Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet

Catholic Bishops Support Net Neutrality 304

Posted by samzenpus
from the nobody-expects-the-internet-inquisition dept.
An anonymous reader writes "This week, in their annual 'State of the Union' address, the President of the US Catholic Bishops Conference spoke on a number of issues, in particular a surprisingly strong statement in favor on Net Neutrality. 'As the Internet continues to grow in its influence and prominence in Americans' lives, we support legislation and federal regulations that ensure equal access to the Internet for all, including religious and non-profit agencies, as well as those in more sparsely populated or economically distressed areas. True net neutrality is necessary for people to flourish in a democratic society,' said Archbishop Timothy Dolan. It's always interesting to see the Catholic Church joining in a crusade that means so much to so many Slashdotters!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Catholic Bishops Support Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • by Zombie Ryushu (803103) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @04:35AM (#34937246)

    No, Intelligent design is a radical Protestant scam. It is an attempt to save the Genesis account of creation at any cost, because if they don't, there's no original sin for Jesus to be sacrificed for rendering the whole of Christianity meaningless.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, 2011 @05:05AM (#34937372)

    In fact roman church has no sympathy for intelligent design, young earth mith, creation myths and so on.

    They accept evolution theory too. Since evolution theory has no provision to say that there is any objective and gives no characterization to evolution church takes it's freedom to just say that it could be God to be driving it. The genesis could just be interpreted to be an allegoric account.

    Roman catholic church is not stupid. They just want to stop scientists from studying human genetics(no problem with animal and vegetable ones though) because their beliefs tell them so. I disagree but can understand them

  • by Dynedain (141758) <{slashdot2} {at} {anthonymclin.com}> on Thursday January 20, 2011 @05:34AM (#34937476) Homepage

    Actually the official position of the Catholic Church is that the Big Bang and evolution are the best models currently available to describe the universe that God created, and the process of how we came into being. There is no conflict between evolution and Catholic teaching, and the Big Bang was originally put forward by a priest, but dismissed by much of the rest of the scientific community as being too much like a "God did it" theory.

    ID isn't blasphemous to Catholics because it's limiting God. ID is just wrong because A) it isn't science. B) it assumes taking the BIble literally. Catholics theologians are fully aware of how the Bible has changed, is sometimes self-contradictory, and has been reinterpreted over the centuries, and so taking a specific translation and treating it as word-for-word literal truth is a simplistic and juvenile approach.

  • Re:Crusade? (Score:5, Informative)

    by icebike (68054) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @06:19AM (#34937622)

    Sad, very sad and ironic. In this day and age, having to defend Technology with the help of Religion.

    Even sadder that this story suggests the Church is actually FOR net neutrality as we understand it today.

    They are pontificating (sorry) about net ACCESS.

    They totally miss the main points of net neutrality such as traffic shaping, throttling, or prioritizing your own traffic over competitive traffic.

    I don't see this as a strong statement at all, simply lip service leaving me wondering if they truly understand the issue.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, 2011 @06:29AM (#34937650)

    So why is it strange the catholic church is pro-technology ? Yes, they do find that technology must be moral, and even research must err on the side of morality (therefore - e.g. no killing embryos for research). The large majority of our technology was developed by catholic clergy. From the laws of physics to things like glasses (even now the catholic church is sponsoring Stephen Hawking - read his book once - and doubtless many others), and generally any and all technology we knew about before 1900. Especially in the medical field the catholic church is extremely well-represented. Without the catholic church, there would not be any universities, nor would we even have knowledge of the classical age in the first place.

    The catholic church has been an institution of learning and knowledge during all of it's existence. During several time periods it has been the *only* such institution. It is not only the oldest organization that still exists, but is also the one of the very, very few organizations that have managed to avoid destroying all the knowledge they had available. (most "civilizations", from islam, to chinese, to mayas, incas have destroyed all their own knowledge, and they almost all did it to themselves)

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @06:43AM (#34937698) Journal
    If you read the letter, you will see that it is NOT about net Neutrality. It is about trying to get net access to all, basically, the poor.

    This has NOTHING to do with ensuring that there is no discrimination amongst providers. It has everything with ensuring that there is no discrimination amongst consumers in ability to get to it. THat is all.

    This is a BIG difference.

    The odd thing is that the church could simply pay for the access for their poor parishioners. But, they do not want to do that. They want the GOV. to do that.
  • by digitig (1056110) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @07:20AM (#34937862)

    Indeed. They're the ones who originally promoted the whole idea of copyright. They wanted to keep control of the Bible, stop people from making unauthorized copies.

    [citation needed]

    I always understood the Statute of Anne to be about protecting the vested interests of publishers sympathetic to the crown. And anyway, Queen Anne was a protestant, not a Catholic, so Catholic lobbying is unlikely to have been effective.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @07:46AM (#34937968) Homepage

    Because the Internet dispelled a number of myths I had about "how bad the Church was..."

    1) Did you know that the Spanish Inquisition was run by the Spanish government after the King blackmailed the Pope by threatening to withdraw Spanish troops from Rome if he didn't get his way?

    2) Did you know that the first Crusade was actually a response to 500 years of unrelenting Islamic aggression Christian states?

    3) Have you ever read the tenants of the "church" that Hitler proposed as a replacement for the authentic Catholic and Lutheran religions?

    3b) Did you know that Hitler actually practiced a modern form of German paganism and in private openly hated Christianity with a passion?

    4) Did you know that Galileo was actually invited as an honored guest by the Pope and was actually imprisoned only after he behaved like a total douchebag toward the Pope (where similar behavior would have warranted execution if directed at a medieval king)?

  • by MysteriousPreacher (702266) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @08:25AM (#34938136) Journal

    Yeah. I think the Vulgate was the main source for the KJV translators.

    It's problematic to use the term "original version" when discussing the Bible. At best we tend to have what would be described as the oldest sources available, and in some cases these oldest sources appear themselves descended from earlier unknown sources. I'm not sure what you're defining as insignificant here, and whether you're talking about the canonical Bible or its individual books?

    The Bible, as in a canon of collected works, has been pretty stable for a long time now, but it's not as if 2000 years ago the Bible fell from the sky in its current form. There have been a number of canons and apocrypha. It took hundreds of years to arrive at what would be almost universally accepted as the canon we know today. That canon itself has been pretty consistent for at least 1500 years, and the KJV dates from the 16th or 17th century century (can't recall which), so it is wrong to claim that the *Bible* itself has changed a great deal. It is however perfectly correct to highlight the incredible quantity of apocryphal works and what appear to be later additions to individual books. I think the more important thing to look at is how interpretations of the Bible have changed.

    I like to use KJV and NIV side-by-side. NIV is a bit dry and at times over-simplified, but far easier to comprehend. KJV alone can be a bit misleading, such as in Exodus (I forget the verse) where the word "gift" in the KJV is more correctly translated as "bribe". That wouldn't make sense to a KJV reader unless they were very careful to read the verse in its correct context.

  • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Thursday January 20, 2011 @08:34AM (#34938188) Homepage

    Furthermore, the Old Testament in particular has been very well-preserved. The Jews did an unbelievably good job there.

    A large amount of Christians worldwide disagree. The Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint because it is believed that the pointing in the Masoretic Text was altered in order to suppress Christian interpretations. As far as they are concerned, a reliable Hebrew text is no longer available.

    We have copies of Genesis that go back over 3,000 years that are the same as copies from 1AD and the middle ages.

    I'm sorry, but that's just bollocks. The only attestations of the Hebrew language we have from that period are epigraphical. Biblical texts date from centuries later.

    The Catholic church relied on the Vulgate which is a trashy translation into Latin.

    "Trashy"? The Vulgate was actually a polished, literary translation that was meant to supersede the amateur translations that Latin-speaking Christians had used to date. The Protestant reformers and the Eastern Orthodox Church had a great deal of respect for Jerome's work (they simply didn't think it intelligible to their modern audiences).

    The Bible sitting on my shelf is about as accurate of a translation as you can get from what Paul and Luke actually wrote in Koine Greek and Aramaic.

    An Aramaic ur-text is a controversial theory, and usually only ascribed to the Gospel of Matthew. Paul and Luke were Hellenized and spoke Greek as their mother tongue. They likely wrote nothing in Aramaic, and even if they did, there's no manuscript of it to translate from.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, 2011 @08:52AM (#34938308)
    I'm not the original poster but it is not hard to find information:

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition [wikipedia.org]
    Second sentence confirms point made.

    A more Catholic spin on it is given at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm [newadvent.org] (see the section titled The inquisition in Spain).

    2. Again Wikipedia is a good starting point ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades [wikipedia.org] ), and has many references for further reading. "The Crusades were fought mainly by Roman Catholic forces (...) against Muslims who had occupied the near east since the time of the Rashidun Caliphate,"

    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity [wikipedia.org] Hitler rejected all of the Old Testament, which places his version of Christianity quite far from anything commonly accepted as Catholic or Lutheran.

    4. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair [wikipedia.org] (in the Dialogue section). Essentially the Pope would only allow Galileo to publish a book on his theory if he included the Pope's view in the book as well; Galileo made the character giving the Pope's view an idiot (named Simplicio) and this upset people a lot (as they assumed he was trying to make the Pope look like an idiot).
  • Re:Crusade? (Score:5, Informative)

    by DragonWriter (970822) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @02:42PM (#34942574)

    I suspect that those bishops who understand the issue are in favour of network neutrality.

    The USCCB's 2006 expression of support [nccbuscc.org] for net neutrality rules being incorporated into federal law would certainly provide a fairly strong basis for the conclusion that the conference does, indeed, support net neutrality as well as expanded consumer access, rather than conflating the two issues as some Slashdotters have suggested is the reason for the two sentences (one on access and on one neutrality) in the current statement.

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...