yunabomb said:
SmegInThePants said:
Including Hindu gods into Smites fiction, even though it may be inconsistent w/Hindu teachings, is not, by itself, disrespect. If that were the case, protestants would be disrespecting catholics because they incorrectly portray purgatory, transubstantiation, what it takes to be saved, etc... in the eyes of catholics at least.
This is a bad comparison. The latter sentence refers to differences in beliefs and practices between religious groups. Respect in this case means respecting differences in beliefs. The issue here is that the Hindu leadership is the only group that has jurisdiction over their central religious figures and practices. Not respecting rules on how a sacred figure should be portrayed is disrespectful to them.
A good analogy: no matter how you visually portray Mohammed, it's being disrespectful.
I see your point, but I would disagree that they have jurisdiction over their central figures. Look at my other examples. The hbo animated series SPAWN. The 'Prophecy' series of movies. The exorcist. Dogma. The Davinci Code. Or any other movie involving character(s) from various accepted world religions. There are many. These aren't depictions anyone seriously views as true events, they are recognized by all as fictional stories involving religious figures and contradict all sorts of religious teachings about these figures. Imagine a world w/out these movies. Imagine a world where no one would fictionalize a religious figure for fear of being disrespectful.
I think what sticks in their craw more about this situation is that kali isn't just some part of a story in the background of the game, rather, you can play *as* kali.
Besides - Religion is the exploration of the *real* world. You get jurisdiction over a character when you write a book via copyright/trademark because its fictional. But no one should have 'jurisdiction' over depictions of a religious figure, because real or not, they are *purported* to be real. And one way for people to decide for themselves if they believe or not is to explore the idea of these characters, both through science (archeology, physics, astronomy), social science (history), and even fiction (satire, or perhaps just to see - does this character even make sense, even seem possible).
Look at science. We don't say that adherents of mutually exclusive scientific theories have to respect each other by refraining from poo-pooing each other's ideas. Just the opposite. Only by encouraging them to go after each other can we slowly whittle out the bad ideas and get closer to the truth. And just as science is the exploration of the *real* world, so, supposedly, is religion. We need more dialog about religion and all its ideas w/out restraint, for the same reason. We need skeptical cynical examination of religious ideas and figures. Not this walk-on-eggshells attitude.
but again, we're leaving the real issue in the dust and not addressing it here - is what they did disrepectful? I don't see how it could be seen as such. It was not reverent, but they aren't believers, so that's to be expected. But depicting kali in a work of fiction, to me, is not the same as being actively disrepectful towards people who might believe in kali. At least not by itself. (obviously if your intent is to be disrespectful, then that same work of fiction could easily be made to be so).Believers cannot expect non-believers to show reverence toward things they do not believe in. The best way to achieve that would be to convince them to be believers themselves.