Australian Christian Lobby ... I disown thee

Tone says:

08:41am | 09/12/10

Christianity is one big game.

Elphaba says:

09:04am | 09/12/10

@Tone, Sshhh, I’m trying to debate thoughtfully and considerately without insulting religion.

Wait until they fire the ‘you’re a corrupt and morally bankrupt atheist’ shot first.

Tone says:

09:31am | 09/12/10

The shot has already been fired, Elphaba, with

“” ...confident that our personal beliefs make us happier, better people”“, and the upper-case/capitalised ““US”“.

To be fair, the beliefs may make individuals happier than if they did not have the beliefs, but Jeremy could equally have been comparing those with belief to those without.

Pride is a foundation.

Elphaba says:

10:12am | 09/12/10

@Tone, I didn’t interpret it that way, but ok.

Tim says:

10:48am | 09/12/10

Tone, your assumption that Jeremy meant “happier, better people than atheists” says more about your own fears than any prejudices he might possess.

Tone says:

12:29pm | 09/12/10

Tim,

No it doesn’t say anything about my fears and prejudices - my post speaks about what someone said and the possible ambiguity and likely prejudice of what they said.

Steely Dan says:

01:06pm | 09/12/10

@ Tim

No ‘fears’ necessary.  He stated that his ‘brand’ of tolerant Christians are ‘happier, better people’.  He didn’t single out atheists, but they (like Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Scientologists, intolerant Christians and a whole lot of others) don’t fit into his category of ‘tolerant Christians’ that are ‘happier, better people’.

mickael j says:

03:07pm | 09/12/10

@steely dan
how come you left those who worship Luceifer
are they not the ones responible for these games
surly these games are not just a product of
rampent captialism,
some of these games should be pulled up as
a parent i have concerns about ,kids getting
the wrong idea from some of the content of these
games,,
as we know,learing is a continual process that continures all
our life,,what we see and react to is a major part of it and
all said an done i know adults that shouldn’t be playing some of the stuff,,,,,,,

Steph says:

04:54pm | 09/12/10

Tone, I think he means that we (christians) suffer through the religion-bashing and catholic jokes with the feeling that for us (again, christians) our religion keeps us happier and helps us strive to be better people. Not better than anyone, but better in ourselves.

Tone says:

09:34pm | 09/12/10

Steph,
I acknowledged that in one of my statements in my first post.  It does not, however, read as you propose.

Moreover, it invokes the pragmatic informal fallacy -  asserting something is true or preferable because it has practical effects upon people, making them happier, more cooperative, moral, faithful, dependable, or stable.

acotrel says:

01:48am | 10/12/10

Belief is a wonderful thing, however Wikileaks indicates there may be a danger in it!

Steely Dan says:

10:12am | 10/12/10

@ mickael j

“how come you left those who worship Luceifer”
Okay, I forgot to mention Satanists.  And Mormons.  And animists.  Do you really want me to list every religion? 

“are they not the ones responible for these games”
Statistically, probably not.

Alinos says:

08:25pm | 10/12/10

@mickael j

well one could argue many things about the learning process, one could even argue that a belief in god is crazy. People can argue lots of things and no one ever win’s

I’m fine with all religion’s until they come and tell me i must join or go to hell.

The ACL seem’s to support the fanatics, while christianity may be the most prevailent religion in the world, i view them like i view the human race in that there’s so many of them there really just a bunch of different group’s under the one banner. And the ACL seem’s to support the hardline everything is evil approach.

The fact that a single religion believes it should be able to control the what the entire country can and can’t do, astounds me especially in this day and age.

If you want to prevent your kids from playing such games as a christian then it’s your duty as a parent to do the best you can to stop such a thing. They say the kids will get it anyway true but if a parent is paying attention they’ll notice quickly that they have gotten the content

Metey says:

12:52pm | 12/12/10

@mickael j - ‘as a parent i have concerns about ,kids getting
the wrong idea from some of the content of these
games’

Simple solution - be a parent. Monitor what games your kids play and don’t let them play games you think are going to corrupt them morally.

acotrel says:

07:23am | 13/12/10

Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war.
With the cross of Jesus going on before!

Militarist b*stards! Whatever happened to ‘peace in our time’?

Ironside says:

08:08am | 09/12/10

fail toll is fail, stay on topic or dont post TChong

MrMac says:

08:36am | 09/12/10

The 10 commandments are simplistic: the fist few are about honouring the Lord, and the last few are about not coveting your neighbours possessions or wife (written in the days a wife was considered a possession). 

Only a couple have value beyond do not kill or steal, and they are pretty basic, too.

The Sermon on the Mount is full on non-sequiturs, too.

MrMac says:

08:42am | 09/12/10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Division_according_to_different_religions

Freeman says:

08:58am | 09/12/10

“why cant the west accept that such a range also exists within Islam?”
who says “the west” doesn’t accept this, T chong? Muslims who don’t call for sharia law in Australia, push for Islamic values in Australia and who are not offended by christmas don’t bother me one bit.

and why can’t lefties such as yourself be just as vocal in your criticism of the more aggressive and less tolerant wings of Islam as you are of right wing christianity?

TChong says:

09:00am | 09/12/10

Ironside   the article hilights the differeny factions / beliefs / interpretations of christianity, thats a given , yes?
We all accept this reality, ,so I ask , why isnt that extended to Islam.?
Sorry if thinking outside your parameters is challenging, or stressing, but thems the breaks in a public forum.
How about you be less self important, or read / post elsewhere.

Dan says:

09:03am | 09/12/10

Come on Chongy.  We judge all Muslims as extremists do we?  You’re spouting a political perception as if it’s reality.  Who’s the last Australian you personally spoke to who feels that all Muslims are terror threats?  Have you observed this as a widely held opinion in your personal conversations?  You must know from your own experience that your statements are rubbish, unless you walk around with your eyes closed.  Your clearly bogus moral outrage makes you look like a green voter.  Pathetic.

TChong says:

09:31am | 09/12/10

Dan, my work does take in contact with many people in the community, and sadly, bias against muslims is alive and well.
BTW Dan and Freeman, archive some articles about Islam at this site,
youll find plenty of bloggers who dont appear to be able to make any distinction of cultural / religious beliefs amongst muslims, and are quite happy to brand all muslims terrorists, and/or sympathisers.

Luke says:

10:33am | 09/12/10

TChong: and you inappropriately judge that the whole of the West is your enemy.  You religion is being hijacked by its lunatic fringe and your moderates are silent, thus seen to consent.

Instead of sniping at the West, you should be attacking these lunatics and enlightening your religion.  Report back when you’re done.

Ironside says:

11:30am | 09/12/10

The reason I called you a fail troll is because your bringing Islam into this when it is clearly an article about the ACL. If the Australian Muslim Lobby (should such an organisation exist) start sprouting the same rubbish then it would be relevant to this article. The OP was not commenting on the relevant benefits or faults of any religion simply the narrow minded ignorance of an organisation that purports to represent one particular faith.
Your post was not outside my comfort zone at all as I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that I have had more contact with Muslims than you will ever have; having spent several years living in the middle east. It was simply that a comment about western intolerance towards Islam is completely inappropriate to a discussion about a Christian group opposing an adult rating for computer games and was obviously an attempt to divert the nature of the conversation and attempt to inflame people posting on these forms, similar to what you do in almost every blog posted on the Punch.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

01:24pm | 09/12/10

“why cant the middle east accept that such a range also exists within Christianity?”

I don’t know TChong. Could you please enlighten us.

AnthonG says:

03:16pm | 09/12/10

no chongy they aren’t all terrorist.

Jerom says:

12:45am | 10/12/10

“No one here would lump Jeremy in with a Mc Veigh, or a murderous anti abortionist type christians, yet with Islam, we judge all Muslims by the actions of extemists.
Why?”
We? Who the hell is WE?
Ironside, you’re targetting this post for the wrong reason. This guy is writing a relevant post, but only as a way of supporting PRECISELY the attitude that the ACL seem to stand for. Making generalisations and implying that a gargantuan number of people, unified by one word, believe in these generalisations as well.

Soldier says:

09:39am | 10/12/10

TChong… maybe you need to extend your social boundaries a little then.
I’m a soldier, which could invariably lead most of us (Soldiers/Defence members) down the path of fearing/hating on Islam, however I and nearly all other soldiers I have come across on a day to day basis do not hold the views you perpetuate.
On the contrary I have worked with Muslim soldiers and even served side by side with one in Iraq.
Now that is by no means an intensive test of societies perception, however as Defence members do come from a wide spectrum of the public community ‘I’ believe your views are slightly msiplaced.
Oh and I’m a church going christian too… how about that!

Ken says:

09:28pm | 12/12/10

Get it straight Chongy. I don’t think theyre terrorists. I just don’t ike them

Cat says:

11:14am | 09/12/10

I am also a Catholic.

They do not speak for me. On more than just this issue.

acotrel says:

01:51am | 10/12/10

The only muslims and christians that bother me, are the ones that don’t believe in democracy, and even oppose it!

Tom says:

07:04am | 10/12/10

I doubt that Jesus would agree to let the ACL speak for him.

Steely Dan says:

10:04am | 09/12/10

Onya Kathryn.  The more people who stand up and say that the ACL doesn’t support them, the less political clout they have.  They don’t speak for all Christians (obviously), but unfortunately the pollies will continue to make the mistake of assuming every Christian who isn’t denouncing them is giving them a silent tick of approval.

Soldier says:

09:52am | 10/12/10

I’m also a Christian and have thought about writing to them on this exact issue. I’m not really up to date on many of the ACL’s agendas, however vehemently oppose the ACL’s stance on this subject.
Like the OP i’m a gamer and a christian, and think that it is absurd that Australia doesnt have an R18+ rating, and that the ACL actually opposes it!
It flies in the face of common sense that they are actually standing in the way of touger ratings.
R18+ wont let in any games that are already recieving RC but rather shift those games that are being labelled MA15 up to the higher classification.

Dhammachick says:

11:33am | 12/12/10

If you work in IT (esp the govt) and profess to be a Christian you’re sticking a sign on your forehead asking for harrassment

Akrasiel Rising says:

08:35am | 09/12/10

Interesting that someone who professes to believe in an invisible entity that trans-mutates into three separate beings whilst remaining whole and who in corporeal form has the alibility to raise people from the dead, turn water into wine and replicate thousands of fish and loaves of bread from but a few sample products before raising himself from the dead has the temerity to admonish the gaming world for its unrealistic claims that are tantamount to mind control… Hypocrite much?

P.S. Great article Jeremy, it is reassuring to know that faith does not necessarily equate to blind acceptance of self righteous, moralistic dogma for all Christians.

