoust problem...

I am an open minister so I ask that If you would like I could receive you at my house to a call productive talk about that matter... If you are affraid of the disiese. I'm not in direct contact with you...

If you want that contact me and I'll talk with you...

 

[unmerged(4271)]

At the Soldiers of God HQ, there is surprisingly little celebration, but instead a sense of closure at the final resolution of the murder of their former leader Charles DeSpirit. There is a renewed mourning over the loss of their charismatic leader, and a general condemnation of past administrations for doing little to avenge this killing.

 

[unmerged(18797)]

ANONYMOUS POST.

5000 ducats and champagne bottle arrive in a brown box

 

[The_Hawk]

*Tilly cruises up in his shiny new Jaguar -- the sort of car God would own, if He needed to drive. His electronics would probably work better, though. He (Tilly, not God) enters the building and advances on the nearest secretary.*

"Good morning! I'm looking for Per Wagster... he left his number for me, I believe? I'm afraid I didn't entirely understand his message, though... something about a pornographic campaign? It sounded... interesting."

*He grins irreverently, then glances around and realizes where he is. He gives the secretary the stone face as he waits.*

 

[unmerged(4271)]

The very dowdy-dressed secretary flushes red in embarassment for a moment before recovering.

"Per Wagster is in his conference room, but does not have any guests today. I will buzz him and tell him you are here. I have a note saying to send you back once you arrive. Please go through the double doors on your left and proceed down the hall to the very end. The conference room is the first door on the right."

 

[The_Hawk]

*Tilly attempts to find his way to the conference room, gets lost, winds up by a water fountain, and is eventually shown there by a helpful older woman wearing a green smock.*

"Good day, Per Wagster. I believe you have some need of my services?"

 

[unmerged(4271)]

"Yes, come in Per Tilly, please have a seat," says Wagster, rising, "I hope that you can help us."

After Tilly is seated in a comfortable chair at the conference table, he continues.

"Per Tilly, trusting your professional reputation I know you will shed any preconceived notions about our organization. We are a grass-roots movement of over ten thousand Eutopian citizens that share a common concern over morality and ethics in our society," he begins.


"We pay taxes, we voice our opinions, but we obey the law and engage only in the forms of public advocacy permitted under the law. But we feel that our representative government is doing great harm and we have exhausted the obvious methods of recourse. We believe our views, our very rights, are being marginalized because members of the government disagree with our social agenda.

"Specifically, the government is spending tax money to advertising which we feel is not only counter-factual but that endorses irresponsible risky behaviour that will, in fact, drive up government costs and expenses as our national health care system assumes the cost of paying to treat sexually transmitted diseases and potentially fatal conditions, such as AIDS.

The advertising is, to our culture, quite offensive. It is offensive to us as adults, but it is also offensive, we feel in that it is inappropriate for children. The government admits as much when they have agreed to move the advertising to different time-slots, but they still use the public airwaves for their messages. We have no curfews in Eutopia, there is no nationally recognized 'bed-time' where children simply stop watching television or listening to the radio. Some children, especially teen-agers, may have more stamina than their parents for staying up late!

We feel this advertising provides false at best, dangerous at worst, information that is accessible to our children without our consent. Even the best parent cannot monitor their children 24 hours a day. While I would be lying if I said I do not care if adults hear this advertising or not, because I think at its base the message is still dangerous, and costly, this concern for our children is the reason many of our members are so passionate about this case.

Per Tilly, what legal options are available to us? Can we force the government to stop this advertising? To remove it from the public airwaves? Can we force them to change the message or at least to include other language stressing abstinence, or at the very least acknowledging that risks, to health and life, will continue, even when using this so-called 'protection'?

I note in the United States how the consumer protection movement has required the listing of potential health risks on products. Do we have anything comparable in Eutopia to require more 'truth in advertising', or at least to fairly document factual risks?"

Wagster leans forward expectantly while aides sit ready to take copious notes.

 

[unmerged(18797)]

A package with 20000 ducats and a letter arrives to SOG HQ

I appreciate valuable work what you do in SOG to enforce our nation's moral, and for that i want to donate you 20000 ducats.

Captain Roberto Martinez

 

[The_Hawk]

*Tilly eyes the aides, a little intimidated, and then gives the matter some thought before replying:*

"Unfortunately, Per Wagster, nothing springs immediately to mind. Not in terms of the law, anyway. You find this material offensive, but such is life in a Western nation respecting the freedom of speech, that we will occasionally encounter ideas that offend us. Granted, the government has more ability to disseminate such ideas than do most, but the same could be said of media outlets or major corporations.

"You might have more success if you had a test case -- some specific family with children who were harmed by being exposed to this material. But I honestly think you'd run into serious evidentiary problems, and in any case the government (and the court) could always seize upon the argument that responsible parents should be monitoring what their children watch. I wouldn't expect to win that one.

"I know you've said you feel marginalized by the current party spectrum, but I would suggest that politics rather than lawsuits are the best way to achieve your goals. With such widespread support you should be able to arrange for lobbying and rallies... with enough coverage, you might be able to turn the morality of the government's program into a major point of contention in the upcoming election.

"I know that wasn't what you wanted to hear, but lawsuits can't solve everything. Not in Eutopia, anyway." *He laughs nervously before falling silent.*

 

[The_Hawk]

*Tilly coughs, sputters, and launches into another sentence.*

"You know, depending on what you have in the way of financial resources, you might also be able to try to run ads attacking or contradicting those of the government. If media outlets refused to run them, then you might definitely be able to make a case..."

 

[unmerged(4271)]

A package with 20000 ducats and a letter arrives to SOG HQ

I appreciate valuable work what you do in SOG to enforce our nation's moral, and for that i want to donate you 20000 ducats.

Captain Roberto Martinez

A thank you note is sent to Capt. Martinez, signed by the board of directors of the SoG.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

After a few moments of reflection, Kurt Wagster replies:

"What you say has occurred to us before. Our hope, however, is that there is some unseized upon angle, some innovative approach upon which we might base a case.

The recent passage of the Charter of Rights certainly changes the landscape of the debate, and while it brings some new restrictions toward our case, we think, untested as it is, it may in fact help us in some areas.

A few thoughts we had considered:

- The government is broadcasting these messages blindly to any recipient. There is no control procedure. If information were being given to adults, or known at-risk individuals, this might not be so deplorable. However that children, and those who might consider it extremely offensive, are subject to it, is harmful. There is no responsibility and no accountability by the government in terms of how this information, without proper context is represented. Does it encourage teen or child sexual activity? Are the messages understood with only 30-60 seconds of information or do they lead to more confusion or dangerous action? There is no standard of care, and thus the government must be held accountable for any damages that result.

- The actual airwaves being used to broadcast these messages, who do they belong to? Are they privately owned? Do they belong to the public? If they in fact belong to the public, should there not be some public accountability over their content? We have a precedent for speech restrictions in the media, with tighter ones for broadcast media vs. subscriber media, such as cable or satellite (ooc: since we don't have a lot of background on this issue, I've just created it. ). Who sets this standard? Is there no cease-and-desist action or restraining order we could seek to stop these ads until due diligence has been exercised in community review?

- The new charter of rights guarantees free speech. What is free speech and expression? The ability of all voices to be heard? What if the fantastic resources of one party supress another view point? Is wealth the same as speech? If one has more resources, should one be entitled to "more" speech, or is speech like democracy, where all are guaranteed equal participation. This is, admittedly, a stretch from current thinking, but is it an avenue for legal thought that has not been explored?

- On a similar note, I would interpret our new protected freedom of speech to mean that it is a right held by private citizens, and by extension corporations and organizations. However, a public entity is not a private citizen. When a public entity takes an advocacy position, it is doing so with public resources. When an advocacy position is detrimental to a significant population of the public, their own resources are being used to counter their interests, and to counter their efforts at speech and expression. Should not a public entity be held to a different standard in terms of speech and advocacy?

