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
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
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?
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.
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.
No one is trying to exclude Perry from going to E3. They're simply point out that his endorsement of an extremist preacher make him a rather bizarre choice of E3 keynote speaker.
The article is quite bizarre though, since they could point out one of the many things that have made him incredibly unpopular in his home state (and led him to almost be defeated by a ridiculously underfunded Democrat in a red state). He's a completely incompetent governor who's best known in his state for trying to push through mandatory vaccines for his drug company friends, toll roads for his transportation friends, or vetoing bills he'd pledged to support only after the legislature had adjourned and could do nothing about it.
Which I suppose might make him a great E3 keynote speaker. Maybe they have a long history of incompetents.
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".
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?
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.
"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.
@de_machina