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."

Comments

GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[Kohath]

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?

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[Kohath]

I know this is Slashdot, but it's more interesting to discuss an article like the GamePolitics one if you actually read it. GamePolitics attacked the TX governor on the basis of his religion.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[MikeBabcock]

Because there was no other reason for them to otherwise make special note of the religious nature of attendees.

I've never noticed if my doctor is or is not religious, nor my daughter's crossing guard. I don't know if her teacher is at school either.

The very fact that they cared enough to call attention to this highly irrelevant detail makes them seem anti-christian at the least, if not completely anti-religion.

And for those who dare claim religion is somehow relevant, I'd love to know how you believe a Christian governor is a less qualified speaker at such an event than a non-Christian governor would be. Obviously when framed in that context, it isn't relevant at all.

The fact that this person has nothing to do with the industry is relevant, their knowledge of computing is relevant, but their religious beliefs are completely irrelevant and did not bear mentioning.

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[Kohath]

What does that have to do with E3 or the ESA? Why would GamePolitics bring it up to attack someone?

It's completely off topic and not relevant to anything.

GamePolitics might as well have said the TX governor was fat or had the wrong skin color or some other nonsense that doesn't have anything to do with the subject. But they chose a religion-based attack. Other than bigotry, what might cause someone to make that choice?

Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry?

[_Sprocket_]

I've never noticed if my doctor is or is not religious, nor my daughter's crossing guard. I don't know if her teacher is at school either. A key question here is why don't you know about the religious beliefs of these people? And why do you know about the religious beliefs of the Governor?

Religion is a personal issue. Once you start to make anything private a part of your public life, you invite scrutiny.

Perry Hater

[mojatt]

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.

please furnish examples

[SethJohnson]

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

So, what did they learn?

[Loopy]

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.

Re:So, what did they learn?

[Qzukk]

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. I bet the mullah would if he was speaking at a porn convention. Government intervention in video games is such a hot-button issue, it's no surprise that getting government officials as keynote speakers raises as much ire as eyebrow.

I think pretty much everyone would much rather both parties just shut up and kept the government out of the games business. On the one hand you've got Democrats like Tipper Gore (needs no introduction) or Hillary, Lieberman, and hell, just about all of the rest of them etc. who want a nanny state that tells you what you're permitted to think, say and do; and on the other hand you've got Republicans like Joseph Pitts or Mitt Romney who want... a nanny state that tells you what you're permitted to think, say and do. (For what it's worth, Perry keeps his mouth shut about however he feels.)

And of course regardless of who does it, once that nanny state is established, it opens the door for people like the one-and-only (we all hope so dearly) Jack Thompson to come in and really fuck everything up.

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

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. Its not his religious beliefs, but rather what statements he makes in regards to them as a public figure. If, for example, I'm white, that doesn't automatically make me racist. but if I talk about how non-whites will go to hell, it would. and it would be the racism, not the white that would exclude me from being an appropriate speaker for an event with both groups.

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.

Rick Perry - Mister 39

[mgbastard]

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.

try not to be *too* stupid

[Scudsucker]

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".

Re:So

[Brian Gordon]

What. Like it or not, Christianity says that non-Christians will go to hell. If you don't believe that then I guess you've got nothing to worry about and his comments shouldn't bother you. It's not like they affect how he administrates his state. That's a tenant of the religion and there are plenty of Christians in office. Would you outlaw that religion?

Re:So

[demachina]

"It's not like they affect how he administrates his state. That's a tenant of the religion and there are plenty of Christians in office. Would you outlaw that religion?

No, but it is extremely desirable for politicians holding public office to compartmentalize their religious views and try to keep them private, especially when said views are offensive to many of their constituents. Believe it or not many people dislike it when the person running their state or nation tells them they are going to go to hell for their personal religious views. It is a statement which is a strong indicator of bias, and that the person saying it believes you are an inferior to him because of your personal religious views. Doesn't really matter when its one private citizen holding this view about another. It matters a lot when its the chief law enforcement officer of a state or nation saying it, because that person makes life and death decisions which influence large numbers of people, someone who has a LOT of power over your life. Try being an officer in the U.S. military these days because the deck is stacked against you if you aren't devoutly religious(preferably born again Christian).

Religious people just don't get it, but separation of church and state, is just as much in their interest as it is of atheists and minority religions. The founding fathers implemented it because many of the people in America fled to America to escape state sponsored religious persecution in Europe. They knew first hand how horrible it was to live in a country where the government favored one religion and persecuted, often brutally, all the others. The Spanish inquisition sucked and it is a logical outcome of letting religious bias permeate government. The only fair and equitable way to avoid state sponsored religious bias is to keep religion out of government all together. The founding fathers did the right thing in separation of church and state, and religious people need to "get" that.

If people were really religious for the right reasons they would have no problem keeping their religion private. They would realize religion should be something between an individual, their god(s) and maybe the members of their their church. As soon as you start inflicting your religion on others, against their will, you cross a dreadful line where your religion has become a weapon, and not a path for self enlightenment.

Just curious, how many self proclaimed atheists or agnostics hold high elected office in this country? Very, very few, because they are for all practical purposes precluded from getting elected in this country, they are practically outlawed from holding high public office now. If you want to get elected to any serious political office in this country its a simple fact you are going find Jesus or at least Jehovah, one way or another, even if deep in your heart you don't believe in it. That creates a seed of hypocrisy and dishonesty to self in a lot of politicians that flowers in to a lot of corrupt elected officials.

Re:ESA?

[PFI_Optix]

More seriously, what do Perry's religious views have to do with his validity as a keynote speaker at E3? Unless he decides to go off on a preaching spree, the answer is...NOTHING.

Re:So

[demachina]

You seriously underestimate the impact 10 very public executions a year will have to compel a populace to conform to the religious views of those in power. You don't have to kill everyone who doesn't conform, you just need to make it clear that those who don't run a definite risk of torture and execution. The inquisition was in particular used to ethnically cleanse Spain of Jews, something it did very well.

You would think Protestant Christians would have enough historical perspective to remember how Rome persecuted Christians and how Catholic monarchs persecuted Protestants to realize it is a fundamentally good thing to have governments which are precluded by law from expressing their religious views as part of their governance.