Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

On Religious Violence And Videogame Violence 143

Posted by simoniker from the what-me-controversial? dept.
Thanks to the IGDA for its 'Culture Clash' column discussing the violent nature of many religious texts, and how that relates to religious criticism of game violence. The piece references The Passion Of The Christ, mentioning: "The film's portrayal of the delight these men took in administering the scourging draws an alarming parallel to some claims that video games desensitize young people to violence." It then goes on to argue: "The history of opposition to games is a long one, and religion is often used to justify that opposition, though naysayers tend to ignore the fact that religion itself is a major source of violent acts", before concluding: "Frankly, the arguments for and against violence in games, as in any entertainment media, must be assessed in context or not at all."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

On Religious Violence And Videogame Violence More

On Religious Violence And Videogame Violence

Comments Filter:

  • but of course (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cassidyc ( 167044 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @08:14AM (#8879727)
    more people have been killed in the cause of religion (crusades, inquisitions etc), that have been killed because some kid "learnt" how to aim and shoot with a mouse.

    CJC

    • Re:but of course (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      more people have been killed in the cause of religion (crusades, inquisitions etc)

      Whoah, hang on a second there. The crusades and the inquisition were political things - the crusades were used by the Pope as an attempt to hold on to political power in the face of growing nationalism, and the Spanish Inquisition was basically an early version of McCarthyism, i.e. targetted at political dissidents. I assure you, no knight of the crusades had anything more holy than his own enrichment in mind, and no inqui

      • Re:but of course (Score:5, Informative)

        by Triskele ( 711795 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @10:29AM (#8880667)
        . I assure you, no knight of the crusades had anything more holy than his own enrichment in mind, and no inquisitor ever thought he was working for the benefit of anyone's immortal soul.

        Sorry but that's total dross. Most inquisitors were really very devout. Some of their diaries make fascinating reading. They really believed that a little pain on Earth was better than eternal torment. The dissidents targeted were primarily religious - the huguenots and other early protestants.

        The Catholic church of that time was a perfect example of how large scale religion and politics are indistinguishable. Little changes when we see Islamic fundamentalism locking horns with American Christian fundamentalism. Both are primitive regressive forms of their respective religions, but both are dominant and driven by politics as much as faith and both are leading to massacre and bloodshed of the innocents in the middle.

        • Re:but of course (Score:2, Interesting)

          by zeus_tfc ( 222250 )
          Actually you are both right. The Inquisition started off purely religious and ended political.

          The Inquisition started as a way to root out heretics, but once the various political leaders saw it working, they began to take control of it for their own purposes.

          Only the focus changed, not the cruelty, but it did change.

      • Re:but of course (Score:5, Funny)

        by bigman2003 ( 671309 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @10:33AM (#8880712) Homepage
        You must be an all-knowing AC.

        How is it that you can assure us that "no knight of the crusades had anything more holy than his own enrichment in mind?"

        Who are you- Mel Gibson?
      • Right, most of them were political. And they weren't nearly as bad as 20th century non-religious violent episodes.

        The crusades went on for hundreds of years and resulted in the murders of tens of thousands of people. The Spanish Inquisition lasted over 300 years and resulted in the murder of 300,000 people.

        But in 1994 alone, the Hutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda. Mao Tse Tung's regime massacred 26.3 million Chinese between 1949 and May 1965. By 1971, about 62 million Chinese had been murdered.


    • more people died from acts of god than any of man's puny attempts

    • And more deaths and pain has been caused be the lust for money and power then any religion.
      I tend to agree with you that the violence in most games is pretty much harm less. I loved Quake, Doom, Halflife, and unreal. However when the games loose any moral sence I have a problem. The GTA games come to mind. Truth is kids would be better of without games that make it a vitue to kill, lie, cheat, or steal. Truth be known it would also be better for kids to get of there butts and go to the beach, ride their bik

  • religion as argument.. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by gl4ss ( 559668 )
    ..is used blankly on just about anything one with religious position wants.

