Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Government Entertainment Politics

Texas Governor As E3 Keynote Speaker Causes Strife 272

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the keynotes-inciting-riots-a-new-popularity-tactic dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Texas Governor As E3 Keynote Speaker Causes Strife

Comments Filter:
  • ESA? (Score:5, Funny)

    by rrohbeck (944847) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @06:07PM (#23644563)
    What's the European Space Agency got to do with gaming?
  • So (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @06:10PM (#23644601)
    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.
    • Now don't go getting facts into this debate. We mustn't have that.
    • Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @06:49PM (#23645059)

      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.
      • Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Brian Gordon (987471) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @07:13PM (#23645269)
        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: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Bat Country (829565)

          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

          • Um well if it's not illegal and people are voting for him then what's the problem? He's not voting on national policy here-- if most people in Texas want to be governed by a certain person then that's certainly their right. Where is your qualm with that? Even if he was affecting you and voting in Congress, it's still Texas electors' right to be represented how they please. They can send whoever they want as their delegate to Congress and I can't believe you'd deny them that right. There's those "foundationa
        • Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)

          by demachina (71715) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:57PM (#23646245)

          "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)

            by Merusdraconis (730732)
            "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."

            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)

              by rhsanborn (773855)
              More importantly, they wanted autonomy. They didn't want their churches regulated, and they didn't want their religious positions legislated.
          • Yeah everyone's stupid and needs to rethink how they vote. But they have the right to vote however they choose and if they make biased decisions, that's a fault in the system of democracy and you can't blame the voters. They're perfectly free to vote biased-ly.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by chromatic (9471)

            The Spanish inquisition sucked and it is a logical outcome of letting religious bias permeate government.

            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)

              by demachina (71715) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @01:59AM (#23648025)
              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.
        • 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
        • by Bruha (412869)
          I'm glad you actually like to believe that. Just like being Christian should not cause any strife for homosexuals right? Lets not forget how Christians used to justify slavery saying black people were not human.

          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:So (Score:5, Informative)

      by tthomas48 (180798) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @06:59PM (#23645133) Homepage
      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.

    • by Scudsucker (17617) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @07:03PM (#23645179) Homepage Journal
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Merusdraconis (730732)
      The question's more why did they invite a Texas Senator to speak at a video game event anyway.
      • by ArcherB (796902)

        The question's more why did they invite a Texas Senator to speak at a video game event anyway.
        Um... Rick Perry is the governor of Texas. He took over after George W. Bush moved to Washington for a job promotion.

        The Senators from Texas are Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. Both senators and governor are Republicans.
  • Rick Perry? Bleeh (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dan667 (564390) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @06:13PM (#23644647)
    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
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by hairyfeet (841228)
      Which is why I personally think it is hilarious that it is almost always the war mongering,payoff taking,poor screwing,corrupt as hell politicians that claim to be big on Jesus and the bible. Apparently they forget the whole "Love thy neighbor as thyself" bit or the whole "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God" bit.

      Of course that fact that ANYONE would agree with Hagee who has stated on many occasions that the ultimate goal of Christians s

  • by Kohath (38547) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @06:19PM (#23644723)
    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?
    • by geekoid (135745)
      You might want to look at Perry's history.
      Gamepolitics was good to bring this up.
    • by rtechie (244489) *

      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.

  • by mapsjanhere (1130359) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @06:22PM (#23644751)
    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.
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      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.
      Do you really think anyone cares that the guy is a Christian?

      Religious Fundamentalism of any stripe is almost always antithetical to the ideas behind a free and modern society.
      • Just trying to be cheeky there; the guy has nearly all the proper attributes despised by the average /. crowd.
        And that was before I realized he was W's replacement as Texas Gov.
  • Perry Hater (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mojatt (704902) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @06:25PM (#23644779) Journal
    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.
    • ...he's solely in the position for money and power (the worst type of politician IMO)
      What other kind is there? Cite examples of living people, please. There isn't much upside to the job otherwise.
  • First we got Rick Rolled.

    Now we're going to get Rick Perry'ed.

    What is the internet coming to?!
  • by Loopy (41728) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @06:42PM (#23644979) Journal
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by zappepcs (820751)
      Well, I'd say you're probably right to wonder ... I'm pretty sure they would. Perry is a bad choice all around. You can spend some time reading the millions of links to websites with stories about him, but this is a good one to start with:
      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)

      by Qzukk (229616)

      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

    • 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 impriso
      • by Culture20 (968837)

        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)

          by copponex (13876)
          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 futu
        • by Woundweavr (37873)
          And "catholic" means liberal.

          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?
      • 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 aggre
        • 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

    • by rtechie (244489) *

      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?

    • by AK Marc (707885)
      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.

      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)

      by Guppy06 (410832)
      "comments regarding his belief in non-Christians' path to hell in questions asked of him _on that topic_"

      "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
  • by mgbastard (612419) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @06:54PM (#23645095)

    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

      • by Moridineas (213502) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @07:40PM (#23645549) Journal

        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 thing even if it pisses off the Christian Right.
        Kinda scary when people consider forcing people to inject themselves with chemicals "the right thing." Whatever happened to freedom? Silly question..

        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!
        • by Luyseyal (3154)

          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

          • On one level I agree with you. I'm normally pro-vaccine. I haven't been convinced by any of the vaccine/autism/other health problem links. HPV isn't really analogous to any of your examples however.

            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?
        • 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 co
          • Please see my other post in this thread. In short, I don't see HPV situation as analogous to polio/smallpox. If you have information I'm lacking, please let me know.

            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...
            • 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 t
              • 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

          • 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, Informative)

      Saying that "61% of Texas Voters don't want him either" is completely disingenuous. It would be more accurate to say that "61% of the Texas voters didn't vote for him.", which only means that 61% wouldn't choose him as their first pick.

      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
  • by Charles Dodgeson (248492) * <jeffrey@goldmark.org> on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @07:10PM (#23645231) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • 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 wi
    • a Christian who commits minor adultery (say, fooling around on his wife?)

      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:

      5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
      5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a w

      • 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.
      • by geekoid (135745)
        "And you would have, given the chance?"
        Your guilty whether or not you would have given the chance.

    • by geekoid (135745)
      "..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.
  • Money is a good tool for exercising power, period.

    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

God made machine language; all the rest is the work of man.

Working...