Texas Governor As E3 Keynote Speaker Causes Strife 272
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."
ESA? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still not sure exactly what ESA is being discussed. Something to do with gaming, it seems, but nobody in the article actually mentions it, and the article itself is so completely boring and uninformative that I'm not interested enough to find out.
Don't be silly (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, they were pretty bugged about the whole thing.
Re:Don't be silly (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ESA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if he trots out the extremist right-wing view of gaming, he'd be a perfect keynote speaker since this would point out to those attending that the ESA is the only body of industry solidarity between conservative anti-gaming lobbying, and the politicians. This is critical because big name developers are pulling out left and right from th
So (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To the extent to which it applies to a debate such as this, that religion already is "outlawed."
As are all others.
The separation of church and state is one of the foundational concepts of the USA, and vocally religious politicians should be raising red flags everywhere - not just at E3.
Although it's not specifically illegal to be a hate-mongering racist and religious bigot - and a politician at the same time if it doesn't get in the way of his policies - it's still considered to be pretty bad form consideri
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
"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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not American, but I'm told that the American churches were the ones that lobbied hardest for separation of church and state. The reasoning was that they didn't want some other church coming along and taking over the government.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are you talking about the same Spanish Inquisition set up by the Spanish monarchy, which lasted for over 150 years and ultimately led to around 2000 deaths? Please don't get me wrong -- I'm not in favor of inquisitions or torture, and it's tragic that some 13 or 14 people died per year (on very rough average) -- but if you're going to rail about injustice and such, keep in mind that malnutrition kil
Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As an example, "If people were really religious for the right reasons they would have no problem keeping their religion private." is nothing more than you proclaiming that anyone with a religious view should not enjoy public expression.
Jesus disapproved of the Pharisees because of their adherence to the letter of the law at the cost of the spirit of the law. Jesus also wasn't much one for ostentatious prayer and told people to pray in their closets, not in the streets. Jesus would not approve of the modern-day Pharisee emphasis on being seen enforcing the will of some guy who says he knows what God is thinking.
Okay, how about: "If people read the Bible and didn't fall into the trap of letting their peers test their piety they would hav
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it means I'm not going to force my religious view or absence there of on anyone else, and I don't want them to force it on me, especially using their position in government to do it. What part do you not get that I don't want someone elected to public office shoving their individual religious choice down my throat using their office to do it. I don't care that they have a religious choice and in t
Well like it or not ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the same note Christians are hounding the Old Latter Day Saints about their beliefs. It's not freedom of religion anymore it's freedom of Christianity. Some of the framers of the constitution were not even Christian.
I like to look at it this way. One day in the future humanity will either be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, my belief system says that you're a douchebag. What, I should have kept that to myself? Huh. I wonder if that advice might apply elsewhere. Funny, eh?
Funny. Rick Perry's religion says he should pray for you, love you as he loves himself, and treat you the way he wants to be treated. His "belief system also states that he needs to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the poor and NOT screw your wife.
Your belief system states that you should call people who see things differently than you do "douche-bags."
I like Rick's belief system better. Or, should say, Rick's belief system allows me to like HIM better.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rick Perry's religion says I should and will be condemned to eternal damnation for not attending the same church he does as devoutly as he does. "If you live your life and don't confess your sins to God Almighty through the authority of Christ and His blood (...) you're going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket." Now, this leaves the door open for two alternatives that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you only pick out the nice parts, it's not a surprise the whole thing comes out as nice. It isn't. It's a mixed bag. Most importantly, it's got nothing to do with games and since he apparently can't keep it private but has to make it a part of everything he does, it would indeed seem better to have someone speaking about games at a games convention, instead of giving a speech about
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So (Score:5, Informative)
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.
try not to be *too* stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Senators from Texas are Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. Both senators and governor are Republicans.
Rick Perry? Bleeh (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Gamepolitics was good to bring this up.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
How is pointing out Rick Perry is a right-wing nut (in general, GamePolitics just gave one example) "anti-Christian" or "anti-religious"? Rick Perry is the one who is anti-religious, and (in Christian nomenclature), an Anti-Christ or Anti-Christian, because he feigns Christianity but does not actually hold to Christian values.
Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GamePolitics attacked the TX governor on the basis of his religion.
Well, that and the fact that he has absolutely no qualifications for the speech beyond "there are some game studios in Texas" and "he signed a bill someone else wrote that handed out tax money to studios and filmmakers [dailytexanonline.com]". This isn't some kind of high school graduation ceremony or motivational speech, this is the keynote for a technical exposition. I suppose the whole text of the article was easy to overlook in the face of the whole Christian thing, which I do have to agree was in bad taste and basically s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that most Christians do their best to jump to conclusions so that they can cry "bigot bigot!"
It's called a persecution complex, and you should probably replace "most Christians" with "vocal Christians" since they're really two different groups.
I'd like to add a third category of "real Christians" that actually follow Christ in love and mercy vs people who call themselves Christian but really have no idea how it is supposed to change their life and behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that most Christians do their best to jump to conclusions so that they can cry "bigot bigot!"?
Uh, because people are pissed that the governor of Texas is speaking at E3. Not because he's governor, or Republican, or any thing else, but because he's a Christian. He's not there to give a sermon. He's there to be keynote speaker. The only reason these people mention for getting all bent out of shape is that Rich Perry is a Christian.
I think that is one of the finest example of bigotry I've seen in my life time!
Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion is a personal issue. Once you start to make anything private a part of your public life, you invite scrutiny.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Uh, because he's governor and the press follows him around everywhere he goes. The whole point of church is the ol' Meet-&-Greet. Otherwise, we would all just sing hymns in our bedrooms. It's hard to do he "Meet-&-Greet" if you are hiding.
Religion is a personal issue. Once you start to make anything private a part of your public life, you invite scrutiny.
Sorry, but like it or not, once you enter politics your religion, like the rest of your private life, falls under public scrutiny.
The only way for Perry to get around it would be to flat out deny being a Christian, which is kinda forbidden by the religion itse
Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (Score:4, Informative)
The only way for Perry to get around it would be to flat out deny being a Christian, which is kinda forbidden by the religion itself (and not very good for getting elected).
Perry has signed bills on evangelical church property, ratifying laws that evangelical conservative religious groups have been desperately campaigning for. Which is no surprise. Perry has openly supported and courted these religious political groups.
The issue here is not that the press has intruded on the Governor's private life and hounded him for being a good Christian. The issue is that Perry has intentionally mixed politics and religion. He has placed conservative Christian values on the political pulpit. He has made religion a political issue. Any political issue is open to scrutiny.
If you believe such scrutiny is religious persecution, you should take a moment to consider the source of the issue. It is not the press. It is individuals such as Governor Perry, Rev. Lawrence White, and Rick Scarborough and the political entities they lead and support.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans (and by that I mean neocons, not real rep's) tend to talk about that ('think of the chiiiildren!!!') - as long as it's not inner-city blacks.
Democrats tend to talk about those kinds of things, except their main argument comes to be how it reduces overall costs and is in general the right thing to do. Oh - and they plan to remove one of the biggest money-holes we've ever made (Iraq) which would free up loads for this kind of stuff. The religious charity bit is admittedly pandering to stupi
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true, actually (except for certain values of "Christian"). Many Christian faiths do not believe that "non-Christians will be condemned to Hell". I'd suggest you look up the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) or Unitarian Universalists as examples. And over the last few hundred years, the more mainstream sects have gotten away from that belief, too.
Maybe you ought
Re:GamePolitics motivated by bigotry? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Good day for the bored at work (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Religious Fundamentalism of any stripe is almost always antithetical to the ideas behind a free and modern society.
Re: (Score:2)
And that was before I realized he was W's replacement as Texas Gov.
Perry Hater (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
New internet meme! (Score:2)
Now we're going to get Rick Perry'ed.
What is the internet coming to?!
So, what did they learn? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/25/texas-doomed/ [badastronomy.com]
Mr Perry has made some blatantly ill-advised choices. Supporting Rudy for Pres was one of them. His views on many topics that relate to gaming either directly or indirectly make him quite a questionable choice. Per
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [gamespot.com] etc. wh
Fundamentalist (Score:2)
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 impriso
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It might be time to research the term fundamentalist. ie one who returns to the fundamentals.
A Buddhist fundamentalist doesn't care if you're a part of their religion. Check, Buddhism is almost totally inwardly focussed.
A Jewish fundamentalist doesn't care if you're a part of their religion unless it comes to one of the many points of law dealing with separation of the Hebrew people from the Gentiles. If the JF is not a Sadducee, then he doesn't think Gentiles get into Heaven. If he is, then he does
Definitions (Score:3, Informative)
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 futu
Re: (Score:2)
Except in a religious context it doesn't. And a fundamentalist Christian in modern context does not mean what you're pretending it means. Jerry Falwell, George W Bush and John Hagee are not loving, turn-the-other-cheek types are they?
Christian (or Islamic) Fundementalist != Holy War (Score:2)
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 aggre
Re:Christian (or Islamic) Fundementalist != Holy W (Score:2)
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.
