backtop


Print 152 comment(s) - last by Armour.. on Feb 6 at 10:49 PM

The leader of the Catholic Church speaks out against violent media for children

Pope Benedict XVI, current head of the Catholic Church, announced in his speech during World Communication Day on Wednesday that he has taken a strong opposition against violent video games and animated films. The Pope had harsh words for all who develop products that supposedly laud violence and anti-social behavior, especially on any form of media that are seen as child’s play.

“Any trend to produce programs and products - including animated films and video games - which in the name of entertainment exalt violence and portray anti-social behavior or the trivialization of human sexuality is a perversion,” Pope Benedict XVI said in his speech. He continued that it is “all the more repulsive” when programs were directed at children and adolescents.

 How could one explain this ‘entertainment’ to the countless innocent young people who actually suffer violence, exploitation and abuse?” he questioned.

The Pope delivered his speech with the idea that children should be exposed and educated with media that incorporates family values, true goals and achievements of humanity, true value of marriage and life and the value of human dignity.

The papal address follows hotly on the heels of the European Union’s investigation into violent video games. The German government is currently studying European regulations in an effort to harmonize a violent video game ban policy across the entire Union.

While the flurry of activity over video game violence has taken place across the pond, the topic is an equally contested one stateside. Investigations into violent video games spur individual states to implement their own regulations, which eventually are overturned in the courts for being unconstitutional. The incidence of video game-related crime leads not only authorities, but also researchers to look into a cause and effect relationship. Violent video games have been found in studies to increase feelings of paranoia and to have a measurable effect on the brain.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Violence...
By Exodus220 on 1/25/2007 5:31:22 PM , Rating: 3
It is interesting that the Pope condemns video and game violence, yet if we take a look at the history books we will find that the Catholic church has been responsible for more than enough violence. Where was this Pope when the Crusades were going on? He sure could have helped save a lot of lives back then or whenever else the Catholic church felt like using violence in their philosophy for spreading the word.




RE: Violence...
By EODetroit on 1/25/2007 5:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
Don't blame the church for the distant past... the current Pope had no more to blame the church's history than the typical while American is to blame for pre-civil war era slavery.


RE: Violence...
By TomZ on 1/25/2007 5:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
The Pope is in the unique position of being able to change the Catholic church. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold him to a very high standard, and to criticize him when he looks the other way, as his predecessors also have done.


RE: Violence...
By daftrok on 1/25/2007 6:11:44 PM , Rating: 5
I miss the last pope :(


RE: Violence...
By obama on 1/26/2007 9:05:10 AM , Rating: 2
me too. this one kinda sucks ass.


RE: Violence...
By Nappy on 1/27/2007 11:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
LOL

I think if you can't tell the difference between games and real life... you shouldn't be playing games in the first place.


RE: Violence...
By scrapsma54 on 2/1/2007 6:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think if you can't tell the difference between games and real life... you shouldn't be playing games in the first place.

How right you are. The only paranoia I experience is when I play doom 3 for the pc with the surround sound enabled, but for crying out loud It doesn't bother me but one night. How does Halo 2 make me paranoid if I shoot a covenant elite? will I be racist against a non-existant intergalactic race? Pope, your such a #$&$ing Christian.


RE: Violence...
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 6:16:41 PM , Rating: 4
His job is to run catholicism, not to take responsibilities off the hands of the civil secular governments. It would be nice if his approach aligned better with the civil authorities, but if it is inconsistent with the tenets of his faith, then that's just the way it is. The civil government is directly responsible for its citizens, no matter what their faith is, or if they have any at all.


RE: Violence...
By TomZ on 1/25/2007 9:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
But you're ignoring the fact that the Church does have considerable influence in teaching moral principles, especially in developing countries.


RE: Violence...
By Micronite on 1/25/2007 11:16:26 PM , Rating: 5
Did we expect the pope to come out in support of violence in video games?

This one's a "duh". Thanks for the clarification.


RE: Violence...
By DocDraken on 1/26/2007 10:00:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
he current Pope had no more to blame the church's history than the typical while American is to blame for pre-civil war era slavery.


Well the current Pope was a member of the Hitler Youth during WW2 and in spite of his claims of it being impossible to avoid, testimony from survivors from his village say otherwise. Besides being a Hitler youth was a volunteer thing.


RE: Violence...
By KraftyOne on 1/26/2007 10:32:15 AM , Rating: 3
I studied in Germany for about 5 months when I was in college. I remember one day that one of the students in our class asked our teacher: "How many of the older people we see around town were part of the Hitler Youth?" The teacher looked kind of surprised by the question: "All of them" he said "at the time, that was what youth did. No one really knew better because that was all the propaganda and you were either IN the party, or you were OUT of the party...and you did not want to be outside the party."

Not that it matters too much, but so that you know where I come from, my grandma (Oma as we call her) is a jewish-german refugee from WWII.


RE: Violence...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2007 10:42:51 AM , Rating: 2
> "one of the students in our class asked our teacher: "How many of the older people we see around town were part of the Hitler Youth?" The teacher looked kind of surprised by the question: "All of them" he said "at the time, that was what youth did..."

Thank you for interjecting a note of reason into the discussion. At the time Ratzinger joined, membership in the Hitler Youth was legally required by the government.



RE: Violence...
By Tsuwamono on 1/26/2007 7:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
Distant past? what about the 40s? murdered millions of people because they werent arian. Same thing in the 80s in soviet union.


RE: Violence...
By Spivonious on 1/29/2007 11:09:40 AM , Rating: 2
WTF does the catholic church have to do with WWII? Was Hitler a Catholic? No, he was Jewish!


RE: Violence...
By MrHanson on 1/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Violence...
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 6:30:38 PM , Rating: 5
The truth is, both the muslims and christians in the middle ages were being used as tools, in general, by monarchs wanting to expand their land holdings and authority, or wanting to win prestige. Religion is the tool of the larger evil: greedy geopolitics. They SAY they want your soul..they often really want your STUFF.


RE: Violence...
By KaiserCSS on 1/26/2007 2:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
This man speaks sensible truth.

And this is EXACTLY why I have embraced the idea of syncretism.

Here is an explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism

I found this very, very appealing. I was born and baptizied as a Catholic, but I never had my first communion nor was I forced to go to church, because my mother was a wise woman: she wanted me to have the freedom of choosing what I wanted to believe, what church I should attend, and if I should attend church at all. So I sporadically attended select services for Christian and Catholic churches where I lived, just to get an overall picture of how things worked between churches, and the differences in each.

I must say, I don't like going to church. It seemed to me that everywhere I went, the services were polarized. The christian churches I had gone to were not very formal; they were open, family-like ordeals and I felt welcomed. In stark contrast to that was the catholic churches in my area, which gave off an air of oppression and a very strict atmosphere. I did not like it at all.

A few weeks ago, I started to research Japan and Japanese culture and language (you can thank Aa! Megamisama for that) and I cam across an interesting article related to Japanese religion. In modern Japan, the majority of people believe in syncretism. Syncretism, in a nutshell, is not a religion, it is a belief that in many religions there lies an underlying unity.

Quote from the Wikipedia article:
quote:
Syncretism consists of the attempt to reconcile disparate, even opposing, beliefs and to meld practices of various schools of thought. It is especially associated with the attempt to merge and analogize several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, and thus assert an underlying unity.


In Japan, a person could have a Christian wedding yet have a Buddhist funeral. They celebrate Christmas and ancient Shinto holidays as well. I found this melding of tradition extremely appealing, because I was raised with an open mind. Plus, syncretism is a good way to reduce inter-religious tension and clashing beliefs.

Maybe one day a future generation can combine the best aspects of religion and live peacefully. Probably not, though. Current human nature won't allow it.


RE: Violence...
By daftrok on 1/25/2007 6:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
The Crusades began with the Christians attacking Persia because Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages whilst Persia was thriving both economically and intellectually. Read further into the first millennium. After the Christians attacked, the Muslims retaliated (obviously) and thus began the Crusades. It was Christians that were spreading the word "by the sword" unto Persia, and Muslims attacked back, defending Muslims' right to practice Islam. The religion was in danger of being overthrown and they wanted to fight to defend it. THIS is what Jihad is; the idiotic Islamic terrorists today claim Jihad but know nothing of what they are saying. During the Crusades, Europe began to receive new intellectual information from Persia (if you look further into early Arabian studies, the scientists there were the first to develop telescopic devices, calculate the circumference of the Earth, actually knowing that the Earth was spherical, etc.) and slowly Europe began to rise up intellectually as time progressed. However, the rulers of the Persian army began to become greedy and thought that they could take Turkey and Hungary. This was when the War turned for the worst and were pushed back by the Europeans into the Middle East. Now the Middle East is stuck in the Dark Ages and turned into a place of continual violence and death to this day.


RE: Violence...
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 6:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
you might read up on your earlier history. The muslims weren't in jerusalem, or isanbul in the year 600. It was byzantine christians and pagans back then. They came from somewhere...oh yeah..they laucnhed a series of attacks into the near east, africa, and eastern and southern europe.. it was back and forth, both ways. Get the whole story straight.


RE: Violence...
By daftrok on 1/25/2007 7:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
I was referring to the Crusades, not prior to. Granted Islam was expanded both with violence and with peaceful negotiations, however launched the attacks in the near east, Africa, and eastern and southern Europe AFTER Heraclius of the Byzantine Empire has done so. I'm not justifying these back and forth attacks, I am just saying that not everything was started by the Arabs, more really a retaliation (which then lead to conquest attacks).


