Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Free Software
Christian endorsement of Free Software increases
By Marco Fioretti
on
April 16, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Last November I described the Free Software's Surprising Affinity with Catholic Doctrine. Since then, several important things happened, from feedback by Stallman and other Free SW users to the birth, or acceleration, of some projects specifically based on the concept that Christians have even more reasons than others to adopt Free Software.
What did the Internet say?
The first reaction to “Surprising Affinity” was a robust amount of flames in the related NewsForge forum, something which prompted this interesting question on Christdot: “Seems like if you mention religion on a technology site, you'd better dodge the ensuing flames. I'm not exactly sure why this is. I know it's geeky to not have a social life. But is it geeky to be skeptical? Are the reasons similar?”. More on this later.
The article itself was announced by Mirror of Justice as “an application of Catholic legal theory that had never occurred to them”. David Opderbeck wrote that “Surprising Affinity” approaches a Christian theory of intellectual property and that he intended to do “some serious scholarly work on this in the near future." A.P. Lawrence noted that while fundamentalist religious teaching is, I believe, dangerous and detrimental to society, the loftier and less dogmatic beliefs can be force for desirable social change. Another reader mentioned the piece as something that “would make his mom proud of my affiliation with Free Software!”. Right after publishing my article, I also discovered another one which compares some religious (Christian-specific) concepts to aspects of the Free Software community.
What does Stallman think?
Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation, is an atheist. We privately discussed possible affinities with Christian philosophy while preparing my interview on Scouting and Free Software. Back then, Stallman wrote to me that “indeed, it seems to me that a sincere Christian must condemn non-free software as satanic in spirit. If you were Satan, and you wanted to corrode the bonds of society, what could be more effective than offering individuals something attractive, profitable or fun, on condition that they refuse to share it with anyone else?" For the same reasons, he added, "Christians should reject proprietary software because it forbids people to express love for their neighbors."
After “Surprising Affinity” was published, I contacted Stallman again to ask permission to include those quotes in this follow-up and to ask what he thinks of my theses. This is his answer to my comment that some Vatican documents sounded like they had been written by him: “People who don't really know my views might think so. Since values such as access, equality, and more equitable distribution of wealth are widely understood, while few understand the concept that freedom to redistribute and change software, people often mistakenly suppose that the Free Software movement is about the former three rather than the last. And they often tell others this. The misinformation has spread widely, but it remains erroneous. I am in favor of extending access to the Internet to everyone, provided that this is done in a way that respects their freedom (i.e., with Free Software). I am in favor of equal rights, and in distributing wealth more equitably. But the primary goal of the Free Software movement is something different and more focused: freedom in using your computer, and freedom to cooperate in a community when doing so."
I had also written that the right to freely choose which programs to use for computer-based communication is the same expressed in Stallman's essay on Treacherous Computing. His reply on this is that “it's a misunderstanding to say that my article is arguing for users ability to 'choose which programs to use.' In fact, those words misrepresent my views entirely. The issue here is whether the user community can develop its own programs to access their data. The aim of Treacherous Computing is to make that impossible." Stallman is obviously right as far as his article goes: my mistake was to not make clear that I was specifically thinking about people who can use Free Software, but would never be able to code or contribute to it in any other way.
What's going on in the USA
Rev. Parris, who I already mentioned in my other article, is the author of "IT as Ministry" and “Penguin in the Pew 2.0” (also available in print), a book which helps Christian ministries discover the advantages of Free Software.
Predictably, whenever he explains this subject, the biggest obstacles Parris faces aren't technical. Just like anybody else, he says, most Christians are “somewhat stagnant." They do not understand or care enough about technology to grasp the nature of the discussion. Resistance to change is quite strong, even among many pastors. He normally counters it by pointing out that change is possible, at any age, and that this is the just message of the Gospel - that anyone can be changed: “whether it's relationships or technology, we are not statues, immobile and unchangeable. We are human. We can learn new things."
To make things even more interesting, Parris adds with a smile, “often Christians think I am trying to conform Scripture to technology, while the non-Christians feel I should leave religion out of the discussion altogether. I get "burned at the stake" on a regular basis by both sides.
None of these obstacles, however, are stopping him and quite a few others. A few weeks after publication of “Surprising Affinity” Parris reported on a third-party project aiming to “web empower 10,000 churches by 2010. Besides his own community, Parris is also active in the US branch of the non-denominational Freely Project, which even encourages non-Christians to participate. Freely and several other groups are also creating a Libre Software Solution Stack for Christian Churches. Eventually, this should become a one-stop meta-repository of software for tasks like Lyrics projection, Bible study or Church management. All these applications already exist. Most of them are already included in, or at least packaged for, all major Gnu/Linux distributions, included the Freely Project default, Ubuntu. Other ongoing activities include writing documentation for the same systems and the creation of templates of all kinds, from OpenDocument letters to LDAP configuration files customized for Church usage. The Freely Project also provides online technical support to ministries, or helps Churches to find local assistance.
A Catholic approach to Information Technology
Here in Italy, following the publication of “Surprising Affinity," Other Catholics and I started to discuss how to build a project with a somewhat more focused scope. This project is now defined, reachable online, and open to new members. Its name is Eleutheros: a Catholic Approach to Information Technology.
Eleutheros (ancient Greek for “Free as in freedom”) starts just where “Surprising Affinity” stopped. The Eleutheros Manifesto begins with the acknowledgment that, unless proper care is taken to choose truly open digital technologies, the universal and perpetual access to the message of the Catholic Church, or to any other kind of information, may be severely limited.
On another level, the Manifesto also points out that even many Catholics use proprietary software illegally, simply for lack of enough information, and that other kinds of software appear much more in line with Catholic doctrine.
The Eleutheros mission is therefore to help all the Catholic Church, from the Vatican to every Parish, Catholic school or single faithful worldwide, to put in practice Her own teachings in the choice and usage of Information Technology. For this reason, one activity of Eleutheros will be the study of the Scriptures, and all official Catholic documents, to highlight all guidelines which may already point towards the adoption of non-proprietary file formats and software.
Other, more operative objectives declared in the Manifesto include working inside the Catholic Church in order to:
Right now, Eleutheros only counts Italian members, but the project is obviously open to Catholics worldwide. To contact the Eleutheros community, be it to join or simply to know more about the project or exchange information, just send an email to info@eleutheros.it.
Two final questions
The first reaction to “Surprising Affinity” was a robust amount of flames in the related NewsForge forum, something which prompted this interesting question on Christdot: “Seems like if you mention religion on a technology site, you'd better dodge the ensuing flames. I'm not exactly sure why this is. I know it's geeky to not have a social life. But is it geeky to be skeptical? Are the reasons similar?”. More on this later.
The article itself was announced by Mirror of Justice as “an application of Catholic legal theory that had never occurred to them”. David Opderbeck wrote that “Surprising Affinity” approaches a Christian theory of intellectual property and that he intended to do “some serious scholarly work on this in the near future." A.P. Lawrence noted that while fundamentalist religious teaching is, I believe, dangerous and detrimental to society, the loftier and less dogmatic beliefs can be force for desirable social change. Another reader mentioned the piece as something that “would make his mom proud of my affiliation with Free Software!”. Right after publishing my article, I also discovered another one which compares some religious (Christian-specific) concepts to aspects of the Free Software community.
What does Stallman think?
Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation, is an atheist. We privately discussed possible affinities with Christian philosophy while preparing my interview on Scouting and Free Software. Back then, Stallman wrote to me that “indeed, it seems to me that a sincere Christian must condemn non-free software as satanic in spirit. If you were Satan, and you wanted to corrode the bonds of society, what could be more effective than offering individuals something attractive, profitable or fun, on condition that they refuse to share it with anyone else?" For the same reasons, he added, "Christians should reject proprietary software because it forbids people to express love for their neighbors."
After “Surprising Affinity” was published, I contacted Stallman again to ask permission to include those quotes in this follow-up and to ask what he thinks of my theses. This is his answer to my comment that some Vatican documents sounded like they had been written by him: “People who don't really know my views might think so. Since values such as access, equality, and more equitable distribution of wealth are widely understood, while few understand the concept that freedom to redistribute and change software, people often mistakenly suppose that the Free Software movement is about the former three rather than the last. And they often tell others this. The misinformation has spread widely, but it remains erroneous. I am in favor of extending access to the Internet to everyone, provided that this is done in a way that respects their freedom (i.e., with Free Software). I am in favor of equal rights, and in distributing wealth more equitably. But the primary goal of the Free Software movement is something different and more focused: freedom in using your computer, and freedom to cooperate in a community when doing so."
I had also written that the right to freely choose which programs to use for computer-based communication is the same expressed in Stallman's essay on Treacherous Computing. His reply on this is that “it's a misunderstanding to say that my article is arguing for users ability to 'choose which programs to use.' In fact, those words misrepresent my views entirely. The issue here is whether the user community can develop its own programs to access their data. The aim of Treacherous Computing is to make that impossible." Stallman is obviously right as far as his article goes: my mistake was to not make clear that I was specifically thinking about people who can use Free Software, but would never be able to code or contribute to it in any other way.
What's going on in the USA
Rev. Parris, who I already mentioned in my other article, is the author of "IT as Ministry" and “Penguin in the Pew 2.0” (also available in print), a book which helps Christian ministries discover the advantages of Free Software.
Predictably, whenever he explains this subject, the biggest obstacles Parris faces aren't technical. Just like anybody else, he says, most Christians are “somewhat stagnant." They do not understand or care enough about technology to grasp the nature of the discussion. Resistance to change is quite strong, even among many pastors. He normally counters it by pointing out that change is possible, at any age, and that this is the just message of the Gospel - that anyone can be changed: “whether it's relationships or technology, we are not statues, immobile and unchangeable. We are human. We can learn new things."
To make things even more interesting, Parris adds with a smile, “often Christians think I am trying to conform Scripture to technology, while the non-Christians feel I should leave religion out of the discussion altogether. I get "burned at the stake" on a regular basis by both sides.