Anne Ti says:

10:32am | 09/12/10

‘no damage from misadventures or accidents, no reality’
WTF…Have you read the bible?

I game to escape ‘reality’ because it is full of idiots…Gaming relaxes me and no religious nut job is going to dictate to me what I can or can’t do.

Michael Lakrin says:

10:56am | 09/12/10

This argument makes no sense. It goes back to what was said in the article about how the same arguments for video games now, used to be used for film, TV , etc. On that basis, I must also feel that crimes are always solved in an hour, crises occur and then solved with laughter in half an hour and the cop who is one week away from retirement will always end up dead.

wreckage says:

01:16pm | 09/12/10

Does “disagree with” mean “attempt to have banned” in your world, Old Clive?

Games are games. I have never attempted to use a rocket launcher’s recoil to make myself jump higher, despite games brainwashing me into thinking that:

....if I were kidnapped by aliens and thrown into a kill-or-be-killed arena where various ne’er do wells dueled with infinite-ammunition rocket launchers…..

I might be able to abuse physics in such a way.

acotrel says:

07:26am | 14/12/10

Were you ever an altar boy?

Steve says:

02:37am | 10/12/10

The problem is that the christians who oppose an R rating are supposedly protecting children, but they’re doing their cause more harm than good. I’m a christian. I think children should be protected from overly violent games. The difference though is that I think the best way to protect kids from those kind of games is to allow an R rating, not block it.
Just look at the many games that are restricted to adults in other countries that are given an M15 rating here to avoid being banned outright. I don’t think kids should be playing a game like alien vs predator but thanks to our lack of R rating, any teenager can legally buy it. How is that protecting kids? If we had an R rating the sale of a game like that would be limited to responsible adults which I think is how it should be.
So in a nutshell, the ignorant and misguided people in the ACL definately do not speak for all christians.

M. Mauk says:

05:31pm | 10/12/10

Parents do have a right to know what is in a game. Have you noticed that rectangular box at the bottom left of the case? Half of it is coloured, and the other half is white? Well, if the coloured side is black and has a R18+ in it, then you shouldn’t be buying it for your kids in the first place. Secondly, within the other half it lets you know why that game is rated what it is. There it might say, ‘strong violence’, ‘drug use’, ‘sexual references’ and/or ‘nudity’. My point is if a parent buys their child a game, and then is later outraged to find that it has adult content in it, it is their fault because it’s spelt out to them, on the front cover, that they should NOT be played by children.

Squippie says:

08:57am | 09/12/10

I interpreted that as having a “personally” sort of added to it. Not “better than thou” connotations, but more like “within ourselves” kind of thing.

I’m not extremely good at explaining myself, so hopefully this will explain what I mean: I don’t believe in God, nor anything else (though wouldn’t call myself an atheist) and I found no offense in the statement, though I would get up in arms if somebody told me they were better than me for following a religion.

Open to interpretation, I guess.

Elphaba says:

09:37am | 09/12/10

@Squippie, I though the same thing.

Pesonal beliefs, whatever they are, should make you happy.

BTW, your name was the devil to retype, it took me 2 attempts… shoulda just copy and pasted, lol

Jeremy Ray says:

12:19pm | 09/12/10

As has been said, that’s not meant to read “happier, better people than non-Christians”.  Merely that different things work for different people, and this works for us. We feel more fulfilled with faith in our lives, but that doesn’t mean someone else can’t get the same fulfillment elsewhere.

Geoff says:

02:52pm | 09/12/10

So what is wrong with being a happier better person…  I’d think it is something everyone should aspire to.  I know I do.

I love the last paragraphs, perhaps some should stop building strawmen to complain about.

Steph says:

04:58pm | 09/12/10

Squippie, Elphaba, I agree with you two. I’m honestly confused how someone could read vindictively into that statement unless they’re looking for something to bash. Christianity is a personal journey for Christians - so it makes sense to feel that having God in our life is helping us to better ourselves. Get it, Macca?

Jeremy Ray says:

12:31pm | 09/12/10

Games aren’t the only issue I disagree with them on. But perhaps even more important than their stance is the strategy they employ to garner support.

To stare down the barrel of an entire industry’s worth of experts and research and then claim to have logic on your side is dishonest, or at best irresponsible. In my view, an organisation labeling themselves Christian should practice Christian values, and it’s my fear that society is increasingly viewing the word “Christian” as a synonym of “backward”.

Akrasiel Rising says:

01:37pm | 09/12/10

@ Jeremy Ray - “...it’s my fear that society is increasingly viewing the word “Christian” as a synonym of “backward”. “

Oh how the world turns… Pagan from the Latin paganus, originally a latin word for a civilian which was used to refer to someone who was not a soldier of christ and later reworked to mean a rural or country dweller (see also Heathen, meaning of the Heath or back country). This led to the derogatory use of both words, by christians, to refer to those outside of the major city centres who refused to accept christianity and clung to their old polytheist belief systems as being backwards, uneducated and behind the times.

I think you have hit the nail on the head with your statement and all I can add is… what goes around, comes around.

Rich says:

06:38pm | 09/12/10

Here I thought it was the Christians peddling the sins of the father routine, Akrasiel Rising.

Macca says:

07:38am | 09/12/10

pfft, both my brothers are Christian, and my partner and her family, and none of them believe the ACL speaks for their views.

Jordan says:

07:46am | 09/12/10

Well the actual evidence says you are wrong, about both games and Christians

Elphaba says:

07:55am | 09/12/10

*facepalm*

You need to go and read Brendan’s article from Monday.  But you’re obviously way too lazy to do any kind of real research, so I’m just wasting my breath.

Be quiet now before you embarrass yourself further.

Ironside says:

08:05am | 09/12/10

actually there are no peer reviewed scientific studies that show a causal link between violent games and violent behaviour.
As for the ACL representing most christians, i think you will find your wrong. I have never seen a member of the ACL at my local Parish nor heard their ideas espoused there.

As for the R18+ rating leading to more children being exposed to violence, you clearly need to read a bit more. The rating will restrict the sale of these games which are currently getting through in th MA15+ catagory to people over the age of 18, actually reducing the exposure of violence to minors.

Please read up a bit and you wont be able to do anything but support the 18+ rating.

I am Christian…Catholic in fact, I am 33 years old, a husband, father of 2 boys and a gamer; the ACL does not speak for me!

Steve says:

08:14am | 09/12/10

Can you please provide the evidence that says that violence and sex in video games has been shown to incite violence. I am a 30yr old gamer I also work in the security industry for the last 5 years and have never assulted anyone ,never been arrested, never been questioned by the police and I am also a non drinker.

The R18+ rating is not about having more sex and violence in gaming it is about having a correct classification on games that are already available to be bought on the shelves in Australia. Call of duty Black ops is not a game that is suitable for anyone under the age of 18 but it is available to be bought by a 15 year old and parents will by it for younger kids as well because they don’t understand what the game contains. Another game I can think of off the top of my head is the Assasins series
of video games which is also unsuitable for people under the age of 18 but parents will buy if for kids who are less then 15.

remlap says:

08:15am | 09/12/10

You’ll find recent intensive research shows that there is no causal link between video games and violence.

HappyCynic says:

08:20am | 09/12/10

What a rant, Elaine!

You’ve fallen for exactly the same straw-man the ACL has.  We gamers do not want more violence or more sex in games we want proper ratings to educate people.

Also either prove games and other violent material incites violence or admit that there is no evidence to support your silly argument.

Also christians in name only are just as christian as those who spend their days wasting away in a church.  So long as they believe in Jesus I don’t think anything else is important, how dare you dismiss their beliefs because they don’t agree with yours.

James1 says:

08:21am | 09/12/10

Given that church-going Christians are a minority, why should we care what they think?  Get your rosaries off my PS3…

Erin says:

08:31am | 09/12/10

Have you seen the content of available adult targeted games?
It’s not more sex and violence, it’s a way of ensuring those under 18 are not purchasing it. Read up on the argument, or go back and read this article again.

James1 says:

08:49am | 09/12/10

By you logic, Elaine, I could argue the following: “Religion has been shown to incite violence - is that what we want?”

It would be equally valid, but trying to ban religion would be just as wrong as trying to keep out violent games.

Angus says:

08:57am | 09/12/10

No, Elaine.

The ACL is a voice that I think you will find represents the voice of most lunatic-fringe evangelical Christians.  You know, the kind who come onto comments threads and say things like “This sort of thing has been shown to incite violence” when, in fact, nothing of the sort has EVER been shown.

Perhaps you’d like to discuss how many people have been killed in murders, wars, crusades etc DIRECTLY inspired by the Bible?  The Bible has a hell of a lot more blood on it than video games.  Perhaps THAT should be rated R, if not banned outright.

David LD says:

09:18am | 09/12/10

@Angus - If the bible were to go through Australia’s Classification Board, it would be Refused Classification (banned) as it contains gratuitous sexual violence.

Not that it makes much difference. The Bible is a like a software license agreement to a lot of Christians; they just say “I agree” and don’t bother reading what’s actually in it.

Reg says:

09:33am | 09/12/10

James1 just in case you don’t appreciate the difference, the ACL rejects any association with Catholics. They just want to keep it quiet because it’s a bit anti-Christian. Shhhhhhh.

DG says:

09:36am | 09/12/10

“Church-going Christians” - so about 7 percent of the total population?

And given that about 65% of Australians self report as “Christian”, you are talking about 10-15% of Christians?

So who is it that ACL actually represents - a vocal minority of 7% of Australians or the vocal minority of 10-15% of self-reporting Christians?

Please cite peer reviewed studies that show a causal relationship between playing violent games and violent conduct. Note, this is different to a correlation.

For example - a distinction would need to be drawn between persons who had demonstrated violent behaviour or tenancies before gaming and those who only acquire such behaviour after gaming. It is not sufficient to show that persons demonstrated higher levels of frustration or aggravation after gaming, unless the purpose is to show that any activity causing aggravation leads to an increase in violence and any such activity should be prohibited.

James1 says:

10:57am | 09/12/10

I know Reg, but “keep your Bible off my PS3” just didn’t have the same ring, and rosary almost rhymes with so many game consoles.  Lets just call it poetic license, and overlook the fact that I am not a poet.

Any ideas for a chantable slogan that beat my (admittedly pretty sad) attempt?

Andy says:

12:09pm | 09/12/10

Elaine says: “This sort of thing has been shown to incite violence - is that what we want?”

Just like… alcohol? We all know how prohibition worked with that…

Wayne says:

12:39pm | 09/12/10

@Elaine “What use is there for more and more violence and sex in gaming? “
Have you looked at what is in M15+ Gaming right now?  I doubt it as you probibly only have a Wii.  J-Ray is Correct is his statements & I also move that some of the current M15+ Games get moved to R18+ because of content.  P.S.  I am a “Church-going Christian” and the ACL is not in touch.

Chris L says:

01:06pm | 09/12/10

If Elaine is a troll she’s really good at it. If she’s serious she should get off her bum and do some research.

Reg says:

03:32pm | 09/12/10

That’s true Ironside. The ACL do not consider Catholixs to be Christians.  That’s why Elaine says “most.”  There is a lot in that word. The ACL is like the Mormans only without Mormons ‘cos they’re not Australian and certainly wouldn’t merge themselves with a bunch of village idiots anyway. Meanwhile gaming is for the wastrels whose idol fingers do the work of the devil, like eating ice-cream and drinking beer and knocking at the doors of busy gamers innocently seeking distraction from the sins of sex and violence to which their minds would otherwise sink.

GS says:

09:56pm | 09/12/10

The ACL has never spoken or represented me, ever. Only I represent myself unless I give explicit permission for someone else to do so.

The R rating is not about allowing more violent games in. It will allow us to move games that would get an MA rating (and thus be available to children) to a higher rating (which by law stops them being sold directly to children).

I play games. There are MA rated games that I would never let any child I am responsible for play. But being MA rated means that they can buy it themselves. An R rating would stop them.

Adam Robinson says:

07:25pm | 25/04/11

I am a church going Christian and I am yet to agree with any opinion expressed by the ACL. Nor have I seen any evidence of them seeking input from Christians in order to represent what others think.

I don’t just disagree with them, I often find their positions offensive

They speak for themselves.

Luke says:

10:39am | 09/12/10

You can’t put your hand up and say that you were wrong when you are doing your god’s work.  Your god has to tell you that you were wrong.  You are asking people to think when they have flatly, repeatedly, stridently refused to think in the past.

Seano says:

04:19pm | 09/12/10

Very true,

I wonder if leaders started to apply common sense to the important issues of the day whether the continual decline in the numbers of followers would abate.

TRiPWiRE says:

01:10pm | 09/12/10

Best post ever.

acotrel says:

08:11am | 09/12/10

“independent-thinking Christians”

oxymoron?

Tombowler says:

09:20am | 09/12/10

Well aren’t we the intellectuals?

Kate I wonder whether it is deep seated insecurity or a false sense of superiority that makes you feel the need to snipe at someone elses’ beliefs that have no effect whatsoever on you and your own?

I don’t see Jeremy attacking you as a heathen or whatever term it is that Christians apply to non-believers.

It’s just a pretty nasty way to behave and generally indicative of a small intellect; the sort of thinking that follows the very basic line of “I am not of faith therefore I am more cosmopolitan, educated, free-thinking and deep than others”

When the reality is
“I feel the need to assert my intellectualism because deep down I know that no matter how much Dostoevsky I have on my bookshelf, no matter how much pseudo-high-brow crap I spout about ‘keep asking questions’ I am still and intellectual dwarf who just subscribes blindly to a different religion and worship at the altar of those more intelligent than myself”

Seriously Kate; Think about why as an allegedly enlightened, free-thinker blah blah blah you feel the need to preach your undergraduate nat-geo advertisement philosophy to someone who is clearly content and secure in their own faith.

Some of the deepest and greatest minds the world has ever seen have been men of faith; be it Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu or Jew just as there have been many an ill-educated, consumerist, brain-dead dullard amongst the agnostic/atheists….

I am not religious myself but I see no harm in Jeremy practicing his non-offensive brand of religion; in fact I celebrate his right to do so and do not feel the need to build a false causal link between my own apathetic atheism and some sort of higher cerebral function…

Kate open your mind a little

Steely Dan says:

09:54am | 09/12/10

@ Tombowler

Sure, open your mind a little, but not so much that your brain falls out.

Macka says:

09:55am | 09/12/10

Being Christian, to me, is a way of life, it is not about blindly obeying a set of rules, or believing statements in the bible as being literal.

To me, it is about taking the morals and life lessons and using them to improve my life, and I think that is probably what Jeremy means. We can think for ourselves, we just get categorised as mindless followers because a _minority_ of us are.

Caiphus says:

09:55am | 09/12/10

Tombowler, please don’t lump agnostics in with atheists.

Muttley says:

10:00am | 09/12/10

Tombowler, Brilliant. What a great response to the arrogant approach of far too many athiests. As an athiest, i must say well done.

Church of Atheism says:

10:19am | 09/12/10

Kate, most people that ‘keep thinking’ will end up religious. I hope you ‘keep thinking’ about when life begins and what happens to the mind after someone passes and the first cause principle - or do you try not to think about that kind of stuff? Keep thinking, Kate. I’ll see you in Church in a few years Until then Dawkins Akbar!

Tombowler says:

10:39am | 09/12/10

@ Steely Dan

Thanks so much for that nonsensical, illogical and quite frankly retarded response.

If your going to abandon reason for humour you should have a hard think about whether it’s funny first…

kate says:

11:31am | 09/12/10

My my.  I do seem to have struck a raw nerve…

Marc says:

11:58am | 09/12/10

@kate: I’m always amused by this line of atheist argument that says I need to abandon “blind” faith, explore the issues, think more, make my own decisions. But if my own decision, after going through that exercise, is to retain my faith… I’m a moron!

As a long-time agnostic, I have made my own decisions, based on significant research and consideration. I don’t malign your intelligence because of the decisions you’ve come to; please do me the same courtesy.

The vicious and outspoken ridicule that atheists heap on those with a faith, is no less a form of brainwashing than what they accuse the Church of.

AD says:

12:18pm | 09/12/10

Kate - you actually managed to strike the same raw nerve that the ACL do with most intelligent people.  Ignorance and intolerance and smug self-righteousness tend to irritate others, regardless of who it’s coming from.

Reg says:

12:29pm | 09/12/10

There there Kate. There are self righteous in all walks of life, so you needn’t feel too bad about it. I was -not- impressed with the suggestion from someone that thinking would lead to religion. It was thinking that led me a long way from being a Presbyterian and then a Catholic. Yet I did not lightly adopt the Catholic religion, nor did I dispense with it so easily. But I will not pressure my son to discard his Anglicanism just so that I can feel happier about it. He must think for himself and wonder at the delusion as well as the truth.

Steely Dan says:

12:50pm | 09/12/10

@ Tombowler

I thought it was funny.  But I admit it wasn’t as funny as: ‘I feel the need to assert my intellectualism because deep down I know that no matter how much Dostoevsky I have on my bookshelf, no matter how much pseudo-high-brow crap I spout about ‘keep asking questions’ I am still and intellectual dwarf who just subscribes blindly to a different religion and worship at the altar of those more intelligent than myself’. 
That stuff is pure gold.  Pop psychology evaluations like that suggest a real deficiency in your reasoning ability.

Tombowler says:

01:14pm | 09/12/10

@Steely Dan

You could, I suppose, call it ‘pop psychology’ at a stretch. In my view it is actually just an assessment of character based on experience.

I fail to see how it shows a deficiency in my reasoning process though? Perhaps you would care to enlighten me. Unless of course, as I suspect, your argument follows the pattern of your other posts on other threads; inane, vacuous commentary that while semantically pleasing, contain all the depth of a wiggles song.

Bearman79 says:

01:18pm | 09/12/10

@Tombowler - Reading your comment reminded me of the bar room scene in Good Will Hunting.  Good show old chap, i agree with you 100%

hot tub political machine says:

01:29pm | 09/12/10

Dostoevsky was mocking of the belief you can understand life while pretending God isn’t part of the picture.

hot tub political machine says:

01:33pm | 09/12/10

Bearman79, I’m regularly reminded of that scene when some of the intellectually superior atheists come on threads and pass of the arguments “God is not great” or “The God Delusion” as their own.

If they were actually intellectually superior to others you would think they would be familiar with the concept of plagarism.

Steely Dan says:

02:16pm | 09/12/10

@ Tombowler

“You could, I suppose, call it ‘pop psychology’ at a stretch.”
At a stretch?  No, it’s pop psychology alright. 

“In my view it is actually just an assessment of character based on experience.”
So it’s a guess.

“I fail to see how it shows a deficiency in my reasoning process though?”
Assuming that you know somebody’s reasons for rejecting a claim seems to indicate an inability to actually assess the real reasons.  And you also assumed that kate didn’t have an ‘open mind’, when there is nothing in her post that suggested her mind was closed.  Encouraging people to keep asking questions and looking for the answers is not telling somebody that they should accept that there is no god (even though her prediction was that the process would lead to that assessment).

“inane, vacuous commentary that while semantically pleasing, contain all the depth of a wiggles song.”
Unless you want to provide a relevant example, that comment contains all the depth of a wiggles song.

Steph says:

05:19pm | 09/12/10

Kate. I think the term needed here for you is “Grow up”. I can’t see any posters on here trying to convert you to their religion, so please stop trying to convert us to yours. And life is wonderful out in the real world ^_^ I hope to see you there someday. Shall be waiting!

And Steely Dan - Hello again We do meet fairly often. Terry Pratchett once said “The problem with having an open mind is people will always try to put stuff in it”, and while he’s no scholar, that is an awesome quote.

Trevor says:

08:18pm | 09/12/10

@ hot tub political machine
And yet I suppose it is perfectly acceptable in your eyes for the religious apologist to do exactly the same thing? Regurgitating arguments that they have picked up from like minded individuals that share the same point of view as they do? One of my personal favorites that shows how truly idiotic some people can be is the one where they ask “If humans are descended from apes, then why are there still apes” and sit back smugly believing that they have struck a killing blow against the Darwin’s Theory of Evolution through natural selection. In fact this argument was first leveled at Darwin himself way back in the 1880’s and he deals with it in “The Origin of Species”, which these people would know if they had ever bothered to actually read it instead of relying on debunked 100+ year old arguments handed down to them from equally idiotic individuals.

hot tub political machine says:

09:17am | 10/12/10

@Trevor,

Its ok to quote others in support of your view - but its good to acknowledge the source. I guess what irkes me is the (new) atheist trend of pretending to be intellectually superior, but when all they have is the one (sometimes two) books they have ever read on the topic which the quote (but don’t acknolwege) .

(universal you here btw) Revealling that you have only read one viewpoint - whilst simultaneously showing an unfamiliarity with academic convention of acknowledging the idea is not your own - undermines any claim to intellectual superiority. To then claim that intellectual superiority whilst these flaws are showing, and speak down to your audience is pretty offensive. Its like get an ear bashing on the evils of nudity from an emporer who has no clothes.