...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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If Rick Perry was Grand Wizard of the KKK would you still want him as the keynote speaker at E3? I mean, it's not like racism has anything to do with gaming so it's unlikely that he'd comment. Or does such a bad reputation mean that you don't want your event associated with him?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't anyone pay attention to the presidental race in 2000? There were comments made that Bush was qualified by leading one of the largest states. But, being a native Texan, I remember the accurate comments that the Governor of Texas was a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"That topic" was a very public religious service he very publicly attended, and the content of the sermon.
"way back in 2006"
A whopping two years ago! Why, he might have converted to Hinduism since then!
"as if those have a particular bearing on anything he might say at E3 2008."
His religious beliefs are that a non-negligible portion of his audience are doomed to eternal damnation, and that he must do all
Rick Perry - Mister 39 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Had it been a two way race between him and the Democratic candidate, Perry still would have won. So I don't think that that 39% really means that much. On the other hand, Perry is widely disliked. Although Christian conservatives have supported him in the past, it has become clear to them that Perry's political ambitions far outweigh any principles he might hold. After all, his initial support of requiring a cervical cancer vaccine [cbsnews.com] showed to people like me that he can be bribed into doing the right thin
Re:Rick Perry - Mister 39 (Score:4, Informative)
I'm serious--left or right--one wants to control your bedroom and read your email, and the other one wants to control your pocketbook take care of you (and if you don't like it, screw off). Meh. I would have voted Kinky too had I lived in Texas!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there's anything scary [google.com] about mandatory immunizations, provided they are safe [google.com], regulated appropriately [google.com], and administered correctly [google.com].
-l
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, I absolutely do have a problem with the viewpoint that the government knows best. If the government can MANDATE that everyone gets a treatment for a behavior oriented problem, what's next, mandating diets? Mandating no smoking, drinking, or drugs?
This already happenned (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The usage of the term "injection of chemicals" was meant to be deliberately inflammatory. But I'm sure you know as well as I do that no vaccine is perfect...
Inflamatory term (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was not clever at all, and it nearly sink your whole argument down. As for no vaccine being perfect : yes.
It got you to reply--twice in fact! I'm happy!
I'm sorry you weren't able to add any new facts to the discussion though--I was hoping given your response that you had some further info.
I think you're still missing my point additionally. HPV is non-fatal. Only causes cancer in a extremely TINY percentage of cases. Doesn't spread like polio, smallpox, etc. The vaccine is not 100% effective. Like all vaccines, can cause negative effects. Objectionable to some people (for the above and other reasons--religious,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Kinda scary when people consider forcing people to inject themselves with chemicals "the right thing." Whatever happened to freedom? Silly question..
How is protecting public health, just like we've been doing for many generations via required immunizations an issue of freedom? This only got brought up and repeated constantly on outlets, such as Fox News, once it was found most cervical cancers were caused by a virus that could be spread via sexual contact.
This line of thinking reminds me of when conservatives didn't want to fund AIDS research because they thought only fags got AIDS and it was punishment from a god for an evil act. Now look at the state
Re: (Score:2)
How is protecting public health, just like we've been doing for many generations via required immunizations an issue of freedom?
Whenever you control people's actions, it's an issue of freedom. Polio, smallpox, etc were (are) very virulent and easy to spread. This is not true with HPV. Why mandate it? Make it optional. Many people have objections to vaccines--some due to (imho crazy) ideas that vaccines cause autism, some people don't use medicine (christian scientists?), some people may believe the cervical cancer vaccine is moral. This is not an issue like polio or smallpox where the entire population MUST be inoculated for it to
Re: (Score:2)
So how if an infection is more virulent than x, it's not a freedom issue? This seems quite selective.
Agreed, it is selective. It's not just a virulency issue however.
I've got two dead women in my family from cervical cancer.
I'm very sorry to hear that. I wish my wife had been able to get it when she was younger.
Mandating it makes a few companies a little richer and would save many, many lives in the long run.
I don't disagree with you--though I'm unsure just how many lives it would save? Mandating lots of things could save even more lives. Complete prohibition for instance would save MANY more lives. Why not bring back prohibition?
What about Terri Schiavo? Did the government have the right to (attempt) to intervene and make health decisions for her family? W
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Using your logic, 71% of the Texas voters didn't want Bell, 86% didn't want Friedman and 85% didn't want Strayhorn. If you were completely honest, you'd mention tat Strayhorn was a Republican and decided to run as an Independant because she felt she couldn't defeat Perry in
Giving Perry what he wants (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Non-christians condemned to Hell? What? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [skepticsan...dbible.com] about it:
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Your guilty whether or not you would have given the chance.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Non-christians condemned to Hell? What? (Score:4, Informative)
anything that makes money is being politicized? (Score:2)
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 h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Ama
Re: (Score:2)
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 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?
please furnish examples (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [capitolannex.com]. 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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh, Rick Perry, what the hell (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)