Militant Atheism At U of Virginia
Posted on June 12, 2008
-By Warner Todd Huston
The one thing that always makes me wonder about atheists is how upset they seem to get about nothing. After all, they claim that there is no God and that religion is based on myth and foolishness, don’t they? They claim it is all “nothing,” yet many of them are highly incensed by what they believe is “nothing.” Some of them even actively try to destroy “nothing” for everyone else, going about eliminating people’s observance, expression, and belief in “nothing.” Even constantly taking their case against “nothing” to our courts.
On one hand atheists claim they are forcibly confronted with religion every time they turn around. Naturally, many atheists base their attack on “nothing” on the premise that they just want to be left alone and that if those who believe in “nothing” would just keep their beliefs to themselves, why everything would be wonderful. With this argument, atheists seem to be telling us that they themselves would not try impose their unbelief on the rest of us.
Sweet, sweet “nothing.”
But, on the other hand, it seems that all too often atheists do, indeed, try to impose their religion — their militant faith that God doesn’t exist — on the rest of us. And here we have another example of this from the University of Virginia.
It seems some of the worst examples of impoliteness, incivility, and arrogance come from our fetid institutions of “higher” learning these days, doesn’t it? And in this case a self-professed atheist, college kid is playing at being the militant atheist with a video game he has created. In this game the player is tasked with making the world safe for the faithful believers in “nothing” by galavanting through time to kill Biblical figures before they can propagate Christianity. Not to be strictly anti-Christian, this young kid has also added the goal of beheading Muhammad.
This unnamed game inventor — unnamed because he claims he fears retaliation for the Muhammad beheading bit — claims that he is hoping kids can be helped to see that the world would be a “better place without some of those religions.”
Yet, he advances this “better world” through murder? Some “better world.”
Of the violence this young skull full of mush claims violence isn’t the “undertone” of the game. “It’s the idea of being able to go back in time and sort of nipping the problem in the bud,” he says.
So, let’s take a look at the things this child thinks he’s condemning. Is this kid perhaps pointing in disgust to the Spanish Inquisition where non-believers were hung, tortured and burnt at the stake if they didn’t become believers? Or maybe he is referring to the Crusades where Christian armies killed in the name of Christ? Perhaps all the interminable Muslim outrages against humanity that continues to this day faces this boy’s wrath? Yes, these are all terrible things.
But how is this youngster any different than what he condemns? He wishes to murder in the name of “nothing.” He wishes to strip away tradition and culture from billions of people in the world. He wishes to forcefully implant through violence his own system of belief. What is the difference between this militant, violence advocating atheist kid and that which he claims to condemn?
Torquemada would be proud of the folks at the U of Virginia don’t you think?
» Filed Under Bigotry, News, Secular Humanism
Trackback URL
Comments
41 Responses to “Militant Atheism At U of Virginia”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
“How is this youngster any different than what he condems?” The difference is simple: This is a game while the inquisition, crusades and jihads were/are VERY REAL! This youngster’s fantasy game is to prevent religion from starting altogether using the methods of the time, an imposibility on many levels since we know humanity’s propensity to believe in anything supernatural(just look at the 38,000 sects within Christianity alone!). I noticed your lack of criticism at the hundreds of religious video games that hijack our children’s minds…
“Yet, he advances this “better world” through murder? Some “better world.”
This made me laugh! Indeed - this tactic is exactly the same as that of our one powerful, vengeful, christian god!!
I think this kid is just following the example set by god in scripture!
What’s wrong with that?
SWEJ
Are you really saying that the kid is as bad as the people who torture and kill civilians for crimes that don’t exist by making a fantasy game?
“This unnamed game inventor — unnamed because he claims he fears retaliation for the Muhammad beheading bit — claims that he is hoping kids can be helped to see that the world would be a “better place without some of those religions.”
I expect he is wise to remain anonymous…that is unless he wants to be the next Theo Van Gogh.
Otherwise this video game seems to be based on the idea that various mythological people were real, and therefore could be killed by some time traveling hit man, and thus the religious movements that today merrily advocate the slaughter of one another, each in their favorite prophet’s name, would not exist. Since I’m reasonably sure these figures have minimal basis in fact, I don’t think his strategy would really work.
