What is Muhammad's Image doing in game files?

[Depravo]

Crikey, and I thought hot_coffee was a storm in a teacup.

If anyone out there does takes offence that a dormant graphic buried in game files happens to bear the name of some long-dead snake-oil pedlar, sod 'em. We didn't win freedom of speech just to have it stripped away because some special interest groups are masters of the cynical manipulation of outrage.

Let's at least wait for complaints from actual Muslims, not run screaming at the mention of the possibility of complaints...

 

[Nebiki]

Hmm, it's a sensitive issue and everybody is going to have some view point.
Perhaps this thread should be closed.

 

[MobBoss]

How ignorant can a person be.
If you're truelly sucked up by the illusional picture painted by today's media. Then, you need to think again.
You are not a fundamentalist, for believing in something.
I've met many Muslim's who don't support symbolic features in their religion and they are by no means extreme or fundamental.

Ignorant? Oh, I guess all the media from Iran is illusional. Anyway, the whole point is that if you are so sensitive about religion to be pissed about the image, then you are more than likely pissed about other items as well.

I dunno, but I am willing to bet its more of a insult to have Saladin (a muslim holy man and leader) to embrace judaism in the game, than the simple inclusion of the image in a file somewhere.

Given that, I agree, just beliving in something does not make you a fundamentalist.....but blind or misguided adherence to the faith gets you pretty close.

 

[CrazyMrLeo]

Freedom of speech doesn't apply to privately moderated forums on the internet. Moderators exist to regulate and stop those discussions which they view as harmful or inflammatory.

Also:

That data is irrelevant...

That link wasn't really intended for the discussion on the leaderhead, but rather as a response to Lord Rahl's comments on religion. I may be misinterpreting his post, but as far as I could tell, he was essentially dismissing religion as a whole as the domain of a backwards minority of people. I just wanted to point out that the cult of the sky wizard is much larger than atheism. Some religions (such as Islam) are still growing. Religion still has a colossal presence in the 21st century, and even among "people of reason".

 

[LordRahl]

I just wanted to point out that the cult of the sky wizard is much larger than atheism. Some religions (such as Islam) are still growing. Religion still has a colossal presence in the 21st century, and even among "people of reason".

Compare the percentage of atheists 500 years ago, and percentage of atheists today. As technology/society advances, so does secularism. I agree - a lot of religions are growing - but they are mostly growing in 3rd world countries (and ironically perpetuate their misery).

 

[diamond geezer]

The guy who said the moderators should close this thread is right.

It's not about Civ at all, it's a discussion about religion. And anyone who has half a brain knows that discussions on religion are rarely reasoned and never logical. There can be no communication when minds on both sides are closed.

 

[MobBoss]

Compare the percentage of atheists 500 years ago, and percentage of atheists today. As technology/society advances, so does secularism. I agree - a lot of religions are growing - but they are mostly growing in 3rd world countries (and ironically perpetuate their misery).

Where do you get your data? Did they have a census 500 years ago and post the results? Oh yeah, I forgot...the spanish inquisition.....j/k.

But as for your thesis that there are more atheists alive today than 500 years ago percentage wise, I would disagree. Generally, secular society has a far lower birth rate of those religious 3rd world countries you mention. Statistically, I would put forward the thesis that the percentage has probably actually fallen given the increase in the worlds population.

Heh, in CiV IV terms, Europe and the USA are in the middle of a culture bomb right now as one culture in those areas has a far higher birth rate than any of the others at the moment.

 

[LordRahl]

But as for your thesis that there are more atheists alive today than 500 years ago percentage wise, I would disagree. Generally, secular society has a far lower birth rate of those religious 3rd world countries you mention. QUOTE]

I agree with you on that one - reproduction seems to be fundametalists' main passtime (though it's hardly surprising when any other form of entertainment is considered sin). Somebody should let those guys know about contraception...