RichardJ says:

01:37pm | 09/12/10

@Ironside. Why are you a Christian?

the apologist says:

08:10am | 09/12/10

Not that I agree with the ACL - but the basic reason is because God is God.

acotrel says:

08:13am | 09/12/10

The crusaders have caused a few problems, even in our modern world.  Their actions are the main justification the suicide bombers use!

True Believer says:

11:02am | 09/12/10

acotrel.

“The crusaders have caused a few problems, even in our modern world.  Their actions are the main justification the suicide bombers use!”

I would be interested in seeing your evidence/source for that comment.

True Believer says:

11:02am | 09/12/10

acotrel.

“The crusaders have caused a few problems, even in our modern world.  Their actions are the main justification the suicide bombers use!”

I would be interested in seeing your evidence/source for that comment.

Rebecca says:

11:30pm | 09/12/10

@ Apologist

Seriously, from other posts, I thought you had read the bible?

acotrel says:

07:19am | 13/12/10

True Believer.  I’ve seen several TV documentaries where the rhetoric of islamic people centred around the actions of the crusaders.  And the actioins of the west in these times is associated with the same christian culture. Christians are portrayed in their propaganda, as the attackers of Islam.  Now that wouldn’t be correct, would it?

BB says:

03:38pm | 09/12/10

@pat

Seeing as I am a Christian involved in politics at a fairly high level, I can not at any stage agree with you view on the ACL’s involvement. Yes they get the chance to speak with MOP’s, but so does everyone else. Yes they have for the last 2 fed elections been able to get both parties leaders into a room to discuss preset questions about religion, but this is more because they are being used by the party leaders as a voice out to potential votes.

The ACL is still alive only because there is no other alternative. The CDP are a party, who are too far right for most christians. Family first are great, but again a party who won’t accept that they are a Christian party. So we are left with the ACL, who claim to be non-denominational and therefore can speak for “the church” as a whole. If another Christian lobby group were to rise up in support of the R18+ movement, ACL would simply claim that they are not biblical, or they aren’t really Christians. And then it would become denominational, eg. the ACL vs whoever it was.

We as a country have to accept they are there, understand the ACL’s role, and realise that Christians still get to make their own decisions.

Tedd says:

09:06am | 09/12/10

All these dogmatic entities - religious or political - were (or are) based on doctrinal belief systems, and many of their key proponents had dogmatic doctrinal religious upbringings.

Selle says:

09:48am | 09/12/10

Hmm. If Christianity is not “live and let live” than I hate to break it to you but “atheism” sits in the same bucket. The “greatest tyrants in history” that you mentioned all share the distinction of being committed atheists. The death camps, attrocities, starvations and genocide of the 20th century all flowed from their desire to eliminate their opponents who did not share their atheistic philosophy. You may not trust religious organisations that insist on “afflicting it’s philosophies” but similarly I don’t trust any “non-religious” bodies either….

Trjn says:

10:00am | 09/12/10

Actually Selle, the greatest tyrants in history were not all atheists.

Hitler was Christian and actively stood against atheists, a direct quote on the matter “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

DG says:

10:04am | 09/12/10

Selle:

What is a committed atheist?

What does a committed atheist ‘believe’ (given that the term actually means without or not having belief in a god or gods)?

What is the ‘atheistic philosophy’ to which you refer? Given that Scientology, Buddhism and various other religions do not have gods (and are therefore atheistic), and considering other non-theistic and non-religious philosophies, what is the common philosophy or ideology?

I put it to you that atheists do not have a common philosophy, ideology or belief. They are classified, in the modern era, by reference to their lack of belief in the Abrahamic god of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Accordingly, it is intellectually dishonest to associate the behaviour of any one person as being driven by their atheistic philosophy - when it is clear that such a philosophy does not exists as a common thread of all atheists.

I do not deny that some persons who were atheists did bad things - equally some Christians have done bad things. I do not think that either can be judged by the behaviour of a few. Certainly there have been person in various categories where their behaviour has little if anything to do with their belief in a deity.

However, when one group has specific teachings one can question and criticise those, when one has a particular book that is demonstrably false, the falsehood can be demonstrated as the criticism of the book.

I await your reasoned response.

Steely Dan says:

10:15am | 09/12/10

@ Sally

“If Christianity is not “live and let live” than I hate to break it to you but “atheism” sits in the same bucket. The “greatest tyrants in history” that you mentioned all share the distinction of being committed atheists.”
Atheism isn’t a philosophy.  It’s just a position on the existence of a god.  Nobody has done anything - good or bad - because of their atheism.  And not everyone on that list was an atheist - Hitler was a non-denominational Christian with a lot of pagan influences.

Daniel says:

10:18am | 09/12/10

Hate to invoke Godwin’s law but Hitler was a Catholic

Daniel says:

10:20am | 09/12/10

Selle:

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.”  Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 46

True Believer says:

11:16am | 09/12/10

Trjn:

Hitler held membership of a denomination, i.e. Catholicism. That does not make him a Christian - any more than pedophile priests are Christian.  Christianity is not belonging to a denomination or saying one is, or being born into a family which follows a particular denomination.  It comes only through repentance of sin an old fashioned term in human terms, but not in God’s) and belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour along with acceptance of His gift of life abundantly. (and that is not materialistically abundant I hasten to add, it is fully human, mind body and spirit abundance.)

Nor is it a way of life. Many who do not believe in Him lead impeccable lives, just that they are missing their spiritual dimension in Him.

Trjn says:

12:43pm | 09/12/10

@True Believer: I am sure you’re aware that you just invoked the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

At the very least, anyone who asserts that they are Christian is a theist who believes in the Abrahamic god. Therefore they cannot be an atheist. Seeing as I was pointing out that he was not an atheist, his claims to being Christian is valid proof of my point.

That’s all I’m going to bother saying to you, I’ve seen you attempt to argue your position here before. Believe what you like but don’t have the arrogance to claim that only your beliefs are correct or that anyone else’s beliefs are mere opinion and yours are not.

Steely Dan says:

12:51pm | 09/12/10

@ Lucy Kippist

Good call.

Tedd says:

02:40pm | 09/12/10

Selle, the tyrannical regimes were doctrinal and eliminated opponents of all persuasions, including opponents within their regimes, within their belief systems, as well as outside them

Dhammachick says:

11:44am | 12/12/10

@DG - correction on Buddhism: some paths, Tibetan and Mahayana paths have gods (with a lower g) in their practice. Now they don’t function the way the Monotheistic God does but they’re still deities nonetheless.

Darryn says:

02:37pm | 09/12/10

Excuse me?

Are we talking the same religions here?

Catholicism being the primary religion of the Holy Roman Empire states, founded as much as a political power in Rome in the era post fall of Western Rome & the Dark Ages. It was acceptable for European Catholic states to wage war on all peoples who did not have a leader / dynasty sworn to Catholicism.

Christianity, as it is mostly practiced today, is a product of The Reformation, when city states & individual peoples (with the exceptions of it being an enforced national religion by kingoms such as England, The United Provinces (modern Netherlands) & Sweden) turned against the dominering powers of the Catholic Church in order to practice the way they preferred. This was born mainly through Protestantism in England after King Henry the 5th, Calvanism & Lutherism in the German states.

The 30 years war was fought over the rights of city states, fiefdoms etc to choose their own national religion without it being enforced through bloodshed by the powers in Rome & the Hapsburg Dynasty.

Im sorry, suggesting Christiantity is the bloody form of the faiths spawned of Hebrew is just false.

Shane From Melbourne says:

08:52am | 09/12/10

Dear me, the Catholics are still doing the reds under the bed routine. For a political philosophy that is largely out of favor and officially confined to a few countries (North Korea, Cuba and a few others), socialism seems to be doing well. Keep up the good work all you Catholic Freedom Fighters…...

Tedd says:

09:21am | 09/12/10

Laurie, how freely do you think about the non-Biblical evidence for the Bible stories (or lack of), and consider the Bible might be fiction?  What happened in the 40 days after the resurrection and why was that not recorded widely?

Steely Dan says:

10:00am | 09/12/10

@ Laurie

“It shows the strength of the socialist push against religion.”
Socialist?  How do you justify stating that not being keen on electing a Catholic (and more importantly, a Catholic who’s not so keen on the separation of church and state) makes someone a socialist?

“At least as a catholic I am an individual and free thinker”
No, you’re most definitely not.  You belong to an organisation that believes that another human being can make an infallible statement that you cannot ignore.  That’s a long, long way from being a free thinker!

Alexander says:

10:19am | 09/12/10

Laurie… one of the reason I would not vote for Abbott is becasue he is a Catholic and subject to the meandering of the Bishop of Rome.  I suppose technically Luther was a kind of socialist, wanting to give the power back to the people.  Damn him to hell for wanting to translate the bible into a language most people were able to read.
Please never again assume that Catholic and Christian are interchangeable unelss you want to prove how sadly uneducated you are.

Johnny Sweetbread says:

10:51am | 09/12/10

“socialist movement that seems to be steamrolling our individuality” What the f**k does that mean? Have you even been to a socialist country you religious wack job? They’re not a bunch of drones. I actually find that deeply offensive having lived for many years in Vietnam. In Nam, 80% of the population is Catholic. I’m also saddened by your complete inability to find this stuff out for yourself. Instead you are just preaching the same old capitalist propaganda Australian’s tolerate in Murdoch’s publications. And then you dare have the audacity to tell us to think for ourselves? May your God help you, because no one else can.

MrMac says:

11:03am | 09/12/10

and Abbott confesses to Pell, and probably counselled by him, too.

LC says:

09:24am | 11/12/10

Laurie, if it makes you feel any better, I, as an atheist, preferenced Liberal higher than Labor in both state and federal elections on both ballot papers.

Elphaba says:

08:41am | 09/12/10

Read tha article.

The problem is not that the ACL doesn’t like the games, it’s the fact that they’re backing up their opinion with untruths.

If they just came out and said ‘We think those games are sinful and you’ll all go to hell for playing them” then we could get on with it.  But they’re telling blatant lies, not using any research and using unfair scare tactics in order to back up an opinion.

Some say it’s business as usual.

You wouldn’t tolerate it from the government, or any other organised group so why should we tolerate this?

John of Canberra says:

08:41am | 09/12/10

Absolutely correct Ben. Big, big fail by Jeremy as the article contradicts the rights of religious people to have a say in the democratic process. As a citizen I see no good in allowing snuff games and rape games to be freely available - and I am entitled to hold and support that opinion. I am also a Christian and the ACL gets my support on this one!
I

Elphaba says:

08:49am | 09/12/10

John - R18+ does not necessarily mean ‘rape games’ will be available.

