Slashdot Mirror
Texas Governor As E3 Keynote Speaker Causes Strife
Zonk pointed out a post on Joystiq highlighting a recent tantrum thrown by the ESA. Apparently the ESA didn't appreciate the framing GamePolitics chose to use for a story about E3's Keynote speaker and Texas Governor, Rick Perry. GamePolitics continues to call Perry into question as a choice for keynote speaker, saying: "While there are surely many Christians among E3 attendess, there are just as surely many who aren't. Aside from the fact that Perry was a bizarre keynote choice from the get-go, his divisive comments indicate that the ESA should rescind the offer. We have to ask again: why is E3 2008 being politicized? The answer, we suspect, has much to do with embattled ESA boss Michael Gallagher."
What's the European Space Agency got to do with gaming?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
I loved you as the frontman for Journey, just get back to touring already.
Don't stop, believin' Hold on to that feelin' Street lights, people.
How does using one's beliefs to exclude him from an event fall into anything but discrimination? Sounds like the same thing the Christians are always accused of doing.
If you need to have your drug or toll road rail-roaded through the state legislature at the expense of hard working tax payers for no community gain, then you call Rick Perry. I can only imagine what conservative or money pocket lining initiative Rick Perry is up to in speaking at E3
Bagging a governor as a keynote speaker is generally a good thing PR wise. Some dipshits who can't see that is nothing new, and can't resist tunring an ordinary thing into yet another opportunity to flog their fringe political positions is all too common.
Summary after reading the links: Nothing to see here, move along.
Democrat delenda est
It seems fair to ask whether GamePolitics is motivated by anti-Christian or anti-religious bigotry in their coverage. There's no information to suggest that the keynote speech was going to have a religious theme or message of any kind.
A lot of game companies are located in Texas. The governor of Texas seems like he might have some interest in that.
The ESA is doing a poor job lately and the TX governor seems like a poor choice for an E3 speaker. Most people might suggest someone in the game business instead.
But none of that is an excuse for bigotry against religious folks in general or any particular religion. What other reason would GamePolitics have for their attack?
Congratulations on today's topics, first we get a "lawyer bashes GPL" thread, and now the Pharyngula crowd gets to jump all over the Christian Republican Politician. If he'd just owned Microsoft shares, this would be perfect.
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
The only reason Rick Perry is even Governor of Texas is because G.W. Bush was elected Commander in Chief!
Until recently I lived in Texas with Rick Perry as Governor. Never liked his policies, his political decisions or personal choices on a wide range of topics. Not only that but the guy is a complete buffoon when it comes to technology, he's solely in the position for money and power (the worst type of politician IMO). The guy had to know that GW was going to run for Pres., assuring him the top seat in Texas. Shame, shame on him.
I remember when E3 used to be a real convention and not a , "I know so and so and we can get press tickets to get in!" event. The convention had so much going for it and the event planners ruined it by making it invite only. Honestly who cares what Mr. Perry's religious affiliation is. Let him be the key note speaker. Heck since I've started who cares about race and gender. Have we gone back to 1960 here? We're all human beings. Who cares what our beliefs, skin color, or birth place is. :-)
Panty Twist
Sometimes I read a Slashdot story, and I wonder if I'm an idiot for not knowing the context.
Sure, I know what E3 is, but what is ESA? What part of the keynote speech was divisive? Why does the religion of E3 attendees matter?
Maybe everyone else already knows these things, but just one sentence of summary in the blurb would really help me out.
First we got Rick Rolled.
Now we're going to get Rick Perry'ed.
What is the internet coming to?!
Because most religions fall into politics. For example, if your religion has a commandment disallowing stealing, then most people wouldn't be to happy if stealing was permitted. Then there is the issue of say I have a Christmas tree in my store along with a nativity scene which should be allowed under the "freedom of religion" part of the constitution, however some person that doesn't share my religion is offended so I can't do that. So really, it is almost to where it isn't a matter of just the people with a religion but also those who don't want anything to do with religion and any mention of religion offends them.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
How about making sensible posts rather than posts only the worst morons would understand? Not all of us are idiots that play computer games. We're not all lazy idiots that live in our parent's basements.
Some dipshits who can't see that is nothing new,
Ok, who were the governors that gave previous keynote speeches at E3?
You shouldn't be surprised that people on Slashdot would question Perry's credentials for speaking at a video game industry expo. Like President Bush, Perry can't figure out a way to properly archive his emails for longer than a week. They just don't have the server space, he claims. And this guy grasps technology well enough that he should be treated as an inspired speaker at a video game convention?