    it can be used to justify *any* opinion about *anything* and it has been used too. yealous about your neighbour? well your neighbour obviously did a pact with the devil and must die! well not that straightforward most of the time but you get the point.. one should be wary of any unfounded argument pulled from somebodys hat, no matter who he is(as made up arguments against something are usually just something used to enforce supersti
    • The reason why religion seems to be such a good argument to people like these is because there really is no way to effectively argue against it. The difference between religion and science is that only science can be proven wrong. Religion can't.
    • I'm reminded of when the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon series aired, back in the late-80's-slash-early-90's. There was so much effort placed on being non-offensive. Nevertheless, the presence of a wizard in the party wasn't what inflamed religous zealots--- it was the thief. -_-

      People need to stop giving good religions a bad name.

    • Arg. That's such a terrible example. How many people do you know would say, "gee I don't like my neighbour getting that new car I want. That must be because he's made a pact with the devil!". I'm not sure where you live, but down here we don't think like that. And anyway, just because such conclusions have a religious foundation does not mean they are right. They may have justified it using religion x, but religion x actually says something the opposite. And anyone can do the same with science - make

  • An idea for a game. (Score:3, Funny)

    by tai_Dasher ( 319541 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @08:19AM (#8879751) Homepage
    GTA: The Second Coming
    You'll play jesus come again (voiced by Willem DeFoe), wreaking havoc in Jerusalem by converting people.
    Using a shotgun and a Katana.
    You'll get to drive a flaming chariot and turn water into funk.

  • Christ vs. Doom (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 16, 2004 @08:21AM (#8879761)
    This article is great. It brings up major points on both sides and addresses a very sensitive issue in a way that should make most people stop and think.

    I think, though, that there still is a fundamental difference between media like Passion of the Christ and a violent game.
    In this particular movie, (though I have not seen it) I believe there was a message for people of religion, to look upon a man they believed in and see what he went through specifically for them. The violence was there as a tool to make people think in one specific way (as religion is so oft to do).

    However in most games the violence either exists for the sake of violence itself (Doom; because its fun to blow up enemies), or merely as a more exciting vice for conflict (Counterstrike, which could be developed with nearly the same mechanics using a more innocent, but less gripping, theme).

    Still, killer article. Glad to see people tackling such great subjects. True gaming journalism is NOT dead, it's just out of the limelight.

    • An Atheist Reviews The Passion of the Christ (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The story is there. The one of hope, of faith, of sacrifice. It, however, is not in the forefront. Maybe it shouldn't be. As it is, and as people appear to take it on average, it is basically a thorough record of the grevious injuries Christ suffered as recorded by the gospels with a furniture joke randomly added for randomness. This of course completely misses the point. That he submits himself to the whim of man, which he well knows will treat him so badly that a latin phrase (excruciate) will be us
      • Hey, you have a point when people place their symbols before their God. Some of them want to "look" Christian so they aren't pestered. Some think they're Christian, but do not live a Christian life, read their Bible, or do any of the things real Christians do. Some are real Christians, and want to tell the world.

        That aside, The Passion is not about the life of Jesus. The life of Jesus is the "curing of the sick", offering the "yoke that is not heavy", and the let's give everyone a present.

        I didn't find

        • God is perfect, cannot make mistakes, cannot lie, cannot do evil.

          So, does God lack free will, or does whatever God happens to do become, by definition, good?

          If the former, why worship an automaton? If the latter, what makes God anything but the biggest bully on the block?

          If God both has free will, and yet would never do evil, why not create humans with that remarkable trait from the start? It's obviously not logically contradictory...

        • Great post! I enjoyed that very much. That was the most beautiful post I've read on Slashdot in a long time. We could use some more writing that sounds like it comes from a priest [biblegateway.com].

          I know I'm preaching to the choir as far as you're concerned, but I just want to comment on a common statement you made that we often hear in discussions on Christ. The following is something I've been thinking about lately, and this is as good an opportunity as any to put it into words and share it with a brother in Christ.

          He

      • Christianity forsakes icons, perhaps rightly, as they distract one from one's relationship with one's God, and their spiritual emotional connection.

        What a sweeping, ignorant statement. It's true that there's an anti-iconic tradition in Christianity, inherited from Judaism. But Christianity draws from other traditions as well.

        There are over a billion people calling themselves Chrisitans, and they adhere to thousands of different denominations and sects. The generalizations you can make about all Christia

    • Re:Christ vs. Doom (Score:5, Funny)

      by Haeleth ( 414428 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @08:55AM (#8879916) Journal
      I think, though, that there still is a fundamental difference between media like Passion of the Christ and a violent game . . . in most games the violence either exists for the sake of violence itself (Doom; because its fun to blow up enemies)

      Let me tell you a little story.

      Once there were some people who, in the course of a foolish experiment, accidentally opened a way for the forces of hell to enter the world. Demons roamed the earth. Then one man came along and fought them. He descended into the very depths of hell, fighting demons all the way, and defeated the lord of all demons before making his escape.

      Is that the plot for Doom, or is it the classic Christian stories of the Garden of Eden and the Harrowing of Hell? Why, it could be either! The only major differences between the two are that Christ doesn't use rocket launchers, while the Doom guy doesn't rescue the souls of virtuous Jews.

      Now tell me again how violence in video games is different from violence in religious stories? ;)
    • God mode by default - nice

  • This topic always irks me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by j.bellone ( 684938 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @08:21AM (#8879762) Homepage
    Okay, let me first start out with what I always argue this with:

    You show me a gun that has a mouse and moniter to aim it with, and I'll show you a priest that doesn't molest children.

    The fact is that the church simply uses the topic of games to force people to look away from it's real problems. One being that they lost their control over the world's countries. The second being that they have so much corruption in their system that it makes Windows look better alongside a Linux array.

    Is there problems in some games? Of course, but that is why they are rated mature. You can't blame a developer like id because they develop a game that 95 percent of their fans enjoy but the other 5 percent is sue happy.

    Bottom line, parents make sure your children play the games that are meant for them.

    I'm glad my parents didn't enforce this rule on me, and look at me, I turned out alright... yeah...
    • Bottom line, parents make sure your children play the games that are meant for them.

      This argument neglects the fact that there are many children without parents, who do not have guidance from above on making moral choices based on 'media' they have in front of them.

      It is for these children that traditional religion toils, as it always has, as anti-religion zealots seem all too ready to forget. The world is not a 3.5-children-per-house-picket-white-fence ...

      • Re:This topic always irks me (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jmpoast ( 736629 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @09:19AM (#8880058)
        If you are insinuating that there are a number of children running around with no adult supervision/guidance, then they have much bigger problems than violent videogames.

        • its not 'insinuation', its fact. there are a lot of un-parented kids in the world - do you really want generations to grow up, unsupervised, unguarded, with the notion that human slaughter, death and mayhem are a commercial substance made viable by our society and propagated?

          society is already value-less enough as it is. why should our commercial art forms -only- be used to further debase these values even further?

          i'm not for censorship and enforcement on the issue of culture and art-forms, but if there
          • He is right, there are many kids that are un-parentented (he doesn't mean by not having parents... just parents don't "parent" them). But this is also true that they have bigger problems than worrying about video games.

            Stores should be held liable for selling a game to a kid much like movie thearters are held liable for bringing a minor into a R-rated movie. It's just that we've been de-sensitized by the whole movie scene and games are popping up now as a "newer" entertainment industry.
          • You cannot blame the entertainment industry for a kid that goes on a killing spree. That's the guardian's problem. You are suppose to know when your "kin" is going crazy, there are signs. It's just that you choose to ignore them.

            Do you see kids killing people because they saw it in the movies? Yes - there have been. But was it later deemed the movie's fault, the publisher's fault, the movie thearter's fault?

            Where's the limit of blame here? Instead of looking at the person who makes the game for a specif
            • You are suppose to know when your "kin" is going crazy, there are signs. It's just that you choose to ignore them.

              WTF? are we talking about moral human responsibility, or the New World Order? sig Heil, my sons & daughters, and don't show signs of disorder!

              it is this 'coffeeshop psychology' that is the problem. morals don't allow people to scientificially and rigorously categorize each other and asses someones entire worth/value/behaviour on the basis of so-called 'empirical standards of behaviour
          • society is already value-less enough as it is. why should our commercial art forms -only- be used to further debase these values even further?