I’m betting anything like that would still be banned under RC.

Do your research.  This is about reclassifying violent video games already in this country.  Read Brendan’s article from Monday.

AliceC says:

08:55am | 09/12/10

@Ben

We are a secular society, and it even states in our constitution “Freedom of religion”. Anyone can participate in democratic process, just leave religious beliefs out of it.

Ben says:

09:02am | 09/12/10

Sorry Elphaba, you fail too, and here is just one example from the article:
“As for the rest of them - the hundreds of games classified as MA15+ that the rest of the world recognises as R18 - we have two options: they can be on our shelves as MA15+, or they can be on our shelves as R18+. Which do you think better protects Australia’s youth?”
If a game is rated MA15+ in Australia, that is because it meets the classification guidelines for that rating. How and why would such a game automatically migrate to the R18+ rating if it were introduced? Quite simply, it wouldn’t, because it costs time and money and gaming interests would oppose it, plus legally it can’t be changed unless the original decision is appealed by the Minister. MA15+ games cannot automatically become R18+ games without a complete overhaul of the classification guidelines, and nobody is suggesting that.
And nobody honestly believes that thousands of gamers would have been altruistically motivated by their interest for children to lobby for an R18+ rating for games if all that it meant was to relocate already available games to that rating. What would be the point? It wouldn’t change the availability of certain games at all. No, it’s about opening the market to higher level content.
You accuse ACL of dishonesty, but it’s time for the gaming lobby to give up the “we’re in this for children” ruse because that has never been, and never will be their motivation. It is a cheap one-liner that just doesn’t wash.

Trjn says:

09:05am | 09/12/10

Religious people are allowed to have a say, but if they want to argue for something that would influence people outside of their faith the argument needs to be backed up without something outside of their religious texts.

For example, what if we lived in a country where there was a large group of Jews who insisted that everyone keep kosher. They would need to justify their position in a way that makes sense to non-Jews for it to work. There’s nothing to stop that group from keeping kosher themselves, but there’s nothing to justify them enforcing that belief on others.

The same goes for all arguments based on belief. You need to be able to structure you case in a way that does not lean solely on religious texts, in the case of the ACL’s argument against the R18+ rating they have tried to do so by relying on faulty science, misconceptions and outright lies. Being Christian adds no weight to their argument to those outside the faith (and as this article shows, to a fair amount of people inside the faith).

Short version: Your religion is not a reason for me to act a certain way.

Berocca95 says:

09:05am | 09/12/10

I believe we live in a secular state, so the comment “Let’s keep religion away from government” is entirely appropriate. People are entitled to their beliefs, but they shouldn’t be trying to shove them down everyone else’s throat without at least coming up with a reasonable argument first.

And John of Canberra - get a grip. I’m pretty sure that snuff and rape content would be banned by the classification board. Having not witnessed any games with such content, I’m confident that there won’t be a massive increase in such content with the advent of an R18+ classification.  You’re just scaremongering.

Ben says:

09:19am | 09/12/10

Some of you people need a little bit of a lesson in what it means to be a secular state. It means that there is no official state religion. It does not mean that one needs to be a ‘secularist’ or a non-believer to participate in the democratic processes of government. It simply means that one’s religion is not a prerequisite to participate in the public life of the nation. Just as one isn’t disqualified for not being a believer, you can’t disqualify somebody for being a believer.
Your hypocrisy shines through, as you’re quite happy to allow Jeremy, a believer, to have his say, but other believers you think should be disqualified.
A secular state is where all people get a say, regardless of their religious belief or attachment, or otherwise.

Rossco says:

09:24am | 09/12/10

John of Canberra, if you had actually done some research on the whole issue instead of revealing your ignorance to everyone you would see that “snuff and rape games” would not be allowed under an R18+ Rating. Those games would still be banned and rightly so, gamers dont want those games. Adult gamers just want to be treated like adults, they want to play games with adults themes on a similar level to R Rated movies. Adult gamers also want to protect children and help inform parents on classification ratings. Constantly in our country games sneak in on an MA15+ rating when overseas they are rated as R18+, such as the recent Call of Duty game.

Gamers dont want “snuff and rape games” and you are a fool for even perpetrating a wild strawman such as this one. In fact I think you should apply as the publicity writer for the ACL, your wild claims and ignorance on the issue is definitely on their level.

Adeptus says:

09:28am | 09/12/10

John of Canberra: Are rape & snuff films allowed under a R18+ rating? No? So why would they be allowed under a R18+ rating for games?

Ben: The Minister has publicly stated his support (and that of the federal government as a whole) for the R rating, AND for the reclassification of “dozens of games” that are currently MA15+.

Elphaba says:

09:32am | 09/12/10

Ben, no.  Just… no.  23 titles have been banned in Australia since video games became mainstream.  That’s a miniscule amount.  Game developers, just like filmmakers and authors, will always attempt to cross the line, but it doens’t mean they’ll get there.  R18+ will not open the floodgates for more violent content, because it’s simply not out there.  Plenty of other countries have R18+ classification, and it hasn’t incurred a flood of violent videogame manufacture. The OFLC will not automatically give carte blanche to every video game, they will be assessed on a case by case basis.

Films still get banned in Australia from time to time - look at Ken Park.  An R18+ on videogames will not mean the end of the RC option.  If a company makes something truly heinous (the rape games get cited often), they won’t be allowed in.

Look, the point of all this is to ensure that this industry is properly policed, just like films and books.  It’s a contradiction when movies with high sex and violence get an R18+ rating, but videogames where you can perpetrate the sex and violence yourself (albeit virtually) gets an MA15+ rating.  Please explain to me how this makes sense?  What is the solution?  Leave it as it is?  Continue to misinform parents (again, read Brendan’s article from Monday)?  Or shoud we ban more games and punish the majority 30+ yoa gaming community because some idiot parents can’t control their kids?

Macca says:

10:19am | 09/12/10

Elphaba 1 Ben 0

Ben says:

10:21am | 09/12/10

Elphaba - Where to start - there are so many contradictions here in your reasoning it’s not funny. You say, “Or shoud [sic] we ban more games and punish the majority 30+” to suggest adults aren’t allowed to play what they like, but also “R18+ will not open the floodgates for more violent content”, which implies adults aren’t missing out on anything. So which is it?
Your whole argument is based on the claim that the Classification Board (OFLC no longer exists) is wrongly classifying R18+ games as MA15+, but then you suggest, “The OFLC will not automatically give carte blanche to every video game, they will be assessed on a case by case basis”. So what you’re saying is the Classification Board is presently incompetent, but that incompetence will be magically rectified by the introduction of an R18+ rating. Who exactly will buy that argument?
And quite frankly, I don’t buy the whole ” the point of all this is to ensure that this industry is properly policed, just like films and books” or ‘keep it out of harm’s reach’ type of argument. I’m sure gaming interests wouldn’t have bothered lobbying so hard for an R18+ rating for games if all it meant was their MA15+ games would become R18+ and become more restricted.
Adeptus - Brendan O’Connor’s claim that games will be automatically re-classified is unmitigated fluff. It would require a revision of the entire classification system, which is just not going to happen, and nor has it been suggested. You cannot just shift items from one classification rating to another, as it’s a complex legal process. And I’m sure games manufacturers would not just willingly accept having their MA15+ games moved to a supposedly more restrictive rating!

Elphaba says:

11:10am | 09/12/10

Ben, you’re going to use semantics to pick holes?

*yawn*

You didn’t answer my question/s.  Do we leave it?  Do we let kids buy these games?  Would you let your kids buy them?

I didn’t say adults were missing out on anything.  They can buy games whatever they like.  You’re absolutely right, no R18+ class and adults will still buy games.  The world will keep turning blah blah blah.  I’ve highlighted that there’s a contradiction in the laws, and no one can explain to me why it should stay that way, without resorting to wild claims that have already been refuted.

I don’t necessarily think the Class Board is incompetant, but I do think they’re hamstrung, by gamers, game developers, and their own guidelines.  When they introduced the cap at MA15+, they probably didn’t imagine games would get as realistic as they are.  If they look like a movie now, why can’t they be classified as such?

You constantly asserting that the game developers will not support a reclass of their games isn’t washing.  They support it.  Look, you’re right, the legal wrangling will be interesting, and probably fraught with problems but for now, all those in agreement of the R18+ class seem to be in agreement about the components of it.  Game developers don’t intend those games for children, so why not make it harder for them to get?

Elphaba says:

11:12am | 09/12/10

Ta Macca.

Jeremy Ray says:

12:44pm | 09/12/10

I don’t believe I ever said religious people shouldn’t have their say. What I’m talking about is the separation of Church and State.

You’re ignoring the fact that games rated R18+ in the rest of the world are MA15+ here. It’s a fact. I review them every week. To illustrate the point, many of them pass through other PAL territories before reaching Australia, and carry the R18+ stickers of those territories, right next to our fresh MA15+ stamp.

The content is already here, therefor we need to properly classify it. The murder & rape games mentioned (of which only a couple exist worldwide) don’t fall under the R18+ category, and will be refused classification anyway. If there were any change in the actual games at all, I’d expect it to be less violence, as publishers know an MA15+ game will likely sell better than its R18+ equivalent.

Jake says:

12:45pm | 09/12/10

@Elphaba - I started to type my response, but with your usual flair and articulate manner, you have covered my points perfectly. I give the debate to you - even if im biased haha! (damn you - stop growing on me )

@Ben - change your paradigm - adult gamers are targeted towards te adult market. Game developers are not some sinister force trying to infiltrate the minds of children with their offerings . But the ratings system doesn’t recognize that, and it needs updating! Open your mind, just a little , and you may realise this proposal will benefit the Australian population from all angles.

