Sony says sorry to Church of England

Panic of the streets of London
Panic on the streets of Birmingham.....

:You say the church shouldn't have been used and then lambast people who side with the church?"

I didn't say that. I said a person in a fictional work should be able to use what they damn well please without having to get permission or having to worry about paying someone something, or "upsetting" someone.

Hey Frank The Crank--let me help. It's Hail Mary, full of grace, let me win this stock car race. No wait...that was the Stephen King version. On the subject of the Church of England, of COURSE they want money. It's like they're passing a huge collection plate to Sony and saying "fill 'er up and we'll all be buds again".

The BBC got shot down this morning on it's own Breakfast news show, a guy completly tore into the original report by the BBC over the issue claiming it was bias an unprofessional journalism. Damn, that was the most awesome shit that was on BBC for aaaages, you also had the cheif editor of the original report speechless after that royal bitch-slap. T'was awesomeness.

Stormkeep: Abortion isn't a religious issue. There aren't many people who honestly believe killing babies is okay. The moral divide between people who are in favor of "women's rights" and those who are opposed to "baby killing" is the question over whether abortion IS actually murder. Nowhere in the Bible (to my knowledge) does it specifically define abortion as being a sin. The only reason it's seen as sinful by Christians is because almost all of them seem to have bought into the idea that it is murder.

Me? I don't know how I feel. I never thought murder could be a relative term, but it seems like that is what it has become.

As far as I know, the Manchester Cathedral is not a public place. Isn't the Church of England a private institution as of, like, the 20th century? The money thing is dumb, but Insomniac *did* make a mistake, and the apology should be good enough, especially for a Church.

If Insomniac is the one that made the mistake, why is Sony getting all the flack for it?

Sure, the game is a Sony exclusive, but surely Insomniac should take at least SOME of the flack...

@57

Because this is about MONEY, not an apology. If the church had gone after Insomniac it wouldn't have made headlines since they aren't well known.

Going after Sony allows them to make a huge dramatic stink over it and get news sources like CNN and BBC to run the story.

Wow, this thread looks familiar... Didn't we just cover the whole "bash religion" thing just a few days ago? Oh, well...

Religion aside, those who think the CoE must be a bunch of money grubbing hypocrites need to keep in mind a few things. First, Sony is a corporation and the way you punish a corporation is to fine them as money will speak the loudest (surely no one should get thrown in prison over this). Is it a it ridiculous? Sure, but we live in an age where people can sue (and win) over their coffee being too hot or getting stuck in a person's garage that you were in the process of robbing. Welcome to the 21st century. I think the church has a legitimate complaint, whether or not it has a legal right to complain is up to the courts, not the commenters here at joystiq.

As for all the people here who hold a personal bias or grudge against the church, here are a few points to consider.

1. As Grey Acument has clearly pointed out, the problem isn't religion (Christianity in this case), but it's human nature that abuses religion for its own personal gain. The guilt lies on the lawbreaker, not the law that was broken.

2. For those who think religion is to blame for the most atrocious numbers of horrible deaths, you need to do a bit more research. Andrew Kenny (an atheist) wrote an article in Spectator titled "Down with Superstition" where even he acknowledged that all the deaths from religious motivated struggles and wars in the last 2000 years "pale into insignificance" when compared to the number of deaths motivated by atheism and godless Darwinism. Leaders such as Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Hitler and Pol-Pot alone have slaughtered more humans than religious motivation could even imagine. The idea of a "godless universe" has spawned such ideologies as Marxism and fascism which I doubt many Americans would defend as superior forms of philosophy. When atheists point a finger at religion and God, more than 4 fingers are pointed right back at them.

3. As for separation of church and state, a little history is in order. First, America was birthed in a consciousness of God. While not strictly Christian, the Bible was heavily borrowed from to form the basis of our government. Some like to argue that America was formed for FREEDOM of religion, but these people argue from the wrong side of the fence. Freedom OF religion is quite different than freedom FROM religion. The pilgrims came to the New World so they would be able to practice their religion FREELY without hindrance from the government. This notion carried on throughout the development of our government after its independence. The idea of separation of church and state was never mentioned in the constitution. In fact the constitution supported biblical ideas and practices (all men created equal, limitations of government etc.). The phrase "separation of church and state" first appeared in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a friend in which the context was protecting the church from government regulation, NOT the other way around. The basic premise of America is that the government can't tell people how to worship or what religion they can practice and separation of church and state was set in place to help protect that ideal. The fact that religious men and women are in government and therefore religion dictates how you as an American citizen must live is ridiculous. There have ALWAYS been religious people in our government, it started out with a vast majority of religious (mainly deists with some Christians) people for crying out loud. If you're complaining about how democracy works then that's something you'll have to take up with politicians, not Christians. Do you propose that is someone claims any religion that they be stripped of their right to vote or hold office? How does that fit in with the constitution or the bill of rights?

If you are so convinced that a godless government will offer you more liberties, feel free to move to atheist China and see if that theory holds up. No one is forcing you to live in a democratic nation where freedom was built on the biblical definition.

Correction: *Grey Acumen*... Sorry Grey, finger slipped ;-)

The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

If that isn't a mention of the separation of church and state, what is?

Good. Now lets move on to more important things.

Paviel:

I did say the PHRASE "separation of church and state" was not used until the letter from Jefferson, although as I reread my post I did not make that very clear. Sorry for that. I did stress however that the whole notion was to protect the church from the government, not to protect the government from the church and the First Amendment clearly follows this logic. If you read the whole amendment, you'll see the point of it is limiting government from what it should not interfere in. In this case, religion, free speech, the right to a peaceful assembly, etc. The founding fathers of our nation did not want the government to legalize a religion (which is a good thing, the legalization of Christianity was the one of the biggest mistakes Constantine made which utterly corrupted the church leaders due to politics). This does not mean the founding fathers did not want any biblical influence or morality in the system, actually all evidence points to the opposite.

I think it's funny how people like "spartacus" will try and interpret our constitution and rationalize to people how the church has a right to lobby the government to push its own agenda, like say a tobacco company. Our founding fathers wanted us all to have a religion, so that makes it all okay today? Just because that's the way it has been, it doesn't make it right, then or today. If there is freedom of religion, then their MUST be freedom from religion, or it undermines everything the founding fathers meant to build and the very "values" you hold so high and exclusive. The idea that it's okay to say you are free to worship any god you want, but not allowed to live free of religious ideologies is ridiculous. I also like how they feel that if there is no "religious morality" in our government, we're all of a sudden a horde of murdering and raping zombie communists or fascists. Hate to break it to you, but you won't automatically go on a killing spree just because you don't believe in a hell that you'll be cast into for eternity. You don’t need to be religious to be moral, humans instinctively know right from wrong. Please don’t get me wrong, religion does have a place in society, and people should be free to worship what ever they want and the right to spread the “good word”. However, our government has the responsibility to ALL of its citizens to be unbiased and not allow their personal beliefs (religious or not) to interfere in our countries politics. I agree that personal beliefs and freedom of speech is the very essence of democracy, and if for no other reason than that alone, it guarantees the freedom of AND from religious ideologies. Fin

"The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...""


This is England, maybe you should take 30 seconds to read before spouting your "founding america" bullshit. Your laws , DO NOT apply over there. Your consitution, your Amendment's, etc... mean JACK SHIT over there. They are worth NOTHING.

Jypson:

I do not think the church should push its own "agenda", just like I don't think a tobacco company should, however I do stand behind the idea that they have the legal freedom to do so, just as I do. Stripping either of these institutions of those rights would violate what America stands for. If it makes you feel any better, atheists have just as much right (actually more in the current state of our government) to push their ideas through the government. Am I crying about that? No, because as much as I dislike what they stand for, I very much like the idea that they have the freedom in our government to do so. It IS still a democracy, so if you think Christian morals and beliefs are prevalent throughout our government, that must mean that the majority of Americans voted that way, so your beef is with the people, not the Church. I agree it can suck to be in the minority.

"...you don't need to be religious to be moral..."

Morality stems from religious concepts. There is no concept of right and wrong outside of religion. Atheistic philosophy promotes "might makes right" mentalities which is seen again and again throughout history (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol-Pot etc.) Perhaps you should take a few courses in philosophy to understand this dichotomy more clearly. Without a God, there is no higher authority to judge mankind and therefore there is no good or evil, right or wrong. It is up to man to determine such. Therefore whoever is in power decides the moral framework of the society. Study Greek philosophy and you'll see the problems of this scenario, or you can just take a look at many of the tyrants throughout history (such as the ones I mentioned). The fact is morality is directly linked to religion, you can't have one without the other. Try debating otherwise in a room full of philosophers and theologians and see where it gets you.

"Hate to break it to you, but you won't automatically go on a killing spree just because you don't believe in a hell that you'll be cast into for eternity."

That is a very historically ignorant statement and one that is nearly impossible to defend theologically or philosophically. I suggest you do some serious research and case studies before you spout off your personal opinion as fact. My degree is in anthropology and I have a minor in religion, so I assure you I have studied this topic in depth (and am constantly doing so).

"...it guarantees the freedom of AND from religious ideologies."

You cannot have freedom OF and freedom FROM religion, they are mutually exclusive. One guarantees religious freedom and one restricts it. Freedom of religion means that religious persons may enter office and vote like the rest. Due to human bias, this means that those ideologies may influence government, but are in check with the majority vote. If you don't like democracy, again, you are not restricted to living in the United States.

Darren:

Lol, I realize that. However seeing how it has mainly been Americans flaming the church and religion in general, and Americans who have been defending it, we naturally do so in our own governmental context.

Alright Mr. I have a degree in Anthropology….what is your point exactly? That I shouldn’t be free to not worship any deity? That in today’s modern society, we need a church organization to tell us what is and isn’t acceptable behavior? We’re not talking about a new society just forming a million years ago; we’re talking about present day US of A. Is your point that religion plays a vital role in society and has the right to exist? I already agreed to that exactly. I guess I need you to clarify to me what you are trying to convey, because I didn’t get anything useful out of your “counterpoints” besides, this is the USA, love it or leave it!

PS. E-mail me at jypson@gmail.com so we don’t have to bother commenting on a story that our comments no longer apply to.

Religous Holidays as National Holidays with paid days off are wrong. I pay taxes and do not support my tax dollars being spent to pay people not work because of their religion. Give them the day sure, but don't pay them holiday pay.

That is using federal money, our tax dollars, to encourage some religions to be worshiped over others. If I want to worship my own god or be an atheist I am not paid to take days off. Separation of church and state bars no sending money one way or the other.

Why do all these stories become a ground for religious debate

might as well change the sites name to Godstiq

if someone takes a picture of you in a public place,
they can post it on the internet and stuff?
i thought that was, uhh, 'not-allowed'.
(illeagal?) by Capt. Castellanos

Think about it!!

People ..... were talking about a building ..... not people