            Our commercial art forms arent 'only' being used that way. There are plenty of non-violent, and even educational games out there (they just dont get as much press).

            It is the parents, or guardians, job to watch over their children. It is their job to keep them from playing emotionally damaging video games at young ages.

            If the children do not have this supe
            • It is the parents, or guardians, job to watch over their children. It is their job to keep them from playing emotionally damaging video games at young ages.

              well, since society is actually composed of indidivuals who cannot exist without parents, its soooo easy to 'blame the parents for the child'.

              society, and members of society, do have a responsibility for the raising and education of future generations. yes, this starts with the family and the parents, but above and beyond that, there is -still- a de
      • Of course. Organized religion invariably encourages poor parents to have children that they can't afford to raise. All the more better to raise religious zombies.

        Organized religion "toils" for no one but itself. It does "good works" simply to preserve what is left of its power.

    • The fact is that the church simply uses the topic of games to force people to look away from it's real problems.

      Troll troll troll (yet I'm biting).
      First of all, you speak of Catholics, not Christians when you speak of 'corruption' with the priests and all. Not only that, but they HAVE been speaking against games long before that ever came up.

      That being said, I'm a Christian (raised Catholic) that has played video games all my life. Its all about knowing the difference between fantasy and reality. I
      • I was raised Roman Catholic, although right now I'm more so of a person who doesn't believe in religion (because of no proof to myself). But that really has nothing to do with the post.

        But yes, I was talking about Cathloics because that is what I relate to... my bad :).
    • The second being that they have so much corruption in their system that it makes Windows look better alongside a Linux array.

      Heresy! Lets burn him at the stake!

  • Killing in the cause of Religion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AnwerB ( 255422 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @08:26AM (#8879779)
    > more people have been killed in the cause of
    > religion (crusades, inquisitions etc)

    More people have been killed in the cause of *xenophobia* than have been killed in the 'cause' of religion.

    Christianity didn't tell the crusaders to slaughter all the men, women, and children in Jerusalem when they surrendered. It didn't tell them to rape the nuns when they took Constantinople in the 4th Crusade. Islam didn't tell the terrorists to fly a plane into a building.

    Don't know enough about the Christian concept of a 'Just War', but there are several rules of engagement for combat in Islam:

    - Treaties must be upheld.
    - Cannot kill innocents/non-combatants.
    - If the enemy seeks quarter, give it to them.
    - Prisoners are never tortured, and fed well.
    - Declaration of war unless you are occupied.
    - Cannot destroy churches, synagogues, etc.
    - Cannot destroy property, trees, animals, etc.
    - Should try to reach an agreement first.
    - No religious compulsion or coercion should ensue.
    - Give prisoners of war a chance for freedom.
    - Bury the dead with dignity.

    The Qur'an describes those people who are permitted to fight:

    [Quran 8:61]"If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient."

    [Quran 4:90]"...... Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them."

    However frustration and the feeling of impotence makes people willing to believe anything. I don't think that religion is the cause of all evil - I think it's evil people that are the cause of all evil.

    • Re:Killing in the cause of Religion (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CannibalCrowley ( 767585 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @08:39AM (#8879833) Homepage
      The problem with this argument is that religious people inherently ignore parts of their religion that don't support their personal goals. Add this to problems with translation and interpretation at that's why so many people have been killed in the name of religion (it's also why there are so many Christian sects).

    • Re:Killing in the cause of Religion (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Christianity didn't tell the crusaders to slaughter all the men, women, and children in Jerusalem when they surrendered. It didn't tell them to rape the nuns when they took Constantinople in the 4th Crusade. Islam didn't tell the terrorists to fly a plane into a building.

      Sure. It's like the Onion story God Angrily Clarifies "Don't Kill" Rule [theonion.com].