Clearly, his administration could easily sort out how to archive all staff email. They're just claiming technical ignorance while it's convenient for them to obfuscate their communications. When it comes to Perry ramping up a run for the White House, oh, he's a technical genius!
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Reading the original complaint about Perry giving the keynote, they have these "odd" feelings about the choice because the only thing they can see tying him to the video games industry is Perry's signing of some entertainment-related legislation. Forget about the ESA's mission statement of "serving the business and public affairs needs of companies that publish video and computer games," or that governors have much to do with legislation and other areas that directly affect their state's business and industry. In the end, the complaint seems to focus on some nefarious right-wing sub-plot linked via the ESA chairman having "deep Republican roots, as does Perry."
Then, in another article, they link the "E3 speaker" to "divisive" comments regarding his belief in non-Christians' path to hell in questions asked of him _on that topic_ way back in 2006, as if those have a particular bearing on anything he might say at E3 2008.
First mistake: claiming agreement with someone who shared basic beliefs as proof that he'd get up on stage and proselytize. Hate western religion much?
Second mistake: not researching someone's "quote" because, since it agrees with your bias, it must be true.
One wonders whether a professed atheist, an Islamic mullah or Wiccan priest, instead of one of those dastardly Republicans, would get the same scrutiny or presumption of bias or other "odd" or "bizarre" feelings.
Oddly enough, given how much whining there is from the Christian contingent on this one, it turns out that indeed, you are allowed to have a nativity scene in your privately owned store. If your customers don't like it, they're free to go elsewhere. Even the ACLU agrees with this, and has defended it in court.
What you aren't allowed to do is put one in, for example, city hall. Because that's public space, intended to be used by and represent all people, even those who don't happen to share your religion.
Amazing the not so subtle distinctions the "Christians are being persecuted" crowd likes to plaster over to try to come off as victims.
You can do whatever you want and offend whoever you want in a private business. The fact that many businesses are afraid to offend people because it might cost them a customer is another matter. But just because you might offend someone, doesn't mean anything.
Governor Perry is known now as Mr. 39 in Texas. He won the last governor's race, for his third term, in 2006 with only 39% of the popular vote. 61% of Texas Voters don't want him either.
The election is a plurality, so there is no runoff, no second choicing on the ballot. There were four serious candidates.
Anyone seen my low uid? last seen 10 years ago while panning the #@$# out of Taco's 'web based discussion system'
Um. Is it bigotry now to point out that a public figure has in the past issued bigoted statements? Perry is on record saying some rather inflammatory things about, just for example, atheists and homosexuals (JFGI). You might not like people like that yourself, but you've got to face that they're citizens just like you and deserving of equal governmental service.
As a texpat, I can also assure you that Gov. Goodhair is no more qualified to be a keynote speaker at a technical conference than a potted plant is. Post Reconstruction (thanks yankees!) we've tried to elect the weakest possible people to the Governorship, and Perry is about the figurehead-iest example of that possible, surpassing even our current President in terms of intellectual vapidity and over-reliance on underlings to do anything more complicated than play poker or fart.
...as E3 is now post-retooling.
Having a politician give a keynote speech at a gaming convention makes as much sense as a game developer giving the keynote address at a brain surgeon's convention. Or a blues guitarist making a keynote speech at a convention for criminal lawyers. Or Willie Nelson giving a keynote for the DEA.
I know the governor signed a law to provide incentives to game developers, and sure, let him make a speech at the E3. Knock yourselves out. But to give the keynote address when he's not in the industry makes no goddamn sense, as does your blathering about "discrimination".
Objecting to public officials with a record of inflammatory public statements about otherwise innocent segments of the citizenry is "fringe"?
Sadly come to think of it you might be right in the current decayed state of our great democratic experiment. :/ Damn those immigrants, gays, and atheists for ... well, for just being around and not being WASPy I guess. If only our citizenry were only Fine, Upstanding White Men of Wealth and Means!
/. has become the primary nest for people who think they know, but don't. For people who 'know' they are intelligent, but are not.
/. topic related to my profession. I then go and read the comments for a good laugh.
My comic relief during the day is when I see a
"Lookout! A christian with a microphone! Runaway!"
-A non-christian anonymous coward
My illustrious governor wants to be Vice President. Although he is a Christian Conservative, he was a backer of Guilliani when it looked like Guilliani would be the nominee and would need a southern conservative as a running mate. Of course he quickly swtiched to supporting McCain as soon as that became convenient. Within Texas, Perry's political ambitions are no secret.
