E3 Keynote Speaker Backed Controversial Pastor's Claim that non-Christians Condemned to Hell
E3 Keynote Speaker Backed Controversial Pastor's Claim that non-Christians Condemned to Hell
June 3, 2008
When the Entertainment Software Association announced on May 19th that Texas Governor Rick Perry would deliver the keynote address at E3 2008, GamePolitics was one of the few news outlets to publicly question the ESA's decision.
We expect more raised eyebrows over Perry's selection given yesterday's reports on Wired and The Escapist that in November, 2006 Perry affirmed the comments of controversial minister John Hagee that non-Christians are condemned to Hell.
In the photo at left, Perry is seen covering his face while Hagee preaches.
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, recently rejected Hagee's endorsement over, as CNN reported, "Hagee's comments that Adolf Hitler had been fulfilling God's will by hastening the desire of Jews to return to Israel in accordance with biblical prophecy."
As the Dallas Morning News reported on November 6, 2006:
Gov. Rick Perry, after a God and country sermon attended by dozens of political candidates Sunday, said that he agreed with the minister that non-Christians will be condemned to hell.
"In my faith, that's what it says, and I'm a believer of that," the governor said.
...Asked afterward at a political rally whether he agreed with Mr. Hagee, the governor said he didn't hear anything that he would take exception to. He said that he believes in the inerrancy of the Bible and that those who don't accept Jesus as their savior will go to hell.
GP: 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.
UPDATE: The ESA went ballistic over this story and called GP's objectivity into question, given the ECA's ownership of the site. Here's part of what the ESA had to say:
If the ESA posted a blog and called it a news site, journalists would rightfully balk and it wouldn't pass a smell test. Remarkably, GamePolitics doesn't face the same scrutiny even though it's funded by the ECA and tainted with anti-ESA vitriol. At the end of the day, calling GamePolitics a news site is as laughable as saying there's a Cuban free press.
Ouch.
Despite the ESA's reaction, I stand by what I wrote regarding the appropriateness - or lack thereof - of having Gov. Perry deliver the E3 keynote. However, I am making one edit to the headline. While Gov. Perry agreed with Rev. Hagee's contention that non-Christians would be condemned to Hell, it does not appear to be a direct quote. That error has been fixed.
Comments
Just another failure in management from the ESA. And people are still confused as to why all these companies are leaving...
i don't understand why he is covering his face...
Gee i wonder why companies could possibly be leaving. Maybe its because a body who thinks this is a good choice for keynote speaker is obviously not on the same planet as the rest of us.
This.. should be interesting.
Better to serve in Hell than willingly follow a bigot.
'nuff said.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
Explain why he's a bigot in your eyes. Perry didn't say anything that isn't commonly accepted Christian doctrine.
If he had said "non-Christians are awful and I want them to go to hell" or "non-Christians are inferior and deserve to go to hell", that would be bigotry.
"In his sermon, Mr. Hagee exhorted the congregation to fight moral weakness, to vote for religious people and oppose same-sex marriage."
Sounds bigoted to me, and who cares if it's religious doctrine if it really says ALL nonbelievers will go to hell then it's biggoted.
If you don't believe in Jesus Christ than our all-loving God will send you to hell where you'll suffer and burn for all eternity with all the other murderers and scum of the earth.
Not bigoted my aching foot.
So then, are you saying that you are utterly intolerant of Hagee's opinion that all nonbelievers will go to hell?
Before you answer, perhaps you'll want to take a look at the definition below.
Bigot - "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."
"...who cares if it's religious doctrine..."
If it is religious doctrine and you say it should not be tolerated (not that you've said that), then you've become what you decry.
By their very nature, belief systems are contradictory. Unless you believe that two contradictory statements can somehow both be true (a logical fallacy), you have no choice but to say that people who don't believe the same as you do are incorrect. There's certainly a hint of intolerance in saying this.
Christians believe that Atheists will be eternally damned to a place isolated from God and his benefits, while Atheists believe that Christians will rot in their graves. Atheists snatch heaven away from Christians just as surely as Christians consign Atheists to hell. This is just inherent in holding a view about spiritual things that differs from someone elses. For these beliefs alone, neither are bigots by any but the loosest interpretation of the word, under which interpretation we're all pretty much bigots.
The fact of the matter is that what an Atheist believes cannot take heaven away from a Christian and what a Christian believes cannot send an Atheist to hell. Since each rejects the others beliefs, knowing that what another believes cannot define my reality, there is no harm in each of us being free to believe what we will. This is what the whole notion of Freedom of Religion is based upon.
Once Christians start talking about hurrying an Atheist to hell, or Atheists start talking about hastening Christians to the grave, then we have a different matter.
BTW, you should get that foot looked at by a doctor. Just saying.
