More Game Censorship From the Left

[Pangloss]

A conundrum, you say? It couldn't possibly be true that liberal organizations would promote the censorship of video games?

 

What could possibly cause liberals to throw away one of their their most fundamental principles -- free speech?

 

You got it -- the religious right! These groups are asking WalMart to pull "Left Behind" from shelves because it promotes "violent religious intolerance". It's okay for them to sell video games that promote the violent destruction of policemen and prostitutes, but apparently it's not okay to promote the violent destruction of non-believers. (chuckle)

 

Thank you, God, for hypocrisy, without which my life would be far less fulfilling!

 

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1111935809

[ecoli]

This is relatively old news. As I understand it, they are greatly exagerating the bad parts in this game.

[ParanoiA]

You got it -- the religious right! These groups are asking WalMart to pull "Left Behind" from shelves because it promotes "violent religious intolerance". It's okay for them to sell video games that promote the violent destruction of policemen and prostitutes, but apparently it's not okay to promote the violent destruction of non-believers. (chuckle)

 

Got to love the hypocrisy of the conservative right. I know, it's religious right - but high brow conservatives are all about it too. And I have yet to hear any mainstream conservatives speak out against their hypocritical brethren.

 

I've actually heard conservative talk show types promote the sensorship of all violent video games. Seems freedom is just fine, as long as you practice it their way.

 

I'll bet they wouldn't have a problem with it if you were killing homosexuals, gamblers, drug users...you know, the kinds of people jesus surrounded himself with and tried to save while hypochristians kick them out of the church.

 

That's why I always say...WTFWJD...what the f#$K would jesus do?

[Mokele]

Well, in Wal-Mart's case, it's simply asking for consistency, since, IIRC, Wal-Mart has banned/removed numerous magazines and games it considers objectionable.

 

With regards to this game as a whole, I've read a scathing review that basically says that between a poor storyline, horrible gameplay, and more bugs than a plague of locusts, the religious content is actually the least of the game's problems. Apparently it's something a tiny group put together without much serious work or testing, and it *really* shows. Even the most crazed fanatic won't be able to tolerate how crappy it is.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

Well, in Wal-Mart's case, it's simply asking for consistency, since, IIRC, Wal-Mart has banned/removed numerous magazines and games it considers objectionable

 

Walmart also no longer carries CDs with parental advisory labels on them.

[ParanoiA]

At least this is a consumer/market solution, rather than crying to the government for more laws and stripping away freedoms. I forgot to add that in my last post. About the only good thing I can say about all of this.

[GutZ]

I'm quite sure they protest those other games, I think this sort of thing makes news though.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy

 

More specifically

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy#Criticism_from_religious_organizations

[Pangloss]

Those are some valid points above.

 

Mostly what interests me here is the political angle. Moderate Democrats have identified video games as one of the areas in which they can most strongly appeal to "red state" America. Hillary Clinton has practically gone to war against them, and she's hardly alone. Combined with a new Democratic congress armed with a "mandate from the people" (uh huh), and that signals a very interesting 2007-8 for the computer gaming industry.

[Sisyphus]

I don't think it's necessarily even about appealing to the red states. Maybe in some cases, but think its just sometimes the "freedom of speach" angle (which I'm not convinced they all really understand, except maybe as a catchphrase) gets swept aside by the "save the children" angle, which is much more visceral for them in their "soccer mom" roots. This definitely represents one of the major fissures in American liberalism, and is a good indication of which kind of liberal you're talking to.

[Pangloss]

Yah that's a good point. I know one soccer-mom liberal in particular who is ready to burn her bra on the subject of the war but doesn't blink an eyelash when it comes to draconian measures in the local school district, where she has two young girls in attendance.

 

She's a real trip to talk with, too, quite aware of the conundrum but perfectly comfortable with it, and quite able to throw your own hypocrisies right back at you if you're not careful. (chuckle)

[D H]

Got to love the hypocrisy of the conservative right.

 

In this case, the hypocrisy is coming from the liberal left, not the religious right. Here's a particularly juicy one:

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121201457.html:

An advocacy group "Campaign to Defend the Constitution" -- which monitors right-wing religious activities -- says the game is violently pro-Christian and has petitioned retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to pull it from its shelves.

 

What? The "Campaign to Defend the Constitution" wants to ban products that portray a religious viewpoint? What happened to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press? Do these concepts only apply to those who have similar left-leaning sympathies?

 

This bolsters my view on what the left means by "freedom of speech", etc: These freedoms to not apply to simians from the right.

 

This is not to say that the right is free from hypocrisy. Or stupidity, for that matter.

[swansont]

This bolsters my view on what the left means by "freedom of speech", etc: These freedoms to not apply to simians from the right.

 

But this is but one group on the left, not "the left," like everyone is in lock-step agreement.

[Severian]

But this is but one group on the left, not "the left," like everyone is in lock-step agreement.

 

I hope you remember that principle when discussing the political views of particular groups on the right, rather than just "the right"

[ParanoiA]

What? The "Campaign to Defend the Constitution" wants to ban products that portray a religious viewpoint? What happened to freedom of religion' date=' freedom of speech, and freedom of the press? Do these concepts only apply to those who have similar left-leaning sympathies?

 

This bolsters my view on what the left means by "freedom of speech", etc: These freedoms to not apply to simians from the right.

 

This is not to say that the right is free from hypocrisy. Or stupidity, for that matter.[/quote']

 

See, that just burns me. I'm not religious in the least. I'm agnostic on my best days. But why does the pendulum always have to swing all the way one way or all the way the other? Free speech goes both ways. Freedom of religion and freedom of non-religion.

 

If folks want to pretend they're Jesus carrying an AK47 mowing down muslim women and children then let them. If they want to fantasize they're Michael Moore slaughtering christians with biological weapons, then let them.

 

I don't understand this push to "outlaw" religion. Removing all references to god on currency, pledge of allegiance and etc. What's that all about? Are the liberals running scared or what?

[swansont]

I hope you remember that principle when discussing the political views of particular groups on the right, rather than just "the right"

 

That's just it though: "particular groups on the right" is not the same thing as "the right," just as it isn't on the left. The fundie Christian right, for example, is just a subset of conservatives.

[swansont]

I don't understand this push to "outlaw" religion. Removing all references to god on currency, pledge of allegiance and etc. What's that all about? Are the liberals running scared or what?

 

I think it's partly that some people have too much time on their hands, but it's also that Christianity has been widespread in the US for a long time, it has been difficult to voice dissent to views with which you might not agree if you aren't a Christian.

[the tree]

I still see Left Behind and games like Grand Theft Auto as different cases. Grand Theft Auto portrays a cartoon like series of killing sprees and acts of violence, like an interactive Itchy and Scratchy but with bipeds. Left Behind, same idea, but tries to chuck morals into the mix, in massive contrast to Grand Theft Auto, acts of violence are portrayed as the right thing to do.

The religious intolerance here doesn't bother me at all, I'd be the first to make a cringingly inappropriate joke about suicide bombers in any situation, but actually promoting violence (which GTA does not make any effort to do) is quite another matter.

[D H]

See, that just burns me. I'm not religious in the least. I'm agnostic on my best days. But why does the pendulum always have to swing all the way one way or all the way the other? Free speech goes both ways. Freedom of religion and freedom of non-religion.

 

To me, freedom of speech means I should support the rights of those whose views are most strongly opposed to my own. IMHO, the fringe left does not really believe in the First Ammendment freedoms. They just claim to. How in the world can a group whose very name is "Campaign to Defend the Constitution" justify a ban on this game? I hope the ACLU defends the manufacturers of this game against this onslaught.

 

At least the fringe religious right is not hypocritical on this issue. They don't really believe in the First Ammendment freedoms.

 

I too am agnostic on my best days. I also believe in our First Ammendment rights. In view of my first statement, I support the rights of this group to have their game sit on the shelves of Walmart.

 

I don't understand this push to "outlaw" religion. Removing all references to god on currency, pledge of allegiance and etc. What's that all about? Are the liberals running scared or what?

 

Simple. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion to some.

[ParanoiA]

I think it's partly that some people have too much time on their hands, but it's also that Christianity has been widespread in the US for a long time, it has been difficult to voice dissent to views with which you might not agree if you aren't a Christian

 

I cannot relate. I've been refuting god and religion since my teens and have never had a problem vocalizing it in any capacity really other than the dinner table and church...when I was dragged there. But then I'm fairly confident in my views and don't shy away from sqaring off with any would-be religious defenders. I'm in the bible belt, so maybe I'm just used to it.

[Severian]

in massive contrast to Grand Theft Auto, acts of violence are portrayed as the right thing to do.

 

This isn't unique to Left Behind. You cannot complete Half Life 2 for example without killing lots and lots of (virtual) people, therefore, by definition, the 'right thing to do' in the game is to kill.

 

I have never played GTA, so I am not sure that you have to commit acts of violence to win the game, but I am fairly sure that you do need to steal cars. So are you claiming that FTA is fine because stealing cars is the 'right thing to do'?