Right now, Perry is trying to raise his national profile among conservative Republicans. Giving a "controversial" speech where is pushes Christian values is exactly the kind of thing he wants to build up the reputation he needs.
The best thing that could happen to Perry is if he got ridiculed by liberals for wearing his Christianity on his sleeve. We hare giving he exactly what he wants.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
> In the same way, its not being Christian that is the problem here, but his statements in regards to a good proportion of the people who may attend the keynote and the hell-ward direction he indicates for them.
What the hell has that to do with electronics or gaming? You're still saying he should be excluded because of his beliefs and I don't see how it's relevant to the function at hand other than there are some people who don't like him.
Even the Catholic pope says this is brain damage. It's a religion where we are supposed to leave that kind of judgment up to a higher power and give life guidance-- you shouldn't be a rapist or a murderer, okay?? It's not particularly great if you worship other gods either; but a Christian who commits minor adultery (say, fooling around on his wife?) is no better than a non-christian who doesn't, and anyway worshipping another god is a minor issue between you and a deity whereas screwing around on your wife is a crime against another person.
You don't magic up your own pass to Heaven because you give a nod to the right all-powerful creator.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It's clearly the Entomological Society of America, who was concerned because of E3's promotion of buggy software.
Yeah, they were pretty bugged about the whole thing.
Actually, you can't necessarily put a nativity scene up in a workplace without risking a lawsuit.
Not by your customers (who are free to just f*** off) but by your employees.
You can be claimed to be forcing your religion on employees which is actionable. It isn't as cut and dry as the city hall example, since no one would have standing to sue if you were the only employee. But it could be claimed that the employee's right to a nonhostile workplace overrides your right to freedom of religous expression.
(And speaking of rights - Captcha: tortures.)
How is that 'minor' adultery? Sounds to me like, well... adultery. Unqualified and plain adultery with no excuses.
In fact I'm not clear that there is such a thing as minor adultery. Jesus - whose teachings most Christians seem to hold in some regard - certainly felt quite strongly about it:
Even the thought of it is enough. You didn't actually do anything with her... but you wanted to, right? And you would have, given the chance? Guilty as charged.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I said fooling around in that context. Typically if there's flirting/groping/whatever but no actual sex it's termed "fooling around," whereas we don't call it "adultery" until there's some sort of penetration.
In matters of the heart, I have no comment on that exact stance; however, when in love, a man tends to not agree with his own urges and simply drives himself straight back to the woman who owns his heart.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
"..whereas screwing around on your wife is a crime against another person."
A crime? a think not.
Your not even considering situations where the wife knows and agrees with it.
Worshiping another God is FORBIDDEN in the Bible.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
First problem: The guy has no technology chops.
Second problem: He's a fundamentalist Christian. A Buddhist or Jewish fundamentalist doesn't care if you're a part of their religion. A Wiccan fundamentalist doesn't care if you believe he or she can perform magic.
A Christian or Muslim fundamentalist believes that human lives are expendable if extinguished in the name of God. They deserve neither respect nor even common courtesy. If not for their religion, they would be correctly labeled sociopaths and imprisoned for inciting and participating in violence and wars of aggression.
people like perry should be booed and pelted with rotten fruit wherever they go.
This stems from a headline in reference to Tex. Gov. Perry acknowledging the statement "Non-Christians will burn in Hell".
Uh, that's one of the core principles of pretty much every variation of the Christian faith. How is that controversial? Yeah, it might be "inflammatory", but not controversial.
Pretty much anyone that identifies themself as a strident Christian should have no problem with that statement.
As a non-Christian Atheist, the proper response is "Well, since I don't believe in Hell, it doesn't really matter, now does it?"
Actually according to the 1st commandment it is acceptable. It says basically "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.", meaning that you can worship other gods, but that he is the formost or main god and any others are lesser gods. Many people disregard the "before me." but it is there.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
"And you would have, given the chance?"
Your guilty whether or not you would have given the chance.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
He's a fundamentalist Christian. A Buddhist or Jewish fundamentalist doesn't care if you're a part of their religion. A Wiccan fundamentalist doesn't care if you believe he or she can perform magic.
A Christian or Muslim fundamentalist believes that human lives are expendable if extinguished in the name of God. They deserve neither respect nor even common courtesy. If not for their religion, they would be correctly labeled sociopaths and imprisoned for inciting and participating in violence and wars of aggression.