I understand the counter argument, that government speech does not prohibit or restrict individual speech, but allow me to provide an example: If the government were to take a position, using public dollars to support one particular political party, that could be defended us an exercise in free speech and expression. Yet, would not that be considered an inappropriate, and illegal, use of public dollars? The wealth of resources available to the government being used to promote one particular political ideology in competition with private citizens would be seen as wrong, yes?

- Similarily, if the government was to pay for a nativity scenes all over the WET in areas of high Topa population where the majority of the population practices an offshoot of the Muslim religion, that would be seen, government endorsement of a particular religion and also prohibited under the Charter of Rights. A simple holiday scene could be defended as seasonal or traditional, but it is interpretted as the use of public dollars for a display which is offensive to a particular part of the taxpaying population based on their religion. Could an extension of this argument be made to argue that broadcast messages that go out blindly to all with a radio or television, with content deemed extremely offensive to people of different faiths, should also be prohibited if paid for by public, not private, dollars?


I understand, Per Tilly, that this is an uphill battle, but this is why we have gone outside our own legal team and are looking for someone who might be able to craft precedent-setting arguments to be put forth under this new charter.

Are we lost, or could any of these arguments, or perhaps any new arguments that might have been inspired by this discussion, be successful? Perhaps not even in terms of accomplishing all that we seek but in at least setting some precedents for future cases and rulings?"

 

[unmerged(18797)]

Letter to SOG

As you probably know, ESRP has recently propsed a bill allowing homosexuals to get married. As deeply religious catholic, i am extremely against it. I am planning a rally against this bill in EUtopia City, and i am inviting representatives from your fine organization to speak in that rally. Please reply as soon as possible

Your brother in Christ.
Captain Roberto Martinez

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Per Martinez,

Our organization is opposed to homosexual marriage and we consider it a violation of Eutopia's new Charter of Rights. We will support your rally. Please send us all necessary information regarding the agenda, site, etc.

In God's name,

Kurt Wagster
General Secretary

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Wagster looks over to his comrades as they assemble around the conference table.

"Well, I guess he's not coming back to take the case," he says, nodding his head toward where Tilly sat weeks ago at their meeting, "being the MILE must be a conflict of interest. We'll have to approach this another way."

All the men get up and leave, to work on new plans.

 

[unmerged(18797)]

*letter*

As you know, i have supported your fine organization often with financial support. I also believe in same matters that you do, and i have therefore chosen to apply membership in Soldiers of God.

Your brother in Christ
Captain Roberto Martinez

 

[unmerged(26817)]

A letter bearing the header of the MHES arrives by courier at the offices of the Soldiers of God. It is accompanied by a dark green Harrods-brand tin of 'Traditional Mint Imperials'.

Per Wagster,

You may have realised that I have been newly created MHES, with special responsibility for Family and Youth. I know that your organisation has particular interest in the moral fibre of the nation, and thus I would be delighted to invite you to a mutually convenient location so that we might discuss the twin issues of familial integrity, and our country's youth.

I do hope that you will find the time to reply to me on this matter.

Yours,

Minister Chamberlain-Beaulieu

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Dear Per Minister Chamberlain-Beaulieu,

I thank you for the invitation and graciously accept. I would be happy to host such a discussion at our national headquarter (OOC: this thread) or could visit your ministry, whichever is most convenient for you.

We gratefully appreciate this opportunity to discuss our positions and concerns and thank you for initiative.

Best Regards,

Kurt Wagster
SOG

 

[unmerged(26817)]

Per Kurt Wagster,

I'm most grateful for your reply. It would probably be simpler if you could stop by at the Ministry, whenever is convenient for you. The strikes, you see, have left me without much time, and I would very much like to discuss with you the matters I alluded to. So, if you pop by I'll tell my secretary to send you straight up to my office.

In expectation,

Minister Chamberlain-Beaulieu