But the intelligence usually ends with the article. What I mean is that the end of the article marks the beginning of some of the most caustic comments on the web.
Feeling securely masked behind random usernames, internet posters (those who “post” comments) are boldened to post any angry, salacious, inflaming words that come to mind. It is the modern equivalent to the anonymous prank phone calls of yesteryear. Technology has taken that joy away from telephone users (via caller identification), but has given it back in a different shape: internet forums and social media.
|The freedom to "flame" robs us of the freedom to discuss.|
While most internet rabble rousers enjoy posting their digital poison in blissful anonymity, many do not care if their face, name, or even their email address is shown to the world. The digital distance of the internet is enough to give them the courage to say things they would never say to face to face.
This is why “cyberbullying” became a major issue with teens, a poisonous practice with a growing list of fatalities.
The phenomena is so common it has been given a clinical name – Online Disinhibition Effect – and has been the subject of serious academic psychological study for at least a decade.
What does this have to do with faith?
While the web has given us a fantastic tool to discuss with people worldwide the issues that fascinate us, confuse us, and (yes) divide us, it has also given us a tool to allow the worst within ourselves to digitally vomit venomous messages upon whomever we wish, whenever and wherever we wish. One sad consequence is that, where there was opportunity for thoughtful, open dialogue between those who differ, the openness (and anonymity) of the internet invites just the opposite, forcing any engaging and enlightening dialogue into closed groups, which means they will by nature be less engaging and enlightening as we feel compelled to discuss among like-minded folks just to ensure a friendlier, safer environment.
And that is sad.
A recent post on CNN’s Belief Blog is a well written article about Jesus, written by author and Jesuit priest, James Martin. Sadly, with all the hatred and cynical crudeness habitually left by internet users, I don’t expect James Martin to even attempt to respond to questions or comments on his article.
A couple years ago I made the mistake of trying to dialogue with the hatemongers who left comments on the Belief Blog. I asked why there was such animosity toward those of faith, and the reply given to me was, “because you all have been coddled too long.”
If being “coddled” means respecting others by (at minimum) withholding crass, meanspirited comments about their beliefs, then I’ll take coddling any day. And if that’s how one defines coddling, then lets generously coddle everyone, whether Catholics or Charismatics, Baptists or Buddhists, atheists or agnostics, Mormons or Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Jews.
If “coddling” means treating one another with respect, biting our tongue (or fingers) when tempted to communicate crassness, and talking with kind, civil words, despite our differences, then, by all means, let’s all coddle!
Anyone care to start an internet "coddling movement"?