Church Threatens Legal Action Over Sony Game

An anonymous reader writes "The Church of England is threatening legal action against Sony over the game Resistance: Fall of Man. The game features a shootout in Manchester Cathedral, and the Church claims that Sony did not ask permission to use the interior of the Cathedral in the game. The Bishop of Manchester called the game 'highly irresponsible' due to the history of gun crime in the city. Sony denies the charge — a spokesman said 'We believe we have sought and received all permissions necessary for the creation of the game.'"

Comments

Guns in Church

[clachaig]

From the article:

Patsy McKie, from Mothers Against Violence, whose son Dorrie was killed in Manchester, said it was time to stand up to the makers of violent games.

"I believe it's something that needs to be taken seriously first by the Church but also by parents.

What needs to be taken seriously by parents is the duty they have to educate their children in what the difference is between game and reality. I agree with the Dean's claim that "for many young people these games offer a different sort of reality" but with parents influence, this reality he speaks of will be seen only on their playstations, where the developers intended it to be seen.

Re:Better submission

[denttford]

And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something.

Um, cause they said so, maybe?

Fed #46:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Or, Fed #28?

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.


Christ, even liberal jurists, who once maintained that the 2nd amendment is a collective right fulfilled by the existence of state police and militias, have begun to concede that it is an individual right. This was the reasoning behind the recent overturning of the DC gun ban.

And no, despite your immediate assumptions, I own no guns nor am I (or have I ever been) a Christian.