As one of the top -- if not the top -- social-networking sites, Facebook tends to draw a disproportionate amount of criticism from those concerned about the effect the site has on young minds or the welfare of society as a whole. And no one is more concerned about those risks than the various religious groups that routinely try to ban, block, or otherwise crack down on, the scourge of modern social networking.
The latest to make this kind of move -- or at least a threat in that direction -- was a group of Islamic clerics who met last week in Indonesia. They declared that they were contemplating a religious ruling that would issue a "fatwa," or declaration, about Facebook, requiring observant Muslims to practice what amounts to "safe social networking" or suffer the wrath of their imam.
A spokesman for the group said that Facebook and similar sites could be used for appropriate purposes such as education about the faith or keeping in touch with one's family and friends, but noted that they could also present a temptation.
"The clerics think it is necessary to set an edict on virtual networking, because this online relationship could lead to lust, which is forbidden in Islam," said Nabil Haroen, a spokesman for the Lirboyo Islamic boarding school, which was hosting the event.
The head of the council of imams said the growing number of Facebook users in Indonesia was a controversial subject among Muslim leaders and that he favored a ban because of possible sexual content. "People using Facebook can be driven to engage in distasteful, pornographic chatting," said Amidan, who -- like most Indonesians -- uses only one name.
Another spokesman for the clerics said that "spreading ill words about others, gossiping and other things that go against religious teaching on social networking sites in the virtual world are forbidden according to Islamic law."
Despite these protests, one Muslim group on Facebook has 48,000 members, while a Muslim fan page has 18,000 fans.
The Indonesian clerical group's move would not be the first time the country has stepped in to block social-networking sites for religious reasons. Last year, the country ordered its largest ISPs to block YouTube and MySpace because they both carried an anti-Islam film called Fitna, created by Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders, and the government said that seeing it might "disturb relations between faiths."
Muslims aren't the only religious groups to be concerned about the Internet and the intrusion of social networking into the lives of the faithful. Although Pope Benedict and other senior members of the Catholic clergy have made positive statements about the benefits of the Internet -- and even at one point created a Catholic version of Facebook called Xt3.com to appeal to young people -- not all members of the hierarchy are ready to embrace social networks.
In a recent address to his flock, the Bishop of Paisley in Scotland, Rt. Rev Philip Tartaglia, issued the following warning to the faithful: "In dialogue with others we need to be wary of the inane chatter that can go on in the digital world which does nothing to promote growth in understanding and tolerance."
Tartaglia also raised concerns about who young people might contact through the networks, saying: "What parent has not wondered what their child is doing on the internet? What material are they accessing? Who are they talking to in social networking sites?"
Jewish groups have yet to raise any substantial concerns about social networking and its effects from a religious point of view -- although there are Orthodox adherents that believe Facebook and similar sites can lure the faithful away from the path of righteousness. But some groups are concerned about the use of Facebook as a tool to spread hatred about their faith, including a number of groups that deny the existence of the Holocaust.
So far, Facebook has judged the groups as protected by freedom of speech and has resisted efforts to close them down.
— Mathew Ingram, technology writer for The Globe and Mail in Canada
June was a heavy month for me, and I stopped replying to deal with my workload. So I apologize for a vastly late response, and can certainly appreciate if no one responds, but I feel a need to address a point raised:
for me and many other lapsed catholics, it is a matter of credibility than anything else
I don't see it, even after reading all the other comments. Not one single religious leader cited in the article called for banning anything. Yes, the muslim leaders referred to consequences if certain actions were undertaken, but they were *not* banning Facebook, or any medium. As was pointed out rather repeatedly, they even agreed that sites like this can serve very good purposes.
Nothing said by these leaders about Social Networking sites as a medium/technology is at all unique to religion. In fact, they mirror what is being said by some of the same children's advocates that are even now at odds with the Roman Catholic Church over handling of allegations of molestation of young children by priests.
I apologize to all those who take offense, but this particular avenue of criticism seems to me to make as much sense as decrying a priest's credibility if he were to remind his congregation to stop at red lights.
I didn't answer his question because it was an attempt to put words in my mouth.
He repeatedly tried to change my specific "religious fundamentalist groups" into something that encapsulated entire denominations of faith and/or whole faiths. He repeatedly tried to change my specific "religious fundamentalist leaders" into leaders of whole faiths or entire denominations. I cannot answer questions as to the meaning of statements I did not make. Nor, can I answer to claims I did not make.