RE: Violence...
By Shining Arcanine on 1/25/2007 8:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
Would an example of this expansion of Islam through violence and peaceful negotiations be the treaty of Al-Hudaybiyya that "prophet" Mohammed made with the Meccan tribe of Quraish, which he broke when his armies became strong enough to defeat the Meccan tribe such that his armies murdered every man, woman and child in Mecca, as stated in the Koran?

You maintain that the Muslims fought the Christians in defense, but it is quite clear that they fought for reasons other than defense long before they even fought the Christians, regardless of who started fighting who.


RE: Violence...
By hadifa on 1/26/2007 12:58:28 AM , Rating: 4
1- "..treaty of Al-Hudaybiyya that "prophet" Mohammed made with the Meccan tribe of Quraish, which he broke when his armies became strong enough to defeat the Meccan tribe.."

2- "..such that his armies murdered every man, woman and child in Mecca.."

3- " as stated in the Koran?"

Can you pleas tell us where did you get this information from and for #3 please tell me where in Koran says that?

Here is the summary.
Mohammad and his followers tried to go for pilgrimage (unarmed) to Mecca. Quraish did not allow them in and made a treaty.

They had a truce not to fight each other or each others
allies for 10 years. Mohammad used this perioud to spread islam. After 2 years Quraish (Meccans) helped an allied tribe to attack their enemy tribe which was allied with Mohammad.

Mohammad gave them 3 options:

1. The Meccans were to pay blood-money for those slain among the Khuza'ah tribe, or
2. They should have nothing to do with the Banu Bakr (the Meccans friend tribe), or
3. They should declare the truce of Hudaybiyya null.

"The Meccans replied that they would accept only the third condition."[2]

"In 630, Muhammad marched on Mecca with an enormous force, said to number more than ten thousand men."[2]

There was almost no fight and Mohammad conquered the city with no resistance.

He destroyed all of the statues of Arabian gods in and around the Kaaba, without any exception.

Years before that the people of Mecca tortured him and his followers till some of them passed away, Through the Muslims out of Mecca and Ex- communicated them for 3 years and left them to die or convert and confiscated what little Muslims had.

So after the peaceful conquest he made a speech in Kaaba and asked:
“What do you expect me to do with you?”
They were ashamed and replied:
“You are a generous man and son of a generous man.”
He told them:
“Go you are all forgiven”.
[I translated it as best as I can]
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet_Mohammed#The_...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet_Mohammed#Conq...


RE: Violence...
By rykerabel on 1/26/2007 3:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
not familiar with the Koran, but taking only from your post i have a question?

quote:
In 630, Muhammad marched on Mecca with an enormous force, said to number more than ten thousand men."[2] There was almost no fight and Mohammad conquered the city with no resistance.
quote:
So after the peaceful conquest he made a speech in Kaaba


how does conquering with an overwheming military force (which only a few were apparently stupid enough to fight) become a peaceful conquest?


RE: Violence...
By hadifa on 1/26/2007 7:04:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
how does conquering with an overwheming military force (which only a few were apparently stupid enough to fight) become a peaceful conquest


I considered it peaceful because there were no bloodshed.

He and many of his followers were thrown out of mecca so in a way they took it back but they did not throw the polytheists out or put them under pressure. It was not like the traditional conquest. For example He did not make the polytheists second grade citizens or put high taxes and it was not for territory or revenge.

The aim of the operation was to "cleans" the kabaa from the idols and making it a place for monotheist as it was first build for this reason by Adam himself [Muslims believe ] and then was rebuild by Ibrahim and Ismael[1].

He and his army marched to Macca in secret. At night He made his men[~10,000] to spread on the mountain and lit torches.Shock and awe, Consequently the Meccans surrendered.

The point is that he and his men suffered a lot from Meccans and he left as the Meccans tried to assassinate him using 70 assassins, one from each tribe. He left alone and powerless, he came back powerful but he did not exert revenge.

Still you have a point, Maybe I was wrong to call it peaceful and I am not even sure that this is a typical conquest, So I wrote summery of the events and you can be the judge.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba


RE: Violence...
By daidalossai on 1/29/2007 4:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
dude you are wrong,I'm from romania, and we fought the turks (otomans- muslims) for 4 5 centuries, we gained our independence from the otoman empire in 1877, what kind of retaliation did the turks on us, when we did nothing to them???
and when they destroyed our beloved byzantine civilazation(yes, our country was a part of the byzantine empire) what kinda of retaliation did they do??? are you nuts? these days, i'm hearing only about how satanical are the christians how they wanna rape and kill muslims?? wtf is that?
i'm sick of the muslims complaing for their poor economical life, and blaming it on us christians?
as for the pope, i'll ask him this
where was hem, when the catholic priest from Boston, or San Francisco, "played" sex games with young kids?
the pope should stf up, and let everyone decide for themselves, i think is preferably your minds gets f**ed up with video games, than your azz beeing f**ed by some catholic priest as a young kid


RE: Violence...
By hadifa on 1/30/2007 12:34:29 AM , Rating: 2
Where in my words did I defend the ottomans? I am from Iraq and If Muslim ottomans burned your cities and killed your children and did what they did [though I don't know all the details], you should know that my country and people [probably] did not fare much better. I will be the last person to defend what they did or praise what they achieved!

My words were about Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). Would you take Christ (PBUH) accountable for what Hitler did? Of course not, because he never ordered, encouraged nor recommended such behavior.

Today is Ashura[1], Maybe you should have a look at what Muslims! did in this day. They massacred Mohammad's family and did not even show mercy to his 6 months old grandson, and that is while they were among the best and holiest people, committed no crime and were invited by the same people who slaughtered them. They killed the men and children and took the women as prisoners. These people are far from his message.

So dude, I am not wrong about Mohammad (PBUH), please -though difficult- do not mix his allegedly followers with him.

And just know that not all Muslims are the same. Some Muslims believe other Muslim sects are infidels and should be eradicated. Who do you think is bombing the schools and mosques in Iraq! These people portrayed a grotesque Islam and made it difficult for people to see the true religious and message.

All that said, deep in my heart, I find it difficult to blame people who are wary from Islam because of what they continually hear and see about it. I know that because I have lost dear people to terrorists’ bombings and my country is being ripped apart by them.

Hope, God shows us the righteous path, the same path that Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad (peace be upon all of them).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karbala


RE: Violence...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 7:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "The Crusades began with the Christians attacking Persia because Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages whilst Persia was thriving both economically and intellectually....After the Christians attacked, the Muslims retaliated."

Err, no. The first Crusade began in 1095. That was after several hundred years of Muslim expansion, by force. The Umayyad Caliphate captured from the hands of Christians the nations of Turkey, North Africa, and Spain. In 736 (over 400 years before the First Crusade) they were stopped from overrunning France by Charles Martel, at the Battle of Tours. In the years right before the First Crusade, the Seljuqs were invading the Byzantine Empire, and expanding into Armenia and Asia Minor.

It was the plea for aid from the Byzantine Emperor to Pope Urban II that spawned the First Crusade.


RE: Violence...
By daftrok on 1/25/2007 7:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and no, really. The Byzantine Empire stirred conflict with its expansion into the Persian Empire. The Arabs united under Islam was fighting to regain control of it, and in doing so wished to end the Byzantine Empire (and then began the greedy expansion, I thought this happened later on, not before I apologize).


RE: Violence...
By Ringold on 1/25/2007 7:11:28 PM , Rating: 4
You paint a picture of an early defensive Persian, Arab and overall Muslim world. The facts are a little different.

Europe was essentially in an unintelligent slumber until Islamic invasion from both sides forced it to open its eyes. The foundations of the modern European concept of a strong nation state was started right there; Europe could either congeal in the face of the onslaught or become subjects like the Iberian peninsula, Africa, and modern day Turkey.

Charlemagne's victory is all that stopped them in the West, and in the East the historical descendent's of the Roman Empire kept them at bay largely until one of the later Crusade armies decided to sack Constantinople. In fact, the Byzantines entire last several hundred years was one of pure defense, not offense.

I don't know how far they got after the fall of the Byzantines but the final push wasn't overall one of the Christian's pushing back the poor defensive Muslims yet again because, well obviously, the old Byzantine empire seems rather Muslim to me. Some push.

I'd much rather characterize the Crusades as strategically a defensive maneuver. Sure, they wanted land, but the claim to the holy land is rather legitimate and in the big picture they likely recognized the aggressive nature of the Islam of their day. Only shame is how badly coordinated they were.


RE: Violence...
By daidalossai on 1/29/2007 4:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
true, i'm from romania, a country knowned for the fact that succeded in stoping the otomans=muslims for conquering all its lands.. we for instance were never fully conquered,like the bulgarians or hungarians, we had kings like the Stephan The Great, wich now is also a Saint, made so by our ortodox curch, and the fammous by noe Dracula, know in our country as Vlad the Impaler, he really did scared the sh*t out the turks=otomans=muslims with his tactics
our wars with the turks were defensive not ofensive so i'm sick with this muslim ideea of them doing war in "defense" when they obviously wanted to conquer as much land as possible from europe..
i say a big f*k to all jihadi types out there, especially to these iranians d*ks


RE: Violence...
By daftrok on 1/25/2007 7:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
Overall, my point of the matter is that both sides were spreading the word by the sword and not just the little religion called Islam. Both sides are equally guilty in the early actions.