Ben says:

12:48pm | 09/12/10

Elphaba, I point out the contradictions in your arguments because the gaming lobby has not been honest with its motivations. I can tell that you genuinely have an interest in keeping certain material out of the hands of children, which is admirable, but you should be able to see the contradictions between a libertarian approach to classification and the interests of children. Creating a market for greater sources of violence does not help children. Liberalising the classification system is not a child protection measure.
This comment, which I came across today, is a more honest assessment of the situation from a gaming perspective:
“I am in full support for R18 but I think we need to remember not to kid ourselves. When this rating does arrive it is not going to stop kids getting their hands on these games. Kids will be kids and there will always be parents lacking in being able to control or even care what their child is playing.
“I think if anyone uses the R18 argument to protect kids they are being a little naive. We really want it for ourselves so we can play what we want and I think that is a good nough reason.”
Whilst I disagree with the reasoning, at least it is honest, and being able to play what one wants as an adults is a perfectly acceptable motivation, so long as it is balanced against the interests of children.
As to why games are treated differently to other forms of media, you’ll have to ask the relevant Ministers why they reasoned in the mid-90s that, “Ministers are concerned that games, because of their ‘interactive’ nature, may have greater impact, and therefore greater potential for harm or detriment, on young minds than film and videotape”.
Of course, whether interactivity increases the impact of games is a whole other debate about the merits of psychological research etc, and we could be here forever!
I think the core of your argument is that games that are not suitable for children are currently and wrongly being rated MA15+. You point to R18+ as the solution to keep these games out of the hands of children, but overseas research shows that children are particularly attracted to these games and will play them regardless of the rating.
The other problem is that the MA15+ rating for games must be applied according to existing guidelines, and if games are to shift from MA15+ to R18+, the guidelines themselves (for games and movies) must change. As I’ve said before, this proposition is not on the table. Plus, if the Classification Board isn’t doing its job properly now (debatable), what’s to say it will do the right thing with the R18+ rating in the future?
Our small debate here hinges on whether an R18+ rating would allow more violent forms of media to be available for sale in Australia. You argue that such games don’t exist, but what’s not to say the R18+ rating is not stretched in the same way as the MA15+ rating, as you’ve claimed? And again, why would gamers et al be so vocal on this issue if the introduction of the R18+ rating merely ushered in a shuffling of the proverbial deckchairs as existing games moved from one rating to another? I’d say they wouldn’t have bothered, because nothing in practice would have changed.
If therefore, a market for more violent media is opened, which I believe it must because by necessity R18+ games must have a higher impact than MA15+ under the classification guidelines, then the R18+ rating could never be a child protection measure, as is now deceptively claimed by gaming interests.
Thanks for the debate BTW - it’s been respectful and engaging!

Steely Dan says:

12:59pm | 09/12/10

@ Ben

“Some of you people need a little bit of a lesson in what it means to be a secular state. It means that there is no official state religion.”
It’s more than that.  Check S116 of the Constitution for a handy guide.

“It does not mean that one needs to be a ‘secularist’ or a non-believer to participate in the democratic processes of government.”
And did somebody suggest that this was the case?

“A secular state is where all people get a say, regardless of their religious belief or attachment, or otherwise.”
That’s right.  But a secular state is also one where religious doctrine cannot be enforced on anybody.  Which means even if you have a 99% Christian country (we don’t), any legislation that tried to impose explicitly religious law on everyone would be turfed by the High Court.

Wynston Cruso says:

01:17pm | 09/12/10

Elphaba wins. Flawless victory.

Darryn says:

03:07pm | 09/12/10

@ Ben

Mate, speaking in anicdotal terms,  and I’m sure I’m not alone in seeing this. Parents see MA 15+ and they think ‘you know what, not such a big deal’. Most parents are likely to let their 12-14 yo watch an MA 15+ film because the most they are going to see is a few bad words, some gun shots and a bit of blood. They are lax about the MA 15+ rating because it is not the worst.

This carries across to video-games, as most parents wouldn’t be aware there isnt a R18+ rating for games. They make the same mistake, thinking MA 15+ titles aren’t ‘the worst’, while some titles are most certainly not be acceptable for 12-14yo’s.

What creating an R18+ classification does is move some of those games that aren’t suitable for kids into the ‘correct’ classification, the type that is plainly obvious to not be suitable for kids.

I must insist aswell that we are only talking about an absolute fringe of titles each year here, most likely single digits. Because there just isnt an interest or market in overly-grotuitously violent games, there just isnt. Very few studios are currently making those types of games in countries where they have had R18+ or equiv classifications for years.

Shifter says:

05:21pm | 10/12/10

@Elphaba - Yes.

P.S. You’ve saved me a metric tonne of typing.

@Ben - Are you seriously trumpeting the position that the introduction of a R18+ classification for games would not include or prompt an overhaul of the entire guidelines and legislation relating to the sale of such items?

The gaming lobby’s main motivation is simple. Adult gamers want to be free to purchase and play games than have been unmodified for the Australian market. Games are modified because the classification board deems they are unfit for people under 15 to view. Adults are not under 15, thus requested a classification scheme similar to that in place for movies.

A secondary argument to this are the fact that many unmodified games are classified different in Australia than they are overseas, with the reasoning that a higher classification doesn’t exist so the board opts for a lower classification due popular pressure, usually from game distributors who have a hot title that would not otherwise get released in Australia. The new classification will allow for the release of future titles without the pressure from distributors, and with a new information standard for purchasers.

Alinos says:

08:32pm | 10/12/10

No the difference is that these types of thing’s should be voted by the public, not how much pressure a single entity can put onto someone.

Religion shouldn’t dictate what government do, BUT if the general population come to a consensus on it then it’s all good, as stated by the article the ACL claims to represent all Christian’s yet they most certainly do not, they like any other political party represent the belief’s of the member’s and those who supply the cash.

The fact is that when they say there will be a voter swing against them for saying yes or no to this astound’s me, there are so many more important issue’s for someone to vote on than getting to the booth and going oh this guy legalised R18 vote against him. Politics is a precarious balancing act where people do stuff to stay in power not because it’s the right or what the general population want’s.

and that’s why everytime theres an election all the goodie’s go to the 3-6 seat’s that sit on <1% margins that could swing between party’s.

Elphaba says:

12:25pm | 12/12/10

@Wynston and Shifter - thank guys.  Sorry I haven’t been back to see your kind comments, I do appreciate them.

@Jake - you make me blush. 

I’m glad to see the AG’s have at least acknowledged the flaws in the system as of Friday - the battle rages on, but Rome wasn’t built in a day.

@Ben, thank you too for an engaging debate.  I understand that we’re motivated by the same thing - keeping unsuitable material out of children’s hands.  We have different ideas on how that can be acheived, and that’s ok.

I hope everyone had a great weekend!

Steely Dan says:

03:12pm | 09/12/10

@ Trevor
“I honestly believe that if there were more believers out there (of every flavour) like Jeremy that keep their faith as a personal thing and not assume that it is their “god” given mission to damn the unbelievers to hell and/or wipe them from the face of the earth, either through conversion or failing that more radical atrocities, then you would find that there would less to be heard from atheist polemicists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.”
Seconded.  I believe there are legitimate reasons to oppose Christianity and other religions (oppose, not ‘remove by force’).  One of these reasons is to stop religion from being forced on people.  But if all Christians upheld the separation of church and state (as Jeremy appears to), there’d be a lot less for atheists like me to complain about.

Chris L says:

10:23pm | 09/12/10

Succinctly put Trevor! They can have their beliefs, their churches/synogogs/mosques/temples and they can pay to post billboards. Don’t care.

When they try to force other people to live by their standards they go too far and this is where they get opposed. It’s not an attack on religion and it’s not a hatred for something that doesn’t exist (our point of view) it’s just defence of our freedom from religion.

Nice article Jeremy, and not just because I agree with your stance on the R rating.

Tedd says:

08:52am | 09/12/10

The ACL is a self-interest corporate entity, and does not represent many Christians or Christian organisations.

The degree of rational in, and research behind, their arguments is contentious.  For example, they use the false premise that homosexuality is a choice.

Jane says:

08:57am | 09/12/10

Christians sure do have a right to voice an opinion, but I think the author’s main point is that there is no single christian voice in Australia and that opinion will be vastly different in amongst the many christian communitites around the country.

And frankly, ACL do not use rational and researched arguement. They use dogma and hysteria to force people into a position, then use the old “your either with us or your against us” line if people do not agree.

crt says:

01:52pm | 09/12/10

@Nick, I don’t buy your point about Christian opinions being voiced with “rational and researched arguments”. Perhaps they should do less voicing and more research - start by checking out the Government’s literature review into studies on games and violence. Fascinating stuff - the two aren’t clearly linked. Read up here: http://www.ag.gov.au/gamesclassification#review

Darryn says:

03:20pm | 09/12/10

@ Nick

The ‘classification board’ equivilent of the US are the ESRB, a industry organised & sponsored body to ‘self regulate’.

The US has an enshrined ‘Freedom of Speech’ which is currently before the Supreme Court, but for now is still upheld to include the medium of video-games.

Basically, I’m saying your comparison is not analogous because there is no government body regulating / policing the sale of games to minors. In Australia there absolutely is. Should a retailer be caught selling classified material to minors they are liable to prosecution.

Am I suggesting these games wont get intor childrens hands? No. But I am suggesting that at the very least, with an R18+ classification, Mum or Dad wont be stupid enough to place it there themselves.

Shifter says:

05:31pm | 10/12/10

@Darryn - I agree with most of your sentiments however, if a popular game (lets use Fallout 3 or Modern Warfare 2) was to be rated R18+ I’d imagine there still be a large amount of Mums and Dads who do not care enough to be interested in the content and still buy it for their children.

I’d suggest this is where the ACL is coming in. Because the aforementioned situation is conceivably common, the ACL feels the government needs to legislate against parental apathy (in this situation).

The problem with that, and what Jeremy mentions, is the ACL is claiming to speak for all Christians. Myself, Jeremy and many other Christians out there do not agree with this claim when the ACL states positions we do not agree with.

I’d have less of a beef with the ACL if they “re-branded” themselves the Australian Nanny State Lobby, which is only one letter on the keyboard away from a very catchy acronym. Or something different if that was a bit too offensive.

Soldier says:

11:14am | 10/12/10

I was going to correct your spelling of Pentecostal (with an E not an A), but it just looks as if you have horrendous spelling.

I call myself a ‘christian’ and when people inquire, I tell them that I am of Pentecostal denomination.

Christian is a range of denominations, Catholic, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Anglican ect…
So NO you cant have Christian back for yourself, it was that type of thinking by the Catholic Church which has engendered so much hate towards them.

Trjn says:

08:41am | 09/12/10

The real debate has been had, many points have been raised as to why those opposing an R18+ classification are wrong. Feel free to look it up, this isn’t a new debate that has sprung up in the last few weeks, it has been going on for months, even years.

The ACL is the only body actively continuing with their misguided moral panic and their main strength is that they claim to speak for Christians. This isn’t attacking the messenger, this is attacking their claim that gamers are a vocal minority when in fact the ACL is the vocal minority that does not even speak for the majority of the group it claims to represent.

Adeptus says:

09:02am | 09/12/10

The “real” debate is, should there be an R18+ rating for games?
The vast majority agree, yes there should be.

It’s only vocal minorities like the ACL (and certain AGs) that have stopped this from happening years ago.