Firstly; No one asked you to provide a definition of anything.
But, you made it necessary when you denied the multiple definitions of the word as used by me.
What I asked you to provide is a reference for your statement regarding religion vs. technology advancements.
I'm not writing a thesis here, and that's what it would take to satisfy your demands. Nor, did I offer to take on the role of professor and spend years teaching you what I spent years learning. However, I did offer you examples of advances that have stirred the ire of fundamentalist religious groups over the last few millinnia, and an easy source of finding more information regarding those instances. Rather than accept the limitations of our forum, you chose to quote the rules of debate, while continuing to obfuscate the issue.
Secondly; In your effort to confine the definition of the word church to mean a small, Congregational gathering of believers or the building where they meet, you somehow, managed to gloss over definition number three...
No, I included that definition out of honesty. Yes, it's one of the definitions. However, several of the definitions supported my useage of the term, which you denied, and are still attempting to deny, in whole.
Thirdly; If you really meant that you knew of a couple of...
Because it wasn't what I meant, and still isn't. I was simply defining a word you used.
But, since you made the broad statement "religious leaders"...
Context. Try it in context. "religious leaders" was used in the context of "religious fundamentalist groups".
...are not free to make military wide policy...
However, they are free to make policy, in many ways, as regards those under their command. When your captain tells you a specific bar or theater is off limits for the weekend, you can be reasonably certain that those orders were not issued directly by the President, though, being orders from a superior officer, they carry the same weight. But, this too is off point, and outside the scope of the argument.
...you finally get out to the point and state the truth of your initial innuendo, that you assumed some minor players...
Absolutely not. This was specifically a reply to your "large-scale conspiracy" obfuscation. And, while there have been instances of your "large-scale conspiracies" -Galileo was threatened with all manner of vileness by the fundamentalist religious leaders of his time because his rightful theories were in direct violation of church dogma - these are the exception, not the rule, and not what I spoke of when I said "fundamentalist religious groups" and "fundamentalist religious leaders".
And now, as my simple statement of history and observation has taken on a life of it's own; and, as I have a life outside this comments section; I'm moving on.
Firstly; No one asked you to provide a definition of anything. What I asked you to provide is a reference for your statement regarding religion vs. technology advancements.
Secondly; In your effort to confine the definition of the word church to mean a small, Congregational gathering of believers or the building where they meet, you somehow, managed to gloss over definition number three, in your list of definitions, for the word church to mean "the universal body of believers".
Thirdly; If you really meant that you knew of a couple of pastors, preachers, ministers or rabbis, Imams or Buddhist monks who had gathered together and complained vociferously about any of the technological improvements or inventions you mentioned in your first reply, then why didn't you just say that??? But, since you made the broad statement "religious leaders" instead of the aforementioned congregational appointed leaders, We had no reason to assume that you meant anything less than all organized religion to be involved in luddite opposition.
Especially when in your words "Any time they feel their control over the masses slipping, they have screaming fits. The competition is simply too much for them. They need a captive audience. " You state that control over the masses is slipping how can I or any other sentient human be expected to assume that you meant a small Congregation's leader preaching to his flock, to be the masses under control???
Fourthly; When you compare the power given military leaders to the powers of the president you also adroitly avoid the issue that every military leader from the General of the Army, to the newest frocked corporal, are not free to make military wide policy or openly comment against such policy, until after they leave active military service, (a right reserved to the commander-in-chief). I must say that your analogy to the military hierarchy is neither relevant nor germane to this debate, but in spite of my better sense I let you lure me off topic.
And lastly; in the very last sentence of your very last statement "As it would be foolish to assume that none of these people, no two like minded individuals ever spoke to each other, a conspiracy, though never claimed, can be assumed." you finally get out to the point and state the truth of your initial innuendo, that you assumed some minor players wearing vestments of ministry had complained about the technology of the day somehow forcing them to relinquish control over their individual congregation. Why didn't you just say that to begin with?
*sigh* I had no idea I was going to have to provide the definition of common words, but, since you've somewhat successfully narrowed my original statement down to include only Judeo-Christian churches, it seems I must. (my original statement was "religious fundamentalist groups")
public worship of God or a religious service in such a building: to attend church regularly.
3.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.
4.
(sometimes initial capital letter) any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; a Christian denomination: the Methodist Church.
5.
that part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc.
6.
a body of Christians worshipping in a particular building or constituting one congregation: She is a member of this church.