RE: Violence...
By Shining Arcanine on 1/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Violence...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 9:23:21 PM , Rating: 5
> "none of it was ever condoned by the Catholic Church..."

Where do people get this stuff? The number of times the Catholic Church condoned (and even sponsored) the forcible conversion and/or murder of pagans is beyond count. Look at the history of the Teutonic Knights, for one example, or the Pope's role in the Treaty of Tordesillas, dividing up the New World between Spain and Portugal, and the history of the Jesuits in South America.

I could list a few hundred more examples, but time is short.


RE: Violence...
By Shining Arcanine on 1/26/2007 12:46:08 AM , Rating: 3
The forced conversion of the pagans was done under orders by the Roman Emperor to unify the Roman Empire and was not condoned by the Catholic Church. The Teutonic Knights fought to defend Christians that were being persecuted. The Pope's role in the Treaty of Tordesillas was to prevent Spain and Portugal from going to war with each other. The Jesuits were among the most vocal opponents against slavery and the encomienda system. Bartolomew de la Casas' work in Latin America led the King of Spain to ban slavery and the encomienda system.

I will have a counter example to every statement you can make, as they are all false.


RE: Violence...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2007 10:25:00 AM , Rating: 4
> "The Teutonic Knights fought to defend Christians that were being persecuted"

There are countless records of the Teutonic Knights slaying entire villages for no crime other than the worship of "pagan" gods. This included women and the larger children...the smaller children were usually taken to Muslim lands and sold into slavery. The order grew quite rich off the spoils of this "defense of Christians".

> "The Jesuits were among the most vocal opponents against slavery and the encomienda system"

They certainly were. Which is why the Pope disbanded their entire order, had them arrested and recalled from South America, and made it illegal to even proclaim oneself a Jesuit for nearly 50 years. The only reason Jesuits still exist today is that Catherine the Great gave them sanctuary in Russia. Did you not know all this?


RE: Violence...
By MustaineC on 1/27/2007 11:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
Can you also justify the Inquisition? Was the forced conversions of Indians in the New World also done under orders by the Roman Emperor? You are an apologist like I had never seen before.

Bartolomé de las Casas was one in a million, stop trying to use him as an example of the Church's "good will" at the time.

Bartolomé died in the 16th century, and slavery was finally abolished in Cuba (a SPANISH COLONY) in 1886, the 19th century.


RE: Violence...
By MustaineC on 1/26/2007 12:18:33 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, yes, the Christians were sick of those ugly violent Arabs. Those peace loving Christians...

And then, after the Crusades, they got sick of those horrible "Apocalypto" Indians in the New World (they might have invaded Europe using canoes, you know?), and decided to eliminate a few millions to make them see their God was better (and prevent their invasion of Europe).

Oh, yes, those peace loving Christians "sick of those spreading their word by the sword"


RE: Violence...
By Christopher1 on 1/26/2007 12:49:33 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, they are still spreading their word 'by the sword'. It's just now, that instead of doing it ACTUALLY by the sword...... they are having laws passed that enshrine their morality and tell people "OBEY THESE LAWS, OR YOU WILL GO TO PRISON! "

Still spreading religion by the sword, and still spreading their own morality codes by the sword, which doesn't work.


RE: Violence...
By Shining Arcanine on 1/25/2007 8:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
The Crusades were intended to prevent violence. Back then (and still today), many Catholics made pilgrimages to holy sites in Palestine and quite frequently, they were attacked by Muslims. The situation back then was horrible and it is quite similar to the situation today in France, Iraq, Malaysia, etcetera. The Crusades were called to bring an end to that. And they did, as for many years after the first Crusade, people were able to make their pilgrims without fear of Muslims attacking them. The Crusades were purely defensive wars and self defense is something that the Catholic Church has always advocated. I do not know what you were told, but whatever it was, it is not historically correct.

If you would like to learn more about what happened around the time of the Crusades, I suggest that you read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades by Robert Spencer. Anyone that has an open-mind and a will to learn what is true should read it, among the many other books (including those of opposing views) on the topic that their open-mindedness will lead them to read.


RE: Violence...
By Moishe on 1/25/2007 8:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
Saying that the Pope shouldn't be down on violence because the Church was violent at one time or another is pure and utter foolishness.

Like the other poster said, you can't blame the current pope for something hundreds of years ago. The world and the Catholic church are completely different now than they were then. As well, lets not forget that the "Crusades" were not as cut and dried as most people think. The "Christian" nations were not just blindly killing, they were responding to a huge threat from the world of Islam.

On the gripping hand, I like violent video games and while I respect the opinion of the Pope, I will certainly not stop playing them.


RE: Violence...
By Shining Arcanine on 1/25/2007 9:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
The Catholic Church is not very different from the way it was hundreds of years ago or even two thousand years ago, but the claims of violence regarding it are horribly mistated. The main two are the crusades, which were a response to attacks against Christians that had occurred for hundreds of years prior to them and the Spanish Inquisition, which was executed by the Spanish government and thus was something that the Catholic Church was unable to control or prevent.


RE: Violence...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 9:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
> The main two are the crusades...Spanish Inquisition...

Actually those are rather minor compared to other, choicer incidents in the history of the Church. Look up some info on Pope Alexander, the most famous of the Borgias, and a man who ccommitted his first of many murders at the tender age of 12.


RE: Violence...
By Shining Arcanine on 1/26/2007 12:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
Back then wealthy families tried to control the offices of bishop, as being a bishop was the equivalent of being a prince. The Pope is a bishop. If I recall correctly, Pope Alexander asked pretty girls to meet him after church and he had several children. Not everyone is moral, especially when they were put into a religious office because their parents were powerful enough to force it. No matter how many or how serious sins were committed by various individuals, that did change neither Canon law nor the good, holy people that were in less prestigious positions.


RE: Violence...
By StevoLincolnite on 1/26/2007 7:07:22 AM , Rating: 3
Personally I don't believe in any religion, How could I?
The Dinosaurs Pre-date anything that man has recorded, Every tool, Cure, etc was all because of Mans' Research. -Nothing to do with a god or what not. And I cant believe that Jesus' father let his son DIE in such a horrible way, Seriously, Could anyone here sacrifice they're own child in such a gruesome way?
Plus Anything you ever did wrong... You were stoned to death.
These chosen people, believing they were god's favorites, believed they had the right to rob and cheat, to murder and enslave the rest of mankind as long as they did it in god's name. That makes everything all right. God saved Noah and destroyed the rest of mankind, but continually forgives those who directly transgress against him. Does that really make sense?

Also:
"Matthew 7:21 Jesus says not everyone that calls the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Acts 2:21 Paul says whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

""Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)"

Moses commands the murder of approximately 100,000 young males and, roughly, 68,000 helpless women.

Consider women and children of your own family: No matter how sick they may lay, or how they may go against a religion, how would you feel if a man named Moses, claiming to speak for God, sent men into your house and hacked to pieces the women and male children? Also, how would you react if they spotted a female child, dragged her off with them to do as they please with her? Note that these innocent virgins served for their own sexual pleasures.

Midian, the land of the Midianites, did not reside in an area regarded as a natural enemy of Israel for centuries, and in fact lay hundreds of miles away from the Israelite encampment. Moses, himself, had lived in Midian as fugitive after committing his first murder. In short, Midian presented no threat to God's "Chosen People."

And then you get those hard core Christians... I don't know about you, but they drive me nuts, all they do is preach and say they love everyone, But watch your back they still get nasty! I have met so called "Satanists" Which are much more present to be around than Christians, If we were to follow the bible word for word and apply it to real life today, You would be in jail, Or killed, etc.

I don't like the religion (Thats what I call it, some say its not a religion, but they believe/follow it religiously so what is it?). And I DON'T like the way that Christians treat/think about homosexuality's, its not a choice, Your born with it, So why should they be punished? Mormons are the worst for it.

Just my 2 cents.



RE: Violence...
By Christopher1 on 1/26/2007 12:55:53 PM , Rating: 1
Frankly, you're right on track. Anyone who would KNOWINGLY force a child, male or female, to be killed by others is a monster, and should be imprisoned for the rest of his life.

Anyone who forces children, male or female, to have sex with men or allows them to be sexually enslaved, that person is a monster. That is coming from someone who think it is OKAY to have sex with children as long as you ASK them first.

Frankly, we need to get rid of religions, races and such, and simply admit that all of us are human, all are equal, there is no heaven or hell, and that there is no god.

If we did that, and started teaching children that there is NO reason to kill other people or to force them to obey your moral codes...... the world would get a lot better.


RE: Violence...
By lufoxe on 1/26/2007 8:36:36 AM , Rating: 3
"NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!"

Surprised no one has said this


RE: Violence...
By Spivonious on 1/29/2007 11:31:20 AM , Rating: 2
Our chief weapon is fear..fear and surprise. Our two chief weapons are fear and surprise...and an almost radical devotion to the Pope. Our three chief weapons...


RE: Violence...
By scrapsma54 on 1/31/2007 7:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
The pope can influence chritianity and as a result halo could be banned because some fat lady who is a devout follower of christ when to the supreme court. Anyway if I recall, this pope was once a hitler youth. Pshah, and he has the nerve to speak about violence.


