I have to admit in advance that this is a cheap shot. In logical terms this is a perfect example of the Ad Hominem argument. The kind of argument that can be best characterized by the following dialogue:

Xbox 360 Fanboy: The PS3 might have a slight technical advantage, but Bluray is at best a double edged sword, increasing the cost of production while giving questionable benefits. The Xbox 360 by contrast builds on a standard and developer friendly platform, meaning it has, and will continue to have a strong release schedule.
PS3 Fanboy: You're a fag. Xbox 360 is for fags and gaywads.

As you can see, it's not the strongest possible argument in a debate. Essentially the "text" of the comic, when put in the same context, is as follows:

Church: The use of this church or any other privately owned building in any game without permission being sought is illegal and we demand you stop.
Australian Gamer: The Catholic church molests children.

OK, so...

I have to admit in advance that this is a cheap shot. In logical terms this is a perfect example of the Ad Hominem argument. The kind of argument that can be best characterized by the following dialogue:

Xbox 360 Fanboy: The PS3 might have a slight technical advantage, but Bluray is at best a double edged sword, increasing the cost of production while giving questionable benefits. The Xbox 360 by contrast builds on a standard and developer friendly platform, meaning it has, and will continue to have a strong release schedule.
PS3 Fanboy: You're a fag. Xbox 360 is for fags and gaywads.

As you can see, it's not the strongest possible argument in a debate. Essentially the "text" of the comic, when put in the same context, is as follows:

Church: The use of this church or any other privately owned building in any game without permission being sought is illegal and we demand you stop.
Australian Gamer: The Catholic church molests children.

OK, so not our best made point, and it echoes this comic a wee bit too much, but what can I say, I'm all about the big issues. The heavy handed and clumsy conclusion is that if the church is really concerned about its image, this is probably not the best way to handle it.

If they're so worried about their legal rights they should probably worry more about their legal responsibilities, and pay reparations and compensation to the victims of priests who were known to be molesting children, but were just moved around to keep complaints minimal.

If they're so worried about the harm done to children by the "glorification of gun violence" maybe they should think about the harm done by these "men of God". Or the harm done by the years of silence. Or the harm done by the decades of denial.

It's also worth pointing out that Resistance: Fall of Man came out a year ago. Apparently they only found out last Friday.

Really for the church this is a monumental achievement. Their views on sex, contraception, abortion, forgiveness, superstition, and ethics are behind by over a century. Strange that they're only a year behind on keeping up on their legal rights.

And I'll be honest. Their legal rights here are actually pretty valid. The question is kind of black and white, for all the bitching. If it was a private person or even a company making the complaining, even gamers would see the validity. Either Insomniac got permission to use the church, a legal requirement for any and all buildings portrayed in games or movies… or they didn't.

Insomniac says they did. The church says they didn't. So unless Insomniac can produce some papers saying they were molested were granted the rights to use the church this could go to court.

In saying that, the Church's demands are a little steep. They want the game pulled from shelves, first of all. Then they want money. It's always about the money. Apparently the money is going to an "anti-violence campaign" of some kind, in keeping with the age old religious tradition of assuming that "violent video games" are pretty much the sole cause of violence. It's certainly not a factor of low education, inflamed racial issues, high unemployment due to the close of heavy industries, family problems, societal over-pressuring on stressed teens, and rampant drug use among the poor and homeless. And of course, it's definitely best not to question the distribution of increasingly widely available firearms in a country that has always had rightly draconian gun control laws. No no… it's violent video games.

So says the infallible church, and the church is never wrong. Take that Gallileo!

Anyway, like Paris Hilton crying in a cop car their whining is unlikely to get any response any time soon.

One thing that's been particularly entertaining about this has been the involvement of the British Parliament. I don't really care what they said (who does) but the way they said it amuses me.

They keep opening with "My right honourable Friend" in reference to other (especially opposition) politicians. As an Australian, whose parliamentary figures generally refers to its opponents as "ya bum" I find that quite startlingly polite. Credit also has to go to Paul Keating for referring to his opposition as "scumbags", "dullards", and "intellectual hobos". I think he was referring to having the intellect of a hobo. Not being a particularly well learned street-person. I also have to give him points for referring to John Howard as a "dessicated little coconut". I just like the sound of it. And he really is.

Back on topic. In truth they're probably right on this one, and if it goes to court the Sony fanboys will be able to jump up and complain that it's all unfair, as the church gets their 30 pieces of silver.

What makes this question interesting is… how much do you have to show to need to ask permission?

I mean, if you make a game set in a parallel semi-destroyed London (Hellgate: London I'm looking at you) and you have scenes where you can see Big Ben, do you need to get Mr Ben's permission to show it? What if you can look inside through a window? How much of Ben do you need to see before approval is required?

In the interests of fairness: Much of this article is lies, or at the very least misdirection. The church in question is not a Catholic church, it's Anglican. The Anglican church and even the English branches of the Catholic church have often been spared the worst excesses of the church as a whole, such as the Inquisition and witch burnings. But they still have the same pro-child-molestation policies that bother me, so I'm not going to take it back.