As far as games being “pushed” into MA15+, if a game is borderline MA or ban, it seems the censors err on the side of not banning. If it was borderline MA or R, I think they’d be more likely to push it up to R.

Darryn says:

03:28pm | 09/12/10

The only question worth of any weight really with regard to the introduction of R18+ classification is - will this lead to more violent games in the marketplace?

And I would have to say subjectively, based on the evidence - no. No one is making the types of games you are fearful of. And, as previously pointed out, even if they did they would most likely still be Refused Classification.

Thus the consideration becomes - is it safer / smarter for parents to understand the difference between the level of unsuitable material in games with the existing tools? or can we provide another level to further differentiate.

I for one think the more tools, the better the outcome.

Chris L says:

10:29pm | 09/12/10

“I for one think the more tools, the better the outcome.”

Except when it comes to the ACL. The more tools they have the worse they get.

Couldn’t resist.

Freeman says:

09:41am | 09/12/10

Problem is that violent game, especially ones set in normal society such as grand theft auto, Can have a negative affect on some individuals and trivialise consequences. I play GTA, it’s hilarious, but I wouldn’t whinge if it were pulled from the shelves as I can see that it
sends a terrible message to the impressionable. Not all adults can distinguish between reality and fantasy

Adeptus says:

10:06am | 09/12/10

Freeman: should they pull violent films, books & music from sale as well? If they can’t distinguish fantasy from reality, they could just as easily take their “inspiration” from there.

If they’re that impressionable, they need to be under some sort of care & supervision.

Rossco says:

10:36am | 09/12/10

Freeman, Not all adults can distinguish between reality and fantasy hey? How many of these adults exist? Do you have a number? Should we punish the majority of goodwilled responsible citizens who enjoy something in society because some psycho doesnt know the difference between reality and fantasy? Your comments reek of nanny state garbage you know that. You’re a gamer, fight for your rights and liberties and never easily surrender your limited freedoms to the wowsers in society.

Freeman says:

12:40pm | 09/12/10

Adeptus,
any violent movies and books that trivialise violence and anti socialble behaviour in the same way GTA’s does should be banned, yes. but you know what? I don’t think you will find any. when playing GTA, it rewards the gamer for bashing and killing innocent people, even throwing in funny one liners for good measure. The amount of people that act in real society in a similar way to the characters in GTA has increased in recent decades. obviously this cannot be blamed on this one game but perhaps it can on societies acceptance of violence.

Rossco, 

I’m not just talking about Phyco’s, even simple people (go on, deny there are many simple, easily lead dumbass’s out there looking for a role model) who have their attitude towards violence changed by being in control of a violent character. Australia adopts much of america’s culture, Mostly the crap parts of it. And games like GTA provide some of our exposure to this culture. Your cries of “fight for your rights and liberties” when discussing a stupid game is redicoulous and must be insulting to those around the world who genuinely have to fight for their rights.

Darryn says:

03:54pm | 09/12/10

@ Freeman

In what other aspect of government or law to we put the interests of the vast minority groups ahead of the legitimate and fair rights of the majority?

Your suggesting what? that psychopatic adults could access video-games? Cant they also get a drivers licence? watch violent films? the list goes on.

Why are we so concerned about shielding ‘vulnerable’ minorities when it comes to video games alone?

Freeman says:

06:09pm | 09/12/10

Darryn
I’m not sure a phycopath could get a drivers license and I’m not sure you could compare driving a car to acting out a violent fantasy either. as I said above I’m not just talking about psyco’s but also about kids you see at shopping centres who dress and talk like gangstas and look for other gangs of kids to fight or to pick on coz they look up to gangstas and think they are being just like them. Sure, they arn’t driving cars over hookers or murdering cops but they are trying to be the thugs that have been gloryfied through games such as GTA and yes, in violent movies also. and the actions of minorities or individuals has infact changed law in other aspects of law. For instance, can you, as a civilian, buy a semi automatic rifle since port arthur? no. as I said in my 1st post. I’m not calling for it to GTA to be banned but I think it’s just a matter of time until it is and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

Chris L says:

10:35pm | 09/12/10

Freeman, violence has been on a steady decline. A fact that coincidentally seems juxtaposed to the increasing sophistication of computer games. Of course, I don’t know of any study that shows a causal link between these, but at least the facts I stated are true.

Freeman says:

09:27am | 10/12/10

Chris L,
I’m not so sure they are.
home invasions, on the rise
armed robberies, on the rise
fatal bashings/stabbings, on the rise
kids with weapons at school, on the rise
gun related crimes, on the rise
pub violence on the rise.
sure, there has been a reduction in REPORTED violent crimes in other areas such as common assaults, but why would one bother to report an assault any more? nothing happens

Soldier says:

11:23am | 10/12/10

@Freeman

Well what do you know, population is on the rise too!

LC says:

04:40pm | 04/02/11

@ Freeman

“home invasions, on the rise
armed robberies, on the rise
fatal bashings/stabbings, on the rise
kids with weapons at school, on the rise
gun related crimes, on the rise
pub violence on the rise.”

And your source for those claims is where?

DG says:

09:50am | 09/12/10

Hell, if they did that, maybe people would be willing to pay for media content.

trixie melodian says:

12:02pm | 09/12/10

“How does it go,“judge less yee be judged”?”

No, no it doesn’t.

Darryn says:

03:35pm | 09/12/10

Your kidding right?

Your calling Jeremy’s morality into question because he dares to point out the flaws & stupidity in the arguments put forward by the ACL?

This article isn’t bashing the ACL directly, he’s not suggesting they are morally bankrupt & beat up seals.

He’s shining a light on their position, targetting the content, not the person.

Trjn says:

09:53am | 09/12/10

The creation story of Adam and Eve presented in Genesis chapter 2 is inconsistent with the creation story of God creating the Earth in Genesis chapter 1. No really, go and read it again paying attention to the order in which things are created. It is also inconsistent with the scientific evidence that has been accumulated over the years.

Therefore there is strong evidence to suggest that the entirety of the Bible is not literal truth. It isn’t a big stretch to take a large chunk of the Old Testament as allegory whilst still believing in the core message of the New Testament. As a matter of fact, I think that might be the official view of the Catholic Church.

oligarch says:

10:07am | 09/12/10

If you want to defend nonsense try these entries - Matthew 24:37 & Luke 17:26.
Are you going to claim that Noah actually existed?

HappyCynic says:

10:19am | 09/12/10

@oligarch

Why the hell not?  People should be free to pick and choose the bits of the religion that they believe are good for them and reject the bits that aren’t good for them.  Afterall religion is a deeply personal thing that is no one’s business except for G-d’s and the person involved.

I’m not religious but I think people should STFU when it comes to telling others what they should believe and how they should believe it that includes everybody from the Pope to Richard Dawkins.

Trjn says:

10:22am | 09/12/10

I’m an atheist, I don’t believe any of the Bible to be historically accurate or anything more than a book which happens to contain a few nice ideas. All I’m saying is that the position that Adam and Eve did not exist does not discredit belief in the Christian faith.

oligarch says:

11:02am | 09/12/10

Just because something sounds good and should be true doesn’t mean that it is true.
To say that it doesn’t matter if your God doesn’t know the difference between mythology and reality is crazy.
And, to try and pass this stuff off as benign doesn’t wash because they have always been up to their ears in politics.

Leah says:

03:30pm | 12/12/10

Trjn said “... the position that Adam and Eve did not exist does not discredit belief in the Christian faith.”

Uh, yeah, it does. Jesus stated that Adam and Eve were real, so for a Christian to say Adam and Eve didn’t exist means they don’t believe Jesus was stating the truth…. and for a Christian to not believe Jesus doesn’t make them much of a Christian.

Shane From Melbourne says:

07:17pm | 09/12/10

Christian Bashing forum? Damn, I thought I was in the ACL bashing forum. My mistake. Carry on…...

Chris L says:

10:41pm | 09/12/10

“I’m pretty comfortable will my own intellect and don’t feel the need to build up self-esteem by joining in the collective clusterf#ck of trendy, quasi-informed activism; anti-U.S, anti-christian, anti-f#king-anything-that-the-twitterati-hate”

Pretty comfortable eh? I guess that means you don’t need to resort to name calling or insulting the intelligence of those who do not think like you. Kudos Tom, you da man.

Fredd says:

10:43pm | 09/12/10

classic “clusterf#ck of trendy, quasi-informed activism” if ever there was one

LC says:

07:21pm | 04/02/11

Pot, meet kettle.

Adeptus says:

10:13am | 09/12/10

I don’t think anyone is trying to deny you the freedom to exercise your faith (of whatever religion, not just Christian).
But the ACL seems to be trying to impose their views on everyone, Christian or not. Thus denying everyone else the freedom to exercise their faith (or lack of faith).

PeteGeek says:

10:15am | 09/12/10

What ‘broader vision’? You can’t get more narrow-minded than the ACL on this matter.

Jeremy Ray says:

11:21am | 09/12/10

If an organisation is to call themselves the Australian Christian Lobby, is it not their responsibility to act in a way that make Christians proud? Ignoring proven evidence and dismissing the views of a journalistic community who’ve covered the matter for years is something I can’t be proud of. It’s as much the method as the stance.

It becomes dangerous when said organisation has the power to sway peoples’ views, and it becomes harmful when they use this power. Like I said, I think they’re taking on this cause because they perceive it as their “role”, and clutching at straws in terms of the debate. It’s a battle they’re destined to lose, but they’ll get their names in the headlines at least a few more times before it’s done.

A Bob says:

11:44am | 09/12/10

The freedom to exercise Christian faith is defended by our constitution, not the ACL. The author is saying that the ACL does not represent the way in which he chooses to exercise his faith. That is all.

The black and white thinking on both sides of the divide are what turns these discussions into shitfests.

Jesus was a liberal. That’s the broader vision.

Steely Dan says:

02:54pm | 09/12/10

@ Jeremy

“If an organisation is to call themselves the Australian Christian Lobby, is it not their responsibility to act in a way that make Christians proud?”
All Christians?  Is that possible?  If you polled all self-identifying Australian Christians, and got rid of the 5% of outliers (Doomsday cultists on one side, hippies who think Buddha and Jesus got high together on the other) and asked them to agree on what being Christian is about, the only consensus would be a vague statement about ‘being nice’. 

The ACL doesn’t represent Christians like you, but they were never trying to.  They’re a deeply conservative organisation committed to preserving conservative values.  The term ‘Christian’ is used as a code in the same way ‘Family’ often is - it sounds politically neutral, but they’re not.  They cherry-pick the Bible to support their views (mind you I think many liberal Christians do the same thing), rather than use it as a guide.

