Examining Religious Bias In Filtering Software

the_rev_matt writes: "eSchool News has a great piece about the religious influence present in filtering software. Not that this will be a surprise to most /. regulars, but the research behind it is interesting. Now if only eSchool News could change their name to something less horrible..."

Re:Why it's so much dogmatic crap

[TheGeneration]

What you believe constitute a decent society may not be what I consider a decent society. I don't want my children exposed to fairy tales about super natural creators of the universe. I want my kids to believe in themselves and to be mindful of the traps of irrationality that religion presents. If you disgaree with that... I'm sorry. But I should not have to worry about my children having access to ANY religious website.

Re:This article is such bullshit

[spt]

Some parents find homosexual, occult, and weapon-related websites objectionable

Exactly. So why is Native American history blocked as being occult, yet resurrection in a Christian context is allowed?

Re:Abstain or Protection?

[eugene ts wong]

and that high schools should employ a simple corporate-type filter that blocks only overtly pornographic type sites;

I think that alone would put an end to a *lot* of arguements. But I could be wrong. I believe that government organizations should be more transparent to the community in how their computers work. This way the community can have input, and concerned consultants would have brought up your suggestion, by now.

Article has significant religious bias of its own

[CaptainCarrot]

It says at one point:

Willard says in her report that the first time she visited the Global Internet Ministries web site, the lead article on the site was "Have we shamed the face of Jesus? Muslims in our pulpits," and the article drew the following conclusion: "... when we present Islam as another truth, we spit on the face of Christ and those who serve His kingdom in Islamic countries."

This is on its face unremarkable for a Christian website, so I can only deduct that Willard found the statements alarming for some reason. Certainly they're biased, and considering the source we should not be shocked. But what's implied when this material, especially that last quote, is held up as a bad example? It seems that the correct point of view is that Islam is "another truth!"

Are these people so unthoughtful on this subject that they cannot see that this is, in itself, a religious point of view? (I doubt it.) Are they indoctrinating schoolchildren into this religion? (From what I've seen, yes.) Exactly how brazen do you have to be to bray about the fictional "wall of separation between Church and State" supposedly found in the First Amendment, and then go around preaching a religion of your own that for no reason that's ever said aloud seems to be exempt? (An awful lot, but that seems to be characteristic of the Politically Correct crowd.)

Hypocrites, the lot of them.