Religion needs to be “killed” through education, not gun play. People need to learn that there is no great sugar daddy in the sky who can tell them right from wrong (and make wrong things right when it pleases him - things like crashing airplanes into buildings in New York City or beating accused witches to death in western Kenya.)
I suppose that probably wouldn’t make for a very compelling game though.
So far, all of our rabid, religion hating, atheist posters showed that they agree with advocating murder to promulgate atheism. After all, not one of them disavowed it or said the kid was wrong to make murder a part of his game.
Yes, atheism IS the more civilized religion, isn’t it?
“So far, all of our rabid, religion hating, atheist posters showed that they agree with advocating murder to promulgate atheism. After all, not one of them disavowed it or said the kid was wrong to make murder a part of his game.
Yes, atheism IS the more civilized religion, isn’t it?”
Hello cousin (yes, I am a Huston on my mother’s side):
I should like to point out that I said the precise opposite of what you just said I said. Please learn to read. It is right up there in black and white.
I’m buying the game when it comes out.
WTH -
“But how is this youngster any different than what he condemns?”
Perhaps the point, which may have eluded you, is that it IS NO DIFFERENT
Yes, atheism IS the more civilized religion, isn’t it?
Atheist Democide in 1 century - 153.36 million people
Christian Democide in 20 centuries - 1.65 million people
With a record like that, why do they need a game for more practice?
I am glad you made the distinction between Atheist and militant Atheist.
I’ve known some Atheists who were far more pleasant to associate with than some “Christians”.
Dr. Farrar,
Actually you did no such thing. You did not say that this child was wrong to base his game on murder. Therefore, you approved of it, if not specifically, then tacitly.
Would you have me killed because I advocate religion, “cousin” or no?
Would you have me imprisoned, perhaps, because I don’t believe in your religious beliefs?
Maybe you would. Maybe you wouldn’t. But it’s impossible to to tell because you did not make your position clear.
WTH-
You mention the Christian Crusade, and Muslim violence and ask, “But how is this youngster any different than what he condemns?”
Perhaps the point, which has eluded you, is that IT IS NO DIFFERENT ((except of course it is *pretend*, and real people are not being burned at the stake!)).
I think this student is making a point through this game that you have missed - that his game is violent in a virtual sense, but RELIGION IS VIOLENT IN REALITY!
I for one would love to (virtually) smash those superstars of bigotry and dogma! What fun!!
SWEJ,
Nice spin. Nice bending over backwards to say that night is day. Keep trying, though. One day you might hit on something with that twisting and bending there.
I don’t think so -
You can’t deny that dogmatic religion is FAR more dangerous than a video game.
So let’s focus our sights on the REAL danger!
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 06/12/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
SWEJ,
Nice try again. I never said video games were more dangerous than anything. In fact, I never once said anything about the video game being a danger.
I focussed solely on the attitude of the kid advocating murder to stop religion. In that he is no different than the danger you claim is religion. It is exactly the same sentiment.
Dear cousin:
My position was quite clear. Yours is a bit obscure.
You want me to condemn a student at UVA for making a game about killing religious prophets. I said that would accomplish nothing. Religion needs to be “killed” through education.
Granted, as George Orwell once observed, when parents who have become opposed to violence refuse to let their children play with toy soldiers they usually find that toy pacifists are not much fun as a substitute. So to with video games. For whatever reason the “first person shoot ‘em ups” remain a popular item. Whether its “Left Behind” killing in the name of Jesus - did you do a column on that? I must have missed it…oh, wait, that was released while you were occupied with condemning John Murtha for his opposition to the Iraq war (“Chicken-Hawk Talk is Un-American”) so you were occupied with promoting violence at the time…it would have been embarrassing to have to take a stand against it in the same week I suppose - or “Grand Theft Auto” killing in the name of…I think the killing is supposed to be its own reward in “Grand Theft Auto”. Anyhow, there are not many video games that do not seem to involve killing. I think there are those who describe it as playing in the dark side of human consciousness.
Religion does need to go. It does as much good as the human appendix, at best it is an unnecessary organ and when it becomes inflamed…buildings fall. Sometimes it is the direct cause of tragedy, such as 9/11, other times it is an indirect cause, such as at Virginia Tech, when Seung-Hui Cho went on a killing spree (he suffered from a treatable mental disorder but instead of following the doctors’ prescriptions, his parents took him to church to have the demons prayed out of him).