RE: Violence...
By senbassador on 1/25/2007 8:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
Kinda an irrelevant point though. It happened over 400 years ago. So what the Muslims did to central Europe and what central Europe did to the Muslims is rather irrelavant. Then again, in the US, anything that happened before the year 1900 is pretty much irrelavant. Hell, even the fact that the Muslims kidnapped US sailers is rather irrelevant.

I am more worried about recent attrocities, 9/11, recent massacares, abortition clinic bombers, etc.


RE: Violence...
By Shining Arcanine on 1/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: Violence...
By isaacmacdonald on 1/26/2007 1:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/

...as to why you haven't seen television reports, maybe you missed them?


RE: Violence...
By keepitreal on 1/26/2007 1:05:40 AM , Rating: 1
You speak mind.

Now let me put my two cent.

A man who used to be a hitler youth, now happened to be the pope. Holy shit!!!

To me all religions are about manipulation, power, and money.



The Pope
By TomZ on 1/25/2007 5:05:44 PM , Rating: 3
The Pope doesn't also believe in equality for women or birth control (even for helping stop the spread of AIDS). So I personally take what he says with a grain of salt.




RE: The Pope
By JTKTR on 1/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: The Pope
By TomZ on 1/25/2007 5:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that the Pope is out of touch with reality, and therefore, comments that he makes about videos and games are irrelevant, IMO. For example, the AIDS crisis is REALITY and a very serious problem, and the Pope absolutely refuses to address it in any meaningful, practical way.

You don't have to take my word for it, just talk to any Catholic you know, and find out if they are "strictly" Catholic or "selectively" Catholic. The Pope is out of touch with the sensibilities of his own followers. The Pope is a leader, yes, but you don't expect a leader to be clueless. (...or do you?)

This is obviously a sensitive topic, and I've probably said too much already.


RE: The Pope
By dgouldin on 1/25/2007 5:23:57 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
but you don't expect a leader to be clueless


... you're not from around here, are you?


RE: The Pope
By daftrok on 1/25/2007 6:11:01 PM , Rating: 1
In the words of Ashton Kutcher...BURN!


RE: The Pope
By timmiser on 1/25/2007 6:11:45 PM , Rating: 2
That my friend, is the funniest thing I've read all week!
:)


RE: The Pope
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 6:13:11 PM , Rating: 5
The pope also knows if you don't screw everything you can, and use IV drugs, and generally avoid such risky behavior, you generally reduce your odd of getting AIDS. He's just telling you some ways to avoid problems consistent with his beliefs. Take it or leave it. If you want to trust a few mils of latex against a slow suffering death...go for it.

The Pope is sort of bound by his creedo. He tells followers what they are supposed to do within that creedo that will help them.. It's not his responsibilty to stop them from getting AIDS, however. I don't see the pope MAKING anyone stop getting it on with someone they just met in a dive. He's just asking them to do it his way. Everyone is free to ignore him and do what they want if they want to. What he's talking about WORKS, IF you have the self control for it... and most people don't in the end. The entire cerebrum overpowered by a couple of glands..the life of an adult human.

If a Cathoic wants to "break the rules" and fool around and use a jimmy, they can. It's their own personal choice. I don't see the "army of the pope" rolling in to make them stop using condoms any time soon. The pope's job is to "Run" catholicism, not to back up secular authorities with their responsibilities. The secular governments are the ones directly responsible for solving the AIDS crisis, not the pope. Blaming him for the problem is a red herring.

The catholics may not be putting out the up to date message on dealing with aids, but they do spend some serious $$ treating those that already have it, with hospitals, medical missions, medical supplies, etc.. You can't dog them for that at least.

I do agree it would be wise for the pope to re-examine more thoughtfully the practical implications of what he says, but it still comes down to every individual's choice in the end.


RE: The Pope
By bjourdo on 1/25/2007 6:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
The basic statement that the pope is out of touch with reality couldn't be stated more plainly. He may not like 'simulated' sex or violence, but I'm opposed to catholic priests having sex with children. 'makes you wonder if some of those issues would be less problematic if they could marry.


RE: The Pope
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 6:50:54 PM , Rating: 3
Probably they would. I'm a catholic that thinks that married clergy would be beneficial, but I go with the flavor of the month decision on that one from the man. I'd be the last one to tell you that the church is perfect, but its just a microcosm of society as a whole. You get bad apples and crap in both...

The pope is probably less out of touch with reality than you give him credit for...but its hard to make religion and secularism align all the time. I don't think we'd want them to align. The pope's going to have to tow the line that was handed to him for the most part...and let the secular folks worry about secular issues. disease isn't religious, and computer games aren't religious...


RE: The Pope
By senbassador on 1/25/2007 9:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
To play the devils advocate though, a lot of the men in 3rd world countries refuse to wear condoms because they think its degrading to their manhood. So you can't really blame the RCC for that. What would you rather; a macho backwards guy who goes around having unprotected sex with as many women as he and refused to wear condoms because he thinks its bad for his manhood or an out-of-touch unrealistic prude who thinks its realistic to ban condoms and have people not have any sex.

You could say the same thing about homophobia too; which was around some parts of the world long before the Missionaries landed on their backyards.


RE: The Pope
By TomZ on 1/25/2007 9:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
I appreciate what you're saying, but in the current situation, the Church teaches that using condoms is wrong. Consider how the situation could be improved if the Church, in recognition of the global AIDS crisis, were to advocate condom use, especially in developing nations? I believe the impact would be quite significant.

The Church could also have a positive impact on homophobia and equality for women - but it doesn't even try.


RE: The Pope
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 9:56:00 PM , Rating: 1
> "Consider how the situation could be improved if the Church, in recognition of the global AIDS crisis, were to advocate condom use"

Consider how the situation of overpopulation and starvation would be improved if the Church would advocate cannibalism. Isn't that a similar argument? The Church views the means as not worth the ends.

As you know, my views on religion are very dim indeed. However, given the tenets of the Catholic faith, their stance really isn't unreasonable. Sex is intended for procreation, not recreation. Condoning condoms is a tacit statement to the followers to have sex for the fun of it.

And I don't know that the reversal of the Church's position would even affect the spread of AIDs. Sexual relations outside marriage are already a sin...so anyone whose prepared to commit one sin is either going to wear a condom or not based on their personal preference, not the word of the Pope. I could even make a semi-compelling case that a reversal would even increase the spread of AIDs, by signalling the Church's acceptance of extramarital relations.



RE: The Pope
By isaacmacdonald on 1/25/2007 10:11:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Consider how the situation of overpopulation and starvation would be improved if the Church would advocate cannibalism. Isn't that a similar argument? The Church views the means as not worth the ends.


What a bizarre comparison. Ironically enough, condom use is a very humane ways of addressing starvation (at least insofar as it is a result of overpopulation within an impoverished region). If the church's attitude is that condom use is morally equivalent to cannibalism they have a diseased view of life.

quote:
s you know, my views on religion are very dim indeed. However, given the tenets of the Catholic faith, their stance really isn't unreasonable. Sex is intended for procreation, not recreation. Condoning condoms is a tacit statement to the followers to have sex for the fun of it.


That's probably a good approximation of the Catholic POV. It's similar to the perspective of those in the US that advocate abstinence-only (IE: no instruction on condom use) sexual education for teens (Penn&Teller's BS had a great program on that last season)--a destructive and statistically asinine use of faith based morals, rather than humane pragmatism.


RE: The Pope
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 10:17:49 PM , Rating: 3
> "If the church's attitude is that condom use is morally equivalent to cannibalism..."

Whoa, Nelly! Step back before you plunge into such an extreme logical fallacy. The Church's viewpoint is that extramarital sex (the only type that spreads AIDs) is wrong. And rather than fighting one wrong with another, you should simply prevent the first wrong. You can argue that their premise is incorrect...but given that premise, their conclusion is not only consistent, but correct. Interestingly enough, abstinence is far more effective at preventing AIDs than condom usage.

Is getting people to abstain from extramarital sex realistic? No...but then neither is getting millions of third-world men to wear a condom, simply because the Pope (or anyone) says its now ok to do so.

Now, personally I don't agree with the Church's premise. But it doesn't stop me from seeing the logic of their viewpoint.




RE: The Pope
By Christopher1 on 1/26/2007 1:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. A person can be in a marriage, be exposed to AIDS through blood contact with another person, pass it on to his wife who them passes it on to their children...... BADA BOOM! It's been passed from person to person INDIRECTLY and DIRECTLY through sex.

The best thing to do is simply to look for a CURE for sexual disease (and perhaps label those with AIDS with a scarlet letter!).

Keeping people from having sex for pleasure is NOT going to stop AIDS, and you are wrong that abstinence is far more effective than condoms in preventing AIDS. Once you take into account that the abstinent person has had NO sexual contact with other people, and take into account the EXTREME amount of sexual encounters that people like myself have had without getting AIDS or any other STD(for me it's getting toward 3,000) by using condoms...... the condom is the better means.


RE: The Pope
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2007 1:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "are wrong that abstinence is far more effective than condoms in preventing AIDS.."

Do people stop thinking when they post? Abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed method of preventing not only AIDs, but all STDs, as well as pregnancy. You may consider it an impractical solution (as I do) but you cannot argue its not the most effective method.

> "A person can be in a marriage, be exposed to AIDS through blood contact with another person, pass it on to his wife who them passes it on to their children...... BADA BOOM!"