Satisfied Customer says:

02:29am | 11/12/10

Could it be a generational thing, a cultural thing, a locational thing? Depends who you talk to? This description of the tiptoe-ing is certainly not unfamiliar to me, and it seems a lot of other people have also experienced it, perhaps more so in recent years…?

Dhammachick says:

12:23pm | 12/12/10

I have to tip-toe being a non-Christian a lot myself (I’m a Buddhist). It’s not exclusively a burden to Christianity.

Stewart Henstock says:

01:17pm | 09/12/10

No….it never was….it’s about a Culture War

Darryn says:

03:41pm | 09/12/10

Nanny state vs the ability for me to think & act of my own accord within the bounds of the law which reflects community standards of the time.

Grant says:

12:52pm | 09/12/10

The western world has made much progress towards a modern secular society in the last few hundred years.

Just look at these outcomes:

- Religious people and organisations are now considered more of as a peculiar unspoken fringe group.

- It is not appropriate for religious people to push their ideas or talk about religion in 99% of social situations, or considered normal. 

- Religious views and beliefs are now openly and vigorously argued against and debunked.

- People can openly ridicule or criticise religion with fear or reprieve from any church.

- Religion has been separated from government.

- Religion and religious leaders like the pope are mostly irrelevant.

- Religious attendance numbers and people who affiliate themselves with a faith or belief are dropping dramatically.

- Churches are finding it hard to retain the numbers of attendance.

Only 300 years ago, someone would executed for being a heretic for even suggesting that any of the above could ever happen. 

Imagine what another 100 years will change?

Adeptus says:

12:59pm | 09/12/10

It’s not about loving violence… it’s about keeping adult materials out of children’s hands, while allowing adults freedom of choice.

hot tub political machine says:

01:19pm | 09/12/10

Grant,

The Church has been “on the brink of extinction” for 2000 years. Christians being a fringe group seemingly about to die out has been the norm rather than the exception for most of the Church’s existance.

Amy says:

01:30pm | 09/12/10

The ACL does, indeed, purport to speak for all Christians and even a majority of non-Christian Australians.  From their website:

“Most Australians and certainly all Christians, have simply had enough of the increasingly rapid erosion of traditional family values and ethics in Australia.”

Darryn says:

03:49pm | 09/12/10

So the ACL doesnt claim to represent christians, but because Jeremy dare speak out against their backwards position he is ‘denying Jesus’.

WOW

Does that even warrant a response?

Note that Jesus doesnt say this, the bible suggests that Jesus says this. The new testament having been written / re-written hundreds to thousands of years after his death. But hey, you can continue to stick to that as if it were entirely a first hand account.

Marc says:

01:08pm | 09/12/10

@Laura: as others have noted, I’m pretty sure he was talking about a personal experience. Maybe he could have worded it better. I’m personally convinced that my faith makes me a happier and better person than I would otherwise be. I would never suggest, nor I’m sure was it the author’s intent to, that I’m a better person than you.

HappyCynic says:

01:38pm | 09/12/10

He didn’t say that he’s better than anyone else though, did he?

He said that his beliefs make him a better person, just as your beliefs would make you a better person.  Being a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or an atheist and believing your values make you a better person does not automatically invalidate anyone elses values.

A Bob says:

02:29pm | 09/12/10

I thought this was done and dusted?

I took it to mean he was a better person than he might have been withoiut his faith, not better than others. Like the junkie who finds that faith helps him kick the habit. (But then, so does methadone.)

Likes Joining Dots says:

10:50am | 11/12/10

Laura, if there was a “than ...etc” at the end of the quote you used you may have been onto something.  But there wasn’t, so you aren’t.

hot tub political machine says:

02:14pm | 09/12/10

Tend to agree with your sentiment Francis.

It’s Christ - and not Christians - who gets to decide who is an isn’t a Christian

steve says:

02:36pm | 09/12/10

Australian catholic bishops goverenment submission was in favour of an R18+ ratings classification and I asked them to provide scientific peer reviewed reports supporting there view that violence in video games contributes to more violence in the wider community.

Steve says:

02:57pm | 09/12/10

I asked the ACL on there discussion thread about my previous post about Australian catholic bishops goverenment submission that was in favour of an R18+ classification, and they refused to post my comment. It says to me that they are not open to a discussion about this but just want to bang on there drums that it is bad and evil and will harm the kiddies.

hot tub political machine says:

03:39pm | 09/12/10

This comment is either very humourous or very self-contradictory

A Bob says:

03:44pm | 09/12/10

Really? Karma is a religous belief.

It was created when Aryans invaded the subcontinent. They were grossly outnumbered so they took the divide and conquer approach by creating the caste system. The only way one could move from one caste to another was by amassing enough good Karma in this life and be reborn into a higher caste in the next life. It was impossible to move during ones life.

It’s a great form of social control to promise a reward after death for doing as one is told.

To believe in Karma is to believe in one of the longest running systems of social injust in human history.

AnthonyG says:

04:56pm | 09/12/10

thanks for that bob, than Karma sucks as well.

notSue says:

08:04pm | 09/12/10

A Bob, you’re correct about the origins of the karma concept historically as it applied to Hindus. The caste system is abhorrent, especially for the poor bloody Untouchables( even though it’s outlawed in modern India it still exists.) I find it fascinating however that it’s Buddhist re-interpretation can be applied to one life-time, as merely an expression of non-linear causality ie all effects arise from an cause no matter when that cause occurred. No wonder the Untouchables would rather have been Buddhist, it freed them from their shackles by bypassing the caste system, thus:  If the cause (of Untouchablity) cannot be determined, there is no reason why they must remain so, therefore they are able to improve their station in this life…in theory.

Dhammachick says:

12:32pm | 12/12/10

@notSue - you are correct, Buddhist karma is not based on Hindu caste system. The main link is that the Buddha was born a Hindu prince. Karma is basically the outcome of your actions. Whether it is in this lifetime or whether you are reborn (not reincarnated) into Samsara (this life) again to experience your karma - it’s going to get you in the end. To paraphrase - what goes around, comes around. Therefore not only is it wisely selfish to act in the best interests of all sentient beings, it will also help make Nibbana or Enlightenment that little bit closer.

In metta,
Dhammachick

keith_mitchell@internode.on.net says:

07:37pm | 09/12/10

I hope Rob, you’re not my relative. Kind regards. Keith

A Bob says:

04:01pm | 09/12/10

And yet, Christians were persecuted in first century for being socially progressive.

MrMac says:

09:02am | 10/12/10

Socially progressive in the 1st centruy, A Bob, in terms of just trying to improve their lot as gentiles outcast from the other clubs

Steely Dan says:

01:35pm | 10/12/10

@ A Bob

They were persecuted for not worshipping the Roman gods in the first few centuries, as well as some civil disobedience and a few attempted revolts.  Never heard of Christians being persecuted because they were ‘too progressive’... unless it was by other Christians.

Jake says:

07:54am | 10/12/10

Genius, absolutely brilliant.

Steely Dan says:

01:38pm | 10/12/10

“And anyone over the age of 21 playing “computer games” should get a life !”
As should people who play Sudoku.  Or Trivial Pursuit.  Or darts.  Or bowls.
Right?

Jeremy says:

11:10am | 11/12/10

So am I to assume you don’t watch TV, movies or read books then?

Elphaba says:

12:36pm | 12/12/10

I love Sudoku.  It’s become a sickness for me…

Shane From Melbourne says:

04:16pm | 12/12/10

You’re not my imaginary friend anymore…..

DaveinPerth says:

05:28pm | 11/12/10

...and I long for the day when Christians start protecting our kids from the clergy.

LC says:

10:35am | 12/12/10

Then I don’t suppose you’ll mind showing us a full, peer reviewed study proving the link?

LC says:

04:48pm | 18/02/11

Take your time, I’m in no hurry…

Evan G says:

03:58pm | 18/03/11

Yes. Please provide evidence of this study, who it was conducted by and what the study actually involved. (I know all this, but would like to see if you do).

Short answer, the “Study” was absolute bullshit. There is NO scientific evidence to prove that violent media has any capablity to make us more violent. You are talking through your arsehole.

ex-Good Game fan says:

12:09pm | 12/12/10

Glad to see you, Jeremy, back ‘out there’ speaking up for gamers and good sense. Gamers need intelligent and informed representation in people like yourself, not the Australian Christian Lobby!

LC says:

01:38pm | 03/10/11

Then I suggest you and your church comes out publicly saying the ACL does not represent you.

I say this not because I don’t believe you. I’m saying this because the ACL has a real choke-hold over both major parties (check their stances on abortion, voluntary euthanasia, school chaplaincy and labors stance on mandatory internet filtering if you don’t believe me). And the only possible solution is to have people like you who dislike the ACL’s rubbish to come out publicly and state that they don’t represent them.

Evan G says:

04:00pm | 18/03/11

You are a creationist! Quick everyone! Come look at the missing link!

No offense, but people like you should just not breed. Defective bloodlines.

“The human race is a few thousand years old!”

Have you ever attended a science of biology class in your life!!!???

LC says:

08:16pm | 02/04/11

Jesus Evan, she’s on our side…

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:50pm | 13/12/10

Obviously you haven’t been to Akihabara lately…...

LC says:

12:57pm | 11/03/11

“They are socially a highly unrepresentative and self-regarding group which repeatedly shows its tolerance by bad-mouthing dissenters.”

As are the ACL.

LC says:

12:28pm | 28/03/11

Orginially, there were only two states who publicly came out in favor of R18 games during Atkinson’s reign: Victoria and Queensland. SA was the only one publicly against it,  WA, NSW and Tassie were conveinently using all the fuss created by Atkinson to silently stay silent on the issue.

Now, we still have only two states still in favor: Queensland and SA. Victoria’s new Liberal government is undecided, as are the new NSW government and the Queensland government, and the WA government looks like it’ll oppose this time round.

So no, we’re not any closer to getting R18 games than we were 2 years ago.

LC says:

08:12pm | 02/04/11

Typo:
“Victoria’s new Liberal government is undecided, as are the new NSW government and the Queensland government”
Should Say:
“Victoria’s new Liberal government is undecided, as are the new NSW government and the new Tassie government”

LC says:

03:10pm | 29/06/11

<Guffaws> Too true

And that’s his main point. The main reason he dilikes the ACL is not simply because of their opposition to R18 games, but because of the way they have blatantly rewrote the facts to suit their agenda, just plainly ignore the overwhelming body of peer-reviewed evidence which says the exact opposite of what they claim, and use name calling to shout down dissenters (did you spot the guy who claimed Jeremy is not a real Christian? If he’s not an ACL supporter, I’ll eat my copy of Read Dead Redemption).