Religious beliefs on the Internet: Between ignorance and censorship

[rug]

By Jean-Loup Richet
October 16, 2013 1:47 PM EDT

By definition an iconoclast is "a person who attacks cherished beliefs, traditional institutions, etc. as being based on error or superstition; a breaker or destroyer of images, especially those set up for religious veneration." I use a wider definition of iconoclasm, including political iconoclasm - state ‘censorship’ of religious beliefs. As for religious intolerance, I’ll define it as “intolerance against another's religious beliefs”.

Make no mistake, there is nothing new about iconoclasm and intolerance. In fact, religious censors have been around for centuries. Iconoclasm was a huge part of the French Revolution, as people destroyed countless religious artifacts in the name of ‘freedom’. During Russia's October Revolution in 1917, religious materials were destroyed as part of the strategy to overthrow the government and put the Soviets into power. Sadly, the censorship of religious beliefs by state or people is still very much alive and well today.

Filtering religious images

You might think that all of our advances in technology would make it harder for iconoclasts to censor people's religious beliefs. You might think that the Internet is a place where all beliefs will be possible. However, all of that technology actually makes it easier for censors to get their way. On the web, religious images aren’t destroyed; they’re out of sight - purely filtered.

The biggest example? The UK's Digital Economy Bill - or, as it's known around the web, the "UK Internet Censorship Bill". Back in 2010, Parliament passed a bill that was supposed to prevent the theft of copyrighted materials, like illegally downloading music and movies. From there, Parliament extended the bill's reach so that it could also crack down on child pornography. After all, it makes sense to block something that's so illegal, immoral, and dangerous, right?

http://blogs.computerworld.com/privacy/22892/drawing-analogies-censorship

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. The Golden age of Iconoclasm, if such a thing could exist, was in Byzantium (8th and 9th century)

It was at work much earlier in ancient Egypt after the death of Akhenaten and his flirtation with monotheism and the worship of Aten. It reappeared regularly through history when one Pharaoh or another destroyed the images of his deified predecessor, which was a sort of political and religious iconoclasm. Christians often did it to the shrines of the gods they deposed.

Yep, it has been around.

[rug]

4. It never left.

[Hestia]

2. Ho-ly Shit! UK Pagan Groups have been screaming about this - I guess the UK gov't is waving their

magic wand, pretending we all don't exist, even though some of their most prestigious academics are "esoteric" and for good reason.
---

And now, the UK government is taking on religion.

Specifically, they're instituting a country-wide firewall that will block, among other things, "esoteric" websites. By the time 2014 begins, UK Internet service providers will be forced to block websites that discuss things like Wicca, Kabbalah, Taoism, and Mysticism. After all, "esoteric" is an incredibly broad term, and the UK government seems to be painting the broadest picture possible.

---

This should be cross post in the Ancient Spirituality Group

[rug]

3. Be my guest. The more it's known, the better.

[dimbear]

5. Surely there is room in the OP for a nod to the enormous wave of destruction which announced the

final supremacy of Christianity in the west. One can see its traces today, with many Christian churches still standing on the ruins of churches originally dedicated to Mithras or Isis or the like, and pagan statues daubed with enough paint (and crudely chiseled) to resemble Mary or some saint.
The bonfires of Christianity have swallowed a great deal of competing iconography and literature, including practically every word written by the native cultures of America. I don't think they (the Christians) could repeat that outrage today in the digital age.

[rug]

6. Do you approve the on iconclasm?

Otherwise, tu quoque is not much of an excuse.

[dimbear]

7. In general I wish folk would let the past survive, but realize that doing so would make history

very cluttered. As usual, it's a little complex. Who knows how boring the scriptures of Mithraism might have been? Still and all, it would have been nice to have the choice.

As far as the writings of the Aztecs go, they definitely would have been keepers. What little remains is quite amazing.

[Hestia]

9. Humans are messy and history should be too. In trying to make us homogeneous history shows

that we can't all be put into these perfect little boxes. The world is too vast for small thinking.

One of the biggest problems that historians have is 1) The Goddess was supreme for around 30,000 years +/-. On one of the history shows I was watching, the host opened up drawer after drawer full of the Venus of Willendorf sculptures - the oldest known religious icon in the world. 2) Pagan rites are revealed - given to you personally, rather than through scripture. It is subjective to the practitioner. Not to say that there weren't teachers and most definitely a priestess/priesthood but they weren't anywhere close to what those words mean today.

The Rites of Mithras were practiced by the Roman Soldiers who brought it back from Persia. When you slay a bull on December 25th, I don't think they were boring

Look at The Eleusinian Mysteries - if I remember correctly they were practiced every 7 years for around 3,000 years and not one person ever revealed what happened there. Socrates kinda hinted but no one knows because it was never revealed and couldn't be written down. How does one write down a personal epiphany?

Look at Isis/Aset - there has been a devotee honoring Her to this day for thousands of years. Yes, Mary took over her iconography because the people *demanded* a female goddess when christianity bullied its way to the forefront. The priests couldn't really get converts like they wanted and it wasn't until Mary was worshiped that christianity took a foothold.

There is some conjecture that the cathedrals in France were purposefully built over ancient grottos and caves. It was to protect them and assimilate them into the popular culture of the time. You have the cathedral on the surface, but dedicants could and do go down underneath to worship Her - generally the Black Madonna, an aspect of Isis/Aset.

What we see in textbooks and on television ALWAYS assumes that there has been a male supreme deity. It is not until you really start reading ancient history that one finds that is not the truth. It made it easy for Italians and Greeks to grind up thousands of statues for the lime without a thought of what they were destroying.

Look at what the Dominionists are doing to the U.S. They are destroying/trying to destroy our Egregores, who's foundations were laid at the beginning of this country. Ashcroft's veiling of Justice is symbolic gesture to the Dominionists to pray down our other symbols. Truth, Moderation, Beauty, Fair Play, Inclusion - all those symbols we have lost since 2001 - because no one is stopping them and rebuilding them. If no one understands what an Egregore is, how is one rebuilt? What happens on the micro happens on the macro - As Above, So Below.

Do a search and look at all the states iconography that has been stolen, such as state seals and statues. It's on purpose to tear down what the citizens built - put their hearts and minds to. It doesn't have to be a war on just a religious group but a political one too.

[dimbear]

10. I fear the Roman Mithras has as little to do with the Persian original as the Roman Jesus has to do

with the one who preached in Palestine. Since whatever they may have written down about Mithraism went to the bonfires, it's hard to say much more. What little remains, or can be ferreted out from the magical texts of the time, isn't really too promising. It's for sure they knew how to throw a banquet, tho.

I look forward to your posts in the future.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Hell, the Daily Mail is demanding 'strict age checks' before *anyone* is allowed to access stuff

not just the "default to full parental controls, ie censorship" which is what the government wants.

The statistics support the Daily Mail’s campaign for internet service providers to be forced to block unsafe material, with over-18s able to access adult material only following a strict age check.

The Government has agreed a compromise solution, under which all new broadband contracts will have filters turned on and existing customers will be prompted to make a decision about their service.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2444171/Nearly-60-parents-online-protection-filters-family-computer.html

Every household has someone over 18. So why they think they need 'strict age checks', I can't see. But they're campaigning for it to be harder than ever to get to web forums etc. The Mail's right hand sidebar is still full of stories leering at women in various skimpy outfits, of course, but since "tabloid newspaper" is not one of the groups the ISPs are thinking of using, they're fine with this.