Nonsexual contact is a minor vector in the spread of AIDs, far outweighed by sexual transmission, particularly in hard-hit areas like Sub-Saharan Africa. Without sexual transmission, there would be no AIDs epidemic. Period.

> "Once you take into account the EXTREME amount of sexual encounters that people like myself have had...for me it's getting toward 3,000..."

You must be a good-looking guy....you certainly didn't win over any of those 3,000 with your mind.


RE: The Pope
By Shining Arcanine on 1/26/2007 1:01:01 AM , Rating: 2
I am Catholic. I do everything Canon law says. In an instant, I would give everything I own to the church and be a pauper on the street if the Church asked me for it.


RE: The Pope
By Christopher1 on 1/26/2007 1:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
If you are not being sarcastic, then I'll state it: you are stupid and brainwashed.


RE: The Pope
By Shining Arcanine on 1/26/2007 1:05:25 AM , Rating: 2
By the way, I forgot to add, if someone is not following Canon law, they are not Catholic, even if they think they are. Ask any priest.


RE: The Pope
By kruege311 on 1/25/2007 6:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well to be honest I wouldn't expect him to promote birth control to prevent the spread of aids. I mean, come on people, if you really want to stop the spread of aids use common sense. Wait till you're married AND have been tested. It's not that difficult to do, but most people don't really care, they'd rather take risks. Just exercise your willpower and not sleep around. Birth control as a form of "disease" control isn't fool proof and it's pretty much stated on most devices that they are designed to help reduce the spread of disease (which is not the same thing as 100% gauranteed protection).

Now, for people that find themselves in the unfortunate situation of being married and one spouse has a disease, then yeah, go nuts using that protection (or if you're just trying to prevent having a crazy huge litter :) ).


RE: The Pope
By Christopher1 on 1/26/2007 1:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
That won't keep you from spreading AIDS. We now have CONFIRMED cases where AIDS has been spread through a kiss, contact with bodily fluids OTHER than blood, etc.

Exercising willpower is not going to stop you from getting AIDS. The true means to stopping AIDS is to FIND A VACCINE for it, and take a lesson from the people in the world who have been exposed but who DIDN'T catch AIDS, even after sometimes being BATHED in tainted blood or semen.

And to correct you: condoms are guaranteed to stop the spread of disease UNLESS THEY BREAK, something that condoms do not do very often anymore.

Seriously, I TRIED to break a heavy-duty latex condom with a cucumber, pushing it into the condom, pulling the condom down..... the thing just WOULD NOT BREAK, at least until I CUT the condom just a little bit. Then, it broke easily, just like anything would have broken when it was weakened first.

To the people who say "The world is overpopulated!": no, it isn't.

The problem is that humanity is WASTEFUL right now. Better than 75% of the food that the world grows goes bad and is never used.
Better than 75% of the oil used is WASTED through emissions from cars and cars that are not fuel efficient.
I could go on and on naming things where humanity is wasteful.

If we were not so wasteful in this world, and would stop trying to 'one up' the guy on the next street with our Hummers, etc., we would be able to support about 10 TIMES the number of people on the earth right now, and we would probably already be exploring the cosmos and living on other planets.


Interesting cultural obervation
By senbassador on 1/25/2007 8:41:24 PM , Rating: 4
I have an interesting cultural observation:

Us Americans generally disapprove of violence in the media and go irrationally beserk when it comes to sex.

The Europeans generally slightly disapprove excessive sex in the media but really go irrationally beserk on violence.

Interesting to note that the new Pope has sided more on the EU side. Popes in recent decades traditionally bitched about too much sex in the media but this is the first time they made such a big deal about violence. This is rather unprecented.




RE: Interesting cultural obervation
By isaacmacdonald on 1/25/2007 8:47:15 PM , Rating: 4
Good deal?

Even as an american I find our norms laughable. Movies like "the dreamers"--a perfectly harmless and not especially fetishized look at sexuality featuring a bit of nudity-- are rated NC-17, while immensely violent films like passion of the christ or saw 3 get a nice mainstream R rating.

Sex is natural. Everyone does it. Murder and fetishized torture are not. WTF is up with american norms?


RE: Interesting cultural obervation
By senbassador on 1/25/2007 9:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, it is kinda weird. I know South Park made fun of that fact, when Cartman has his wardrobe malfunction and no one cared that Butter's eye had a Chinese star right though it.

I guess you could have a movie with a nipple getting hacked off and it be rated pg-13 for violence but if you show that nipple on a woman it be rated R. Go figure, our system is pretty retarded.

Now, I've done my share of playing violent video games so I don't want people going after violence either. In fact I much prefer violent video games verses porn as my vice of choice; which is a personal preferance. So I guess it works out for me :-/


Allthough I hate to nitpick:

Now, as for sex being natural; I am not so sure about bondage, and I am not sure about most of the women being super thin white blond women, gangbangs, etc. I mean people do it, but porn doesn't exactly represent reality and whats natural. If you really want natural; most of our porn should be a 150 lb woman having sex with some 180 lb dude; and it would be more racially diverse. Now, I mean its free speech and I have no problem with it, but I don't know about the natural part.


By isaacmacdonald on 1/25/2007 10:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I agree completely about pornography. I wasn't saying that mainstream porn depicts normal/healthy sexuality. I was thinking more of mainstream international cinema versus domestic (eg: Sex Y Lucia, a beautiful spanish film that has full frontal male/female nudity, and a fairly healthy treatment of sexuality)--something that I think is representative of our bizarre sexual repression.


RE: Interesting cultural obervation
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 9:29:36 PM , Rating: 3
> "Movies like "the dreamers"--a perfectly harmless and not especially fetishized look at sexuality featuring a bit of nudity-- are rated NC-17..."

A movie featuring full nudity, about incestual sex with a pair of Siamese twins? I have to say, that's pretty much what the "NC-17" rating was designed for.


RE: Interesting cultural obervation
By isaacmacdonald on 1/25/2007 10:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously you didn't see it. There was sexual jealousy between brother and sister (probably within the realm of normalcy), they weren't Siamese twins, and what the hell is the deal with americans and nudity? It's fine to watch someone's rib cage broken in two and torn apart (saw 3), but god forbid we see a flaccid penis.


RE: Interesting cultural obervation
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 10:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
> "they weren't Siamese twins..."

My apologies... ex Siamese twins...who still see themselves as one.

> "It's fine to watch someone's rib cage broken in two and torn apart (saw 3), but god forbid we see a flaccid penis. "

There is very little logical about any social mores or conventions. Be that as it may, I'm more concerned about my underage children seeing sex in a film than violence. I don't believe Saw 3 will convince them to become a serial murderer...but a XXX flick might well convince them to start having sex earleir than they should.


RE: Interesting cultural obervation
By isaacmacdonald on 1/25/2007 10:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well I can respect that. I have a fundamentally different view, I suppose. Intense graphic torture repulses me enough to consider it psychologically unhealthy for children--sexuality, on the other hand is something we all end up having to tackle, and I'd prefer to be open about and (hopefully) foster a fairly healthy perspective.


RE: Interesting cultural obervation
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 10:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'd prefer to be open about and (hopefully) foster a fairly healthy perspective..."

So would I. But I feel a movie that portrays incest as right and proper is probably not something a 16 year old teenager should be watching. It goes back to the innate illogic of social customs. If you're having recreational sex (i.e. not intending to procreate) then there's really no reason to not engage in incest, right? Still, I think 16 is a bit early to broach that topic, don't you?


By isaacmacdonald on 1/25/2007 11:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, there are pretty good reasons to believe incest-taboos have some root in selection pressures (unlike say strict-monogamy)--something that equates to some level of instinctual reaction to incest. I wouldn't have a problem discussing this with my teenagers.

Many 16 year olds are already having sex. In an ideal world, I would like my children to have a good understanding of sexual drives, biology, and responsible behavior (including condom use and hygiene) by the time they're 16. I saw plenty of stupid teen sexual behavior when I was in HS--many of them ran around with naive conceptions that seemed to have been formed exclusively by exposure to commercial media and peers (rather than a good sex-ed program or an engaged parent). I'd like to have my children avoid such needless/costly stupidity.


By isaacmacdonald on 1/26/2007 12:39:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I feel a movie that portrays incest as right and proper is probably not something a 16 year old teenager should be watching.


Just to clarify, the dreamers did not "portray incest as right and proper." In point of fact, the farthest that the film went was the demonstration of incestuous sexual tension (which it implied was not consummated). Beyond actual plot details I don't think there's much to suggest the film is a work of intentional moralizing. If it is morally ambiguous (as it is, and based on other plot details, intends to be), I would certainly expect 16 year olds to be able to deal with such ambiguity--any teen not so prepared by that age would have pretty obvious developmental problems.


RE: Interesting cultural obervation
By DocDraken on 1/26/2007 9:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't believe Saw 3 will convince them to become a serial murderer...but a XXX flick might well convince them to start having sex earleir than they should.


When you say that, at what age do you think it's ok for them to have sex? And why isn't ok for them to have sex before? In most of Europe you're not underage anymore once you hit 15. Interestingly we still have much fewer teen pregnancies than in the States where people get in a frenzy about kids having sex. Ironically the bible belt is the place in the US with the biggest teen pregnancy problem.

It's a shining example of sexual education being better than ignoring the obvious and trying to prevent kids from doing something their bodies tells them to do.


RE: Interesting cultural obervation
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2007 10:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
> "Interestingly we still have much fewer teen pregnancies than in the States..."