      Most major religions are like Flash for web development: 99% of the people involved cock it up, so it's difficult to not blame Flash. Same goes for religion: w

    • Christian Rules of Engagement (Score:5, Interesting)

      by prezninja ( 552043 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @09:05AM (#8879971) Homepage
      I sought out a similiar set of rules for Christians in my Bible, and this is what I came up with:

      "But Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'" (Matthew 26:52)

      "Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.'" (John 18:36)

      ".. the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom .. " (1 Timothy 4:1) [Illustrating Christ's Kingdom on earth begins with his appearing.]

      Is it fair to ask then why (if Christ's Kingdom isn't established yet) Christians have been fighting at all?

      (It's a different case to discuss with Old Testament Israel who, according to the Bible, was actually a nation representing the Kingdom of God at that time.)
      • Perhaps those who have been fighting, since they're not following Christ's example and command, aren't really Christians at all.

        I can claim to be a black man, but my appearance tells you that I'm lying. Others claim to be Christian, but their actions tell you they're lying. Find the people that are doing exactly as the Bible commands, and you'll have found true Christians.
        • Great, true Christians should follow the bible to the letter? So they should be out stoning people in the street and whatnot?

          How about if we all base our values on what's best for society, instead of trying to follow some documents cooked up to control the populace thousands of years ago.

          • Re:Christian Rules of Engagement (Score:5, Informative)

            by Tikiman ( 468059 ) * on Friday April 16, 2004 @02:29PM (#8884087)
            Great, true Christians should follow the bible to the letter? So they should be out stoning people in the street and whatnot?

            Christians are not bound by Old Testament laws, so no stoning is required

            How about if we all base our values on what's best for society, instead of trying to follow some documents cooked up to control the populace thousands of years ago.

            This is one of the silliest objections to Christianity - you realize that the people who "cooked up" the New Testament all died as martyrs, right? Also, what is wrong with the central Christian value of "love your neighbor as yourself"? Seems like if eveyone followed that value, then there wouldn't be problems with society. This society has major problems because people are selfish and lazy, not because of Christianity.

            • Also, what is wrong with the central Christian value of "love your neighbor as yourself"?

              What's wrong with it is that most people completely misunderstand it. Most people at best think that it means "love the guy in the house/apartment next to me (if that), and some arbitrary people I choose, and to Hell with everyone else -- they're not my problem."

              --Jeremy
            • > Christians are not bound by Old Testament laws, so no stoning is required

              This does beg the question why the Old Testament is part of the Bible, then. The real argument should be that Christians are bound by Old Testament except where the New Testament contravenes it, but even that comes up inaccurate. And still, it's not very difficult to find statements in the New Testament that require appalling behavior.

              > This is one of the silliest objections to Christianity - you realize that the people

              • This does beg the question why the Old Testament is part of the Bible, then. The real argument should be that Christians are bound by Old Testament except where the New Testament contravenes it, but even that comes up inaccurate. And still, it's not very difficult to find statements in the New Testament that require appalling behavior.

                The Old Testament is fully the word of God and is what s being referred to when Paul writes in 2 Timothy that 'All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebu

                • > The Old Testament is fully the word of God and is what s being referred to when Paul writes in 2 Timothy that 'All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.' We are still instructed to obey God's law, which is given in the Old Testament and summarised by Jesus as loving God and loving your neighbour. At no point are the laws contradicted. rather, Jesus says that he has come not to ta
              • This does beg the question why the Old Testament is part of the Bible, then. The real argument should be that Christians are bound by Old Testament except where the New Testament contravenes it, but even that comes up inaccurate. And still, it's not very difficult to find statements in the New Testament that require appalling behavior.

                such examples of "appalling behavioir" are usually willfully taken out of context. The fact is that the central message of the NT is love - God's love for man, and how men s

                • > such examples of "appalling behavior" are usually willfully taken out of context. The fact is that the central message of the NT is love - God's love for man, and how men should love each other. While it is certainly possible to find a few statements that can easily be warped to mean something else, the central message is love. If you read the whole NT cover to cover, you'd realize this.

                  I have read the New Testament (and the Old Testament) quite a few times, both when I was involved in the church an
      • Is it fair to ask then why (if Christ's Kingdom isn't established yet) Christians have been fighting at all?