You are terribly misusing the word "fundamentalist", and in so doing, lumping those that simply believe strongly in their religion into the same basket as terrorists. There are plenty of Christians or Muslims that you, I, and themselves, would consider fundamentalist that are not, in fact, dedicated to Holy War. Certainly there are sects/factions of both religions that are, but it is a disservice to members of both religions to lump all of them into the same category of psychopathic terrorists.
I ask you this: if you stuck a gun in the hand of the Governor of Texas, led him to a roomful of atheists (or Muslims), and told him that he was free to shoot whomever he wanted with no repercussions if he felt they deserved death for not yet being "saved", would he pull the trigger? I think not. He may be a fundamentalist, but I doubt he is a complete and total nutjob.
I would consider a religious fundamentalist to be somebody to believes that their particular views on God/Deity/Force of choice have a monopoly on the truth, and that those that do not share those beliefs are damned to (or at least tending to) Hell/Unenlightment/Eternal Unpleasantness.
I think those that hold those views are loony, since they have of course have no way of confirming their views, but that doesn't make them psychotic maniacs.
Nor do I think that the only religious nutjobs are Christian or Muslim. There just happen to be a lot more members of those religions than most others, and they have had plenty of time to get real pissed off... There are violent Bhuddist monks, and I am sure that you can find a Wiccan or two, somewhere in the world, that thinks their beliefs are worth somebody else's life. There are certainly some Jews (extreme Zionists) that believe that the killing of others is justified in order to set up their version of an ideal holy land. By no means are these views shared by most (or even many) of the adherents of those traditions, but every group has some bad apples that get carried away.
SirWired
Slashdotted!
...
I'd call it a great success, folks -- we can all go home now. Oh, wait
CAPTCHA - "chuckle"
Hell yeah I chuckled.
What you aren't allowed to do is put one in, for example, city hall. Because that's public space, intended to be used by and represent all people, even those who don't happen to share your religion.
Amazing the not so subtle distinction the "Christians are being persecuted" crowd likes to plaster over to try to come off as victims. You say that, and I would agree if the story was not about a bunch of people pissed off because the keynote speaker is Christian. Is that not a prime example of "Christians being persecuted"? Do you think that this is the best story to state the Christian persecution doesn't happen?
Do you think it would be different if they were all pissed because a Jew was speaking?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
See , everybody can use "like it or not..." but that does not make it more right. One could be more tolerant and instead of *rubbing* the non Christian nose into a contoversial part of their religion, particularly by somebody which theoretically should be hold NOT to involve religion in his governance (wasn't there something in the US consitution / law about not favorising any religion ?), well instead they could use their time and belief to bring something good in their legislature, instead of head-banging non-christian. Because if you slap in the face non christian, you have to wait for a punch back from them (and frankly Christian are believing in a sky Santa, based on some writing from some random joe 2000 years ago, sorted by a band of geezer at a council (yeah we want this text, no not this one don't like it etc....) sooo..... ). And then this is the point it start to escalate. And the end result is that you have a society divided along religious line (like for example very cleverly saying "atheist should not be allowed to vote or be citizen"), instead of a society which accept and tolerate each other religion.
Furthermore as far as I can tell this "non christian will land in hell" you have to wonder about a god which would send a good person , loving father, generous, helping other people, etc... Just because he is NOT a christian. What sort of fucked up god you are worshipping ? Certainly not a loving one.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Comment removed based on user account deletion
With for example the polio campaign with everybody getting vaccinated. And as far as I can tell it also happened for some parents to be forced to give some vaccination to their kids (MRS?). There is actually a double pronged reason. The first one is easy to see : when the health of minor are concerned, and the parents refuse medicine care, the state can an obligation to intervene and give the care against the will of the parent (actually around here vaccination is an obligation, not sure for the US). One could certainly argue that not being vaccinated and having a high risk of cervical cancer (as opposed to a low risk with the vaccination) is certainly putting their kids in danger. The second prong is simply that the state has not only obligation against the individual, but also for the population as a whole. And in the case of vaccination, it is certainly in the interest of the population that as much people as possible are vaccinated to reduce not only care cost of the illness, but also attempt in some case (polio) to eradicate it. In such a case the individual can be forced to do something he does not want to.
Finally comparing vaccination to an "injection of chemicals" is quite skewing things around. It is not as if people were asked to use random DRUGS, people are asked to STRENGTHEN their own immune system in a way which will help them survive better later.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I'm using the every day definitions - I understand those who adhere to the core of most religions would be peaceful.