Western Europe also has a much higher rate of STD incidence (203/m vs. the US's 156/m). There are more issues to teenage sexual activity than simple pregnancy.

I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt you have any children in the early teenage years. If you do, you wouldn't be so blase about them focusing on having sex instead their schoolwork, possibly contracting an STD, and/or getting pregnant.

> "Ironically the bible belt is the place in the US with the biggest teen pregnancy problem."

Oops. As of 2003, Nevada and the District of Columbia have the highest teen pregnancy rates.



By DocDraken on 1/27/2007 12:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Western Europe also has a much higher rate of STD incidence (203/m vs. the US's 156/m).


Without knowing where you got those numbers or how they are gathered it's hard to tell whether they are suitable for this argument or not. Like whether it includes benign STDs which are easily treated and thus not really a problem.

quote:
I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt you have any children in the early teenage years. If you do, you wouldn't be so blase about them focusing on having sex instead their schoolwork, possibly contracting an STD, and/or getting pregnant.


You miss my point. They are going to focus on sex whether you want them to or not. Abstinence probably makes them think about it even more. It's a simple question of hormones. So instead of trying to keep them abstinate it's much better to educate them about protection and pregnancy.

And you still haven't answered why you don't think it's ok for teenagers over 15 to have sex?


By Christopher1 on 1/26/2007 1:02:59 PM , Rating: 1
BINGO! You've hit the irony of the 'Christian sexual stance' head on. It is those children of the people who say "No sex outside of marriage!" who are the HUGE number of those getting pregnant outside of marriage!

It's time to realize that the "Christian sexual stance" is what it is: bullshit that anyone with a brain who thinks for themselves and stop the bullshit of believing in 'almighty beings' who haven't done SHIT and who didn't create us, would see is bullshit.


Interesting
By IceTron on 1/25/2007 5:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
I was raised Lutheran and told morally right from wrong from my parents at a young age, but the older I got, the more they allowed me to make my own choicesk, within reason. I played violent video games since NES up to today and watched the ever changing world of cartoon violence from bugs bunny up to South Park and beyond yet, im not more inclined to go kill somebody.

Thats the reason im not catholic, they don't think outside the box and beyond their narrow minded view.




RE: Interesting
By Obujuwami on 1/25/2007 5:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
I too was not raised catholic and played violent video games as a youth. I played football, hockey, and took martial arts, all violent sports but I do not feel the need to kill any one or act out violently.

There we a good article in the Contra Costa Times about a year ago that stated there was no direct tie between youth voilence and video games according to some study done at Stanford or UCLA. Honestly, the only thing I can see is that these kids get practice thinking very quickly from these games and good finger eye coordination.

You want to worry about really angry people, look at the guys who drink excessivly or use PCP. Those ar the guys that we should all be on the looks out for, no the 10 yr old kid with a Wii controler using it as a nunchuk(?).


RE: Interesting
By borowki on 1/25/2007 7:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
Whether violent video games cause violence is irrelevant to the Pope's concerns. The point he is making is that such games and other entertainment forms teach our children to regard violence acts as mere fun. Lack of empathy, indifference to sufferings of others--these are serious moral flaws under Christianity. It's not enough to simply do no harms. The Levite in the Good Samaritan parable didn't rob the guy after all. Why then shouldn't he receive God's grace?



RE: Interesting
By Christopher1 on 1/26/2007 1:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
Frankly, reading stories like the Belgariad, Harry Potter, etc. teach children to regard violent acts as mere fun. Same thing with playing "Cops and Robbers" or "Save the Princess from the Black Night!" in your front yard.

A better thing to teach children is that violence is okay in FANTASY, but not in real life. Children are EXTREMELY capable of making that differentiation from the age of 2 or slightly below.

People have plenty of empathy in the world today, and aren't indifferent to the sufferings of others. People like me are simply indifferent to things we see as the fault of the person in question (the woman getting raped by men after drinking herself into a stupor).
I have plenty of empathy. When I see a little girl crying, I want to cry myself. When I see a child hurt, I want to cry and do everything I can to assuage that hurt. When I see a child dead, I want to KILL whoever has killed them or find a cure to the disease that took them.

I still have a LOT of empathy, and I play video games where raping is a main theme, where extreme bondage violent sex is a theme, etc.

The problem is not that these themes are out there, the problem is that most people do not have the ways to EXPRESS those things in a socially acceptable way as I do. When I am angry, I punch my bed till I feel better (much better than bottling things up inside, where they fizz and build to an explosion!). I tell a person if I am not happy with them, instead of trying to mince words with them, which usually gets me angry when I am trying to do it, because I am NOT good at it.

If we really want to get rid of violence in real life, we are going to have to get rid of all the armies in the world, beat anyone who says that it is EVER acceptable to use violence against another person, etc.
Simply getting rid of violence from video games, books, and movies is not going to do it. What we have to do is get rid of the people who say that violence is acceptable in real life, by putting THEM in prison.
I mean all the soldiers, generals, etc. Anyone who espouses violence against another person because you do not agree with their actions, put them in jail or a mental counseling program.


RE: Interesting
By daidalossai on 1/29/2007 4:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
try this for empathy:
how about you donate all you monthly income to the hungry kids from africa? thats real empathy, not the fact that you wanna cry when you see a girl cry, thats stupid.


RE: Interesting
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 6:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a catholic, though fairly liberal, and I can tell you that I've got NO problem at all with violent games as long as they don't contribute to violence in real life. I frag up a storm almost every night. I'm not doing that in real life, though, and that is what counts. If someone can't distinguish between the simulation and real life, then maybe they shouldn't be gaming at all, violence or no.

Don't get too high on your horse there and start trashing catholics as a group like we're some kind of robots. Some of us don't appreciate it all that much. After all, Martin Luther still considered himself catholic when they put him in the ground.


Violence... Don't Preach That Game.
By EODetroit on 1/25/2007 5:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
First... a funny link: http://popesith.ytmnd.com

But seriously...

I think the Pope should declare as perverse all violent and sexually irresponsible religions. Especially those which simulate the eating of human flesh and the drinking of human blood, encourage youths to not use birth control, and tell stories about how women can become pregnant without ever having sex "because God did it" (a thinly veiled ploy to convince rape victims to not implicate their actual attackers).

Once that's done, he should concentrate on lesser matters like movies and video games.




RE: Violence... Don't Preach That Game.
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 6:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure I could trash your beliefs too. It's awfully easy. Do you have to bash things wantonly, or are you incapable of simply dismissing them?


By EODetroit on 1/26/2007 10:28:58 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I was raised Catholic and still consider myself Catholic (although non-practicing for the most part in the past 15 years). I just disagree with the church on a great many issues and I can spot the hypocracy/irony in the Pope's statements a mile (or four thousand) away.

So... although you never said what your beliefs were, I'd imagine if you trash mine you're also trashing your own. The question is... can you handle it? I can.


By fic2 on 1/25/2007 6:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think you left out child molestation.


For the love of Christ
By FITCamaro on 1/25/2007 7:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
No pun intended.

You know you'd think the Pope would realize how saying crap like this only pushes more people away from the church. I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school through high school. Am I Catholic now? No. Stuff like this is the reason why. You know now that he said this, this Sunday at masses everywhere priests are gonna talk about it. And last I checked even most of the staunchest Christians watch movies and other things that have violence and sex in them. Then theres the young adults and kids who do. Do you think they're going to stay in the Church when they're told they're sinning for wanting to be entertained by movies? Granted I don't consider movies like Saw and other slasher films entertainment because they're completely pointless and do nothing but test the limits of what people are willing to go see.

Now I don't hate religion. I still largely follow Catholic values and morals. I'll still even go to Church when I'm home because its something to do with the family or if I'm dating someone who would like me to come. But I just don't believe anymore because of things like this. That and a lot of "religious" people are hypocrites. Don't know how many kids and their parents who would tout being religious but they were well known the community as being far from it for one reason or another. Of course money breeds stupidity.




RE: For the love of Christ
By FITCamaro on 1/25/2007 7:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
And as far as the cartoons go, South Park is mentioned. While yes the show could still be funny and not use cuss words every other sentence, I honestly think South Park does a good job at showing the stupidity and hypocrisy in some things today. The show always has a point. They're either making fun of some stupid thing about a religion, a social trend, or whatever else.

While obviously not until they're of age, I'll probably let my kids watch South Park. Their points are nearly always spot on. Illegal immigrants need to go away, blindly following any faith is retarded, Walmart is ruining small businesses and doing nothing but creating crappy jobs with low pay and no benefits, etc.


RE: For the love of Christ
By codeThug on 1/25/2007 8:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Their points are nearly always spot on.


Amen. Oops.... I mean "true dat".

My 12 and 15 year old sons' get more reality exposure from South Park than any other medium. Yeah, some of the episodes are a bit dicey, but they are "nearly always spot on".


RE: For the love of Christ
By StC on 1/26/2007 11:00:26 AM , Rating: 2
I won't argue with the study results myself. Thinking back, I do believe that playing flight simulators like Falcon did play a role in my descision to try to become an USAF fighter pilot. Can't say the same for the 3rd person shooters though. Maybe fear and the desire to not see the pain and suffering I caused up close factored in to that.

With age comes wisdom though. Ironically enough it was a violent video game (Quake Team Fortress) that got me to realize that it only takes a few bad apples to ruin the whole recipie. So now I take a much more absolute stand against violence. I still play video games that could be considered violent, but from a more mature perspective.