 

[Blarg]

Enjoy your religions...or your atheism; I don't care which. Just don't tell me what to do and what to have on my computer. Let me judge what is appropriate. You do what you like on your own computer. Delete or ignore files that offend you. Don't expect everyone to agree with your definition of what is offensive.

Thank you. I can understand if from a business perspective it makes sense for Fixraxis not to offend people who are easily offended.

However, there is ALWAYS someone who wants to tell other people what to do or think. It is not reasonable to give every, or even any, people a free pass to tell other people what to do, at least if no physical harm is being done to anyone. It is not reasonable to be held hostage to the desires of strangers. Respecting people's right to have a religion in NO WAY WHATEVER has anything to do with valuing or having to value those religious ideas, much less enact them in one's own life. Doing so becomes all the more absurd in an open, pluralistic society. One cannot on the one hand plead for religious tolerance and at the same time hypocritically demand that others conform to their religion.

Tolerance and freedom of speech are not about everyone having the right to believe what you believe. We already know everybody is in favor of that. In fact, a very large percentage of us would like to make it mandatory that others believe what we believe. Tolerance and freedom of speech are instead about everyone having the right to believe what you DON'T believe.

People speaking about having consideration for others' beliefs by restricting your own are not interested in consideration for everyone's beliefs, only in enforcing the primacy of their own. Otherwise they would not be interested in telling other people to ignore their own feelings and beliefs so that they might conform to ones they don't have. This is a nonsensical, self-contradictory request.

People encouraging others to restrict their freedoms need to think harder about their own selfishness and desire to control and restrict others. This sort of thinking is not appropriate in an open society, and no virtue. Quite the contrary.

 

[Nebiki]

Yes, but we're not in the Middle Ages. We should strive to be something better.
Otherwise atheists are no better than those of conservative religions.
Otherwise you portray, ironically the very religious practices that you are trying to seperate yourself from.

 

[CrazyMrLeo]

Compare the percentage of atheists 500 years ago, and percentage of atheists today. As technology/society advances, so does secularism.

Perhaps. But I wouldn't read too much into that correlation. It is true that the rise of widespread atheism and secularism has coincided with the increase of human knowledge, but has one truly caused the other or do they just go well together? Many of the advances made since the the middle ages have been made by men of religion. That's not to deny that there were those in the church that held back scientific advancement, of course. But one shouldn't associate the entirety of the religious world with extremists or inquisitors.

they are mostly growing in 3rd world countries

This all depends on how one defines a third world country, of course. Do you consider the UAE and Saudi Arabia 3rd World nations? Which African nations are and which are not? In any case, it should be noted that the Muslim population of America has grown considerably in the past decade.

 

[Blarg]

This whole issue originated in what I consider the hypersensitivity of one individual who is wholly absorbed in their own issues and concerns with little evidence of proportion, good judgement or rationality. Rather than commend Firaxis for not using the supposedly offending file (recognizing that it is not in use and certainly would never have come to the attention of 99 per cent of game owners, this individual seeks to spark a conflagration from the tiniest of tinder...which was hidden under a rock to begin with. With the demand to remove the file, the individual escalates this further to an imposition of his views upon the makers of the program and by implication, upon those who already own copies with the supposedly offensive file. As I have stated earlier, those who seek our opportunities to be offended will seldom be disappointed. I think the stance is pathological.

Well said, and the kind of common sense that unfortunately is not usually applied to nor appreciated in this type of discussion.

 

[LordRahl]

"Your life is your own. Rise up and live it."

 

[Mujadaddy]

Fuggitabowt it...

What a trolling post...

 

[Nukem Dukem]

Just to keep this post on topic, I would like to state that my name is Billy and that horses with horns are called unicorns.

 

[LordRahl]

Just to keep this post on topic, I would like to state that my name is Billy and that horses with horns are called unicorns.

While we're on the subject of unicrons - I'd like to mention that the bible is only one unicorn away from a fairy tale...

 

[Blarg]

I find that kind of unfair. Surely you understand that Muslims aren't asking you to impose there belief upon others, by asking not to publicly show any picture of Mohammed? All there asking from you is to respect their belief.