        Almost exclusively for temporal concerns--such as "Ceaser told me to" or "these invaders are trying to kill us" or "we can't get to the holy land to pray anymore."

      • Is it fair to ask then why (if Christ's Kingdom isn't established yet) Christians have been fighting at all?

        I think a better question is: why don't we call them on their claims of being proper [Christians|Muslims|*]? They say that "the less a politician amounts to, the more he loves the flag." A similar parallel could be drawn to the Shakespearean observation, "The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose."

        I put it to you (nay, everybody) that most people responsible for the crap going on today are sh

    • Don't know enough about the Christian concept of a 'Just War'

      That's the funny thing. There isn't any.

      As an Arab Christian myself, I'm glad.

  • Points Raised (Score:5, Interesting)

    by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @08:26AM (#8879781) Homepage
    This article is not what you expect. How to tell if someone hasn't read the article: ranting about religion being used to justify political positions.

    There were two really good points in the article: ...do people oppose game violence because they oppose violence, or because they oppose games?

    I've always thought people who oppose games just don't like to have fun. They see it as wasteful.

    And while I'm not comparing the Bible to a video game, it's worth noting that those games which don't get much attention from pro-censors fit their violence into the overall milieu of the game, just as the Bible fits violence into its context.

    This is very interesting - the games cited as examples (Max Payne, etc...) do a very good job of making the violence as part of the story line.

    • Re:Points Raised (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ronfar ( 52216 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @09:03AM (#8879954) Journal
      Obligatory Simpson's

      Lisa: Where are the dice?

      Todd: Daddy says dice are wicked.

      Rod: We just move one space at a time. It's less fun that way

      The Simpsons, Episode "My Sister, My Sitter" [berkeley.edu]

      But this doesn't just deal with religious people. Years ago, when I was working at Software, Etc. (sigh.... those were the days) I had a teacher come in looking at Super Nintendos. She was full of bitterness and resentment because she felt that she was being pushed into buying one of because of the peer pressure her son was recieving. I could tell that she considered them to be a decadent hobby, and that she was one of these people who felt everything her child did needed to be "educational" and defined in a very narrow way. I did not encourage her to buy a SNES, I could see that leading to trouble (I think she walked out with Mario is Missing for PC).

      However, I didn't get the impression this was based on religion.

      There are people out there opposed to games, and they'll be opposed to them even when the only games available are "Pink Pony Princesses in Powder Puff World."

  • Sodom and Gomorrah 2.0 now with beastiality.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 16, 2004 @08:27AM (#8879784)
    It actually might be really funny to do a bare knuckled version of the bible in one of the role-playing engines like Neverwinter Nights. Start off in eden, with gratuitous sex and nudity. Eve would be super-hot and 3d, IYKWIMAITTYD. The player could have sex with her whenever and however they wanted as long as they stayed away from the pooper, and she wouldn't kiss *it* as long as they didn't take the apple. Just render the whole bible like that interactively, in all the gory detail, in Sodom you could do anything, animals, any people, trees, kill them, f-them, their corpses, while burning, whatever. What could the morality police get pissed off about. It'd be the ultimate GTA, and so depraved Ron Jermy would blush. You could crucify Jesus yourself. And stab him with the lance. Dogs and cats could live together in domestic partnerships. It'd be sweet. And kids could play it in Sunday school. It'd be so depraved it'd flip back over to wholesome.
  • Seriously, wouldn't that be sweet? The religious types would be beside themselves with confusion. Not that Mel would ever give them the rights, of course.

  • Making Up Problems? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by illuminata ( 668963 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @08:41AM (#8879835) Journal
    I've never really seen much of a clash between video games and religion. For the most part, the industry seems to battle more with racial groups, anti-gun groups, and parental groups. Most of the people that back these kind of groups in public are lawyers and politicians, take that for what you will.

