Mr F. said:
We agree here... meh!
snip...
So using hindu gods within this context is insulting on multiple levels, both the depictions (As in, the art style and the gameplay) plus the conotations "They are as important as Zeus and whatnot", you can be pretty certain that they will not have Allah in a punching match with God because Christianity and Islam are taken seriously.
Now, it is insulting for sure but the insult is one of contextual framing as per the particular paradigm from which one would be insulted. Speaking from experience (which is weak, lacks a large sample, and is simply a personal interpretation) I found that there are several types of Hindu philosophy, or schools. Some pretty laid back, others not so much. The anecdote I would offer is that during a discussion a young woman she proceeded to tell me that Siddhartha Gautama was the reincarnation of Vishnu.
"He was?" - I laughed - end anecdote...
Well not exactly, as Buddhism worked it's way back West it "became" that way to make it compatible with the emergent Hindu faith. Hinduism as a philosophy is loaded with caveats to make allowances for foreign beliefs by reestablishing the Hindu pantheon as primary, with other practices simply being manifestations of their own.
Why wouldn't it? Brahmanism is the core of Hinduism, which is a theocratic approach to governance, state sponsored, it became a basis for the Oligarchy of India until that was upturned by English occupation of the country.
Now that a philosophy tied to the regional history and importance of India in the context of early world events is still a "living" practice is not really debatable. That it "went" this way (adaptation for promulgation) by structuring itself to adopt other philosophies as secondary or tertiary doesn't really mean that the structure is "true" in the context of the known facts.
It's simply true for Hinduism as some people practice it.
To contextualize this for media, in the game Populous one plays as "God" with powers influenced by the faith of the little pixels running around. By the Hindu structure, the player is a reincarnation of Vishnu... so... there we go. Of course this is an
reductio ad absurdum (and probably some other stuff), but the point here is that no one challenges that, as the individual is not relevant to the faith and it's power structure.
What is being discussed here is that the
Icon is being manipulated in such a way as to make it difficult to reestablish it's dominance structurally as a prime mover. Not only that but it is being used as a prop for commercial gain. This is parallel to the "Reverend's" previous complaints. This isn't about "religion" it is about commercialization of iconography and structural posits of a fairly large school of Hinduism. I address this above questioning the "Buddhist" of this story as being no such thing at all.
By the by... Allah is Arabic for "God"... so by your account it would simply be God fighting God. I think the meme "full retard" would cover this.
In short this isn't about a religion, it is about power and how religions are often tied to power historically and culturally.
To those who say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be in this game... Meh, I get that you are trying to be funny, but if s/he was included this would be much, much worse.
It would be funny. Thus it's subjective what it would be. Perhaps a hidden level... (makes some notes).
...It does no matter what your faith is, you can still attempt to understand.
That is just it, many people do understand. Clearly I understand... I hold a degree on the subject... but I do not agree with the philosophical posit nor the ramifications as to "which God/deity/hamburger monster from beyond" is or how that ties to into anything.
What seems to be amiss here is that respecting where someone is coming from, or from where they hail is not the same as respecting the conclusions of where they come from. As the old saying goes, when in Rome do as the Romans... but in this context, "THIS" isn't India, nor a theocratic world based on Hinduism. As such, what goes around comes around.
It is for the Hindu practitioner of this particular Socratic slant to come to terms with the notion that not everyone agrees with the structure of their particular philosophy and certainly not with it's political implications of governance... OR NOT... essentially without the power to do anything about but complain, I suppose that is all that he or she may do.
The lady doth protest too much...
So whilst I think that this game is insensitive and perhaps should pull the dieties from "Living" faiths out (You would still have plenty to work with from less mainstream faiths) I will fight to the last gasp both for the right of the producers to make this incredibly inflammatory game and the right for the religious community to speak up against this game.
So what your saying is that you have no particular position one way or the other?
Mathew 12:30
Whoever is not with me is against me; whoever does not gather with me truly is scattering.
And for the love of god, I hope they do not try and use Islam as a punching bag. That would end badly. We all know it would.
Islam philosophically should have no particular problem with this, as I detailed above.
Which brings me to my final point, something which many people seem to forget when bleating about free speech.
Just because your right to say what you want is protected does not mean that you should say whatever you want, whenever you want. Just because you CAN do something does not mean you should. And if you say something (Or produce something which is protected by free speech) that people disagree with, they have as much right as you had to produce said item to disagree with said item.
Good day to you.
You don't have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want.
It is, as an example, quite illegal in most western nations to go into a crowded theater and yell "Fire!!!".
It is an act of treason to discuss bringing to harm a political figure... if that action could be construed as a plan of intent or is acted upon. Again, there are legal considerations.
Thing is, what we see here are people acting as "Vicker" to a philosophy that posits a supreme being with nothing more than their word that they are acting in accord with that being.
We may all respect that, THAT is how they feel; I mean, who wouldn't want a God on their side? However, I do not respect that their feelings on this matter mean anything in the context of anyone else's ethics, morality, or commercial capitalistic ventures.
There is a voice coming from this camp that what they are saying
means something, beyond expressing an opinion. These are opinions, opinions offered as facts; which they are not.
The concern is not the "soul" or "lack-there-of" of the people in question who are straying from the flock, no, the concern is how the use of icon and narrative theme will be exploited to make a buck.
It's about power. I suspect it is much of this which explains "why" you are on the fence, defender of "free speech", "defender of the faith"... not really defending anything, not really for anything.
Fundamentally one has as much right to a thing as one may afford. If this was India, this game would not be made.
Period. File that under Fact.