No, it's not at all unfair, and you should understand that. You are asking that others take action in accordance with a belief they don't have. This makes no sense. And no one has any right to ask such a thing of another. If an Indian told me not to eat beef, I'd tell him to forget it, and who the heck does he think he is for asking? What I do is none of his business, as long as it's not harming him. We owe each other no tribute for each other's beliefs, merely the space in which to have them.

I similarly will eat pork when I feel like it, work on the Sabbath if that's what I like, use the same dishes for both meat and dairy, eat food that is not kosher, etc.

The world is an enormous tangle of ideas that are very important to some and mere nonsense to others. One should not be able to impose such ideas on others or ask them to bow down to them. Bowing is not a healthy habit or a fit basis for human relations. Asking people to respect your ideas while throwing out their own is inherently self-contradictory. And this doesn't change regardless of how righteous one thinks one's personal claims on others are; they are still inappropriate and the very definition of selfishness. Properly speaking, you HAVE no claims on the private lives and consciousness of others.

What you can ask is that people allow you the space for your ideas, particularly if they result in no physical harm nor economic discrimination. You cannot ask people to take those ideas as their own without being a bully or a hypocrite. Both of which are unwelcome and should be called out in open, free societies, if the idea of an open and free society is to have any integrity or make any sense at all.

In short, it is not proper to expect anyone to either respect or approve your ideas, nor pretend they do, nor change a thing they do because of them. It is only sensible and right that they leave you to enjoy them in peace. And that you do the same for them.

 

[Blarg]

Then, you just get into a bunch of moral issues.
If freedom of speech is truelly implemented, then, Muslim's have every right to decide what they feel is right or wrong. Including this picture.

Who would argue? They are under no obligation to include it in the next game they make, nor buy any games that have this or any picture in them.

 

[Mujadaddy]

No, it's not at all unfair, and you should understand that. You are asking that others take action in accordance with a belief they don't have. This makes no sense. And no one has any right to ask such a thing of another. If an Indian told me not to eat beef, I'd tell him to forget it, and who the heck does he think he is for asking? What I do is none of his business, as long as it's not harming him. We owe each other no tribute for each other's beliefs, merely the space in which to have them.

I similarly will eat pork when I feel like it, work on the Sabbath if that's what I like, use the same dishes for both meat and dairy, eat food that is not kosher, etc.

The world is an enormous tangle of ideas that are very important to some and mere nonsense to others. One should not be able to impose such ideas on others or ask them to bow down to them. Bowing is not a healthy habit or a fit basis for human relations. Asking people to respect your ideas while throwing out their own is inherently self-contradictory. And this doesn't change regardless of how righteous one thinks one's personal claims on others are; they are still inappropriate and the very definition of selfishness. Properly speaking, you HAVE no claims on the private lives and consciousness of others.

What you can ask is that people allow you the space for your ideas, particularly if they result in no physical harm nor economic discrimination. You cannot ask people to take those ideas as their own without being a bully or a hypocrite. Both of which are unwelcome and should be called out in open, free societies, if the idea of an open and free society is to have any integrity or make any sense at all.

In short, it is not proper to expect anyone to either respect or approve your ideas, nor pretend they do, nor change a thing they do because of them. It is only sensible and right that they leave you to enjoy them in peace. And that you do the same for them.

I believe in pr0n!!

Seriously though: Islam not only doesn't think that Muhamed shouldn't be "reproduced" NOTHING THAT IS ALLAH'S CREATION should be "reproduced" either!!! This INCLUDES animals & plant & people. So the Muslims, to not be hypocritical, shouldn't be looking at Civilization at all.

 

[LordRahl]

To relate this thread to Civ4 somewhat - I think the designers should've made religion work in the following way:

1) adopting religion gives you an incredible bonus in population (just like in the real world).
2) adopting religion produces negative science (just like in the real world):

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512