    In this article, Matt Sakey fails to show how religion is against video game violence in the first place! When it comes down to actually showing hard examples as to how religion is against violence in videogames, he doesn't really have anything. This doesn't prevent him from pointing out the hypocrisy of religion, though. Take for example the quote aforementioned in the Slashdot article: "The history of opposition to games is a long one, and religion is often used to justify that opposition, though naysayers tend to ignore the fact that religion itself is a major source of violent acts". Matt never does say exactly when religion was used to justify opposition in video games.

    I'm not arguing against Matt Sakey's article because I'm religious. In fact, I'm an atheist. But, I think that Matt just had a bone to pick with relgion as opposed to a strong debate pointing out religion's opposition to video game violence, an opposition that he never did show to exist.
    • I'm not arguing against Matt Sakey's article because I'm religious. In fact, I'm an atheist. But, I think that Matt just had a bone to pick with relgion as opposed to a strong debate pointing out religion's opposition to video game violence, an opposition that he never did show to exist.

      I agree. I'm a Christian involved in youth ministry, and I don't see any sort of conflict between games and God. Games are just something to do when you're bored - there isn't some spiritual/ephemeral component to them.

    • Re:Making Up Problems? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Talith ( 765671 )
      I've never really seen much of a clash between video games and religion. For the most part, the industry seems to battle more with racial groups, anti-gun groups, and parental groups. Most of the people that back these kind of groups in public are lawyers and politicians, take that for what you will. It seems you may be too young to remember the 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' 20 yrs ago when D&D first became popular... or even the Fighting Fantasy books. My parents, caring in their self-righteous rel
  • There's a burgeoning Christian development community that sees opportunity in creating mainstream video games that speak to their beliefs and values, realizing that the consumer base is available and that gaming would be an effective tool to build interest among young people.

    Oh boy! I can't wait for Coverting the Heathens IV: This time, its Biblical ;) Maybe the lead developer on that game would be Ned Flanders. That does sound a little scary, though. Religions are having trouble reaching youths, so

  • Religion and gaming (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 16, 2004 @08:48AM (#8879872)
    This is a fascinating topic. I remember the spate of school shootings in the US a few years ago, with Columbine as the grisly centre-piece. I remember how shocked people claimed to be that this spate of shootings was centred on the "Bible Belt" and how quick religious groups were to blame games and how shrill they were in this condemnation.

    This got me thinking...

    Aren't "bible-belt" communities going to be more likely to ostracise and condemn those who don't fit into their own (fairly narrow) pattern of social behaviour? Aren't they, whether well-meaningly or maliciously, going to make life worse for those who, as they go through an extremely difficult stage in anybody's life, find themselves as outsiders? Aren't these religious groups and communities actually the real "pressure cooker" that create the environment in which these events can occur?

    Maybe these fine, upstanding religious groups are so eager to blame computer games because it stops the finger of blame pointing where it really should... at themselves.

    • Re:Religion and gaming (Score:4, Interesting)

      by gobbo ( 567674 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @10:16AM (#8880525) Journal
      Aren't "bible-belt" communities going to be more likely to ostracise and condemn those who don't fit into their own (fairly narrow) pattern of social behaviour? Aren't they, whether well-meaningly or maliciously, going to make life worse for those who, as they go through an extremely difficult stage in anybody's life, find themselves as outsiders? Aren't these religious groups and communities actually the real "pressure cooker" that create the environment in which these events can occur? Maybe these fine, upstanding religious groups are so eager to blame computer games because it stops the finger of blame pointing where it really should... at themselves.

      Aye matey! Well said. There was a study I heard about on the radio recently (how's that for credibility?) that suggested the school gun rampages we've been hearing about happened predominantly in smaller communities with high levels of intolerance for difference. I've 'done time' living in bible belt communities and the mental homogeneity gives me the creeps, it's no wonder people crack.

      Another huge issue in small-town and rural middle america and canada: sexual abuse, particularly incest, is much more of a problem than people realize, as these homogenized communities are also very good at secrets. Now where did I put my [virtual] M16?

      Don't worry, be happy.

      • Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the study also conjectured that the ready availability of unlocked rifles and a 'pry my gun from my cold dead hands' cultural thread influenced the likelihood of going postal at school. Guess that's just common sense, thinking back on my experiences.
  • Does anybody else have stuck in their head now the image of Alex in Centurian garb whipping Jesus?

    It had been arranged by the prison charlie, as part of my further education to read him the Bible. I didn't so much like the latter part of the book which is more like all preachy talking, than fighting and the old in-out. I liked the parts where these old yahoodies tolchock each other and then drink their Hebrew vino and, then getting on to the bed with their wives' handmaidens. That kept me going.

    Biblical f

  • Go read the Book of Joshua.
    http://www.gutenberg.net/etext05/web0610. txt
    Unilateral agression. Conquest. Pillage. Rape. Genocide.
    All _directly_commanded_ by God.

    • Re:Yahweh has no room to criticize violence (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Thedalek ( 473015 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @12:21PM (#8881969)
      While I understand the futility of speaking in spiritual terms to someone who does not relate to spirituality (much like trying to talk math with an Art professor), I have to ask for clarification on at least one of your points:

      After reading the text in question, I see no reference to rape. In fact, not even the Skeptic's Annotated Bible [skepticsan...dbible.com] entry on Joshua has a reference. Could you perhaps give a more succinct citation?

      • You are correct; I was mistaken. Samuel does not mention rape.
        The Lord commanded Joshua to kill every one of the land's
        inhabitants, men, women, and children, with the edge of the sword.

        I was conflating Samue's account with the earlier conquest
        in Numbers, where God commands the Chosen People to enslave
        the virgin daughters of their enemies :

        And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? . . . Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman
        that hath known man by lying
        • It's difficult to directly infer meaning from this section, owing to the lack of quotation marks in the language. The excluded section (your "...") is verse 16, which reads:

          "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the council of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord." (KJV, pronounciation symbols omitted)

          Without a graduate course on what role the council of Balaam had in these matters, or who Peor was and

      • One problem you get when speaking math with an Art professor is getting hung up on the minor details the Art professor is getting wrong while ignoring the major point. While Joshua may be lacking in rapes, he could have been referring to:

        Genesis 19:8

        Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

        Judges 5:30

        Have they not s

        • Genesis 19:8 - The speaker in question is Lot, not God. In this situation, he is reacting as a citizen of Sodom would be likely to do. There is no pretense that he is performing a noble act by offering his daughters to the people of Sodom.

          Judges 5:30 - It is not clear whether the speaker is Sisera's mother or her "wise ladies," but it is clear that the phrase is pure speculation, and does not demonstrate a general approval of rape.

          Judges 19:25 - Like the instance of Lot offering his daughter, this is me

  • Religion doesn't cause violence (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xTown ( 94562 ) on Friday April 16, 2004 @02:25PM (#8884014)
    Religion doesn't cause war any more than a gun will rise up and shoot someone all by itself.

    People cause war. We may use religion as an excuse, but I think people that wage war--at least in the name of Christianity--are adhering more to the word of man than the word of God. Unfortunately, favoring the word of man over the word of God seems to be the standard MO for most religious people today.
    • I don't think you can separate people and religion in the same way you can physically separate a person and a gun. A gun is a tool for killing while religion can be either a driving force, or an excuse for war.

      "favoring the word of man over the word of God seems to be the standard MO for most religious people today"

      I agree. The word of man is all a religous person has. Who shows a person religion? Who interprets religous teachings for children? Who writes holy books? People do. So, it is far too natural f
      • And therein lies the problem with organized religion. It cannot represent the will of the alleged diety that it upholds, because it will always be bent to serve the will of the polyester clad salesmen who define it's requirements to the drooling masses.

        I don't listen to Pastor Bob. Pastor Bob is a luddite imbecile who lusts after his 16 year old step daughter.

  • In Context (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TalMaximus ( 681873 )
    I find this quote the most intriguing of what is said. How violence in video games and in any other media "must be assessed in context or not at all." Saying that the violence portrayed in The Passion of the Christ is the same as some of the violence in games spoken against recently like GTA, is definitely taking things out of context. Sure there is violence in both media...but how is it being portrayed. Who is performing the violence? Why is it happening? How is it looked upon?

    Violence in Christian

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Close