However, the evangelicals of America, whether gullible, willfully ignorant, or genuinely stupid, are responsible for voting in the current Administration twice in a row. They are motivated by the issues of abortion and gay marriage, and by virtue of it's mention in the bible, should be as troublesome as the consumption of shellfish.
The abortion issue is more reasonable, as it involves the future liberty of two human beings, but is safe to say that "abortion is murder" and "war is heroic" are not compatible world views to any rational person.
Personally, I don't see how anyone can reconcile the angry tribal desert Gods of the OT with the comparatively liberalized hippie God of the NT. Even if you can somehow accept the suppression and execution of non-dogmatic early Christians by the Roman authorities as a legitimate way to establish what ended up in "the" bible.
You seem to be forgetting the instances where God stops the sun to allow the wholesale slaughter of men, women, children, babies, and animals. Or the same God who rejoices when you smash the children of enemies against rocks (Psalm 137:9) or allows his followers to be tortured in order to prove their obedience.
There are numerous places in the Qu'ran where you are allowed to kill the infidel if he tries to interfere with your faith. They can easily justify killing a woman for not covering up sufficiently, which they view as preventing them for following their faith, and it even explicitly mentions killing the infidel until they stop their wars of aggression...
Just tell a fundamentalist that you listen to God, and they'll believe you. Ask George Bush or bin Laden.
Are you certain the English interpretation of this passage doesn't mean "before me" as "in my presence"?
It seems a lot of the original meaning was lost in translation, omission, and whatever was popular in a given period of time of these acts.
...that doesn't make them psychotic maniacs. Yes, it does. They believe in something that by all observable measures does not exist. Nor do I think that the only religious nutjobs are Christian or Muslim. There just happen to be a lot more members of those religions than most others, and they have had plenty of time to get real pissed off... The meek do not inherit the earth. The religions that advocate compliance or death do. There are violent Bhuddist monks, and I am sure that you can find a Wiccan or two, somewhere in the world, that thinks their beliefs are worth somebody else's life. There are certainly some Jews (extreme Zionists) that believe that the killing of others is justified in order to set up their version of an ideal holy land. By no means are these views shared by most (or even many) of the adherents of those traditions, but every group has some bad apples that get carried away. The real problem is that it is somehow a negative thing to label them for their true nature. A person who legitimizes violence for any purpose other than self defense is severely deranged, and their leadership in aggressive military action should be considered nothing less than murder.That was not clever at all, and it nearly sink your whole argument down. As for no vaccine being perfect : yes. Nothing in life is sure, except death. So what ? Is that even an argument at all ? As long as the risk of the vaccine themselves are lower than the risk of the illness, then the benefit are evident. As for heradicating HPV, it is doubtful. But it can certainly be made rare enough not to have an health impact on the population anymore. There is never a good argument against vaccination as long as the risk are lower than the benefits, despite what the anti-vax want to make you think.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Having been at a Mighty Mighty Bosstones concert that was interrupted so that a member from the \\noflamebait\\ party could present its platform has proven instrumental in forming my belief that while politics, like my penis, are extremely interesting and worthy of discussion - there is a time and a place to bring them up. However, and whilst being an avid gamer myself, I find it rather silly that the politicization of a single industry-related event can stupefy and incense an author who is representing a site that places a political concentration, editorially, on the entirety of that same industry. GamePolitics.com.
Gov't has realized that business practices and a business's raw resource, money, equate to power over the people. It's corporate gospel nowadays. Just like gov't getting involved in the sub-prime mess (to make money), outsourcing (to make money) and information sharing and manipulation (to make money on wall street), and services (to make money). And when adding more lawyers to the mix just completes the politicization of a industry.
I'm happy that slashdot has not given-in to politicking like the other popular tech websites.... yet... (the politics section is starting to slide guys).
The 'before me' is 'before my face'. So it is a pretty broad exclusion, considering.
This does not make sense:
The governor of the state has tremendous influence over the industry of not just developers but publishers and distributors.
How so?
The Governor is also the highest profile individual they could get, so combine those two factors and it is an easy choice.
He doesn't make video games. He doesn't make video games. He doesn't make video games. As I said, he signed legislation to help develop video games. So, go ahead have have him as a guest speaker, but to give him the keynote makes no damn sense.
..this guy is loathed by a significant proportion of the state of Texas. For one, he's trying to stuff and gargantuan toll-road project called the Trans-Texas Corridor down the throats of Texans. The Slashdot crowd might find it an interesting topic since it would require the seizure of over a half-million acres of private lands through eminent domain. Beyond taking land from hordes of people who have had it in their families for more than a century (like the ill-fated Superconductor-Supercollider), a new road system of that scale would be majorly deleterious to the environment of Texas, a state that is still mostly rural is one of the most ecologically diverse states in the US.