7.
ecclesiastical organization, power, and affairs, as distinguished from the state: separation of church and state; The missionary went wherever the church sent him.
8.
the clergy and religious officials of a Christian denomination.
9.
the Christian faith: a return of intellectuals to the church.
10.
(initial capital letter) the Christian Church before the Reformation.
11.
(initial capital letter) the Roman Catholic Church.
12.
the clerical profession or calling: After much study and contemplation, he was prepared to enter the church.
13.
a place of public worship of a non-Christian religion.
Pastor:
A Christian minister or priest having spiritual charge over a congregation or other group.
A layperson having spiritual charge over a person or group.
The congregation is the church. (http://tinyurl.com/o8br42) The pastor, preacher, priest, rabbi, etc. of that church is the leader of that church. Elders, deacons, brothers, fathers, etc., assist the pastor, and often select a new pastor when there is a need, or select candidates to present to the church for vote/approval.
Church associations are huge organizations, with many leaders fulfilling many roles. And, while they may choose or elect a single, supreme leader, that does not negate the fact that there are a great many others, any more than there being a President, a Commander in Chief, negates the fact that there a thousands of leaders in the military, from the Joint Chiefs down to the squad leader.
As for your proclamation that my original statement aluded to a full-blown, which to me would mean massive, conspiracy, that is simply your chosen interpretation - how you purposely perceived it, based on your personal prejudices. But, since you seem to be pushing for absolutes, a conspiracy, by definition, requires only two participants. If only two people in positions of power within a church, or pair of churches, or any other religious group or organization, spoke of the issue, then issued statements against, they conspired. As it would be foolish to assume that none of these people, no two like minded individuals ever spoke to each other, a conspiracy, though never claimed, can be assumed.
we got precisely to this point by me referring to your openning statement which said:" Any time they feel their control over the masses slipping, they have screaming fits. The competition is simply too much for them. They need a captive audience." which any reasonable person would take to mean a full-blown conspiracy not just some little church.
The definition you use of church in your last reply: "Now, while your experience and understanding may be different from my own, it is a fundamental principle of virtually all churches and religions that the church leader, be he/she preacher, minister, rabbi, monk, priest/ess, or whatever, is the head of that church. That church may be a part of a greater whole, a member of an association of churches, but the individual leader of an assembly is a church leader. So, you contradict yourself in your question, "Not just some preacher in the pulpit...". A preacher IS a religious leader, and when his/her congregation follows his/her complaint, making it edict, you have the very thing you ask for as proof." is an incorrect assumption. You provide a definition that more accurately describes a congregation not a church.
A preacher is not a religious leader a preacher is merely a congregational leader. And in most organized religions in America the preacher is not in charge of the congregation the board of elders, or sometimes the deacons, are in charge.
I am sure the Synod system used in the Presbyterian Church, the Council of Cardinals in the Catholic Church and the hierarchy of bishops in the Episcopal and Anglican churches do not consider a preacher in the pulpit as a religious leader and neither should you. further, most independent churches such as the Southern Baptist convention allow their congregations to rule themselves independently and autonomously under a single body of ordained elders. (information about the Baptist Churches independent rule can be found at: http://christianity.about.com/od/baptistdenomination/p/baptistprofile.htm). A reference to back my assertion...
I have grown weary of your endless Tap-Dancing and pretzel logic to avoid the fact that you cannot produce one shred of evidence to back up your allegations against organized religion. Your final sentence, in your last reply, indicates that you know how to find references. But, you insist everyone else do your backgroundwork for you and ask us provide references for your statements. That's not how it works.
Under the NPDA(National Parlismentary Debate Assaociation)rules of debating, Posted on:: http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/npdarules.html
Rule number 4. Paragraph B. states:
B. Debaters may refer to any information that is within the realm of knowledge of liberally educated and informed citizens. If they believe some cited information to be too specific, debaters may request that their opponent explain specific information with which they are unfamiliar. In the event further explanation of specific information is requested, the debater should provide details sufficient to allow the debater to understand the connection between the information and the claim. (Emphasis mine).
You see here a statement to back up my assertion that you are required to provide your references to back up or substantiate your claims. You are very skillful at employing serpentine logic. However, there are rules you must play by and you don't get to make them up as you go.
Since the rules state that you should provide information and not that you must provide information I am also relieved of my obligation in the debate by refusing to continue.
In other words, while you continue to sing the same old song to a different melody I refuse to dance. So I will sit this one out.
How did we go from my "religious fundamentalist groups" statement to your church leader inspired conspiracy to eradicate question?
Now, while your experience and understanding may be different from my own, it is a fundamental principle of virtually all churches and religions that the church leader, be he/she preacher, minister, rabbi, monk, priest/ess, or whatever, is the head of that church. That church may be a part of a greater whole, a member of an association of churches, but the individual leader of an assembly is a church leader. So, you contradict yourself in your question, "Not just some preacher in the pulpit...". A preacher IS a religious leader, and when his/her congregation follows his/her complaint, making it edict, you have the very thing you ask for as proof.
In fact, you'll be hard pressed to find any technological innovation in the last few millennia that didn't draw the wrath of some religious leader, and consequently, his church. From the telescope to the internal combustion engine, from the cotton gin to the wheat thresher, from the tractor to the Internet, they've all had their detractors within the leadership of churches and fundamentalist groups.
A simple Google search will find oodles of information of the type you requested, it's all there for the taking.
"As for name-calling, a label directed at no one is just a label, not a calling out of names." ...is simply a matter of semantics. Labeling, pigeonholing, classifying or name-calling, are synonymous.
"Nicole, It's all good; I took no offense or insult to the first follow-up comment for I know I swim among the sharks with "eyes wide open" and never in over my head!!... ;-)" ...Sorry! But, it wasn't your "wide open eyes" that drew my reply ☺
Thank you for your clarification of your point on coeducational schools.
But of this point" And, if you can't recall fundamentalist religious leaders throwing screaming fits about cable/satellite television, and music, and coed dorms, and video games, and video tapes, and DVD's, and a whole host of other things that have come along in our lifetimes, you simply weren't paying attention. " I will agree that on things like video games and DVDs and videotapes religious leaders voiced their opositions.
But, the only time they complained about them, was merely about individual content and never about the technology behind those devices. And although I may never have heard of such a demonstration only places me in the general population which is why I requested that you provide references to your knowledge of religious conspiracies to overthrow or prevent technology in general.
In other words, point to any specific incident when any religion in general assumed a Ludite position about any specific technology.(Not just some preacher in a pulpit waving his finger in the air about the latest Marilyn Manson video.) Some empirical evidence (not just your rote momory, infallible as it may be) of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Hinduism, Shinto, Buddhism etc. passing an edict, Imam or papal bull, that condemns Toshiba Corp. as responsible for sending souls to hell, or a loss of paradise or Nirvana, due to their invention of VHS or the Sony Corp. invention of Betamax. Or similarly, against any of these corporations (Philips, Sony, Matsushita and Toshiba) for the technical concept that became DVDs (not just the release of sex and the city's latest season). it has always been about content. Not a concept.
By the same token, you present, that I may not have been paying complete attention to everything going on around me, I cannot accept just because, you said so, to be evidence or proof of your statement's truth. I am not trying to be disrespectful. But, You may take this to mean: I don't recognize you as authoritative on this subject.
If one chooses to keep one's "eyes wide shut" then we can not make them see...
Anyway, it appears others have followed up with plenty of examples regarding my statement, so no need to re-hash that -- my bad for not realizing how something so obvious might need some follow-up clarifications...
As for name-calling, a label directed at no one is just a label, not a calling out of names.
Nicole, It's all good; I took no offense or insult to the first follow-up comment for I know I swim among the sharks with "eyes wide open" and never in over my head!!... ;-)
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
The idea that the Internet might be used for scientific collaboration shouldn't come as much of a surprise, since the Web's predecessor was originally created as a way to connect researchers at different institutions so they could solve problems together.
Not that long ago, blogs were a mysterious animal that most reputable companies shied away from, an untrustworthy medium populated by cranks in their pyjamas.
The battle between eBay Inc. (Nasdaq: EBAY) and Skype Ltd. is escalating, and in the end, users of the Web-based phone-calling application could be the ultimate losers.
In 1891, Nicola Tesla held up a discharged light bulb and showed how it could be lit up anywhere in a room with a specialized magnetic field. More than a century later, businesses and consumers may soon be able to tap into commercial wireless electrical services, if a couple of entrepreneurs have their way.
Should Facebook and Google users in the U.S. thank the Canadian government for protecting their privacy? A pretty good case could be made that they should.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
Saunders is wrong on Hulu, Fritz thinks. By most measures it's been
a success, and there's no reason this model won't become even bigger in the next three years. Oh, and he hates Steve's hat.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
) 