 

I think consideration should be taken of context. GTA happens in (allegedly) the 'real world', so it presents a rather poor role model for teenagers who must function in that real world. In contrast, Left Behind is set in a world after the second coming, so it is hardly a real life situation. I really don't see how it is any different from HL2 or say Doom 3 (which had demons in it, if your objection is any form of religion protrayed in games).

[Dak]

the violence in GTA isn't aimed at anyone specifically. the violence in doom is aimed (pretty unobjectionably) at daemons. the violence in LB is aimed at 'non-believers', ie a group of real people, and the (percieved) problem with that should be obvious -- if not, imagine the game aimed at anniholating christians/jews/blacks/whatever.

 

another difference, afaict, is (like the tree pretty-much said), GTA just goes 'here you go, heres some pretend violence, enjoy', whereas LB goes 'heres some pretend violence, see how morally good it is', the difference being that the latter is an actual attempt to promote violence. violence can be bad and pretend violence funny, but violence cannot be bad and pretend violence morally laudable. or, at least it can (imo), but it's much less obvious that this can be the case.

 

or, another way of looking at it: in GTA, you can, for exampl, hire whores, drive them to a secluded location, shag them, pay them, and then, once they've got out of the car, run them over to get your money back (tee-hee), but at no point in the game does it suggest that this is a good thing to do. LB, on the other hand, seems to be designed to actually present the concept of persecution of those who dont believe in your particular religion as a morally acceptable thing to do.

 

having said that, the idea that the game should be baned is crap. if someone is genuinely going to be influenced by a computer game, then they're stupid beyond hope. what else would they have to be prevented from exposure to, in order to stop them succuming to the 'influence' of being a violent, intolerant bigot? the passion, the bible itself, films, tv, real life, their peers...

 

ateotd, if someones going to actually be influenced by this (or any other) computer game (or film, or band, or book, etc), then theres a problem, but the problem isn't with the game, it's with the person, and it'll manifest itself in one way or another even in the abscence of computer games.

[the tree]

I have never played GTA, so I am not sure that you have to commit acts of violence to win the game, but I am fairly sure that you do need to steal cars. So are you claiming that [G]TA is fine because stealing cars is the 'right thing to do'?

No. GTA does require acts of violence and theft to complete the game, but having completed the game, the character is not on a moral high ground and and there is no suggestion that anything done in the game borders on right.

 

I still see a big difference between virtual killing to complete a game, which has been going on for centuries, and virtual killing because if one were put into that situation (post-apocalyptic in Left Behind's case) then it would be the right thing to do. (Obviously I realise in Left Behind's case, it is also to complete the game.)

 

 

edit, just to point it out, I'm not in favor of censorship, it's up to the makers of the game if they publish it and the retailers if they sell it, I'm not suggesting they should be prevented from doing so.

[Mokele]

Even *mentioning* banning a game or restricting it is precisely the wrong thing to do. It's been such a big issue in computer games that it'll arouse instant controversy and debate that spreads all over the net, becoming free word-of-mouth advertising and massively boosting the game's sales because everyone wants to see just how bad it is for themselves. Even if you *did* ban it, I can count on one hand the number of seconds it would take to appear on Limewire or some other file-sharing network.

 

If you want to kill this game, kill it by referencing the only major review of it, here:http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/leftbehindeternalforces/review.html

 

Don't mock Left Behind: Eternal Forces because it's a Christian game. Mock it because it's a very bad game. The real-time strategy/adventure game from Left Behind Games based on the best-selling series of novels from Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins will even let down born-again types who expect the Rapture to beam them up to heaven any day now. Nobody has enough faith to endure a game with such a hokey story, terrible mission design, serious problems with the interface and graphics, and loads of crippling bugs.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

No. GTA does require acts of violence and theft to complete the game, but having completed the game, the character is not on a moral high ground and and there is no suggestion that anything done in the game borders on right.

 

That's some pretty substantial hair-splitting that you and Dak are doing. Do you think the average 12-year-old is capable of making that kind of distinction? Or is it more likely that they just think GTA is "cool"?

 

We've already got our Columbine for the GTA side of that argument. When some kids decide to shoot their classmates because they don't want them to be "Left Behind", will you consider that proof of the accuracy of your statement, but dismiss Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris as exceptions and kooks? Just curious.

[AL]

What? The "Campaign to Defend the Constitution" wants to ban products that portray a religious viewpoint? What happened to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press? Do these concepts only apply to those who have similar left-leaning sympathies?

Not that I agree with what this group is doing, but they are technically still in keeping with Constitutional free speech. They aren't asking for a law to be passed, they're simply petitioning Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, of course, has a right to decide whether or not to acquiesce.