Personally, I think a much better video game would be one like Sim City, where the architect works at creating a better world by building schools and promoting education until religion withers away. You, as the author of “Fewer American Men in College? Good!” will no doubt disagree. I don’t expect it would sell particularly well, either. More’s the pity.
As to why you would assume I might want to put you in jail for your religious beliefs: well, I am quite sure I said nothing…let me repeat: NOTHING, that even remotely suggested that. You however, did write in February of 2006 that Islam should be made illegal. (You felt it was a parallel with outlawing the Ku Klux Klan.) So if anyone on this page has a track record with advocating imprisonment for religious beliefs – look in the mirror.
Great, someone already made the strawman that atheists commit mass murder… look up the definition of communist.
The difference between atheism and any religion is that atheism isn’t based on faith. There are others if you wish to look them up.
Frankly, I’m surprised that you are getting so worked up. I play Red Alert occasionally, and if you play as the Soviets, your goal is to make everyone bow down before the workers revolution- getting a parade of conscripts down Wall Street is always fun. Or Dawn of War, where you can play as… well, it is 40K.
The fact is that a lot of games have you in the role of promoting an ideology- unlike Left Behind however, this game isn’t so… bloodthirsty. However, it is a little pointless. For those of us who have read history, bumping of a few prophets won’t stop religion- you still have the current religion AND whatever a new prophet cooks up.
Bet you’d feel silly if you stop Judaism and in the future the population all worships Mithra eh?
Also, D Edward Farr made a good point about video games.
Dr. Farrar,
Again, your finely worded reply STILL does not condemn the violence the kid advocated and you also ignore the whole point made that the advocacy of such violence in the game is no different than that of the violence in the past of religion. It can only be that you don’t mind his advocating murder to support your own religious belief of atheism.
If not, then why not come right out and say it. The kid is WRONG. Is this so hard to do?
And your strawman point of “so you were occupied with promoting violence” bit, I am not against violence when it is necessary and proper and did not voice my own opinions on violence and when it is the proper course to take in this piece. Again, I am discussing the child’s hypocrisy. He claimed religion is violent and dangerous and needs to be stopped, yet advocates murder to do it! That seems quite the contradiction, wouldn’t you say?
Maybe you wouldn’t say.
You simple minded version of what religion is “good for” is not something I’d bother discussing. If you a re so uninformed of all the good religion is responsible for in western history (and, yes, there is bad, unmistakably), then it will be impossible to have an informed discussion with you and I;d be wasting my time.
Lastly, you said this…
“As to why you would assume I might want to put you in jail for your religious beliefs: well, I am quite sure I said nothing…let me repeat: NOTHING, that even remotely suggested that.”
Ah, but you have put all sorts of words in MY mouth. I thought I’d just return the favor.
As to my point about the hate that is called “religion” in Islam, perhaps you might go back and actually read that op ed to see what the point was. It had nothing to do with making Islam permanently illegal. but, seeing you simple minded points thus far in our correspondence here, I won’t hold my breath for your “getting” it.
If you take the trouble to check out atheist blogs and websites I think you will find that the majority are horrified that this game is associated with their world view. In fact, it is such a bad idea it has likely been concocted by some religious group out to discredit atheists.
Dear cousin:
I should have corrected this earlier: I am not a “Dr.”, the “D.” is my first initial.
Now, on to the meatier parts.
You began by condemning “the kid” for advocating “murder” - a word you used several times - and concluded saying: “What is the difference between this militant, violence advocating atheist kid and that which he claims to condemn?”
As several other posters to this board have already pointed out, there really is no difference. Burning people at the stake during the inquisition, beating accused witches to death in Kenya a few weeks ago, crashing airplanes into buildings on 9/11…religion has no high ground to defend here. The only real difference is that “the kid” knows he is creating a game, not the real thing.
But despite your proclaiming your outrage at the violence being “advocated” by the game in question, you acknowledge that “I am not against violence when it is necessary and proper” in the response you just posted to me.
So, who judges when violence is “necessary and proper”?
Perhaps “the kid” at UVA has decided that it is in the case of ridding the world of religion. Mohammad Atta believed it was to rid the world of US, and you seem happy to advocate it in order to rid the world of Islam.
The real question you need to be asking is: what is the difference between the UVA student and yourself?
There isn’t much. You are both happy to kill when it serves your perceived interest…although in the UVA student’s case, he is just making a game, you have advocated the use of real jails and real bullets.