None of these obstacles, however, are stopping him and quite a few others. A few weeks after publication of “Surprising Affinity” Parris reported on a third-party project aiming to “web empower 10,000 churches by 2010. Besides his own community, Parris is also active in the US branch of the non-denominational Freely Project, which even encourages non-Christians to participate. Freely and several other groups are also creating a Libre Software Solution Stack for Christian Churches. Eventually, this should become a one-stop meta-repository of software for tasks like Lyrics projection, Bible study or Church management. All these applications already exist. Most of them are already included in, or at least packaged for, all major Gnu/Linux distributions, included the Freely Project default, Ubuntu. Other ongoing activities include writing documentation for the same systems and the creation of templates of all kinds, from OpenDocument letters to LDAP configuration files customized for Church usage. The Freely Project also provides online technical support to ministries, or helps Churches to find local assistance.
A Catholic approach to Information Technology
Here in Italy, following the publication of “Surprising Affinity," Other Catholics and I started to discuss how to build a project with a somewhat more focused scope. This project is now defined, reachable online, and open to new members. Its name is Eleutheros: a Catholic Approach to Information Technology.
Eleutheros (ancient Greek for “Free as in freedom”) starts just where “Surprising Affinity” stopped. The Eleutheros Manifesto begins with the acknowledgment that, unless proper care is taken to choose truly open digital technologies, the universal and perpetual access to the message of the Catholic Church, or to any other kind of information, may be severely limited.
On another level, the Manifesto also points out that even many Catholics use proprietary software illegally, simply for lack of enough information, and that other kinds of software appear much more in line with Catholic doctrine.
The Eleutheros mission is therefore to help all the Catholic Church, from the Vatican to every Parish, Catholic school or single faithful worldwide, to put in practice Her own teachings in the choice and usage of Information Technology. For this reason, one activity of Eleutheros will be the study of the Scriptures, and all official Catholic documents, to highlight all guidelines which may already point towards the adoption of non-proprietary file formats and software.
Other, more operative objectives declared in the Manifesto include working inside the Catholic Church in order to:
- Increase the awareness of the ethical reasons to prefer Free Software and non proprietary formats
- Request the official adoption, without exceptions, of non proprietary formats and protocols, by all Catholic organizations
- Promote migration to Free Software whenever possible
- Request that IT teaching in Catholic Schools of every kind is based on Free Software
Right now, Eleutheros only counts Italian members, but the project is obviously open to Catholics worldwide. To contact the Eleutheros community, be it to join or simply to know more about the project or exchange information, just send an email to info@eleutheros.it.
Two final questions
- Is it geeky to be skeptical?
- Should (any) religion be ignored when evaluating Free (or any other) software?
Marco Fioretti is the author of The Family Guide to Digital Freedom and contributes regularly to Linux.com and other IT magazines.
Comments
on Christian endorsement of Free Software increasesNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
I get it!
You're advocating that religions should not be based on anything, having no moral or ethical considerations.
That those within their respective congregations shouldn't take their core values into account when making software purchases.
That when making clothing purchases (for example), they should look only at the quality. Disregarding entirely the moral and ethical considerations as to whether that item of clothes was made by (paper towel people, use and discard) slave labor, or by decently treated, and paid, free people.
Would you care to "Repent" of your faulty logic.
You're advocating that religions should not be based on anything, having no moral or ethical considerations.
That those within their respective congregations shouldn't take their core values into account when making software purchases.
That when making clothing purchases (for example), they should look only at the quality. Disregarding entirely the moral and ethical considerations as to whether that item of clothes was made by (paper towel people, use and discard) slave labor, or by decently treated, and paid, free people.
Would you care to "Repent" of your faulty logic.
should be the quality and usefulness of the software, not the license behind,
Typical lying <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing" title="wikipedia.org">astroturfer</a wikipedia.org> trying to insinuate that the license isn't an an important part of the featureset of a program.
Licenses matter. What you can do with the software matters. Freedom matters.
"Might as well make arguments that free software is better for lesbians, or african americans, or people with false teeth."
BINGO! Right on the button there,sir, you have it exactly right. All those groups should indeed evaluate their use of proprietary systems such as your Mac, and you are very keen and perceptive to realize how they should be looking at FOSS for exactly the same reasons, key among them the ensuring universal and perpetual access to their information.
Hollywood blockbusters, on the other hand, have an expected useful lifetime of approximately 3 days (one weekend) with perhaps a further 6 weeks in premium rental; the lucky few get another few months in sleeper-ville rentals before being completely eclipsed by the next Greatest Movie Ever, and thus, for this very same very logical reason, Hollywood has no need, requirement or even desire to encode their work in open and trade-friendly formats. It's just not good for business. cf the astounding success of Nintendo and other cartridge-based gaming systems vs the relative paucity of PC/Mac gaming moguls.
I dare you to tell Microsoft and Apple that their licenses don't matter to you.
And I dare you to tell them that their software is so good, you'll share it with everybody.
And then I'll see you in court.
If their licenses matter to them (M$ and Apple), then they better matter to you, too.
And I dare you to tell them that their software is so good, you'll share it with everybody.
And then I'll see you in court.
If their licenses matter to them (M$ and Apple), then they better matter to you, too.
I think your view of the issue is rather obtuse and uninformed if you're trying to say that software license doesn't matter. Like it or not, most of us live in a society where various intellectual property laws hold sway.
The point of Free software is not strictly how good or bad it is, but what you are allowed to do with it from a legal perspective. Those of us who truly believe in Free software probably think it to be quite sinister that it would be illegal to modify or redistribute software. Our primary concern are social benefits.
Your primary concern is private benefit--use whatever is convenient, you say. This helps you get the job done right now, but proprietary software may spell out more long term complications for you in the future (ie end of support, forced upgrades, cost of relicensing, etc). Also, by using proprietary software, you're not strengthening the community; it's not imperative that you do that, but Free software advocates certainly prefer it.
What the article is concerned with is pointing out a similarities between Stallman's philosophy and the catholic viewpoint. This is an interesting comparison because both have similar concerns for humanity and have definite stands on ethics. Both try to provide moral guidance and have a broad and diverse following.
Lesbians and people with false teeth intrinsically serve no such purpose. For sociological purposes, it might be interesting to study Free software in those communities, but I doubt anything interesting would turn up.
The point of Free software is not strictly how good or bad it is, but what you are allowed to do with it from a legal perspective. Those of us who truly believe in Free software probably think it to be quite sinister that it would be illegal to modify or redistribute software. Our primary concern are social benefits.
Your primary concern is private benefit--use whatever is convenient, you say. This helps you get the job done right now, but proprietary software may spell out more long term complications for you in the future (ie end of support, forced upgrades, cost of relicensing, etc). Also, by using proprietary software, you're not strengthening the community; it's not imperative that you do that, but Free software advocates certainly prefer it.
What the article is concerned with is pointing out a similarities between Stallman's philosophy and the catholic viewpoint. This is an interesting comparison because both have similar concerns for humanity and have definite stands on ethics. Both try to provide moral guidance and have a broad and diverse following.
Lesbians and people with false teeth intrinsically serve no such purpose. For sociological purposes, it might be interesting to study Free software in those communities, but I doubt anything interesting would turn up.
You're advocating short term, self-centred thinking.
You obviously have absolutely no understanding of the free software movement, and I'd have to say that people like you are why the world has gone to hell.
You obviously have absolutely no understanding of the free software movement, and I'd have to say that people like you are why the world has gone to hell.
See, the thing is there's nothing an African-American person can do about being an African-American person. The theory (and the public rhetoric) states that there's nothing a lesbian can do about being a lesbian (not that she should have to!), that's the way she is; and a person with false teeth isn't going to get their original teeth back in their original state given the current state of dentistry. Belief, on the other hand, is about choice-- the choice to continue believing what one grew up with, or to modify or change that and believe something else, or nothing.
It's the same with software; some of us choose to use Free and Open Source software because, not only do we believe the quality is better (and, yes better than a Mac even-- watch out that's SuSE 10.1 with Xgl whizzing past!) but we believe that we're supporting people who are building a better world starting with the software. Some of us also believe that our God will hold us accountable for the decisions we make here and now and that these decisions are better served and better made by using Free and Open Source Software. It's our decision and we happen to believe this has everything to do with anything.
To make a decision not in accordance with one's own worldview would seem to be the height of irrationality and should bear much more skeptical scrutiny.
It's the same with software; some of us choose to use Free and Open Source software because, not only do we believe the quality is better (and, yes better than a Mac even-- watch out that's SuSE 10.1 with Xgl whizzing past!) but we believe that we're supporting people who are building a better world starting with the software. Some of us also believe that our God will hold us accountable for the decisions we make here and now and that these decisions are better served and better made by using Free and Open Source Software. It's our decision and we happen to believe this has everything to do with anything.
To make a decision not in accordance with one's own worldview would seem to be the height of irrationality and should bear much more skeptical scrutiny.
join the feast, plenty of software to go around
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 16, 2006 05:58 PM
I think one of the reasons we all refer to the software in the open source spectrum as "free software" is partially because we wish to not restrict it's access. Again I believe we want everybody to have a chance to create, change, distribute and enjoy (the ideal) free software, irregardless of creed, nationality or religion.
Sharing is a core concept of all the major religions and possibly a core human trait. I don't see why Religion and Free Software can't get along, unless a religion decides to restrict free software from others.
Furthermore, Religion is something which can not be logically proved or disproved, thus requiring faith (read: belief). That said, I think individuals on “tech sites” should avoid asserting true/false answers as "the final answer" on religion and stick to more philosophical discussions pertaining to the concept of religion.
Sharing is a core concept of all the major religions and possibly a core human trait. I don't see why Religion and Free Software can't get along, unless a religion decides to restrict free software from others.
Furthermore, Religion is something which can not be logically proved or disproved, thus requiring faith (read: belief). That said, I think individuals on “tech sites” should avoid asserting true/false answers as "the final answer" on religion and stick to more philosophical discussions pertaining to the concept of religion.
That may be your interpretation, but the person who actually started the Free Software movement (created the GPL, started the Free Software Foundation, wrote the first Free software) did it to protect four specific freedoms:
(<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html" title="gnu.org">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html</a gnu.org>)
This extra access might be a nice side effect, but it has nothing to do with the historical reasons we call it Free software. Open source didn't come until later. If you call a Free software package "Open Source," (or vice versa, you'd best check with the actual developers) you're getting into revisionist history.
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
(<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html" title="gnu.org">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html</a gnu.org>)
This extra access might be a nice side effect, but it has nothing to do with the historical reasons we call it Free software. Open source didn't come until later. If you call a Free software package "Open Source," (or vice versa, you'd best check with the actual developers) you're getting into revisionist history.