Intolerant is not the right word.
Disgusted and sickened would be more accurate. I'm not intolerant of Christians or their belief system, and I'm not saying that those who follow Christianity are by default bigots.
When I said who cares if it's religious doctrine I'm saying that the fact that it's religious doctrine (even a popular one) does not automatically make it non bigoted.
"you have no choice but to say that people who don't believe the same as you do are incorrect. There's certainly a hint of intolerance in saying this."
I think you're getting disagreement and intolerance mixed up. Under that definition rival sports fans are automatically intolerant of each other. Right now the celtics are playing the lakers and the respective fans only think their side is better are they now intolerant of each other?
"Atheists believe that Christians will rot in their graves. "
Yeah but they believe EVERYONE will rot (or burn if they decide to get cremated), not just christians.
It's my opinion that the 'if you don't believe you WILL go to eternal suffering zone' is inherently holier than though. Preaching it to everyone (regardless of if they want to listen) borders on bigoted.
Edit: I think the 'vote for religious people' bit that Hagee said clinches it as being bigoted oh and my foot only aches when I run on it but thanks for your concern.
He is honest with his beliefs and hasn't compromised them to be popular.
edit::This is a neutral statement meant as a comment, not as a complement towards the subject, there might have even been an attempt at humor. Also, it seems people still love going @XXXXXXX as opposed to the neat reply function that makes awsome little threads
Your premise is incorrect. Texas is the Bible Belt, this statement makes him popular, not unpopular.
...You have GOT to be kidding me. Who hired this man to give a speech at E3? What the hell were they thinking?
Oh wait. Maybe they're taking a leaf out of GTA's book and trying to drum up as much controversy as possible to get people to show up
@Brokenscope
His beliefs are hateful and demonstrates why Christianity and Christians in general are hostile to everyone else.
"Everyone else will burn in Hell!" is a hateful and deeply divisive remark, and I find it repugnant that a governor would affirm the remarks of a televangelist hatemonger.
You mean why the loud, holier than thou, televangelist Christians are hostile towards everyone.
Sweeping generalizations FTL.
You have every right to believe that, and it makes me sad that the most vocal (or most publicized) members of Christianity are like this. However, not all Christians act 'holier than thou' like this person. Please don't group all people who have faith with these doomsayers.
@Arad
Do you believe that if someone doesn't accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior that they cannot get to heaven? This is the belief espoused by your theocracy. Unless someone follows the teachings that Chrisitanity put forth, there is no possiblity of that person acheiving total bliss in the afterlife. If you can't achieve bliss, then you burn in hell.
Either you believe this, or you aren't a Chrisitian. Being a Christian means following the doctrine set forth by either
A.) The New Testament, "No one goes to the father except through me."
or
B.) The religious institution that interprets the Bible for you, all of which say either follow us or go to hell.
Simply put, you either believe these things and are Christian, or you do not and are something else. You can't cherry pick what you want to believe and still expect to be taken seriously. And I'm sorry, but having a belief that says only the people who agree with you will be okay in the afterlife is one of the highest forms of xenophobia. Either be just like us, or risk eternal damnation. That is Christianity, and that is Christians. If you believe, on any level, that only those following your belief system will achieve bliss in some far off place, than you are "holier than thou". Also, notice how I am not grouping, "All with faith..." though most belief systems are as xenophobic as Christianity if not more so.
You have no idea what it means to be Christian. Each person holds their own beliefs. They are not perscribed to us.
I would say that you are the one who does not know what being Christian entails. Being a Christian means subscribing to a system of beliefs called Christianity. There are many flavors, but all follow either the New Testament gospels, or a preacher who follows these gospels. And I would say that your beliefs were prescribed to you, either by your parent or by someone around you who indoctrinated you to the core system. No one has ever woken up one morning of their own accord and said, "Today I am going to start believing in Christ." without having someone clue them in to the doctrine.
It's fine to say that you don't believe that someone who doesn't follow chrisitanity will burn in hell. Perhaps you believe that God, as you see it, will judge each person of their own good and evil, but that is not what your belief system says. If you don't hold this core view, then you are not from any branch of Christianity that I have ever heard of, and I used to be a devout Catholic who tried to learn as much as possible about every denomination of Chrisitanity.
Wow, I didn't expect this to balloon the way it did.
I'm not a member of any brick-and-mortar church or sect, but I keep my Bible close and read from it when I can. As for the black-and-white "Worship or Burn" philosophy that has been described, the first time I heard of this was when the pope apparently drudged up an ancient declaration that said anyone who isn't Catholic will burn. But that's beside the point.
What do I believe, you ask? "Before one judges others, one's self must be judged." Simply put, unless you're perfect, you have no right to judge other people on their eligibility for heaven. I am far from perfect, and I remind myself of that every time I would find fault in someone else.
Does that satisfy your curiousity concerning my religious beliefs?
One famously said, "Because I believe in the Bible, I believe Hell exists. Because I believe in God's mercy, I believe it is empty."
The monophysite branches of Christianity don't believe Jesus was human at all; that he was an entirely divine being with no human part. They deny the Trinity. Unitarians also deny the Trinity; they believe God has only a singular nature, and some believe that Jesus was purely human and not the Son of God. Both are Christians, yet they have completel opposite beliefs concerning the nature of Jesus.
You sound like one of those people who believes a lot of garbage about Islam because a bunch of terrorists keep spouting it as gospel.
Not all Christians are Bible-bashers; not all Christians believe in the literal truth of the Bible (the pope certainly doesn't) and not all Christians believe that non-Christians are going to Hell -- no matter what the Bible may say.
This may be an off-topic comment, but I find that to be a beautiful and inspiring quote. Could you tell me who it's attributed to? A Google search turns up only this page. ;)
"Because I believe in the Bible, I believe Hell exists. Because I believe in God's mercy, I believe it is empty."
Purgatory must be very crowded then.
Although I wonder where Satan lives if hell is empty. Last I heard he was in Georgia.
This sort of stuff is exactly why blind faith in everything that's said in the bible does more harm than good.
This is nothing but Christian fundamentalism, which is just as bad as any other religious fundamentalism.
I sometimes entertain myself by thinking about what Jesus would do and say in reaction to bulls*** like this. From what I remember from when I was taught about him (I went to school in a country that does NOT separate church and state) he had a very common sense type of an approach to many things. I have a feeling he'd march down to wherever this dude has his office, knock politely on the door, and then continue to smack him down (verbally) for better part of the day until the dude was weeping under his desk begging for forgiveness.
-- http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/
Personally I'd like to see him use a rope as a flail as when he drove the moneylenders from the temple.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
Please do not ad-lib with the Bible. It's bad enough when Hagee and his troupe do so.
The NIV translation of Matthew 21:12 states, "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves."
No matter which translation you rely upon, it will not mention Jesus using a rope as a flail. And while many biblical artists have used this imagery, to my knowledge there are no primary sources for this anecdote. So they were ad-libbing as well, as many artists are wont to do.
FYI Although there are some exceptions, last I checked there are almost no Christian fundamentalists who advocate strapping bombs to yourself and blowing up random people. All are the same eh? Go read wikipedia!
No, they just place bombs in government buildings like in Oklahoma City or Planned Parenthood clinics or gay bars. They also have no bid contracts for mercenary work that is outside the laws of the US and the countries they "work in" such as Iraq and will shoot at anyone who dresses or speaks "funny". Yup, that's what good Christian fundies do (the owner of Blackwater USA is a "devout Biible-Believing Christian".
And people wonder why I turned away in large part from Christianity and became an Agnostic. Everything you said there were the reasons why I couldn't stand being part of that religion any longer and ultimately decided to follow my own path. Religions that essentially say, "Worship or burn in Hell," "Do as we say or burn in Hell," or "Convert or die," make you feel guilty about yourself and say whatever you like is wrong are not religions I care to follow. And to this day I am extremely suspicious of most organized religions.
I'm curious now as to what your particular belief system is and how you propose to avoid coming off as "holier than thou" in sharing it. Or perhaps you are too "holier than thou" to share it in the first place?
If you espouse complete tolerance, won't that make it difficult to confront any perceived narrow-mindedness in others since such will inevitably be seen as intolerant?
How do you avoid the self-referential incoherence in:
- Everyone's belief system is right except for those who don't agree that everyone's belief system is right.
- Most belief systems are xenophobic because their intolerance is foreign and strange.
The whole "bliss in the afterlife" thing is a red herring. Belief systems who don't have afterlife concepts are just as dogmatic as those that do. For instance, the atheist's beliefs snatch heaven away from Christians just as surely as the Christian's beliefs consign atheists to hell.
But if you are a Christian, you don't really believe that atheists can prevent you from getting to heaven. And if you are an atheist, you don't really believe that Christians can consign you to hell. So, what's the big deal? People believe differently than you do. It's not offensive, it is just the logical outworkings of how belief systems work.
Get over it.
Bravo
The big deal is that it's a lot more hurtful to tell someone that they should/will suffer horribly for the way they lead their life than telling someone that they won't get a cookie for behaving as they were told.
Wrong. Neither is hurtful until you start giving what others believe the ability to define your own reality.
You just go straight to hell where you belong you antisemetic bitch. That wanst inflammatory was it. how about Es ist Zeit für Rache! Wir müssen die Juden ausrotten!
Okay okay, thats just a troll. Personally I have a hard time not accepting anyone as long as they leave everyone else alone about it. The problem is that so, so many people behave that they are better, even slightly, than anyone that is different. I am bitterly devote to the idea that everyone and everything is the same in value (without context) and thus I refuse to even be around anyone that is regularly part of any church. After all if they even want to change what you religiously believe, ignoring what you want or need, they think their way is better uniformly. Bah I say! Bah!
First of all,not every Christian is some hateful bigot(I would know,since I am one).
Second of all,you shouldn't talk about a religion you have quite obviously demonstrated you know nothing about.
Lastly,you shouldn't base a religion sorley on nutjobs like Jack Thompson and this guy,because it makes you look like an idiot.
If anyone on this board can point me to the spot of any Chrisitan denomination that says the following, "Anyone, regardless of beliefs, can get in to heaven as long as they are a good person. God judges each person individually and belief in and acceptance of Jesus is not a prerequisite for entry to heaven." than I will rescind my argument. It's all well and good to say I know nothing of Chrisitanity when you can't point to a single thing that I said as wrong.
Also, just because you believe someone will burn in hell does not make you hateful. Wishing someone to burn in hell makes you hateful. Most christians believe that non-believers are damned to hell for all eternity, that's why they are so intent on converting those who don't believe as they do. They honestly don't want to have people burning in hell. I do not believe that holding this belief makes a person a bigot or hate filled, it's simply xenophobic and wrong.
The bible also says that the earth is the centre of our solar system. OOPS that wasnt too correct was it. The church wasnt too happy about it when Gallileo tried to prove the true facts. Oh well not everything in the bible is true. proved.
What the heck are you talking about?
NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the Earth is the center of the Solar System. In fact, the Bible makes no mention of the "Solar System" at all. Or any planetary system beyond general references to "Heavenly Bodies" and the stars in the sky.
what the heck are you smokin?
Sigh...... Galieo at the time did NOT have proof. That is why the Catholic Church did not accept the theory first and outright.
Galieo just speculated.
Read and learn
http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
"The bible also says that the earth is the centre of our solar system."
...Yeah, you can stop talking now. Thanks for showing everyone that atheists can be ignorant and blindly hateful, too.
The Bible DOES Says the Sun Revolves Around the Earth
(in error i did mean solar system not universe as such)
Perhaps the most famous passage in the Bible regarding the sun’s movement around the earth is where Joshua causes the sun to stand still in the sky. Bold emphasis added:
Joshua 10:12-13 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Modern Christian apologists will try to dismiss this passage as “metaphor” but it clearly says “the sun stood still” and stopped in “the midst of heaven”, indicating that the authors mistakenly believed the sun revolves around the earth.
There are other passages that support this idea that the sun revolves around the earth (bold emphasis added):
Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
“Hasteth to his place where he arose” is a telling phrase. After the sun finishes going down, it runs back (under the earth presumably) to the place where it started the previous morning.
Psalms 19:4-6 In them hath he (Yahweh) set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
“Tabernacle (or tent) for the sun” is an interesting metaphor. It implies that the sun rests for the night (this is what tents are for). The authors didn’t realize that the sun doesn’t (even metaphorically speaking) rest under the earth. It’s still active on the other side of the planet. This passage in Psalms also seems reminiscent of the Greek myths of Apollo who took the sun on its daily “circuit” across the sky.
The Bible says the Earth is fixed in place, too.
1st Chronicles 16:30 …the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Psalms 93:1 ... the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 96:10 ... the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved....
These verses explicitly claim that the earth is fixed in place. There’s no room for interpretation. What other understanding of the phrase, “it shall not be moved” can we have
*-----MOST IMPORTANT PART!
and in particular relation to THESE last 3 quotes (1st Chronicles 16:30,Psalms 93:1,Psalms 96:10) regarding the earth being firmly fixed and immovable, It was this THESE EXACT VERSES that were used as evidence against Galileo, who argued for the theory of Copernicus, that the earth is not immovable, but rotates around the sun. It was for teaching this that he was called toRome 
there you go. happy now?
*------MOST IMPORTANT PART!
Extreme biblical literalists like you harm christianity and honest, open understanding of the bible.
Try to read it in context instead of pretending it's an astrophysics textbook.
It's quite telling that in order to criticize the Bible for supposed "contradictions", some people will stop at Galileo and ignore the discoveries of later physicists. A better interpretation of these Biblical verses is that the authors understood the concept of relative velocity. The sun, in fact, does move around the earth -- relative to the earth.
wow... damned if i do damned if i dont...
as Wearyman said earlier to me when i talked very generally:
"What the heck are you talking about?
NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the Earth is the center of the Solar System. In fact, the Bible makes no mention of the "Solar System" at all. Or any planetary system beyond general references to "Heavenly Bodies" and the stars in the sky.
what the heck are you smokin?"
so i talk in detail and get slated for being an 'extreme biblical literalist'.. wow.. nice open discussion we are having here.
Strange how im not the one coming across as agressive :). Guess im just happy to ask questions about things.
''...Yeah, you can stop talking now. Thanks for showing everyone that atheists can be ignorant and blindly hateful, too"
again, apologies if you think i am ignorant and 'hateful'. I merely have questions, and actually i am an agnostic, not an atheist. Its these kind of issues/questions that have always confused me when it comes to learning about religion and having faith. So i ask them (im not going to apologise for asking questions ever) , and i get abuse. Hardly seems fair.
I do strongly take issue with being called 'hateful' too. I try and live my life every day thinking about others and helping others above myself, and live my life by a strong moral code. Havent ever been in trouble with police or authority figures. I try and do everything i can to live my life as a good role model for others. SO to be called 'hateful' .. wow.. if that isn't judging somebody i dont know what is.
I guess the hypocracy of how one second people preach that you shouldn't judge others, and then do the complete opposite just baffles me and gives me more questions. But i wont ask them because ill get verbal abuse for it. *sigh*
Yes, after reading several of your comments, you _do_ sound hateful. Go read through them yourself, and maybe you'll see.
"I try and live my life every day thinking about others and helping others above myself, and live my life by a strong moral code. Havent ever been in trouble with police or authority figures."
Irrelevant. "Hateful" doesn't mean or imply "criminal".
"SO to be called 'hateful' .. wow.. if that isn't judging somebody i dont know what is."
1. No, saying that someone can be "hateful" is not judging them. It's judging their words and actions.
2. You're assuming that the person that called you hateful was a Christian.
"SO to be called 'hateful' .. wow.. if that isn't judging somebody i dont know what is."
you misinterpreted what i meant there, i wasnt saying the word hateful means judging somebody. I was talking about hypocracy. saying its unfair that you call me hateful when you dont know me. i wasn't defining the word.
Apologies if i do sound 'hateful' but i have re read my comments, and i really cant see when i show HATRED (and hatred is NOT disagreement) toward anyone. Clearly that wasnt my intent as i dont HATE any religion.
The Bible also tells of the story of the Tower of Babel. Those builders though they could build a tower to reach the heavens. We now know that they wouldn't have reached anything but empty space. It still doesn't change the fact that they though the heavens were just beyond the sky.
Also, give it up on the sun thing. Weathermen call it "sunrise" and "sunset" for one common sense reason. Standing on the earth, it looks like the sun rises and sets. The early Catholic church may have been wrong in their condemnatin of Galileo but that doesn't suddenly endoctrinate the Bible as establishing the Earth as the center of the Universe.
well now im confused.. do i read the bible literally or not, and if its different in different places, who decides?
I was replying right from the start to Kaylel's comment:
''Wait? Just because the Christian bible said so makes it solid fact? What if the Christian view of the afterlife is completely wrong, and the Greek afterlife is the real afterlife. Greek mythology is much older, so it should be more accurate right? The problem is, what is the right religion? There are tons of much older religions. If someone says "I am the son of god, I have a book about what the afterlife is really like, and I am going to heaven while everyone else is going to hell". You would attack that person. People like you are applying the same thing to us.''
He was talking about the 'bible says literally that non believers go to hell argument'. I was merely SUPPORTING his case that the bible isnt supposed to be read literally (for the incorrect facts ive pointed out, and the Tower of Babel facts you just pointed out).
All im saying is that i dont agree with the 'bible condemns non christians to hell'. I believe if you live your life correctly, and it turns out there is a heaven, that your a good person, that you'll be let in anyway. Forgiven for not strictly believing. Thats MY belief system and im entitled to it as an agnostic. I just find it very confusig when certain bits are read literally and some bits arent, yet it is the reader deciding, which will always be subjective, so nobody can claim to be truly right including the original pastor who made the comment.
"well now im confused.. do i read the bible literally or not, and if its different in different places, who decides?"
Suppose a science teacher holds up a basketball in a class and declares, "This is the sun." She then holds up a marble and states, "This is the earth," moving the marble slowly around the basketball. Later, she tells you that the students all need to complete certain projects to get a good grade in class.
Does one take the teacher literally or not, and if its different in different places, who decides?
If a student doesn't complete the projects claiming he didn't know whether or not to take the teacher literally, do you think his excuse would fly?
The truth is that the context of statements help us understand what the statements are intended to convey. It is only when we don't want to hear something that we start getting "confused" about what is meant.
Here here to the learned!
...Oh but really theory of relativity makes it possible that the earth is stationary and all of existence rotates around it, so it just looks like its moving, but really its the power of god that keeps it anchored. ;P
I think the point isn't whether it's true or not, but it's what these people believe. While a person can believe I'm going to hell, I don't particularly care until it starts to become personal (such as being harrassed for being non-Christian or the like).
Well the second half - "God judges each person individually and belief in and acceptance of Jesus is not a prerequisite for entry to heaven" is accepted doctrine in much of the mainstream church.
The bible often says things like 'he that believes in me will live forever' it never says the negative interpretation of that (that you seem to be implying it says).. and never once mentions following organised religion either (except to slag the concept off relentlessly, even to the point of saying at one point "Why are you following rules? They're all man made anyway.").
Umm just so you know you are at a website called Gamepolitics which reports on politics that affect... games *facepalm*
Yes, but that's just it. The fact that this blog can post several stories per day about the intersection of videogames and politics shows that videogames are highly political. So why should politics be barred from a videogame convention?
Why not?
-Loudspeaker
"Volume helps to get a point across but sharp teeth are better."
Brokenscope: "He is honest with his beliefs and hasn't compromised them to be popular.
You could say the same about Hitler, one of Perry's minister's heroes. What a great role model he turned out to be. (And, from what we've seen in the archival footage, he no doubt would have made a captivating keynote speaker.)
Godwin was a smart one.
Pure genius, that one. It even beats the "what goes up, must come down" Law. And it's something I became aware of only by virtue of my time spent on GamePolitics. Who said blogging was a waste of time?
edit:: i can't read
maybe, then again, Hitler had the perfect audience for his speeches.
"You could say the same about Hitler, one of Perry's minister's heroes."
Let me guess, your blood was boiling and you saw the word "Hitler" somewhere in a sentence. Go back and read the article again.
The minister said that Hitler fulfilled a prophecy because his actions caused the Jews to return to Israel. That does NOT imply anything heroic. According to Christian belief, Judas helped fulfil a prophecy by betraying Jesus.
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own".
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
Thomad Jefferson was no fan of organized religion. Indeed, of all the founders, it may be most truthfully said that he was a "Deist". However, as a Deist he innately respected the rights of all people to believe what they wished. It was his pluralistic vision which we now celebrate in America.
However, it is this very pluralism that is threatened when we accuse someone of bigotry and xenophibia simply for expressing thier religion publically. Part of a pluralistic society is agreeing to disagree. We all must realize that other people will have beleif systems which conflict with our own. As long as those beleifs to not impinge on our Constitutionally protected rights, then we DO NOT have the right to stop those people from practicing (and espousing, if it is religiously required) thier religion.
In other words, Christians have a constitutionally protected right to practice Christianity. Part of Christianity is the commandment from God to preach the gospel and convert others to Christianity. (also known as The great Commision) So Christians have the right to speak on their beliefs. This is, of course, also backed up by the right to Free Speech.
However, while people are guaranteed the right to speak, they are not goaranteed the right to an audience. In other words, you don't have to listen if you disagree.
blah, blah, blah. The point being that he can say what he wants, but its a bad business descision to let him do it at e3. As can plainly be seen by this flamefest he will not have a receptive audience among gamers. Most are rage against the machine types and dont like politicians to begin with. Video games give you the medium to go willy-nilly-killing-spree if you want. It makes a hell(pun intended) of a lot of sense to NOT have him speak for an audience that enjoys absolute freedoms....such as paying a hooker to give them a bj in a car and afterwards running them over with said car, rinse and repeat ad nauseam
I'm christian, and I don't practice that often. We’re not all like that. Any religion will have people like this. I agree, this man is a fool. He follows the book too literally. The ten commandments are the source of some of this problem. “Honor no other god but me.” And all that. Who’s to say that our religion is the only one that’s right? An ancient book and some circumstantial evidence? Foolish. Guess what buddy? Religion has been the cause of more wars that anyone could possibly count. Don’t try to shove your religion down other people’s throats, it works better that way. Don’t let this fool represent us badly, we’re not all like that.
Sorry bud, You need to pay better attention to history.
The cause of most wars are power and land. Very few if any can be solely linked to religion. Hitler wanted power through selective breeding and wanted to rule the world. Attilla the Hun wanted to rule over China, the Civil wars in Africa are over who will rule their respective countries. The US Civil War was over the right of states to rule themselves without federal intervention. Etc.
Show me a war that can be solely linked to religion.
E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com
How about the crusades?
altho removing the malcontent masses for a war effort was more likly the real reason for it.
"Attilla the Hun wanted to rule over China"
Although his empire stretched into Russia, and historically his people were known to tangle with the Chinese, I don't know that there is any evidence that he actually wanted to rule over China. His conquests were all in Europe.
I love generalizations. Obviously all Christians, regardless of denomination, fall into this category, be they Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist, Methodist, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Adventist, Anabaptist, Presbyterian, Quaker, Pentacostal, Unitarian, or any other organization. Do you even know the differences between them?
No, instead you wish to make a general statement about a group you have a problem with based on the comments of one person who believes something you don't like, so you respond by insulting the group and asking for his censorship. So our public and political officials can no longer express religious views, is that it? But they have the freedom too, just like the rest of us. Would it have made any difference if he'd been a hardcore Satanist? What about if he'd been Hassidic Jewish? Mahayana Buddhist? Would you have the same problem if he'd professed a belief that is controversial in these other religions?
Honestly, I think we should look more into this guy's record outside of what he personally believes. How has he voted? Has he been a big supporter of technology? Perhaps there's something here we're missing. Maybe he's crafting a system of tax breaks for game companies in Texas as we speak? Maybe he just likes video games. Then we might get a better view of why the ESA had him in mind.
Now yes, we should keep in mind his connection to Hagee. Much like Senator Obama's connections to Rev. Wright or Father Pfleger, Governor Perry's connection to Hagee does need to be explored. But the question asked was about religion, not politics, and from that quote all we can gather is that Gov. Perry agrees with Hagee on a religious scale. If he begins making anti-semitic comments, then we'll know. But we should not condemn someone based solely on one idea in his faith, and we certainly shouldn't condemn an entire religion based on one radical individual.
It will amusing to see what happens when some smartass reporter decides to question the guv regarding his connections to Hagee during the E3. That'll make more waves than some game announcement, I imagine.
Agreed, even though that one radical individual may seem to condemn anyone not of his religion.
But I, at least, am consitant. I react with distaste when, ANY religion gets to big for it's britches. In my opinion religion is an individual thing, it should have no place in politics or industry, none. Nor should it be the source of conflicts. I have no problem with the fact that he's christian. I have a problem when he tries to get other people to become christians.
The arguement is also rather silly. God will damn you to hell if you don't worship him and follow his rules, and yet he still loves you always? Huh?
"Maybe he's crafting a system of tax breaks for game companies in Texas as we speak?"
Bingo. Hence the E3 Keynote choice.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
To be fair though, he's unlikely to bring up religion in his E3 keynote. I'm sorry to say it looks like GP is just trying to drum up controversy.
GP, I'm a little shocked at you.
If you don't like him, you should be condemning him for other reasons than he subscribes to a faith shared by a third of the world. Yes, he said he believes that the book that faith was based on is true, and in it is a punishment for non-believers. So do a great many other religions. But if you do not believe in Christianity, if you don't believe in hell, then you've got nothing to worry about, right? What he is saying is meaningless words to you; it shouldn't be the seed of persecution or you become no better. Bias is taking over mainstream news, don't fall into that trap too. People shouldn't start bashing someone just because they don't share the same faith or belief, and unless he has been asked to publicly pray or preach at E3, this is really a non-issue.
You can't uphold the First Amendment for game companies and not for individuals, even politicians.
@Why GP?
Seconded.
So yeah, who is this guy supposed to be speaking to and about at E3 now? Seriously, W.T.F.
Tis Zippy Again
Without hell and damnation religion would not work, you can’t run a modern “organization” on love, peace and kindness, sorry these are just the facts “separation” and “belittling” is the main way to gain donations through guilt.
Not saying all religion or Christianity is bad just most of it *lick*
:P
But really tho it’s more the human mob mentality that makes things appear worse than they are but sometimes you have to wonder about these “organizations”….
In specific to hell is not a misconstruction of the waste area around one of the biblical cities and not a “place” , you had burning waste and bodies ect,ect, there again without HELL Christianity could not frighten the public into place, fear is still the cheapest form of populace control available to thos who rule over them.
Hell is different things to different people. Some believe that it is a separation from God. Others believe that it is eternal torture. Do not group us all into one homogenous group. To do so is to be just as much of a bigot as those you decry.
touche!
As I stated its hard not to lump all religion together, mob mentalities however are more of the issue than simply religion itself, it’s the old saying people suck a person not so much, this can be applied to religion.
Iam starting to form a strong opinion that god is what you make of it, for me remove all the petty humanisims of it and boil it down to light, love, hope and kindness.
Religion itself tries to build around that but when they forget kindness and love to separate people into labels to raise their noses on I can’t help but let the vitriol lose.
And just to be clear it’s not the person to be hated the some groupings thereof, Christianity is not a whole group persay but a mass of groups like most enormous organizations.
This is going to get interesting very fast.
And I love that epic facepalm in the background of that picture.
Oh good I'm gonna burn in hell. I hope they have marshmallows.
My problem with him isn't because he holds a particular religious belief.
It is that he is in a position that governs a great many individuals who do not share his belief. And that such a comment would imply that he will violate the Consititutional Rights of citizens who do not share his religious beliefs. That he will, in fact, make decisions that are based on his personal religious beliefs in the process of performing his duties as a state governor. The recent violation of religious Rights by the removal of over 400 children from a FLDS ranch. While one might argue non-religious reasons, the governor's comments can now be used to imply that he refuses to act on judicial reasoning basis because his religious beliefs are different than those of the FLDS, thereby making his actions, or inactions, questionable.
Another similar case, though not as high up in government terms, was the resignation of a principal from an Irmo, SC school because he opposed the creation of a homosexual "club" (support group) because of his personal religious objections. Opening the door to the question whether prior decisions and treatment of homosexual students may have also been biased, discriminatory, or even abusive in nature.
It is one thing to have a personal or religious belief and follow it in regards to one's self. It's something else to announce to a diverse group of individuals who you have charge over, which leads to those questions of bias and incapability to work with a diverse group of individuals.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
Perry had little to do with the FLDS compound fiasco. Child Protective Services saw a real threat, acted to quickly, and, in doing so, overstepped its boundaries. Perry is a figure head. The Texas legislature makes all the laws, and the lieutenant governor is granted the true executive power. Perry serves to distract the populace of Texas and, apparently, everyone else from the actual government, which is run by Texas businessmen.
gaaa Iam forgetign to psot mew name
tis zippy of corse :P
Who like bush are fair weather Christians(cheery pickers).
The problem with religion or business in governments its interests can be prioritized over the peoples interest, of course what’s needed in government more than odd rules and regulations is a strong oversight system, something with legal teeth to go after corruption not just petty “oversights” like discrimination there’s enough watchdog groups to raise a fuss over that but not much to actively balance government.
So your saying that the only kind of person who could handle the FLDS ranch situation is someone who believed the same things as them? Of course then, that person wouldn't be able to handle any situation regarding groups that the FLDS disagree with...
Yes, bias is a huge problem in politics. Its also an unavoidable one. Even if you could find people who somehow don't believe anything that isn't enshrined in American law (and that would disclude Atheists, who often believe the world would be a better place without religion), you wouldn't be able to elect them on that basis because the US Constitution forbids electing officials based on their religious beliefs. That's one of those religious freedoms you're so keen on protecting, and one that is constantly being flagrantly violated by the American people.
Since everyone is biased, the only way to counter bias is through governmental transparency. In this sense, Perry has done us a huge favor. He has given full disclosure about his religious beliefs. I fail to see how keeping these things a secret would help protect people from having their rights violated. Nor do I see how simply believing that certain people will go to hell someday would make someone more likely to infringe on their rights.
"It is that he is in a position that governs a great many individuals who do not share his belief. "
You can't put someone in that position without having them govern many people who do not share their beliefs. If you pick a Christian, he doesn't share the beliefs of Muslims and Atheists. If you pick an Atheist, he doesn't share the beliefs of Muslims and Christians.
"And that such a comment would imply that he will violate the Consititutional Rights of citizens who do not share his religious beliefs."
Where on earth are you getting that from?
"It's something else to announce to a diverse group of individuals who you have charge over, which leads to those questions of bias and incapability to work with a diverse group of individuals."
You weren't paying attention! Someone SPECIFICALLY ASKED him about his beliefs, and all he did was answer them. You can't blame him for speaking his beliefs in public when a reporter asks him about them point blank.
While I know that most Christans are not like this, unfortunately my personal experiences with this particular strip of Christanity can make it hard to remember when one of these starts garnering attention from politicans or others in power over their respective spheres of influence.
As for my personal belief. There are many paths to the same destination, but I admit I do not understand those that think they have only one life on earth.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
Actually, yes, most Christians are exactly like this. The belief that non-Christians go to hell is a fundamental part of Christianity. Most Christians, INCLUDING PERRY, do NOT believe that non-Christians "deserve" this; they just think that it's what will happen.
Almost everyone who is commenting on this article is acting like he said that he wants non-Christians to go to hell, which isn't what he said.
Well, E3 died in 2007 anyway when gamers were no longer welcome. Who really cares what self righteous loser and scumbag politician speaks to the self-congratulatory photo op that is E3?
Why would gamers be welcome at an industry tradeshow? Oh wait, you think E3 was supposed to be a big Con for you to lust for, and forgot it was supposed to be about business interests.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
Maybe he is coming from the "Play video games or you will burn in Hell, cause da'Jesus says so!" angle.
Good job McCloud, make us normal Christians look bad. Seriously, I don't believe this crap at all. Ugh, this seems like s