Do I believe it is WRONG to kill real people? Basically, the answer to that is yes. While I am sure I could be pushed into situations where I saw killing as my only option, and I enjoyed the movie “Casino Royale” despite the high body count.
Do I believe the student at UVA is WRONG to make a video game in which pretend people are killed? Let’s just say I wasn’t planning to rush out and buy it. But given that I have not heard you (or anyone else on this board) denounce the “Left Behind” or “Grand Theft Auto” games, it is pretty clear that you have no real objections to games in which pretend people are being killed for whatever purpose. You object to THIS game only because of WHO is being killed. So please stifle the mock outrage and acknowledge your own hypocrisy first.
For the record, that’s per Jesus’ instructions (Matthew 7:3).
Mr. Frerrar,
(So glad you aren’t a doctor! I was a bit worried about that.)
Again a strawman argument from you…
“You are both happy to kill when it serves your perceived interest”
I never said I am “happy to kill” at any time. Sometimes it is necessary, but that necessity does not make one “happy.” Well, it shouldn’t, anyway, and it doesn’t me.
Another strawman…
“You object to THIS game only because of WHO is being killed.”
No, not really. I am against the concept that killing religious people MERELY because they are religious is the way to advertise for the religious beliefs of atheism. Aren’t you? So far, I can’t tell if you are.
To answer your questions on the two other games…
I am against Grand theft Auto. I am against it for a myriad of reasons. So, I do condemn that game. As to the “Left behind” game I am not familiar with it, nor the series of books it is based on. I never saw the game and never familiarized myself with the books. But, if it is any indication, I am against the current “Mega Church” trend and feel it detracts from religion and sets up some kitchy newwave, pseudo religious situation instead of promoting the word of the Bible. I am also against much of the new wave of religious merchandising out there.
Dear cousin:
I am glad you do not approve of “Grand Theft Auto”. I have never played the game but I find the commercials a turn off. Violence for its own sake - even in a game - is disturbing.
You do not seem to understand what a “Strawman” is, however.
A strawman argument is when you deliberately falsify your opponents arguments in order to seem to defeat them. You said:
“Would you have me imprisoned, perhaps, because I don’t believe in your religious beliefs?
Maybe you would. Maybe you wouldn’t. But it’s impossible to to tell because you did not make your position clear.”
That is called setting up a strawman, since nothing I had said made any references to imprisoning anybody at any time for any religious beliefs. My position was quite clear, it was also on an entirely different topic.
Saying that you have in the past written that Islam should be made illegal and compared it to the Ku Klux Klan is not a strawman argument, you actually said it two years ago.
As to the “actual points made in the piece”, well, your thesis is rather diffuse (you do not like atheists, you do not like institutions of higher learning, you do not like incivility…though you use uncivil language to describe those who disagree with you) but you were clear in proclaiming your outrage that a student at UVA was ‘advocating violence’ in order to create a ‘better world’.
This too is not a strawman – it is what you said.
You were upset with his…hypocrisy? How dare he decide it was necessary and proper to use selective imaginary violence against imaginary characters in a video game in order to prevent religion from emerging in his game’s imaginary world!
It is a GAME, cousin. Like Monopoly or Checkers, it is not real.
I do not expect to buy the game. Pretend killing is not such a turn on for me. I did like “Casino Royale”, however, so I cannot claim (hypocritically) that pretend violence as entertainment has never entered my life.
You, however, feel free to advocate violence when you feel it is “necessary and proper” in real life, but feign anger over this particular game because…why?
When my nephew deploys to Iraq in a few weeks, he will not be playing a game. It will be real bullets that are aimed at him. It will be real bullets that he will have to aim at others. You approved of the Iraq war. You condemned as “Un-American” those who disagreed with it. Go back and read a few of your past articles. We’ve all got time.
No one who is willing to advocate real violence against real people is in a moral position to condemn this UVA student for making a game in which pretend violence is used against pretend people. Matthew 7:3, if you need Jesus’ guidance on that point. I myself do not. I already knew what hypocrisy was without him.
Is there something WRONG with making a first-person shoot ‘em up video game?
Legally? Certainly not. The market is full of them. I do not like them, but they are legal.
Morally? Unless you hold some piece of moral high ground, this is not yours to call. You, cousin, do not. I make no such claims either, though I disagree with the basic thesis on which his game is based.
And please take a deep breath and think before you respond again. Your spelling is getting horrendous. Too many typos.
There is one major problem with your half-baked observation of the atheist manifesto. Apart from the reality that it doesn’t exist, the game developer isn’t plotting the deaths of existing believers or religious leaders. He’s creating a videogame about killing people whose existence we can’t even verify outside of the record that religious scriptures provide. Of course, their existences are another argument altogether, but if it soothes your urge to correct me on the historicity of religious figures then just ignore the fact that I hold some doubt about such things.
Atheism is absurd in that it would not warrant mention unless theism existed. Therefore, misapplying the label of belief in ‘nothing’ is akin to referring to Jews as nihilists because they don’t believe in Christ as the messiah. Negation of one particular belief is not support of one opposing view (because there are often many).
What should I expect from a website with the sole purpose of being hostile to the protection of our civil liberties? Instead of disingenuously employing false dichotomies and equating mass murder to videogame development, perhaps you should try deconstructing a prominent atheist’s arguments. That sure would beat the straw man tactics.
I, for one, am a pacifist (in a non-absolutist sense). My objection to violence against any person speaks more strongly than any beliefs or disbeliefs that guide my personal philosophies and behavior. I also prefer videogames that are non-violent, mostly because I feel that the experiences are more rewarding in discovery-based and multiplayer party games (although fighting games I do find to be a guilty pleasure). As another post mentions, you left out a recent videogame called “Left Behind” and don’t seem entirely concerned with the sort of intolerance it promotes. Is that possibly because it closely matches your intolerance? I won’t pretend either way, but the exclusion of mentioning “Left Behind” and your take on it could be seen as convenient to furthering the gospels of the collective right-wing persecution complex. It must be tough living in a population where the majority of people simply agree with you. Poor you.
Mr Huston - I don’t know much about video games, but I do know the concept of war and good guys and bad guys — and I’ve noticed that the packages of video games mainly feature scenes of mayhem and murder. That’s enough to make me against video games period. I wish you were too, instead of just being against the ones where the good guys, in your opinion, get killed.
“But, on the other hand, it seems that all too often atheists do, indeed, try to impose their religion — their militant faith that God doesn’t exist — on the rest of us. And here we have another example of this from the University of Virginia.”
I find it interesting that you claim that this video game is an example of atheists imposing atheism on others. Yet there is no imposition here. It’s just a game that you can elect to play or not play.
Now, if the atheist was demanding that we put the words “One nation, without any gods” into the Pledge of Allegiance and to demand that this be read aloud by students in all public schools… now that is imposing.
I’m guessing you can’t come up with a single legitimate example of an atheist truly seeking to impose atheism on others. I challenge you to do so.
Sarra F,
I made no statement of support for “mayhem and murder” in video games, sorry to disappoint you.
Mr. Fararr,
I am not your cousin. I can guarantee that our family lines do not cross. My family name was not Huston until 1894, so if you trace your Hustons back further, we are NOT cousins. Further, I know each and every family member with the name from my side with the Huston spelling and not one of them could have produced you or your family members. So, I’d appreciate you dropping the “cousin” thing. I find it insulting.
I do apologize for the typos, though. I have been pressed for time today and my answers were off the cuff and rushed a tad too much. But, I always find those who want to focus solely on typos a little silly, especially when it is OBVIOUS that said typos are merely from haste as is evident from the bulk of the piece in question. When most of a piece is spelled correctly, most of the piece has proper grammar, a few stray typos are meaningless. When words are constantly and consistently spelled wrong, THEN raising the issue of grammar and typos is apropos.
Sadly, you are in the pedant’s territory here.
Now, yes, I did throw a jab at you with the “perhaps you’d jail me” line. It was an attempt to get you to stop beating around the bush and make some definitive statements instead of the vague ones you were making before.
But, I have to clearly say that I do not think you would advocate jailing people for being religious.
Now to clear up some more of your claims, to whit: “…you do not like atheists, you do not like institutions of higher learning…”
I never said I do not like atheists. I do not like militant atheism, but if someone wants to be an atheist, well, I have no problem with that. Just as I have no problem with someone following Muhammad, Christ or Buddha.
I also am not an anti-intellectual against colleges and universities. I do not like the way our institutes of higher learning operate, but that does not mean, however, that I “do not like institutes of higher learning.”
In fact, your bit there does conform to your definition of strawman. You set up what I do not like (without truth) and then knocked it down. Nice going.
But we are both dancing around the issues here taking jabs at each other. You really aren’t addressing my point at all with this UofV kid. So, let’s just take it for granted that you don’t want to do so. Rather, let’s ask straight questions of each other instead of assuming what each other think.
Here’s a few for you:
-Do you think advocating for killing religious people, even in fantasy, is harmless?
-Do you think violence is never necessary?
-Would you advocate the forcilbe removal of people’s ability to observe their religion?
-Do you think only people who are spotlessly moral should be allowed to discuss morality?
My guess is, that we really have very few real disagreements here, I have to say.
Lastly, I think you are purposefully misinterpreting my old article on making Islam illegal. Since you don’t want to honestly discuss that issue, I don’t see any reason to go on with it.
Wiseclam,
Rob Sherman. Check him out. As militant as they come and breeding his own army to follow him, too.
I’m familiar with Sherman, especially his recent run-in with a state Rep in IL. And he is certainly an activist.
But how is he “imposing” atheism on others? Where is, for example, advocating an atheistic practice or policy in the place of a religious one?
Sherman’s goal is to eliminate ALL public displays of ANY religion (especially Christianity). His legal history is evidence of that. What else do you need?
OK. Let me get this straight. You are saying that this atheist, who is clearly on the fringe and clearly extreme for atheists, is *imposing* his lack of belief in god by advocating the removal of religious displays from publicly locations (publicly funded we should say).
Isn’t it more accurate to say that he is fighting the imposition that has already been made by religious people (mainly Christians in this country) on everyone else?
Your position fails to acknowledge the neutral position between advocating religion and advocating atheism. Sherman is not advocating (and certainly not imposing) atheism. He’s advocating neutrality. He’s asking for the removal of religious displays (and religious practices, etc.). Nowhere have I seen this atheist (or any other) take a position that demands that we impose atheistic views on others. If he was imposing his views he’d be demanding that we place statues in public places that declares there is no god. But he is not. He’s only asking for the removal of those declarations that claim there IS a god.
The problem with your claim is, this “imposition” has not been made recently. It has ALWAYS been thus, and THIS means that his (and your) advocacy of suddenly cleansing religion from public view is imposition on EVERYONE ELSE. If the Founders and our ancestors wanted all religion banned from public display, why isn’t it until NOW that the cause has been taken up?
No, the “imposition” is by atheists, not the reverse.
Seeking to end government endorsement of religion is not “imposing” atheism.
…except that there is no such thing anywhere in this country as “government endorsement of religion.” So you are fighting a fantasy.
Dear Mr Huston — *I* said *I* saw video game packages with scenes of murder and mayhem. I’m surprised that you somehow didn’t get that. It seems so simple.
Sara F,
You are off base.
Here is what you said to me…
You said that you wished I were against these video games.
My reply to you was:
In other words, your seeming assumption that I am not against said games was an opinion arrived at with NO information.
Since I did not address the general subject, you cannot claim what I feel one way or the other about such games. So, you’re “wish” that I felt like you instead of “just being against” certain ones is an uninformed opinion of my position on video games.
You have no idea how I feel about such games, so your thought that I am only against some is not formed on any statement made by me and, therefore, no knowledge on your part.
Like most believers, this one seems to be unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
The very first sentence of your commentary is a straw man and puts you outside of rational discourse. Congratulations.
I’m with David T on this one.
“But how is this youngster any different than what he condemns?”
The difference is that this is a VIDEO GAME that isn’t real. It’s fantasy (you know, like God). No one is actually getting killed. The crusades, inquisition, witch burning, abortion clinic bombings and so on, are all REAL.
I know theists have a hard time telling fantasy from reality, but this a whole new level.
Anyway, thanks for letting me know about this game. I hope to get it when it comes out!
I am a little confused why a person living in such “great” country such as USA is scared to come out in open and say he is the creator of the game.Why USA,though the world’s only superpower, is so scared of Jihadis??
In response to your comment on June 12 at 7:20 PM…
Your “not been made recently” defense in response to my neutral position argument is laughable. Your thinking in this area is muddled. I recommend that you seriously review your position on religious advocacy and develop and understanding of the “neutral position” concept - which you clearly do not get.