As for the church itself, I can only imagine what people would say if the pope came out in support of violent video games, or even if he had no opinion either way, especially in light of the study results.


You have to wonder...
By regnez on 1/25/2007 5:31:06 PM , Rating: 2
if movies and games are the only things children, and the parents of those children, have to worry about...

http://www.deliverusfromevilthemovie.com/index_fla...




RE: You have to wonder...
By IceTron on 1/25/2007 5:51:05 PM , Rating: 1
Holy crap man, that is sick........damn....


RE: You have to wonder...
By gramboh on 1/25/2007 6:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
What a surprise, men who surpress their natural sexuality (physically/emotionally) end up acting it out in a vicious predatory way. If only people would follow reason/rational thought and this worthless institution would vanish from society.


RE: You have to wonder...
By Ringold on 1/25/2007 7:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
They were close with Johnny Cash music, though I think the more appropriate set of lyrics would've been..

I fell in to a burning ring of fire
I went down,down,down
and the flames went higher.
And it burns,burns,burns
the ring of fire


Pope is WRONG!
By AlmostExAMD on 1/25/2007 5:25:43 PM , Rating: 1
I AM one of these so called misfits that have grown into a perfectly good adult along with millions of others. I have owned virtually every pc/console machine from the start of the 80's, I think he(pope) is just looking for a scapegoat. Easier to blame video games for the cause of World violence, The fact is IT IS RELIGION that has caused more death and destruction on the planet than most plagues/diseases combined!
The reason for all this violence in modern day society is because all these law makers(who are mainly influenced by minority groups, Religion for example) are to soft now, Instead of being able to discipline your child you now get locked up or have them taken away from you if you give them a little smack. IT IS A JOKE people, Today you can literally get away with murder or get a slap on the wrist for some other criminal offence!
They are pretty much telling us how to live our lives and raise our children, Are we in a free society or what? I'm beginning to wonder sometimes.
Leave video games alone, We have a rating system already, Maybe blame the "SOFT" parents for letting their 12 year olds obtain mature game content, Don't blame computer games in general, That's my two cents worth.
Cheers...




RE: Pope is WRONG!
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 6:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
No, i'm pretty sure that malaria alone is attributed with killing about 1/4 of the humans that have ever lived. Old age or simple accidents probably have it beat out, too. Check up on it. Religion, or any other dogma that causes conflict like politics or socioeconomics, all combined, have a long way to go to catch up to disease, old age, whatever as a cause of death.

You might ask yourself why you rail against "religion" with such passion? Is "religion" opressing you or something?


RE: Pope is WRONG!
By Spivonious on 1/29/2007 11:36:46 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget about the Great Famine in the 14th century, or the Black Death (75 million people dead).


PARENTS
By daftrok on 1/25/2007 6:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
It really falls under the parents whether or not their kids should play violent video games. Many of us play God of War, but do you see (most of) us chaining swords to our hands and chopping up people? No. Why? Because our parents saw that we can handle it and let us play it. Its true that games like Halo and GTA pump me up a bit, but that doesn't mean I'll go crazy and start shooting people up. I agree on the part that these violent games are not good for most children (I tell you, kids nowadays need to lay off the crack) but for kids that are in their teenage years have SOME concept of reality and MOST of them can play these games without batting an eye. So the Pope should really say that "PARENTS need to be watchful of what video games their children play and see whether or not they can mentally and physically (seizures) handle what they see or hear. Make sure they can see the difference between what is real and what isn't real."




RE: PARENTS
By captchaos2 on 1/26/2007 8:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition! Since when does the Pope need to resort to the same tired out sound bites when everyone else knows that parents are an extinct species these days and responsibility has become a dirty word.


RE: PARENTS
By Christopher1 on 1/26/2007 12:47:23 PM , Rating: 1
Extinct species? Please.

There are plenty of parents running around the world today, as evidence by the number of children who are running around the world today.

They are just not trying to tell their children that everything is 'bad' as you would like them to, and are letting them make their OWN moral codes and choice, something that is LONG overdue in order to get rid of the religious sexual morality, violence in society, etc.

Look at the facts: we now have LESS children (when taken as a percentage!) that are getting in trouble with the law. We now have less children killing other children (regardless of what bullshit you see on the news). We have less children getting pregnant out of wedlock (while they are expressing themselves sexually more and more at earlier ages).

Society is on the right track. It might be better if people stopped saying that 'true parents are a dying breed'. The AUTHORITARIAN style of parenting is a dying breed, as it dang well should be.

The only thing that is ABSOLUTELY wrong is killing another person, and why do most of the children today who kill do that? Because they have been told by adults that killing people is a VIABLE response to someone who threatens you or who intimidates you.


Religion is for the sheep.
By EnderJ on 1/26/2007 12:36:06 AM , Rating: 2
Religion as a whole is flawed. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can tell that it was written by someone/some group of people who wanted people to live their lives by a "moral" code. There is no "God". No one is going to strike you down if you defy "their" will, except the mentally unstable.

The bible is full of contradictions, and doesn't even begin to explain anything before modern man showed up on this planet. Just ask the church where the dinosaurs came from.

As for religions in general though not everyone can handle it. The majority of people will take it for what it is and use it to shape their moral compass, while others who are obviously less mentally stable will take it word for word and even kill another person who doesn't agree with whatever "their" interpretations of whatever "Bible/Koran/etc." the person has filled their heads with.

Hell, even the different factions of Muslims can't agree on what the Koran really means in areas.

As someone stated earlier the Pope does have to stand up and say that there is a chance that violence in games/movies/tv can result in a lack of sympathy for those who personally suffer from it. As far as I'm concern I'm not going to heed that since I would not be swayed away from helping those who have suffered through it just because I play violent games, and watch violent movies.

Believe what you want, live your life the way you want. Just don't try and force me to live my life the exact same way.




RE: Religion is for the sheep.
By exdeath on 1/26/2007 11:23:12 AM , Rating: 3
I don't get why people need some institution to tell them what is right or wrong.

Murdering and stealing is wrong only because the church says so?

How about we just drop the concept of right and wrong completely, since it's subjective anyway, there really is no right vs. wrong. How about we just have "I won't do it to anybody else because I wouldn't like it if it happened to me"; it's an easier concept to grasp and less prone to failure and abuse than religion.

But some people can't live without constant justification and guidance.

Yeah. Sheep indeed.


Religion is the worst concept ever devised by man
By exdeath on 1/26/2007 11:18:51 AM , Rating: 2
Someone who believes the world is made of magic fairy dust put together by an invisible man in the sky has no credibility to make arbitrary decisions about what people do on their free time.

I bet he’s never seen a video game and thinks all video games are just simple kids toys and that every video game is like GTA.

I wonder how long it took for the church to accept that the Earth was round even when presented with photographs from space.




By Christopher1 on 1/26/2007 12:50:50 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, I believe they still don't. If I am remembering right, from something I read, the church STILL hasn't admitted that the earth goes around the sun, the world is round, and a bunch of other things that are scientific FACT today.


Influence
By Alpha4 on 1/25/2007 5:14:58 PM , Rating: 4
Historically speaking, how much impact do the pope's speeches usually have on North American culture?

I don't need violence to enjoy a game at all, but I genuinely hope freedom of expression overcomes censorship.




Ridiculous...
By ksuWildcat on 1/25/2007 5:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'm hard pressed to believe that "simulated violence" found in video games or violent movie scenes really lead to violent criminal activity. I've watched violent movies and played lots of video games since I was a kid and never felt compelled to harm anyone or to act out in a violent way. I would surmise that people who do act out in such manners are already mentally disturbed and/or are affected by other social influences. When his pope-ness decrees such nonsense is just ridiculous. After all, it was the Catholic church that threatened Galileo with his life when he discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe, let alone the solar system.




RE: Ridiculous...
By Targon on 1/26/2007 8:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
You make the same mistake that most people who post in these forums do. You believe that just because you are sane and can tell the difference between fantasy and reality that EVERYONE can.

Let's face it, there are a LOT of mentally defective people out there who WOULD be inspired to violent acts by a game like Grand Theft Auto. I am NOT saying that the games themselves are to blame, but there are enough people out there that would play a violent game and then re-create it in real life to make it worth looking.

A blanket ban on anything is never a good thing, but if you assume that everyone who will play is sane and mentally able to play the game without going out and being violent, you will be mistaken.

Even before video games, there were always the people you knew were mentally defective, and dangerous. Take that sort and feed the negative side with violent games, and you are asking for trouble.

One way to avoid this would be to have a mental health screening process on violent subject matter of all kinds. If you are found to be mentally defective, you just shouldn't be allowed to view/play that content.


By dubldwn on 1/25/2007 5:29:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
“Any trend to produce programs and products - including animated films and video games - which in the name of entertainment exalt violence and portray anti-social behavior or the trivialization of human sexuality is a perversion,” Pope Benedict XVI said in his speech.

I’m typically not interested in buying a game unless it contains this type of content. I do believe children should not be allowed to purchase mature-rated games, but for me GTA, etc. is (adult) entertainment. I don’t know why it’s fun. It just is.
quote:
The incidence of video game-related crime leads not only authorities, but also researchers to look into a cause and effect relationship.

Violent video games do not make people violent. Violent people who play video games tend to play ones that are violent, which doesn't prove anything.