Rick is sooo gay, everyone knows it...
That's like saying that according to the 2nd commandment murder is acceptable.
I ask you this: if you stuck a gun in the hand of the Governor of Texas, led him to a roomful of atheists (or Muslims), and told him that he was free to shoot whomever he wanted with no repercussions if he felt they deserved death for not yet being "saved", would he pull the trigger? I think not. He may be a fundamentalist, but I doubt he is a complete and total nutjob.
Ask the same person if it's alright to exercise violence that would kill the neighbors of "suspected" terrorists/infidels, as long as those suspected aren't near anyone he cares about, and he'll gleefully approve. Alternately, ask him the same question if he gets $10,000 per body as a reward for his violence.
Ah, now you have completely shifted the question. Asking if somebody would authorize the possibility of collateral damage for dubious political ends ("suspected terrorists") is a different subject entirely to if they would kill solely for dubious religious ends.
...that doesn't make them psychotic maniacs.
Yes, it does. They believe in something that by all observable measures does not exist.
Believing in something that does not observably exist, and being positive you are right, is merely irrational. It is going a bit far to call every religious person a psychotic maniac. Unless you are a total recluse I will bet that many of the people you know and get along with just fine attend church. Do you believe all those people are psychotic maniacs?
Nor do I think that the only religious nutjobs are Christian or Muslim. There just happen to be a lot more members of those religions than most others, and they have had plenty of time to get real pissed off...
The meek do not inherit the earth. The religions that advocate compliance or death do.
The term "Christian" covers Quakers (a completely 100% pacificst group) in addition to a Fire and Brimstone Nuke-all-them-ragheads-to-the-stone-age wacko.
To say that "Christians" or "Muslims" advocate "compliance or death" is a cruel, bigoted stereotype. As I said before, both traditions of faith have been around so long, and have so many members, that the practice of their beliefs is extremely diverse. Think a Bell Curve here... every bell curve has folks on each end that are very far away from the norm.
It's kind of funny that you mock the phrase, "the meek inherit the earth". I assume you know that that phrase comes from the Sermon on the Mount. It does not have the kind of literal meaning you attach to it. In the Sermon, Jesus is referring to his view that the meek will receive their just reward in time (presumably after they are dead), even if, through their meekness, they do not have much now.
The real problem is that it is somehow a negative thing to label them for their true nature. A person who legitimizes violence for any purpose other than self defense is severely deranged, and their leadership in aggressive military action should be considered nothing less than murder.
Who the heck is "them"? I agree that those that advocate death to those that do not share their unconformable beliefs are psychotic morons not entirely right in the head. I stated as such. To do so is certainly not a "negative" thing. However, your folly is lumping all those that would call themselves "fundamentalists" into the same category as Holy Warriors. The ultra-violent members of those religions are a tiny minority of even the most ultra-orthodox members.
You can take any arbitrary large group of people and within them, find violent psychopaths and complete pacifists. I am sure that even among all the atheists of the world you will find pacifists, and those that believe that all those that believe in God deserve death.
You may be well-served by taking a religious studies course, as your ignorance and bigotry about religious beliefs is astounding. The
Was the instigation by the founding fathers of the American Revolution "nothing less than murder"? Certainly the vast majority of the Colonists were under no threat of death or violence by the British. Indeed I would go so far as to say that most Colonists were quite indifferent about the matter either way.
Saying that violence is only legitimized in self defense is a pretty broad statement... is it truly what you believe?
SirWired
Dudes, this was a gaming convention! What he really said was that non-Christians would be PWNED by demons from DOOM.
"Before me" can be understood many different ways. You seem to be applying a modern meaning, but if you look at the beginning of the commandment it seems to use some rather old looking English. You may want to dig up what "before me" might mean in old English before you go around telling people what they believe.
Ever since the E3 Expo went the way of the dinosaur I've noticed that the organization has been going downhill ever since then. I knew that switching to an invitation only event was going to be a major frack up. I have to ask, WHY THE HELL aren't there any video game shows which are open to the public in the US. All of the major shows for video games in Japan are all open to the public and the press both. What the hell?!
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
America:
Illegal: Hello son, give us 10% of your earnings or my boss will put you in hospital for a week.
Legal: Hello son, give us 10% of your earnings or my boss will torture you for eternity.