Re:join the feast, plenty of software to go around
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 18, 2006 05:11 PM
Most faiths, incl. many forms of atheism, are concerned with sharing the good news (or spreading the truth, whether it's good news or not) as far as possible, as fast as possible. But not all. In the historical mystery religions as well as some modern belief systems like scientology, there are levels of initiation. And there are degrees to this as with everything else.
I was really disappointed when the Mary Mary CD "Incredible" had a note with "will not play on mac or PC" on it. I was even more disappointed that it broke my old cd-rom when I tried. What way is that of spreading the gospel?
-- Vintermann
I was really disappointed when the Mary Mary CD "Incredible" had a note with "will not play on mac or PC" on it. I was even more disappointed that it broke my old cd-rom when I tried. What way is that of spreading the gospel?
-- Vintermann
This kind of discussion is, quite frankly, scary. I would have to question the mentality of the person who deems it necessary to relate a software license to a religious doctrine.
Right, nothing more terrifying than living a life based on ethical beliefs. Hide quick! Here comes a cadre of vegetarians, volunteer firemen, and nuns!
That is hardly the same thing but never mind. On the subject of ethics and morals, you do not have to subscribe to any religious belief or organised religion to live such a life, in fact it is probably easier to do so as you don't feel the need to look at every part of your life and apply waht you have been taught to it, you can just use some good old common sense!
Did anybody in this discussion actually say that you need religion to have morality? Didn't think so. You're completely right, but jumping on anyone who asserts religious belief isn't very pleasant of you.
Why not? That's what you do when you have morals and values - you question the boundaries. Frankly, I'm scared that you couldn't see it that way.
then you must forgive me then because I do not see "living a life of morals and values", as you see it, as relevent in this context, and most certainly "questioning the boundaries" is not. I just see a place for "common" sense...but maybe being "common" is something that you do not wish to associate yourself with!
Free Software is in the best interests of the Church because it is the closest representation of Jesus's teachings. He was the first person to say (paraphrasing) "To each by his needs/from each by his means." Teachers in America teach that this came from Karl Marx, who wrote about the communist philosophy. These same teachers even talk about how Christianity and Capitalism go hand in hand....for a good example of that argument go to drdino.com. The teachings of Christ want each person to help out as best as they are able... hence the free software being developed by all sorts of people and as people have need of the software, the people in need accept it, use it, modify it, etcetera. In contrast to the communist idea that a government FORCE people to "volunteer" to help... the free software movement, by the efforts of the volunteer work from around the world is the essence of Christian Doctrine
Judging by your response, you are a Free Software advocate. Since you brought up Kent Hovind's (drdino.com) name, and you are obviously a supporter of his. Perhaps you could engage in a bit of free software evangelism with Dr. Hovind.
I heard him on the S.W. a couple of months back, commenting on how listeners who were interested in setting up a creation vs. evolution ministry of their own, should use Microsoft Office for making their presentations.
He didn't just add MS Office to a list of possible choices. No, that's all he named, and further he "highly recommended Microsoft Office".
The omission entirely of Open Office.org and it's Impress presentation software as an option is unforgivable "period"!
When you further consider that Dr, Hovind is an anti New World Order (NWO) advocate. Which Microsoft is clearly, deeply involved (treacherous computing to track and control everyone on earth). His "strong" advocacy of the beast's further locking-in, and control of even christian evangelists is at it's best discouraging. Counter to, and working against his own core christian beliefs .
Christians had better realize (pretty quick!) that they need to start evangelizing their core principles in the real world, on practical matters. Where the rubber meets the road so-to-speak.
Now get out there and take on the Beast!
I heard him on the S.W. a couple of months back, commenting on how listeners who were interested in setting up a creation vs. evolution ministry of their own, should use Microsoft Office for making their presentations.
He didn't just add MS Office to a list of possible choices. No, that's all he named, and further he "highly recommended Microsoft Office".
The omission entirely of Open Office.org and it's Impress presentation software as an option is unforgivable "period"!
When you further consider that Dr, Hovind is an anti New World Order (NWO) advocate. Which Microsoft is clearly, deeply involved (treacherous computing to track and control everyone on earth). His "strong" advocacy of the beast's further locking-in, and control of even christian evangelists is at it's best discouraging. Counter to, and working against his own core christian beliefs .
Christians had better realize (pretty quick!) that they need to start evangelizing their core principles in the real world, on practical matters. Where the rubber meets the road so-to-speak.
Now get out there and take on the Beast!
Maybe it is just me but the original poster seemed to be taking the stance that drdino.com was an example of what is a WRONG association of tech and religion. It sounds like you're preaching to the choir.
Hovind also uses Windows Media (wmv) formats "exclusively" for distributing his downloadable video presentations.
Fighting Microsoft's software and media format hedgemony, is a far more imortant issue than debating competing "theories" of humanities origins. A society under totalitarian control of a cabal of self styled, global masters of the universe. Won't have much use in the knowledge that some dinosaur's nostrils were too small to survive (breath) in our current atmospheric pressures.
It's great to debate these issues. They add some legitimate points that Darwinists need to address regarding their "theory". But don't promote the use of Microsoft products in the process. There are, after all, viable alternatives (Xvid-OOo) that can be used instead!
Someone needs to slap this guy (Hovind) up-side-the-head with a clue stick.
Fighting Microsoft's software and media format hedgemony, is a far more imortant issue than debating competing "theories" of humanities origins. A society under totalitarian control of a cabal of self styled, global masters of the universe. Won't have much use in the knowledge that some dinosaur's nostrils were too small to survive (breath) in our current atmospheric pressures.
It's great to debate these issues. They add some legitimate points that Darwinists need to address regarding their "theory". But don't promote the use of Microsoft products in the process. There are, after all, viable alternatives (Xvid-OOo) that can be used instead!
Someone needs to slap this guy (Hovind) up-side-the-head with a clue stick.
You make a strong, and fair, argument not only that Free Software is in the spirit of Jesus's teachings but also in the true spirit of marxism. Why Free Software advocates push back on that is ridiculous. FSF followers don't want to be associated with the corruption of communism, yet they are blind to RMS's own (Linux vs. GNU/Linux for example).
The trouble with the argument is when it extends to the Church. The Church stopped concerning itself with the true spirit of Jesus's teachings long, long ago. If the article had referred to true christians then I might have agreed. The Catholic Church symbolizes greed and power, not the charity of Jesus, so I would associate it more with Microsoft than the FSF.
The trouble with the argument is when it extends to the Church. The Church stopped concerning itself with the true spirit of Jesus's teachings long, long ago. If the article had referred to true christians then I might have agreed. The Catholic Church symbolizes greed and power, not the charity of Jesus, so I would associate it more with Microsoft than the FSF.
I appreciate the responses including those involving Kent Hovind's name. The reason that I pointed to his website was because of his observations about different forms of government...cows in particular. For the site <a href="http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec=80" title="drdino.com">http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec=80</a drdino.com>. This site has been updated since I read this a long while back, but it still makes for a good point. He is a leader of a CHRISTIAN-based movement, yet by ignoring Free Software (or perhaps not being aware of it), he opens himself up to claims of greed or avarice. But for all we know, Bill Gates or some community leader where he lives "donated" the software for his use.
In terms of human government, I love living under the capitalist government of the United States. However, it is not the government's place to enforce monopolistic trade practices, ie using MS OFFICE as its sole document format. This is true especially in the face of so MANY viable alternatives. Sun Microsystems is US owned and operated but I see the US doing nothing to promote the use of StarOffice (or OpenOffice). Now a document standard has emerged and the government still wants to use MSOFFICE? This is laughable. And so many in the Christian Community buy into this same notion that they have to use Microsoft software....
I don't mind Mr. Hovind endorsing MS products as his only choice; after all, he is like so many others who just walk into a computer store and picks up a preloaded system. Having been a school teacher, he probably had MSOFFICE software long before OOo became available. The real question is, HOW DO WE, who use this stuff daily, CONVINCE SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, ETC TO USE THE "FREE" COMPUTER SOFTWARE.
My first step was to take a copy of STAROFFICE 7 and donate it to the church that I attend (which has a christian school) for thier office suite of choice. They picked up on it in no time.
In terms of human government, I love living under the capitalist government of the United States. However, it is not the government's place to enforce monopolistic trade practices, ie using MS OFFICE as its sole document format. This is true especially in the face of so MANY viable alternatives. Sun Microsystems is US owned and operated but I see the US doing nothing to promote the use of StarOffice (or OpenOffice). Now a document standard has emerged and the government still wants to use MSOFFICE? This is laughable. And so many in the Christian Community buy into this same notion that they have to use Microsoft software....
I don't mind Mr. Hovind endorsing MS products as his only choice; after all, he is like so many others who just walk into a computer store and picks up a preloaded system. Having been a school teacher, he probably had MSOFFICE software long before OOo became available. The real question is, HOW DO WE, who use this stuff daily, CONVINCE SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, ETC TO USE THE "FREE" COMPUTER SOFTWARE.
My first step was to take a copy of STAROFFICE 7 and donate it to the church that I attend (which has a christian school) for thier office suite of choice. They picked up on it in no time.
It is a common misconception to link Marxist philosophy to the events portrayed in Acts, chapter 5. There is a significant difference, however. As demonstrated by countries where Marxists have gained control, the act of "giving according to one's ability" is not an option. Citizens of the former USSR, or of Cuba, or North Korea, or Cambodia had/have no control over their lives. Communist Party functionaries DETERMINE how much income you'll recieve, where you shall live, what jobs you shall do, and how much you'll be paid to do them. There is no volunteerism in these situations. Failure to comply can lead to imprisonment or even death.
As recorded in Acts, when people sold things and gave the money to the Church they gave ALL the sale price to the Church. A man and his wife sold some land and gave PART of the price to the church, leaving the impression that they had donated ALL of the sale price to the Church. Peter told him that while he owned the land it was his to do with as he pleased. And, after he sold the land it was his money to do with as he pleased. But, donating only part of the price without saying it was only part of the price was lying. Worse, it was lying to God. A person may lie to others and deceive them, but by lying to GOd he only deceives himself.
One does not have to be religious to realize that self deception is the worst deception of all.
As recorded in Acts, when people sold things and gave the money to the Church they gave ALL the sale price to the Church. A man and his wife sold some land and gave PART of the price to the church, leaving the impression that they had donated ALL of the sale price to the Church. Peter told him that while he owned the land it was his to do with as he pleased. And, after he sold the land it was his money to do with as he pleased. But, donating only part of the price without saying it was only part of the price was lying. Worse, it was lying to God. A person may lie to others and deceive them, but by lying to GOd he only deceives himself.
One does not have to be religious to realize that self deception is the worst deception of all.
In MY humble opinion, it's not so much the teachings of Jesus that has lead to the affinity the Catholic (or any other) Church has for Free Software. The Church, like many other businesses, has discovered that Free Software makes good financial sense.
First, the initial outlay of money for software can be a major investment for any business. Hundreds of dollars for each "seat" to be equipped with operating system and "office productivity" software can easily exceed the cost of the hardware at each desk. This is particularly true for smaller businesses and individual parishes, where the cost would be over $450 for each computer.
While "for profit" businesses generally count every moment of an employee's time as a drain on profits, churches and other non-profit organizations are usually able to retain a sizable volunteer workforce. That means that the labor is, for practical purposes, free, or $0/hour.
Which brings me to my second point. Since some free software MAY take longer to load, store or work in general, and since "time is money", businesses may wish to evaluate how much extra time (money) they're spending on one software package vs. another. Note that some proprietary software MAY actually take longer than the free stuff!
The "cost" in time could include installation, training, actual usage, and reliability. Don't forget those times when the system is knocked out by viruses/'bots/etc., and the corruption of files or slowdown of computer resources because of it. So any "extra" time that the workers might experience in moving to Free Software (mostly installation & training) or the possibility of the software being "slower" might actually be negligible, since the workers' time is essentially "free".
For churches and other non-profit organizations, the move to Free Software should be a "no-brainer". Should they be spending hundreds of dollars for software which do the same job as free software? Only if they don't want those extra dollars going to help the people for which the organization is supposed to be committed to helping.
First, the initial outlay of money for software can be a major investment for any business. Hundreds of dollars for each "seat" to be equipped with operating system and "office productivity" software can easily exceed the cost of the hardware at each desk. This is particularly true for smaller businesses and individual parishes, where the cost would be over $450 for each computer.
While "for profit" businesses generally count every moment of an employee's time as a drain on profits, churches and other non-profit organizations are usually able to retain a sizable volunteer workforce. That means that the labor is, for practical purposes, free, or $0/hour.
Which brings me to my second point. Since some free software MAY take longer to load, store or work in general, and since "time is money", businesses may wish to evaluate how much extra time (money) they're spending on one software package vs. another. Note that some proprietary software MAY actually take longer than the free stuff!
The "cost" in time could include installation, training, actual usage, and reliability. Don't forget those times when the system is knocked out by viruses/'bots/etc., and the corruption of files or slowdown of computer resources because of it. So any "extra" time that the workers might experience in moving to Free Software (mostly installation & training) or the possibility of the software being "slower" might actually be negligible, since the workers' time is essentially "free".
For churches and other non-profit organizations, the move to Free Software should be a "no-brainer". Should they be spending hundreds of dollars for software which do the same job as free software? Only if they don't want those extra dollars going to help the people for which the organization is supposed to be committed to helping.
catholics != christians means that Catholics are NOT Christians, which is utterly ridiculous.
Did you mean to say,
Catholics are a proper subset of Christians?
Did you mean to say,
Catholics are a proper subset of Christians?
Mmm, can't really see how you manage to reconcile a politically-oriented power-grabbing organisation with the free software values.
catholics != christians
catholics != christians
Christianity (and Islam, and any religion which re-focuses human attention towards the specialness of other humans, and therefore ripens them up for subjugation) is about as far from God as you can get.
Christ (and Mohammed, and etc) is a wall between humans and God.
Christianity (all organized religions) is nothing more than another political party, and a fascist one at that.
Christ (and Mohammed, and etc) is a wall between humans and God.
Christianity (all organized religions) is nothing more than another political party, and a fascist one at that.
"Christianity (all organized religions) is nothing more than another political party, and a fascist one at that."
It's very disingenuous of you to suggest that *all* Christians are inclusive to a fascist political party. There are many that claim to be Christians that are not. Jimmy Carter is a good example of this.
Apparently you have missed a major part of what it means to be Christian. Christ made a way for us to communicate with God directly instead of having to go through a high priest... or, for that matter, the local Catholic priest as in the confession.
Not only that, Christianity is the one religion that focuses on the "specialness" of God instead of humanity. The "rules" that you feel are subjugating are there to show us our need for God, not a path to be walked by ourselves in the hope that we can one day attain some sort of righteousness that would be acceptable.
Not only that, Christianity is the one religion that focuses on the "specialness" of God instead of humanity. The "rules" that you feel are subjugating are there to show us our need for God, not a path to be walked by ourselves in the hope that we can one day attain some sort of righteousness that would be acceptable.
Apparently you have missed a major part of being human. Christ was a man, nothing more. No human is divine, in any manner. To state otherwise is to blaspheme God. If there is such a thing, then Christ essentially is Satan.
Christ himself equated himself with God. That's what got him executed.
"Believe me," said Jesus, "I am who I am long before Abraham was anything." John 8:58
This phrase "I am who I am" is a play on words, referring back to when God told Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " Ex. 3:14.
There are several other times when Jesus claimed to be God. You're therefore accusing Christ of blaspheming God, which puts you square in the camp of his accusers who had him executed.
Just thought you should know (since you apparently are unfamiliar with the claims of Christianity).
"Believe me," said Jesus, "I am who I am long before Abraham was anything." John 8:58
This phrase "I am who I am" is a play on words, referring back to when God told Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " Ex. 3:14.
There are several other times when Jesus claimed to be God. You're therefore accusing Christ of blaspheming God, which puts you square in the camp of his accusers who had him executed.
Just thought you should know (since you apparently are unfamiliar with the claims of Christianity).
Yes, we do realize the disease of Christianity has unfortunately spread beyond borders, as all diseases tend to do.
While some of the core ideas found in free software, such as sharing and self-preservation, may share some of the values of Christianity, it's certainly not exclusive to other religions such as Buddhism or even, *gasp!*, a non-religious group. This is a good reason for caution, not open endorsement.
From the author, re:Drawing short parallel lines
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 17, 2006 03:43 PM
While some of the core ideas found in free software, such as sharing and self-preservation, may share some of the values of Christianity, it's certainly not exclusive to other religions...
Of course. I agree.
Of course. I agree.
When I wrote <a href="http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/11/03/1643243&tid=31" title="newsforge.com">Surprising Affinity> </a newsforge.com> a reader told me privately that, for exactly the same reason, it would have been great if I could write a whole series, comparing every time a major (membership wise) religion with Free Software philosophy.
My answer to you is the same I gave him back then. I agree, and I would be very interested in reading such articles, but I'm probably not the right person to write them.
Christianity (Catholicism) is something I know, something I personally believe in. So, when I quote the official documents I have quoted, I can do it with some confidence that I "got" them, and that I am not taking something completely out of context.
On a related note, presenting to Catholics some proposals based on official Catholic documents is one thing. It is a well defined task addressing a well defined "target" with arguments only binding for that target. By a member of that same group.
Presenting the same proposals to any other religion, using the same documents as proof, would be, at the very least, pretty, er, inconvenient, even if some of the basic concepts are indeed the same.
Therefore, yes, pursuing this same issue inside other religions would make sense and would be good. But is something which must be left "as an exercise for each reader".
Thanks for your interest,
Marco Fioretti
I think the reason why you find so much resistance in forums such as this regarding anything vaguely connected to religion is the mistaken connection between geekyness, intelligence and atheism. It has been shown that geekyness and a high degree of skill with computers and technology implies a higher than normal intelligence and level of education. The faulty assumption however is that intelligence and education preclude any kind of serious belief in religion. Therefore, geeks are supposed to abhor anything vaguely connected with religion or a belief in a higher power. For example, look at any discussion about "Intelligent Design" on a forum like Slashdot or here on Newsforge.
While I would certainly agree that religions of every stripe have been used throughout the history of mankind as effective ways to controll the uneducated masses, I would propose that it is possible to be smart (geeky) and still believe in God. I'm sure that there are plenty of people here who would love to try to flame you into oblivion (as you have already seen in the responses to your articles), but they are only speaking from their own rather narrow view of the universe.
You are making the common error of equating a distaste for RELIGION with a lack of belief in God (atheism).
Poll after poll show that 98% of Americans believe in God. But many, many of us HATE religion, with a passion. The ostensibly conflicting ideas are easily reconciled once you understand that those who hold both thoughts (God is great, but religion sucks) believe religious belief should be a personal thing and have no influence in the public or political spheres.
All public manifestations of religion seem to quickly devolve into equivalents to political parties. One needs look no further than the warring factions in the Middle East, the Hindus and Sikhs etc in Asia, the Northern Ireland conflict, and Saint Holier-than-thou George W Bush to see this.
Intelligent people dislike organized religion, because we are smart enough to recognize the many twisted forms it develops and the awful evils it perpetrates upon the world. I can say quite loudly and clearly that Christianity completely sucks, yet in the same breath note that I devoutly believe in God.
Skeptical of religion? Hell yes.
Atheist? Hell no.
Poll after poll show that 98% of Americans believe in God. But many, many of us HATE religion, with a passion. The ostensibly conflicting ideas are easily reconciled once you understand that those who hold both thoughts (God is great, but religion sucks) believe religious belief should be a personal thing and have no influence in the public or political spheres.
All public manifestations of religion seem to quickly devolve into equivalents to political parties. One needs look no further than the warring factions in the Middle East, the Hindus and Sikhs etc in Asia, the Northern Ireland conflict, and Saint Holier-than-thou George W Bush to see this.
Intelligent people dislike organized religion, because we are smart enough to recognize the many twisted forms it develops and the awful evils it perpetrates upon the world. I can say quite loudly and clearly that Christianity completely sucks, yet in the same breath note that I devoutly believe in God.
Skeptical of religion? Hell yes.
Atheist? Hell no.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
Poll data can be skewed by a multiple of factors to achieve the desired results. If you're really intelligent, you'd learn not to trust them for that alone.
Intelligent people also wouldn't so readily group all religions into the same category as "evil". That's too simplistic and recklessly dismissive.
What "God" do you believe in? Slamming Christianity and then using the word "devoutly" in the same sentence is an oxymoron in and of itself.
Poll data can be skewed by a multiple of factors to achieve the desired results. If you're really intelligent, you'd learn not to trust them for that alone.
Intelligent people also wouldn't so readily group all religions into the same category as "evil". That's too simplistic and recklessly dismissive.
What "God" do you believe in? Slamming Christianity and then using the word "devoutly" in the same sentence is an oxymoron in and of itself.
Like so many "Christians", you are equating Christianity with God. Wrong; tell that to any Muslim, Baha'i, Jew, Hindu, or Wiccan.
Christianity does NOT equal God. It is one way to worship God, but certainly not the only way. Far too often "Christians" try to stuff their specific church down my throat, which is one reason why I believe, as former Gov. Jesse Ventura believes, that organized religion is a "crutch for the weak-minded." Churches are social clubs, the members of which, *far* too often, do not actually follow Christ's teachings, regardless of their rhetoric to the contrary. I meet them every day at work, in stores, etc. I call them "the Christian Club" to distinguish them from real Christians like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mother Teresa.
That said, there are some things that, like for Stallman, some religious leaders have said that make sense to me. That's great, and I take that wisdom and do what I can to include it. Jesus absolutely supported community spiritual development, but was--literally, in his case--holy terror on hypocrites ("let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone").
I'm quite confident that Jesus would see the development, promotion, and use of Free Software as right in line with his teachings. Why? Whether you believe Jesus was the Son of God or not (I, for example, don't), he was the definition of what a good person is. Among other things, good people help their neighbors when they can. One manifestation of that is the development, usage, and promotion of Free Software, but not on financial grounds, but rather on ethical and moral grounds. Jesus believed in the freedom to choose your direction in life, without some king getting in the way. In the case of software and computers, and I think other ways as well, so does Stallman. For similar reasons, I use and promote Free Software any chance I get.
Christianity does NOT equal God. It is one way to worship God, but certainly not the only way. Far too often "Christians" try to stuff their specific church down my throat, which is one reason why I believe, as former Gov. Jesse Ventura believes, that organized religion is a "crutch for the weak-minded." Churches are social clubs, the members of which, *far* too often, do not actually follow Christ's teachings, regardless of their rhetoric to the contrary. I meet them every day at work, in stores, etc. I call them "the Christian Club" to distinguish them from real Christians like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mother Teresa.
That said, there are some things that, like for Stallman, some religious leaders have said that make sense to me. That's great, and I take that wisdom and do what I can to include it. Jesus absolutely supported community spiritual development, but was--literally, in his case--holy terror on hypocrites ("let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone").
I'm quite confident that Jesus would see the development, promotion, and use of Free Software as right in line with his teachings. Why? Whether you believe Jesus was the Son of God or not (I, for example, don't), he was the definition of what a good person is. Among other things, good people help their neighbors when they can. One manifestation of that is the development, usage, and promotion of Free Software, but not on financial grounds, but rather on ethical and moral grounds. Jesus believed in the freedom to choose your direction in life, without some king getting in the way. In the case of software and computers, and I think other ways as well, so does Stallman. For similar reasons, I use and promote Free Software any chance I get.
"Like so many "Christians", you are equating Christianity with God. Wrong; tell that to any Muslim, Baha'i, Jew, Hindu, or Wiccan. Christianity does NOT equal God. "
Sorry, but that sounds like a pretty pedantic view. Of course believers of a certain faith believe their way is the "true" way of worshiping their creator. I am a Christian (i.e. Christ follower), therefore, I believe in CHRIST as my personal lord and savior. I wouldn't expect a Muslim, Jew, Budhist, etc to believe that Christ is God anymore than they would expect me to believe in "their" God. Turn those same cticial eyes on your own views as well as the "other" major religions and you'll see they often share a common view: Their view is the "true" understanding of God.
Are you trying to imply that MLK didn't view Jesus as the Son of God? Of course he did, or at least my interpetation of his writings suggest as much...did he actively condemn "other" faiths, not that I'm aware of, but by being a Christian (and calling himself such) he believed that Jesus was the Son of God and the only way to salvation.
I don't consider myself a "Religious person", but I am a person of faith. I believe in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour, however, I don't feel the need to "cram" it down everyones throat that I meet. But I surely express my views/opinions on all things from my Christian perspective. I often like to quote that "The only thing wrong with Churches (Religion?) is that they are run by people"...people who are naturally sinful.
jps
Sorry, but that sounds like a pretty pedantic view. Of course believers of a certain faith believe their way is the "true" way of worshiping their creator. I am a Christian (i.e. Christ follower), therefore, I believe in CHRIST as my personal lord and savior. I wouldn't expect a Muslim, Jew, Budhist, etc to believe that Christ is God anymore than they would expect me to believe in "their" God. Turn those same cticial eyes on your own views as well as the "other" major religions and you'll see they often share a common view: Their view is the "true" understanding of God.
Are you trying to imply that MLK didn't view Jesus as the Son of God? Of course he did, or at least my interpetation of his writings suggest as much...did he actively condemn "other" faiths, not that I'm aware of, but by being a Christian (and calling himself such) he believed that Jesus was the Son of God and the only way to salvation.
I don't consider myself a "Religious person", but I am a person of faith. I believe in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour, however, I don't feel the need to "cram" it down everyones throat that I meet. But I surely express my views/opinions on all things from my Christian perspective. I often like to quote that "The only thing wrong with Churches (Religion?) is that they are run by people"...people who are naturally sinful.
jps
So, my last point came across as arrogant. It was late and a regrettable mistake. My apologies.
It's a false assumption to conclude that all Christians are blinded by credulousness. It's entirely possible to have intellectuals that hold Christian beliefs. One prominent example would be C.S. Lewis. I also have many Christian friends that I respect for their intellectual abilities and at the same time feel comfortable enough to challenge them.
Maybe you should actually meet with one of these "Christians" and challenge them on their methods with their own scriptures.
It's a false assumption to conclude that all Christians are blinded by credulousness. It's entirely possible to have intellectuals that hold Christian beliefs. One prominent example would be C.S. Lewis. I also have many Christian friends that I respect for their intellectual abilities and at the same time feel comfortable enough to challenge them.
Maybe you should actually meet with one of these "Christians" and challenge them on their methods with their own scriptures.
Whether you believe Jesus was the Son of God or not (I, for example, don't), he was the definition of what a good person is.
If you don't believe Jesus was the Son of God, then you don't believe Jesus himself. See John 14:1-10. If he wasn't the Son of God, he was a lunatic.
Bingo - you finally figured it out. Any human who calls himself divine - and any human who believes another human is divine - are lunatics.
You said - "Whether you believe Jesus was the Son of God or not (I, for example, don't), he was the definition of what a good person is."
And that is exactly how the founding fathers thought about Jesus, as opposed to the propaganda of so-called Christians who engage in revisionist history, try to term America a "judeo-christian" country, and try to force their religion/politics on others, in the same way all religions everywhere regrettably do.
The founding fathers thought of Jesus as nothing more than an example of a good man. If you read their writings, you will see that they essentially thought of him as we nowadays think of someone like Mother Theresa - an example of a good person, a "saint," if you want to call it that. But the only such example? The only "lord and savior"? Divine, in the way God is divine? They did not see it that way.
To gain money and political power folks like Pat Robertson nowadays pretend they (Robertson) see it that way, but that has nothing to do with what our country was founded on.
And that is exactly how the founding fathers thought about Jesus, as opposed to the propaganda of so-called Christians who engage in revisionist history, try to term America a "judeo-christian" country, and try to force their religion/politics on others, in the same way all religions everywhere regrettably do.
The founding fathers thought of Jesus as nothing more than an example of a good man. If you read their writings, you will see that they essentially thought of him as we nowadays think of someone like Mother Theresa - an example of a good person, a "saint," if you want to call it that. But the only such example? The only "lord and savior"? Divine, in the way God is divine? They did not see it that way.
To gain money and political power folks like Pat Robertson nowadays pretend they (Robertson) see it that way, but that has nothing to do with what our country was founded on.
It is you who are engaging in revisionist history. Many (all?) of the members to the Continental Congress were members of their local chuches. Also, most early pilgrims to the Americas came here to escape the religious persecution of the Church of England. Sadly, many of those same persons resorted to persecuting others who didn't share their same (read: exact) Judeo-Christian view of the world.
I fail to see how a view that does not include any religion, (and is more open to all views) is more narrow than the view of one group of people defined by a constricted set of beliefs. In other words, somebody who is willing to look at all points of view is a narrow minded geek, while a catholic (defined by a clear set of beliefs like belief in Jesus only, not to mention things like abortion etc) has a broad minded view.
What is obnoxious about articles like this is not the use of religion. Frankly, I couldn't care. What really gets me is the moral condescension. We have beliefs, therefore we are better. If you don't believe me, look at the first paragraph. If you are a geek, you do not have a social life (therefore you are inferior). This article like the author's last one is so patronising.
Interesting to see how he twists everything people say to fit his own doctrine. That is broad minded for you.
That is a problem with religious views. It is based on belief, not on facts or evidence. Therefore, everything needs to be twisted to fit that belief system. That is why no religion will agree with anybody else.
It may be useful to argue ethics. Religion is best kept out of forums like these.
Good Day.
What is obnoxious about articles like this is not the use of religion. Frankly, I couldn't care. What really gets me is the moral condescension. We have beliefs, therefore we are better. If you don't believe me, look at the first paragraph. If you are a geek, you do not have a social life (therefore you are inferior). This article like the author's last one is so patronising.
Interesting to see how he twists everything people say to fit his own doctrine. That is broad minded for you.
That is a problem with religious views. It is based on belief, not on facts or evidence. Therefore, everything needs to be twisted to fit that belief system. That is why no religion will agree with anybody else.
It may be useful to argue ethics. Religion is best kept out of forums like these.
Good Day.
What about the scientists and professors that despise any new ideas that might challenge an old one such as evolution. Not my idea of being open minded or "broad" minded as you put it. I guess it all just depends on your perspective, right?
Exclude religion from the forums? Please, you're being completely irrational. If there's a major story to cover that pertains to religion, then they (newsforge.com) reserve the right to cover it.
Exclude religion from the forums? Please, you're being completely irrational. If there's a major story to cover that pertains to religion, then they (newsforge.com) reserve the right to cover it.
I totally agree with the arguemnt about closed minded professors. But their 'closed mindedness' is not the argument here. The argument was in response to the original post by B. Baggins. The claim there was people who criticise the article have narrow minds.
Not excluding religion is your point of view. I respect that. But I am yet to see any constructive outcomes from religious discussions. I am not against religion in forums, only against religion in technical forums.
Not excluding religion is your point of view. I respect that. But I am yet to see any constructive outcomes from religious discussions. I am not against religion in forums, only against religion in technical forums.
I am not against religion in forums, only against religion in technical forums.
We are all equal, only some of us are more equal than others.
We are all equal, only some of us are more equal than others.
I fail to see how a view that does not include any religion, (and is more open to all views) is more narrow than the view of one group of people defined by a constricted set of beliefs. In other words, somebody who is willing to look at all points of view is a narrow minded geek....
How this implies that all Christians are better than all others than FOSS users must become Christians, or simply that this is another reason why any religion is broken, frankly is beyond me.
In order for this argument to be substainable, there should be only one definition of "open" and "constricted set of beliefs". Anyway, with respect to your other comments:
We have beliefs, therefore we are better.
"We don't believe in anything, therefore we are better": does this sentence, as is, makes objectively more sense than yours? (assuming, of course, that that is what my article or the group I mentioned say)
Interesting to see how he twists everything people say to fit his own doctrine. That is broad minded for you.
No, sorry. If anything, I think this comment shows how closed and superficial your mind is. Or, as with many other comments here and on other forums, that you didn't take the time to actually read my articles and their sources. What I wrote can be summed up with two sentences:
- Christians have even more reasons than others to use Free SW THEMSELVES, and some of them are starting to realize it. IN THEIR OWN HOME
- Such reasons aren't exactly some extremely narrow, medieval, bigot, unprovable belief
How this implies that all Christians are better than all others than FOSS users must become Christians, or simply that this is another reason why any religion is broken, frankly is beyond me.
[in a religion]...everything needs to be twisted to fit that belief system. That is why no religion will agree with anybody else.
Please explain how, in this case, religion would be worst than "open" fanatism about sw licenses, Gnome vs KDE, distro wars, political programs, debates on music or sport champions or, basically, the very nature of man.
Otherwise that whole "argument" can (must) simply be ignored/p>
Best Regards,
Marco Fioretti
Re:From the author, Re:Skeptics - A narrow view
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 19, 2006 09:49 PM
We have beliefs, therefore we are better.
"We don't believe in anything, therefore we are better": does this sentence, as is, makes objectively more sense than yours? (assuming, of course, that that is what my article or the group I mentioned say)
That is a clever argument. But that is not how it should be done. The argument should be interpreted as "We have one set of beliefs that make us better". Perhaps I could have expressed it better.
I use free software all the time. Your 2 point summary is very apt. What I dont agree with is "Christians have even more reasons...". It seems to suggest that "Muslims/Buddhists/Hindus/Jews... do not have reasons to use it and somehow chistians are that wee bit better in their ideology. I think that is a problem with religion per se. You can come out as morally superior, even if you don't intend it that way.
About twisting arguments, it applies to everything. That does not mean twisting facts is justified or the other flamewars are justified. I am not claiming that religion is worse. I am not claiming that any one religion is worse. I am only claiming that such expressions are not appropriate in certain forums and when religious expressions are made in such forums, there needs to be extra care in the words used.
Anyway thanks for the considered response.
"We don't believe in anything, therefore we are better": does this sentence, as is, makes objectively more sense than yours? (assuming, of course, that that is what my article or the group I mentioned say)
That is a clever argument. But that is not how it should be done. The argument should be interpreted as "We have one set of beliefs that make us better". Perhaps I could have expressed it better.
I use free software all the time. Your 2 point summary is very apt. What I dont agree with is "Christians have even more reasons...". It seems to suggest that "Muslims/Buddhists/Hindus/Jews... do not have reasons to use it and somehow chistians are that wee bit better in their ideology. I think that is a problem with religion per se. You can come out as morally superior, even if you don't intend it that way.
About twisting arguments, it applies to everything. That does not mean twisting facts is justified or the other flamewars are justified. I am not claiming that religion is worse. I am not claiming that any one religion is worse. I am only claiming that such expressions are not appropriate in certain forums and when religious expressions are made in such forums, there needs to be extra care in the words used.
Anyway thanks for the considered response.
Re:From the author, Re:Skeptics - A narrow view
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 20, 2006 04:25 AM
What I dont agree with is "Christians have even more reasons...". It seems to suggest that "Muslims/Buddhists/Hindus/Jews... do not have reasons to use it and somehow chistians are that wee bit better in their ideology. I think that is a problem with religion per se. You can come out as morally superior, even if you don't intend it that way/.
Thanks for explaining better your point of view. I think one
problem with religion per se is that non religious people, who would
be very balanced in any other contest, feel forced to search hidden traps and accusations with a religious zeal, whenever
they deal with it. Even when they come across a person equipped not
only with a sincere religious faith, but also balance, tolerance,
culture and a generally working brain. Yes, such beasts do exist<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
Take this specific case: You see moral superiority in my sentence
"Christians have even more reason...". Are you sure such a construct
is always and necessarily a compliment, or a sign that who says it
thinks himself superior? To begin with, it could be a compliment only
if one thinks, like us, that FOSS is good.
"Mafia associates have even more reason than others to carry a
weapon"? Can you question this fact, or find any appreciation of Mafia
in it? What about "People with kidney stones have even more reasons
than others to drink regularly"?
I have simply stated what, according to my documented research, is a
fact. Assertion of facts, as the example above show, don't always
carry implicit moral judgements, and this is the exactly the case with
that sentence of mine. I haven't implied anything about other
religions: at the contrary, I have already said in another comment
that if other religions do have similar obligations I'm happy, even if
it's not my task to research them. Now I have to friendly ask: would
you have been so suspicious with any other kind of argument?
Your 2 point summary is very apt
Thanks again. The problem are the people (religious or not) who won't even read that...
Best Regards,
Marco Fioretti
"Please explain how, in this case, religion would be worst than "open" fanatism about sw licenses, Gnome vs KDE, distro wars, political programs, debates on music or sport champions or, basically, the very nature of man."
You're comparing apples and oranges. The other "fanaticism" you are referring to is at least founded in reason at some level. Religion is not.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The other "fanaticism" you are referring to is at least founded in reason at some level. Religion is not.
I didn't see ANY of that in the article. Knee-jerk assuming that anyone who talks about their religion is asserting superiority is... just another form of asserting superiority.
I gave reasons for my arguments. I do not see how that can a "knee jerk" reaction. The author of the article does not seem to think so and is willing to present counter-arguments.
However, you do not present any reasons for your arguments. You suggest that any criticism of religion is wrong. That seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to me.
If you give reasons, I can present counter-arguments or *stand corrected*.
However, you do not present any reasons for your arguments. You suggest that any criticism of religion is wrong. That seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to me.
If you give reasons, I can present counter-arguments or *stand corrected*.
and nothing else. There's actually only a very small group of people who can modify things. The rest of the users are on the free software bandwagon because they are getting a resource for free and it's in their own interest to keep the free software developers enslaved and keep making free software.
Imagine if all the free software developers started charging for their creations - would people still use Free software or run to more familiar Apple or Microsoft Solutions?
This is nothing but a bunch of people who have a good thing going and a bunch of idiotic programmers with no brains for business or value who keep feeding these vultures with free software.
Imagine if all the free software developers started charging for their creations - would people still use Free software or run to more familiar Apple or Microsoft Solutions?
This is nothing but a bunch of people who have a good thing going and a bunch of idiotic programmers with no brains for business or value who keep feeding these vultures with free software.
Is it geeky to be skeptical? No, of course not. Is it a characteristic of geeks that they're skeptical? Probably. We are, after all, thinkers.
As to immediate dismissal of discussing religion in conjunction with the free software movement, that seems a bit irrational and perhaps reflects people's prejudices.
After all, the free software movement is based on ethical precepts. So are the religions of the world. I'd say that there's a fundamental compatibility there. If people want to fit free software ethics within the frame of their religious ethics, why disrespect them?
As to immediate dismissal of discussing religion in conjunction with the free software movement, that seems a bit irrational and perhaps reflects people's prejudices.
After all, the free software movement is based on ethical precepts. So are the religions of the world. I'd say that there's a fundamental compatibility there. If people want to fit free software ethics within the frame of their religious ethics, why disrespect them?
Any value system that does not espouse being selfish must eventually adopt Free software and open standards. To do otherwise would be to drown in hypocrisy.
Re skepticism: skepticism is a prerequisite to mature thought.
Re skepticism: skepticism is a prerequisite to mature thought.
Sorry, but the Catholic Church is so full of themselves it is unreal. Become a Lutheran Christian and be much happier!
I'm a software developer and a darn good one too. I can't afford a 30-year mortgage on a middle class house. Imagine if I had a wife and kids.
I'll gladly write you software for free when you all give me some free land on the beach in my home city, Boca Raton, FL and build me a free house on it (a standard 3-bedroom, 2000 sq ft house will do), put some free furniture in it, fill the fridge with free food (hamburger will do, I don't need Filet Migon), provide free water, sewer, electricity, cell phone, Internet, and DirectTV (I need the Science and Discovery channels, you can skimp on HBO) utilities. Also, I need a free car (a Chevy cavaliar convertible will do) with free auto insurance for myself, a wife (get me a free one), and two kids (I'll make these myself with the free wife).
Also, since I'll be having those kids, I'll need free college education for them. Oh, and of course, free health care, dental, insurance, etc.
As I said, I'm a very good software developer. Seriously, I will write extremely high quality software for FREE if you provide similiarly high quality items listed above for free. Any takers? No? Gee, I guess Christianity only goes one way, eh?
I'll gladly write you software for free when you all give me some free land on the beach in my home city, Boca Raton, FL and build me a free house on it (a standard 3-bedroom, 2000 sq ft house will do), put some free furniture in it, fill the fridge with free food (hamburger will do, I don't need Filet Migon), provide free water, sewer, electricity, cell phone, Internet, and DirectTV (I need the Science and Discovery channels, you can skimp on HBO) utilities. Also, I need a free car (a Chevy cavaliar convertible will do) with free auto insurance for myself, a wife (get me a free one), and two kids (I'll make these myself with the free wife).
Also, since I'll be having those kids, I'll need free college education for them. Oh, and of course, free health care, dental, insurance, etc.
As I said, I'm a very good software developer. Seriously, I will write extremely high quality software for FREE if you provide similiarly high quality items listed above for free. Any takers? No? Gee, I guess Christianity only goes one way, eh?
Sarcastic, silly and pointless. I think my IQ dropped just responding to this nonesense. Look up the definitition of "free" for the above article: <a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html" title="fsf.org">http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html</a fsf.org>
> Sarcastic, silly and pointless. I think my IQ dropped just responding to this nonesense
If you have to look up the definition of "free" than your IQ must not have had far to drop.
Also, beer is not free as in beer. You have to pay for beer.
Also, "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
This implies that you can distribute software without paying the author. If people can get things for free, then will will not pay for it.
Finally, the only reason why open source software is popular is because it is royaltee-free. The popular masses are so techno-phobic that they don't even want to program their VCRs, nonetheless write a MPEG-4 compliant codec.
OSS is nothing more than an attempt to commoditize a product and the only people who make a living from OSS are those who sell non-OSS products that are complimentary to the OSS.
But is is nice to know that there will always be people like you to criticize anyone who disagrees with their agendas.
If you have to look up the definition of "free" than your IQ must not have had far to drop.
Also, beer is not free as in beer. You have to pay for beer.
Also, "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
This implies that you can distribute software without paying the author. If people can get things for free, then will will not pay for it.
Finally, the only reason why open source software is popular is because it is royaltee-free. The popular masses are so techno-phobic that they don't even want to program their VCRs, nonetheless write a MPEG-4 compliant codec.
OSS is nothing more than an attempt to commoditize a product and the only people who make a living from OSS are those who sell non-OSS products that are complimentary to the OSS.
But is is nice to know that there will always be people like you to criticize anyone who disagrees with their agendas.
"If you have to look up the definition of "free" than your IQ must not have had far to drop."
My mistake for trying to help you out since you are clearly not grasping the concept that there are _different_ definitions of free, such as the "free as in freedom" espoused by fsf.org. Here's another place to look so you can hopefully grasp the point...I think you are referring to specifically #10 of 15+ on the list. <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/free" title="m-w.com">http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/free</a m-w.com>
"But is is nice to know that there will always be people like you to criticize anyone who disagrees with their agendas."
Try to understand the agenda first, then criticize it. My only intent was to point out (just as sarcastically as yourself, my bad) that you appeared to be misunderstanding the point of the article and the fsf.org mission, by assuming the author meant free (as in no cost) instead of free (as in freedom). Big difference between the two...
My mistake for trying to help you out since you are clearly not grasping the concept that there are _different_ definitions of free, such as the "free as in freedom" espoused by fsf.org. Here's another place to look so you can hopefully grasp the point...I think you are referring to specifically #10 of 15+ on the list. <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/free" title="m-w.com">http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/free</a m-w.com>
"But is is nice to know that there will always be people like you to criticize anyone who disagrees with their agendas."
Try to understand the agenda first, then criticize it. My only intent was to point out (just as sarcastically as yourself, my bad) that you appeared to be misunderstanding the point of the article and the fsf.org mission, by assuming the author meant free (as in no cost) instead of free (as in freedom). Big difference between the two...
Also, beer is not free as in beer. You have to pay for beer.
That is the point that you seem to miss.
Well, if I didn't pay for the beer, it's free for me, right?
What about Pepsi-Free...does that count?
What about Pepsi-Free...does that count?
"an application of Catholic legal theory that had never occurred to them”.
I was brought up as a catholic and I've heard many catholics tell me how they practice their religion in every part of their life with the implications that this for their righteousness.
Funny then that many of the ethical stances in history are made by atheists.
Was it the pope fighting for the rights of slaves?
No. Abraham Lincoln. Atheist.
Was it the catholic church that risked it's neck in WW2 to rescue jews from the gas chambers?
No. Oskar Schindler. Atheist.
Was it the christians who crafted the GPL by re-interpreting the 10 commandments for the digital age?
No. Richard Stallman. Atheist.
Theists talks the talk.
Atheists walk the walk.
This just about sums it up:
"Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest." — Émile Zola
Allelujah.
I was brought up as a catholic and I've heard many catholics tell me how they practice their religion in every part of their life with the implications that this for their righteousness.
Funny then that many of the ethical stances in history are made by atheists.
Was it the pope fighting for the rights of slaves?
No. Abraham Lincoln. Atheist.
Was it the catholic church that risked it's neck in WW2 to rescue jews from the gas chambers?
No. Oskar Schindler. Atheist.
Was it the christians who crafted the GPL by re-interpreting the 10 commandments for the digital age?
No. Richard Stallman. Atheist.
Theists talks the talk.
Atheists walk the walk.
This just about sums it up:
"Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest." — Émile Zola
Allelujah.
Heh - way to give a biased point of view.
Fighting for the rights of slaves?
William Wilberforce, Christian
Fighting for the Jews in WW2?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christian (among others)
You can have rms for the GPL, given that he invented it, but there are still countless Christians involved in Free Software - Michael Meeks, Gervase Markham, etc
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein.
It's all about perspective.
mrben
<a href="http://www.jedimoose.org/" title="jedimoose.org">http://www.jedimoose.org/</a jedimoose.org>
Fighting for the rights of slaves?
William Wilberforce, Christian
Fighting for the Jews in WW2?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christian (among others)
You can have rms for the GPL, given that he invented it, but there are still countless Christians involved in Free Software - Michael Meeks, Gervase Markham, etc
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein.
It's all about perspective.
mrben
<a href="http://www.jedimoose.org/" title="jedimoose.org">http://www.jedimoose.org/</a jedimoose.org>
"Heh - way to give a biased point of view."
Certain of us who are not religious and who do not consider ourselves the devil's spawn get sick and tired of getting the "religious == moral" message day after day from people who seems conspicuously less generous/kind than other non-religious people we see around us.
When all you hear is "christians are moral" I feel the need to point out that this is pure co-incidence.
theist people are good.
theist people are bad.
atheist people are good.
atheist people are bad.
if you know what a boolean truth table is you can eliminate the redundant variable in this equation.
The cases you point out are valid (although I'd question Einstein's religious conviction). The point is that a person's stated religious conviction is just statistical noise.
As for being selective with my quotes; we can all do that (especially with the bible):
I believe jesus said something about judging people by their actions. I'd like to take that as proof of him being an empiricist.
jesus also reserved his greatest distain for the pharisees. Those that ticked the boxes, followed the law but had a mean heart. So I think he'd be on my side of the argument.
how's that for selective?
Certain of us who are not religious and who do not consider ourselves the devil's spawn get sick and tired of getting the "religious == moral" message day after day from people who seems conspicuously less generous/kind than other non-religious people we see around us.
When all you hear is "christians are moral" I feel the need to point out that this is pure co-incidence.
theist people are good.
theist people are bad.
atheist people are good.
atheist people are bad.
if you know what a boolean truth table is you can eliminate the redundant variable in this equation.
The cases you point out are valid (although I'd question Einstein's religious conviction). The point is that a person's stated religious conviction is just statistical noise.
As for being selective with my quotes; we can all do that (especially with the bible):
I believe jesus said something about judging people by their actions. I'd like to take that as proof of him being an empiricist.
jesus also reserved his greatest distain for the pharisees. Those that ticked the boxes, followed the law but had a mean heart. So I think he'd be on my side of the argument.
how's that for selective?
As far as I can tell, the parent poster COMPLETELY AGREES WITH YOU. By pointing out some ethical religious people, s/he's not asserting that only religious people are ethical, but that religious people can be as ethical as atheists. Sigh... more knee-jerk reaction.
Brilliant idea - have an atheist lecture on concepts he has no stake in. How trite and condescending it is to compare someone's deity with your own ideas about, of all things, code.
Admittedly, it is pretty funny to see all the FOSS evangelists lecturing the real ones on "dogma."
Admittedly, it is pretty funny to see all the FOSS evangelists lecturing the real ones on "dogma."
That's my general feeling whenever the question of specific religions - as opposed to general ethical principals - comes up in connection with Free and Open Source Software.
I should know - I grew up embedded in religion, for better or for worse, and decided most of it was a crock of sh*t once I reached the age of (in)discretion.
Let's approach the question from a slightly different angle than the one you've taken in your article. What are the ethical principles taught - frankly unsuccessfully - by a vast number of religious teachers of all shapes and sizes? What are the ethical standards taught by osmosis in the Sciences - because most scientists aren't aware they follow them? What are the ethical principles the likes of RMS, Perens, etc, insist on?
Now, since there is such a vast area of commonality between all of these areas, why shouldn't specific religions - various denominations of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Paganism, Rastafarianism, etc - use Free and Open Source Software?
To tie Free and Open Source Software to any one "brand" of Christianity, is to deny implicity the freedom of anyone else with equally valid moral convictions and religious traditions, to use it themselves. And at that, my mingled ancestry of pagan Saxon deportees (Carolingian), Dissenters, Conversos (Anousim), Covenanters, and suchlike, rise alike with a hue and cry to overthrow the bloodthirsty tyrant!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
Wesley Parish
P.S. RMS should read "Cain and Beowulf: A Study in Secular Allegory" by David Williams, U of Toronto Press, 1982, if only for sentences like:
"The ceremonial distribution of treasure expressed the nature of civilization itself in that it was a form of communication, a sign of essential bonds existing between men that formed the corner-stone of civilization itself. [...] Hoarding, then, suggests the opposite of this social value of sharing, as does the solitary state of the hoarder, not unlike the state of exile also associated with Cain and his race." pg. 63.
He would find it fascinating.
I should know - I grew up embedded in religion, for better or for worse, and decided most of it was a crock of sh*t once I reached the age of (in)discretion.
Let's approach the question from a slightly different angle than the one you've taken in your article. What are the ethical principles taught - frankly unsuccessfully - by a vast number of religious teachers of all shapes and sizes? What are the ethical standards taught by osmosis in the Sciences - because most scientists aren't aware they follow them? What are the ethical principles the likes of RMS, Perens, etc, insist on?
Now, since there is such a vast area of commonality between all of these areas, why shouldn't specific religions - various denominations of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Paganism, Rastafarianism, etc - use Free and Open Source Software?
To tie Free and Open Source Software to any one "brand" of Christianity, is to deny implicity the freedom of anyone else with equally valid moral convictions and religious traditions, to use it themselves. And at that, my mingled ancestry of pagan Saxon deportees (Carolingian), Dissenters, Conversos (Anousim), Covenanters, and suchlike, rise alike with a hue and cry to overthrow the bloodthirsty tyrant!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
Wesley Parish
P.S. RMS should read "Cain and Beowulf: A Study in Secular Allegory" by David Williams, U of Toronto Press, 1982, if only for sentences like:
"The ceremonial distribution of treasure expressed the nature of civilization itself in that it was a form of communication, a sign of essential bonds existing between men that formed the corner-stone of civilization itself. [...] Hoarding, then, suggests the opposite of this social value of sharing, as does the solitary state of the hoarder, not unlike the state of exile also associated with Cain and his race." pg. 63.
He would find it fascinating.
Now, since there is such a vast area of commonality between all of these areas, why shouldn't specific religions - various denominations of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Paganism, Rastafarianism, etc - use Free and Open Source Software?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...To tie Free and Open Source Software to any one "brand" of Christianity, is to deny implicity the freedom of anyone else with equally valid moral convictions and religious traditions, to use it themselves. And at that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... rise alike with a hue and cry to overthrow the bloodthirsty tyrant!
How this implies that all Christians are better than all others, than all FOSS users should become Christians (or are intrinsically so), than FOSS is more Christian than Buddist or Islamic or everything else (*) or simply that this is another reason why any religion is broken, frankly is beyond me.
Such assertions only rise as proofs
that you felt the need to say something on religion without reading my articles, their sources or the comments I already posted here.
What I wrote can be summed up with two sentences:
- According to their own official teaching, Christians have even more reasons than others to use Free SW THEMSELVES, and some of them are starting to realize it and act accordingly. IN THEIR OWN HOME
- Such reasons aren't exactly some extremely narrow, medieval, bigot, unprovable belief
How this implies that all Christians are better than all others, than all FOSS users should become Christians (or are intrinsically so), than FOSS is more Christian than Buddist or Islamic or everything else (*) or simply that this is another reason why any religion is broken, frankly is beyond me.
Best Regards,
Marco Fioretti
(*) see my other answers in this thread
.... that people can't see beyond the "religious" to the benefit this poses to Free Software.
There were, at last count, about 2 billion Christians in the world. Regardless of your personal beliefs about that particular religion (/faith/belief system) it's a huge niche market that has a moral and ethical framework that is very compatible with Free Software.
If this had been a news item saying "Pope signs contract with MS for a PC in every church" we'd be up in arms.....
Disclaimer: As founder of The Freely Project, I am biased; as a committed Christian, I am biased. However, I have done my best in the Project to avoid making it dependent on belief in anything other than Free Software - the church is a niche market that needs advocated to about FLOSS just as much as any other niche. It just happens to be a niche that I know a lot about.
mrben
<a href="http://www.jedimoose.org/" title="jedimoose.org">http://www.jedimoose.org/</a jedimoose.org>
There were, at last count, about 2 billion Christians in the world. Regardless of your personal beliefs about that particular religion (/faith/belief system) it's a huge niche market that has a moral and ethical framework that is very compatible with Free Software.
If this had been a news item saying "Pope signs contract with MS for a PC in every church" we'd be up in arms.....
Disclaimer: As founder of The Freely Project, I am biased; as a committed Christian, I am biased. However, I have done my best in the Project to avoid making it dependent on belief in anything other than Free Software - the church is a niche market that needs advocated to about FLOSS just as much as any other niche. It just happens to be a niche that I know a lot about.
mrben
<a href="http://www.jedimoose.org/" title="jedimoose.org">http://www.jedimoose.org/</a jedimoose.org>
2 billion Christians in the world. Regardless of your personal beliefs about [Christianity] it's a huge niche market [for Free Software].
Exactly! Amazing nobody considers this side of the issue!
If this had been a news item saying "Pope signs contract with MS for a PC in every church" we'd be up in arms.....
Judging by the majority of comments here and on <a href="http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/22421/" title="lxer.com">the same forum on LXer</a lxer.com>, many FOSS people would indeed be up in arms... but also very happy for something that would reinforce the prejudices posted here...
Free software and Christianity have lots in common. At the same time they do differ. But in general I agree with the aouthor - Salvation is given for free to the people but at a very high price to God - costing His own Son. For the free software developers it costs their time and whatever they sacrifice to develop.
My church runs on GNU/Linux systems. NFS/NIS, audio vide recording, Library resource server<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and the list goes on. It is the back bone for the Church network. Of cose as always there are windows machines too in the network - We do respect real freedom of choice - But, you are responsible for the choices you make - Even in the spiritual sense.
My church runs on GNU/Linux systems. NFS/NIS, audio vide recording, Library resource server<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and the list goes on. It is the back bone for the Church network. Of cose as always there are windows machines too in the network - We do respect real freedom of choice - But, you are responsible for the choices you make - Even in the spiritual sense.
"Free Software's Surprising Affinity with Catholic Doctrine" huh?
Let's see:
Free Software's doctrine? Individual Freedom
Catholic doctrine? Individual Subjugation
Oh, yeah. There's a match.
Let's see:
Free Software's doctrine? Individual Freedom
Catholic doctrine? Individual Subjugation
Oh, yeah. There's a match.
This seemed like a good place to mention a website I have been running for a couple of months now at <a href="http://source.emptycrate.com/" title="emptycrate.com">http://source.emptycrate.com/</a emptycrate.com>.
The point of the site is not to be separate from other open source software, the point is to provide a consolidation area so people looking for Christian open source software do not have to search many sites.
The point of the site is not to be separate from other open source software, the point is to provide a consolidation area so people looking for Christian open source software do not have to search many sites.
Geeky to be skeptical? Definitions . . .
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 142.58.74.157] on January 15, 2008 07:29 AM
I think there's a certain proportion of people who, if they think about it carefully and mull over evidence, ethical issues and perhaps most importantly their internal intuitions, will choose religion. And a certain proportion who will conclude they cannot believe in a deity. And some who will not be able to reach a firm conclusion, or more, decide that a firm conclusion is unreachable.
In the world in general, we don't know what those natural proportions might be, because people tend to be indoctrinated from youth, poorly educated in philosophical or comparative religious issues, and pushed to religion by other outside forces--for instance, it's noticeable that in places torn by war and other kinds of privation, people turn to religion for comfort out of desperation, a need to believe in *something* that can make it better.
So, is it geeky to be skeptical?
In the broadest sense, I'd say refusing to believe things without reason just because one is told is geeky, yes. "Skeptical" doesn't just mean "irreligious"--actually, the implication that anyone who is skeptical will reject religious is one that doesn't put religion in a particularly good light.
But taking the "skeptical" = "irreligious" meaning, I'd still say it's geeky to be skeptical in the sense that geeks are likely to be fairly well educated, with minds trained to inquire and look for alternative possibilities, and not mostly starving. So geeks are in a position to more likely arrive at their genuine, unforced belief system through reflection--as a result, only the ones for whom religious belief is actually congenial will adopt it. There will be fewer geeks than people in the world in general who are just religious because they were told to be. So it's not that geeks are be fundamentally less religious than others, they're just more likely to have found where on the religion/irreligion spectrum they actually belong. The same can probably be said for many other well-educated, prosperous groups, such as philosophers, historians, sociologists and so forth.
Incidentally, I think that atheists can not only *happen* to be good and ethical people as often as theists, but I also think that atheists are as likely to hold powerful, solid ethical systems as theists. Indeed, an important question is, if you have a strong ethical code based on very fundamental concepts clustered around fairness, justice, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you", "people should be treated as ends in themselves rather than just means to an end" and so forth, and you find yourself with a conflict between the teachings of your religion and the conclusions implied by those ethical standards, which do you measure against which? Which is the standard, God or justice?
In the world in general, we don't know what those natural proportions might be, because people tend to be indoctrinated from youth, poorly educated in philosophical or comparative religious issues, and pushed to religion by other outside forces--for instance, it's noticeable that in places torn by war and other kinds of privation, people turn to religion for comfort out of desperation, a need to believe in *something* that can make it better.
So, is it geeky to be skeptical?
In the broadest sense, I'd say refusing to believe things without reason just because one is told is geeky, yes. "Skeptical" doesn't just mean "irreligious"--actually, the implication that anyone who is skeptical will reject religious is one that doesn't put religion in a particularly good light.
But taking the "skeptical" = "irreligious" meaning, I'd still say it's geeky to be skeptical in the sense that geeks are likely to be fairly well educated, with minds trained to inquire and look for alternative possibilities, and not mostly starving. So geeks are in a position to more likely arrive at their genuine, unforced belief system through reflection--as a result, only the ones for whom religious belief is actually congenial will adopt it. There will be fewer geeks than people in the world in general who are just religious because they were told to be. So it's not that geeks are be fundamentally less religious than others, they're just more likely to have found where on the religion/irreligion spectrum they actually belong. The same can probably be said for many other well-educated, prosperous groups, such as philosophers, historians, sociologists and so forth.
Incidentally, I think that atheists can not only *happen* to be good and ethical people as often as theists, but I also think that atheists are as likely to hold powerful, solid ethical systems as theists. Indeed, an important question is, if you have a strong ethical code based on very fundamental concepts clustered around fairness, justice, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you", "people should be treated as ends in themselves rather than just means to an end" and so forth, and you find yourself with a conflict between the teachings of your religion and the conclusions implied by those ethical standards, which do you measure against which? Which is the standard, God or justice?
Amazing
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 16, 2006 04:47 PMMight as well make arguments that free software is better for lesbians, or african americans, or people with false teeth.
If better software costs money and comes from a company, choose it. It's why I use a Mac versus Linux for my personal setup. If better software is available freely, then choose it, instead.
Having written software now for over 20 years, for big and small companies alike, it is clear to me that a license has everything to do with the culture around the development and distribution of software, but it has nothing to do with how good or bad that software is (it's the programmers and their dedication, design, and testing that makes good software, not a swarm of people applied to the problem -- just ask Fred Brooks). And what matters to churches and religion in general (and lesbians and people with false teeth) should be the quality and usefulness of the software, not the license behind, or whether the developers were paid or not.
#