WoW
By Dragen on 1/25/2007 6:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
If the pope just tried World of Warcraft, he would be hooked.




RE: WoW
By AssMonkey76 on 1/25/2007 6:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
Could you imagine that!?! The Pope would like be the ultimate Priest...they would have to give him some super ubür spells just because! I agree that if we could get the Pope to play WoW: BC...it would be all over...electronic crack!


Funny coming from a false prophet
By TimberJon on 1/26/2007 10:52:25 AM , Rating: 2
A fake pope. One that helps war, which is against the bible. One that condones gay marriages, which is against the bibles teachings and therefore, gods word itself. One that OK's lesbianism as long as the individuals are -faithful- (which is void if they aren't following gods commandments anyways).

By teaching NOT from the bible, these individuals in power KEEP power, just as the pharisees did in Jesus day, by keeping the people ignorant to the truth outlined in the bible.

The pope practices Idolatry on a daily basis, so how can he have any kind of connection to God if god plainly says in Galations 5:19 -Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, 20) idolatry , practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, 21) envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these. As to these things I am forewarning YOU, the same way as I did forewarn YOU, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom.-

If your following someone supposedly into heaven but that individual who says theyre sent and ordained from god is lying? and it says so in the bible? And god himself says that individual practicing one or more of the things that he finds to be a disgusting thing will not inherit his new earthly kingdom?

Why follow a liar? That whole religion then becomes a lie. A hypocrisy.




By elmikethemike on 1/27/2007 12:01:26 AM , Rating: 2
Why listen to someone thats totally full of fucking shit?


It's sad
By Regs on 1/25/2007 8:15:39 PM , Rating: 3
When we have to hear it from the pope that violence does not belong in the hands of minors.

Tisk tisk parents.




Games?
By Bonesdad on 1/26/2007 8:28:01 AM , Rating: 3
Major wars all over the planet, and he condemns video games. Hmpf. Moral high ground.




pope
By whalenapp81 on 1/26/2007 10:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
fraking nazi, thats all i have to say




RE: pope
By elmikethemike on 1/26/2007 11:58:12 PM , Rating: 1
Yea and youre a fucking idiot.


By javiergf on 1/26/2007 12:54:14 PM , Rating: 3
Haven't they forgotten the "inquisitors", "the crusades" and their "silence" on the nazi germany and inquisition. Do you guys still remember these scandals on the vatican banks around late 80's/early 90's?
They should just shut the fuck up.
There are many bigger problems in the world like hunger, wards, HIV, overpopulation, terrorism, etc... to worry about videogames.




By zsouthboy on 1/25/2007 5:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
And it bothers me when he says things that are targeted towards children!

These innocent children that are surrounded by religiousness all around them every day of their life.

And this Pope guy makes a living doing this?




Irrelevant in the Western world
By gramboh on 1/25/2007 5:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
I was raised Catholic but stopped practicing around the time I was 12 (e.g. capable of rational thought/reason).

The relevance of the Pope and the Catholic religion in Western first world nations is falling fast. As said above, why doesn't he deal with important human issues and modernizing this worthless institution instead of shopping for new members in Africa (while preaching against birth control). Catholocism only finds new members through strife and suffering, through those that have lost hope or are nearing that point, it has no relevance otherwise.




By AssMonkey76 on 1/25/2007 6:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
Before the Popes tries to dictate how the rest of the world should act, maybe he should council his own priest's and keep them off of the alter boys...ok i may go to hell for that one but I am sick of seeing that in the news.

Anyways...video games are an easy outlet for people to explain youth vilolence. Its not video game, movies, TV or any other form of media...it comes down to good parenting. If parents would raise their kids responsibly and stop trying to be the "cool Dad or Mom", the violence that is "blamed" on the afore mentioned media will decrease.




Whatever
By plimogs on 1/25/2007 6:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
The pope has a point here: “How could one explain this ‘entertainment’ to the countless innocent young people who actually suffer violence, exploitation and abuse?” he questioned. Because the answer would appear to be: you can't.
and this isn't all that crazy either: The Pope delivered his speech with the idea that children should be exposed and educated with media that incorporates family values, true goals and achievements of humanity, true value of marriage and life and the value of human dignity.
Anyway, as I said before, whatever... gotta go google doomsday+clock and listen to the 4 Minute Warning some more now.




Read the studies
By JTMoney1014 on 1/25/2007 8:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
If most people would bother to read the studies on violence in video games they would see how they were designed to draw such conclusions. For instance, Time Magazine picked up one and wrote a very short (slanted) piece that relayed how the study found that you were more alert after playing a violent video game for a short time as opposed to a non-violent racing game. They then leaped to the conclusion that this somehow made you more violent. This obviously meant that would get them more press and in all likelihood more money. There is some evidence to support that you become more aware (and some people do become paranoid or frightened) but there is no legitimate proof that people become violent. No one every seems to relay the idea that the very small number of people who are violent may just happen to play violent video games, but the games are not the cause of their issues.




...
By zeroslugfm on 1/25/2007 8:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"




video game violence a good thing
By Sasuke on 1/26/2007 2:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/censorsh...
please go down to the graph lol seams that violent video games let us be violent with out haveing to go bash some guys head in.




So anime is the spawn of satan then?
By Hokum on 1/26/2007 3:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
Being both violent, having sexual ambiguity and questioning what it is to be human?
To be honest i think animated tv series and films have given me more thought provoking, excitement and laughs in the last ten years than any other format...

I do not agree with anything he says. What difference is there between animated “cartoons” and graphic novels? Not much... then the church has graphic pictures and statues of a guy nailed to a cross...





pick me
By obama on 1/26/2007 9:04:10 AM , Rating: 2
how do i apply to be the pope? i like video games and dont think he should tell me what games i can play. its not like i go and tell him what robes he should be wearing.




By encryptkeeper on 1/26/2007 10:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
Any trend to produce programs and products - including animated films and video games - which in the name of entertainment exalt violence and portray anti-social behavior or the trivialization of human sexuality is a perversion,”

Because human sexuality and violence have NEVER existed before video games!




By Rookierookie on 1/26/2007 11:24:39 AM , Rating: 2
Violent animation and games will not be targeted towards children, and if a child gets his hands on one, the problem is not with the producers.

Ignore Powerpuff Girls for now.




Wow this is unreal
By elmikethemike on 1/26/2007 11:57:28 PM , Rating: 2
It's amazing the response this article has gotten.

I'm personally ashamed for all you. So much for tolerance.




pls forgive me for my sins...
By omyg0t on 1/27/2007 11:04:19 AM , Rating: 2
omfg i better convert myself to catholicism and throw away my videogames and my anime and manga, so that i may be recognized as a true christian and go to heaven...ofcourse i'll have to pray daily and go to the church as well to get in "his" graces ...




who cares.....
By otispunkmeyer on 1/29/2007 7:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
what the pope says?

i dont. i doubt big business does either. the pope can get stuffed.




Pope Video games
By Armour on 2/6/2007 10:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
Really What does all the hitler crap and WWII have to do with video games seriously if u dont like do buy it DUMBA$$




Pope Video games
By Armour on 2/6/2007 10:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
Really What does all the hitler crap and WWII have to do with video games seriously if u dont like it dont buy it DUMBA$$




I am amazed...
By Here on 1/25/2007 6:50:19 PM , Rating: 1
I am amazed at how quickly this turned into Pope, Catholic, and religion bashing.

The Pope was addressing the importance of raising children towards God, towards beauty, goodness, and truth - this article quoted a small section in which he addressed the negative influences of media. Media's power to influence society, and thus the constituting individuals, is nigh unquestionable. The tone, world view, and content of media influences the way people view life, it's meaning, and it's purpose - and, ultimately, God. Is it so odd that the Pope should be concerned about modern Western agnostic and atheistic cultural trends (evidenced so often in these very posts) which are both reflected by and fueled by the media?

Unfortunately, this larger and more important issue is regularly dismissed prematurely on the grounds that he must mean that all kids who kill in a video game will turn around and kill others, and since this obviously is not true, he is an idiot.

With regards to the Catholic bashing, I unfortunately have not the time to address every point. Instead I will have to simply say that I used to think similarly as many here. But I found that the more I investigated Catholic positions, the more I found them to be coherent, solid and consistent, and surprisingly beautiful and good -- that beauty and goodness which the Pope fears children today do not encounter in the media and education they receive.

However, since I cannot defend every issue, I will at least provide a starting point. Someone mentioned AIDS. Here is an article I have found to be interesting. It was originally printed in the National Post and was reprinted with permission.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se...

It is -far- from a comprehensive treatment of Catholic doctrine on sexuality (which is needed to fully understand the rejection of condom use) - it is closer to a cultural commentary. But perhaps someone will find it interesting, even if they disagree with it. Again, it is only meant as a small starting point.

May God bless you all.




FPS Doug says....
By codeThug on 1/25/2007 8:45:56 PM , Rating: 1
Everyone knows you can run faster with a knife.

So what's the big deal...?




pHshhshsh
By SSJGohanMlm on 1/25/07, Rating: 0
By IceTron on 1/25/2007 5:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
Uh dude, im a living example of how wrong you are.


By walk2k on 1/25/2007 6:15:59 PM , Rating: 4
Actually there is just as much research which shows that watching violence on a screen or reading it in a book is a cathartic activity and can actually lower someone's proclivity towards violence.

As you said, "what you believe doesn't change reality"


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki