Religulous v. The King of Kong

Rodney King spoke the truth.

But here's the deal from me: If you're religious, and you find comfort in religion, and you don't try to foist your beliefs on other people, especially through politics, more power to you. It would be as wrong for me to say, "You can't do that," as it would be for a fundamentalist to tell me what my kids should or should not learn in school.

At the same time, I'm not going to be bludgeoned into believing -- or even giving it a whisper of possibility, just to be nice -- that some dude lived inside a big fish for three days, or that another dude built a boat big enough to house two of every animal. Pally, those are fairytales.

I did kick some serious ass in Ultima IV, though. I even made a big map and shit.

 

It was a really big boat.

 

My point, Jones, is that most people won't do any "bludegeoning." They believe what they believe, they find comfort in it and they live and let live. So it's unfair to lump them in with the small percentage that get the headlines for being overbearing. I think some anti-religion folk are egomanical, self-absorbed, condescending jackasses. But I don't believe the average person who chooses not to participate in organized religion is like that. To be honest, I can't tell much of a difference between the people I know who are involved in organized religion and those who aren't. They all seem pretty normal to me.

And my favorite vide game of all-time was ColecoVision's Ladybug, sort of the vegan Pac-Man.

 

So you're saying somebody didn't get along with Rodney, buck?

 

In my experience, people in a particular religion are a lot more acceptable to "live and let live" when they're surrounded by like-minded folks. Being raised by a Catholic family in the Deep South, I know my parents experienced some backlash -- even from friends and coworkers -- whenever the subject came up. As did I, when I became old enough to recognize it.

Certainly wasn't "live and let live" where I come from. Unless, of course, you were Baptist. Or Methodist. But that was about it. As they say, "live and let live" ran the gamut from A to B.

 

It's obvious from many of your posts, buck, you're fairly hostile to organized religion. Well, if that's what your experience led to, fine. It's your life, not mine. But we all have different experiences. As I said, religious or not, I don't see much of a difference in people. The odd thing, though, is that, in my experience, while I don't often run into people who are judgmental to the point I take notice, the majority of those who have been are those who don't believe in organized religion. Of course, I assume they're the minority. But then again, I'm more open-minded.

 

Thanks for plugging King of Kong, Jonesy. I'm all for anything that will get people to watch that movie. I agree with you -- it's damn near perfect filmmaking.

Unlike most documentaries (including, apparently, Religulous), it doesn't work to impose a point of view. It just lays out the events, lets the people say what they have to say, and the good vs. evil becomes clear. And Billy Mitchell is a character so ridiculous you couldn't write him. And if you did write him, he'd be wholly unbelievable.

 

Oh, Pall, I think you'd be surprised at how, ahem, open-minded I was back when I was a Republican (and a Christian, for that matter.) Wasn't that long ago. Seems to me we're both pretty hostile to certain attitudes we've encountered over the years. Just had different experiences, that's all.

 

Donkey Kong? That's for pussies. Try this on for size amateurs.

 

When was the labotomy? And you might be surprised at how not surprised I would be.

I'm not hostile toward anyone, unless they piss me off.

Anyway, as an example of what I'm talking about, when I got married, for logisitical reasons, it took place in a Catholic church. The bride was Baptist, and the pastor of her church originally refused to go because he wasn't going to enter a Catholic church. Now, in all honesty, when I heard about the pastor's initial reaction (he did end up attending the wedding), it, well, pissed me off. But I eventually realized that I shouldn't write off Baptists because of one person's misinformed opinion. I ended up spending a lot of time in "his" church, and I found that most of the people didn't give a damn that I was Catholic; they accepted me (which, church or not, isn't easy to do). What I'm saying is that I could have based my opinion of Baptists on the small sample of a person who was setting a bad example re: tolerance. But I didn't. He was not the norm. That's what I'm saying. Most of the people I've ever come across were not defined by a blind acceptance of religion or a blind rejection of it. Most people walked somewhere in the middle.

 

Buck, on a personal level I think religion is fine and dandy. Even though I'm only a Catholic in name these days, my spirituality helps me be a better person. On that level, I think many religious people would advocate a "live and let live" philosophy, but unfortunately that seems to change on the collective, organized level. The herd mentality is dominant and dissension just isn't tolerated.

I think it can be a pretty severe contradiction. I could go talk to my old priest one-on-one, and he'd be the kindest, most generous person to converse with. But alternatively, when he's preaching in front of the religious, he's liable to say something that at least to me, seems completely incompatible with who he is.

 

It makes me smile that a liberal on SportsJournalists.com posted this sentence. Carry on.