Not All Christians Are Against R18+

December 13, 2010 -

While some were disappointed that an R18+ rating was not approved by the Australian government, one group was delighted by the outcome: the Australian Christian Lobby. Lyle Shelton, Chief of Staff of the group, seemed delighted that it failed, but not all Christians in the country agree with him or his group's views on the subject.

Anthony Caruana, a technology journalist and practicing Christian, takes offense with some of the things  Shelton has said about the R18+ rating and emphasized that his group doesn't represent all Christians in Australia.

In an article for ABC Caruana said that most video games are played by adults and that the stereotypical gamer is no longer just male and points out that women make up a large portion of the gamer demographic.

He also takes apart something Shelton said on ABC's Technology and Games:

In Mr. Shelton's recent story for the ABC's Technology and Games, he noted that a recent "survey also found that 63% of Australians agree that playing violent computer games results in real life violence and that 59% of Australians agree that computer games should be classified differently, because the gamer is invited to participate in the violence, not just watch it".

What's interesting about the statistic Mr. Shelton chose was that it was based on the personal views of survey respondents. Unfortunately, the majority of Australians aren't scientists or statisticians. If we're trying to find a causal relationship between violent video games and actual violence we need more than a simple correlation.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, violent crime occurs at a far lower rate than it did 100 years ago. To draw a long bow, is the availability of violent video games today the reason we have fewer violent crimes? If all we need is correlation to make an argument then my argument is as strong as the counter.

The simple fact is that there is no study that categorically proves that violent video games are a precursor to violent behaviour.

He goes on to say that, depending on what studies you want to choose, you can get the result that backs up your theory. One study he mentions concluded that children who played violent video games were more hostile or argumentative towards authority figures like teachers, and performed poorly in school. 

But another study found that those who played 56 hours of violent video games a week were not any different than a control group that didn't play video games at all. In other words, the correlation between violence in video games and aggression in real life just is not there. 

But then we get to the heart of what Anthony Caruana's beef is with Shelton and the ACL:

Mr Shelton asks "How does introducing new violent media into Australia benefit children especially when we know that these games will inevitably find their way into the hands of children?" I'm sorry, but kids that want access to violent video games already have it. The introduction will not likely do anything to curb the black market that has flourished because of censorship. What a rating system will do is bring those games into the open and provide parents with a clear way to make better informed decisions.

I also take offence at Mr. Shelton's supposition that the "games will inevitably find their way into the hands of children". It would seem that he feels parents are unable to teach, rebuke, correct and train in righteousness (to borrow from 2 Timothy 3:16).

While Mr Shelton is free to express the views of the Australian Christian lobby, it's important to remember that he is a representative of that organization and that the ACL is not representative of all Christians.

Source: ABC.net.au

Posted in

Comments

Re: Not All Christians Are Against R18+

I'm sorry, but kids that want access to violent video games already have it. The introduction will not likely do anything to curb the black market that has flourished because of censorship. What a rating system will do is bring those games into the open and provide parents with a clear way to make better informed decisions.
 

Logic argument is logic. I´m glad to see there´s still people with common sense among christians. Too bad that the retarded ones are in actual positions to make changes or take action.

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sleaker@Technogeek - How do you call someone out that anonymously calls in a SWAT team, or sends threats to people?09/20/2014 - 7:04pm
Technogeek"It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so." I'd say you're certainly obligated to call them out when you see it happening.09/20/2014 - 5:17pm
SleakerNow if you disagree with anything in my last 2 posts then we obviously have a difference in world view, and wont come to any sort of agreement. I'm fine with that, maybe some people aren't?09/20/2014 - 5:09pm
SleakerIt also doesn't mean that just because a news outlet says that Gamers are the problem and you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem. It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so.09/20/2014 - 4:59pm
SleakerJust to re-iterate: People getting harassed is wrong. Just because someone is harassed by so called 'gamers' doesn't mean that all gamers are bad. nor does it mean that you need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers.09/20/2014 - 4:56pm
SleakerAnd furthermore just because someone doesn't 'crusade against the evil' that doesn't make them the problem. You can have discussion with those around you. There's a thing called sphere of influence.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
Sleaker@Conster - one person getting harassed is a 'problem' only so far as the harassee's are doing it. Just because a select few people choose to act like this doesn't make it widespread. Nor does it immediately make everyone responsible to put an end to it.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
james_fudgeno worries09/20/2014 - 4:15pm
TechnogeekI misread james' comment as "we can't have a debate without threatening" there at first. Actually wound up posting a shout about death threats and "kill yourself" not technically being the same thing before I realized.09/20/2014 - 3:59pm
james_fudgeDon't hit me *cowers behind Andrew*09/20/2014 - 3:20pm
ConsterYou take that back right now, james, or else. *shakes fist menacingly*09/20/2014 - 3:00pm
james_fudgeOur community is awesome. We can have a debate without threatening to kill each other.09/20/2014 - 2:50pm
Andrew EisenNo one's crossed a line but I just want to remind you all to keep discussions civil.09/20/2014 - 1:54pm
Craig R.tldr: I'm a gamer, and imo those who support GamerGate should feel free to take a flying leap off a cliff.09/20/2014 - 1:27pm
Craig R.Not only that, I'm pretty sure that if actual studies were done, you'd still deny them, Sleaker. After all, it's not what you'd want to hear to support your rose-colored view of GamerGate.09/20/2014 - 1:18pm
Craig R.There IS an issue. Nor do we need a study to show that if you deny it then you're part of the problem.09/20/2014 - 1:17pm
Sleakersimply oust people that do harass others.09/20/2014 - 11:34am
Sleaker@Conster - I can say the same thing if you think there's been more than a handful. Until there's an actual study on rates no one can claim to know how widespread the incidence of harassment is. Thus the best we can do is 'there might be an issue' and...09/20/2014 - 11:33am
ConsterSleaker: if you think there's only been "a handful of" incidents, you have your head stuck *somewhere* - I'm assuming it's sand.09/20/2014 - 5:38am
prh99Most of it's agitprop clickbait anyway.09/20/2014 - 5:27am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician