As I write this, our cable modem is down, and has been for almost two solid days. Oh, it would come back up — for about two minutes — and then go down again. And it’s been doing this for several weeks now. Of course, the cable company is taking their sweet time about getting here to resolve the issue. Meanwhile, we gripe and pace and try to find something else to do while we wait. It’s a little unnerving to see so up-close-and-personally just how dependent we’ve gotten on the Internet. But there it is. You’ll be getting this issue a day or two late due to this little glitch. Aaarrggghhhh!

(Deep breath. OM.) Okay. It’s okay, I’m fine. No, really.

I guess it’s true that getting too reliant on computers and the Internet can have drawbacks. For some, the Internet simply becomes their world, because they find it too difficult to live in the “real” one. For businesses who depend on it, down time and technical problems with Internet connections can mean lost customers and even bankruptcy in the extreme. But what is the ‘Net doing for our spiritual practice?

While religion has not historically been a big presence in cyberspace, that is changing. Churches, synagogues and temples now have websites to reach out to their congregations. One Jewish colleague told me that their synagogue uses the ‘Net to post coming themes for the next week’s sabbath service, sermon resources and lectures, and personal messages from himself (he’s the rabbi). He and his congregation are quite active online. Another colleague, a Christian minister, says the Christian community has “become highly technological for a wide variety of reasons.” Both men say there is a great deal of educational material for their respective faiths online. And I know for a fact that Pagans have made good use of the Internet in similar ways.

One of the concerns about religion on the Internet voiced by my Christian friend, Steve, happened to agree with comments I’ve also heard from Pagan elders and leaders: you can’t necessarily believe everything you read about that faith online. A seeker can look up Christian sites and find explanations of that faith that vary wildly, from the “Klan groups to Jim Jones cults.” Steve said, “If you’re an outsider, it’s not easy to figure out what a ‘Christian’ is from the web.” I’ve heard other spiritual leaders, too, echo this sentiment. But if you think about it, is this really an Internet-exclusive problem?

I know people from a pretty wide spectrum of faiths, people who call themselves Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Witches, Druids, Jews, Hindus, Quakers, Humanists, Satanists — even one man who follows Eckankar. And from my personal experience with each of these people, I can easily say that there simply doesn’t seem to be any single definition for any one of these faiths that will cover all the varieties of that faith.

Consider this. One’s idea of religion and spirituality is really defined by how one views the Divine. Religious belief and practice, by its very nature, is experiential; it is so very personal, so wrapped up in an individual’s paradigm, that there can’t possibly be a single way of holding any specific faith. There are Christians who believe vehemently that only their specific beliefs and practices will get a person into a pleasant afterlife; there are also Christians who openly admit that they don’t know the Truth, but they believe thus and so, and you are welcome to believe as you wish. There are Buddhists who adamantly practice pacifism, and Buddhists who go to war against those who oppose them. Some Muslims feel righteously justified in exhibiting terrorist violence. Other Muslims state plainly that you cannot be a Muslim and a terrorist — the two are mutually exclusive. Traditional Wiccans believe that we must base our modern spiritual practices on what our ancestors may or may not have done. Progressive Wiccans feel that if our ancestors had had access to modern conveniences, they would have used them, thus we should do so as well. Many Asatruar refuse to assist in any prison outreach, since inmates have broken the law of the land, and thus violated the Nine Virtues. A few Asatruar eagerly reach out to inmates, believing that anyone can change, and it is their duty to assist another on the Path.

The point is that if we are trying to find out what, exactly, any given belief system is all about, just how do we go about doing that? To whom do we listen? Whose version is the “correct” one? And where does this end? If there is a “correct” version of each of the different religions, does that also mean there is a “correct” religion? Whoa. Back up. That’s skating a little too close to the razor’s edge of intolerance for me. But I guess you can take anything too far if you don’t mind your step.

I see Steve’s point. Having stood in defense of Wicca and Paganism so many times, it’s difficult to ignore the damage that “bad press” can do to public opinion and understanding between the faiths. And surely we can’t stand by and accept everything as valid spiritual practice under a given label; there should be a line, after all. But we must be vigilant! The process involved in determining where to draw that line is a slippery slope, one we should tread with extreme care.

In the meantime, the Internet can be a valuable tool as we learn where the boundaries are for each faith, and consider how and where we draw the lines in our own personal practice.

Drema Baker

The Evolution of Online Dialogue (or “Trolls in the System”)

Over the years (yes, I was alive before the Internet was) I have observed the increased “dialog” resulting from global accessibility, intercultural exchanges and, of course, today’s blogs (web logs).

During the developing years of the World Wide Web (what we now lovingly call “the web”), two older and comparatively primitive prototypes set the stage for what became known as online Bulletin Boards — amateur and Citizen’s Band (CB) radio.

The advent of amateur radio was many things, most of them extremely useful and, overall, hardly amateur. From engineers to whiz kids, some very professional operators set up global networks that worked in conjunction with a number of emergency and communication systems, relaying messages from members of militia to their respective homes (via M.A.R.S. or Military Affiliate Radio System, a Department-of-Defense-sponsored system that served as a communications adjunct to regular inter-services communications), assisting with rescues, searches and criminal tracking.

(Note: Shortwave is alive and well, and many operators have also moved onto the web, using Digital Signal Processing, or DSP, and other web links to enhance their communications abilities.)

As the system improved and less expensive transceivers (transmitter/receiver base stations) became available, more and more individuals began to pile onto the airways. Still regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — which required operators to pass a test to obtain a legal license — the former pros (who for the most part functioned in a cooperative society of self-imposed rules and regulations) were joined by pirates, bandits and other irresponsible broadcasters whose primary focus was more on being heard than having anything of value to say.

This created an environment for what became CB radio, a narrow wavelength offered by the FCC for the original intent of emergency communication in times of disaster, including the prospect of war. Even less regulated (requiring only an application for a license and no necessary skills other than pushing a “talk” button), CB exploded onto the scene, popularized even more by truckers who used it nationwide to stay awake, report “Smokey” (speed traps) locations and gossip with fellow freight haulers. It created its own subculture and, like amateur radio (also known as HAM radio, a respectable epithet with roots from an older derogative used by telegraph operators to describe “sparkers” who blanketed circuits with more powerful signals), it too quickly devolved into a polyglot of voices all screaming to be heard. Pirates invaded the new airways with illegally powerful stations that inundated whole areas with the primary intent of drowning out normal conversation. And it was in that arena, more than HAM radio, that the self-appointed saviors and proselytizers carved their niche in the media.

The 1980s witnessed the dawn of Bulletin Boards (BBSs) using very slow modems operating on phone lines to provide computer intercommunications in a given locale. (Long distance rates discouraged wider area access.) BBSs, run more as a hobby than a professional service by a systems operator (SysOp), offered users topical written access versus broadband radio noise and vocal competition. Users could seek out a subject of interest, read others’ contributions and, if desired, respond textually (not terribly unlike the current fad of text messaging via cell phones).

As with their forerunners, it didn’t take long for detractors, fanatics and other loud-mouths to invade this system as well. Rather than using signal strength to override others’ attempts to communicate, the new BBS aggressors simply flooded the sites, most run by private individuals as a courtesy and lacking the equipment or technical know-how to protect their sites from being rendered useless by hacker-pirates.

As computers matured, prices fell and the web of today began to take shape. People moved away from BBSs and their counterpart — the more decentralized and democratic Usenet system employed by Universities for textual exchange and file transfer protocol (FTP) uploads/downloads — and fell in love with the graphical advantage of web sites. Service sites like Genie (General Electric), CompuServe, Prodigy and America Online arose, offering portals to digital magazines, news services, etc., most also offering an already popular “chat” feature, popularized by BBSs and radio communications. Just as instantly, anyone with access became fair game for anyone else who disagreed with their stated opinions and in the wild and wooly days before such sites were more controlled, totally riotous exchanges frequently took place between people who never would have known one another otherwise.

Today, Usenet still exists as the dark underbelly of the Internet as a whole, somewhat self-regulated but also home to both unpopular and illegal traffic in addition to its educational exchange intent. On the web, blogs, MySpace and personal web sites have arisen to cover virtually every topic known to mankind, espousing every conceivable opinion imaginable. Not surprisingly, each is still irrevocably attacked by recusant responders in the hopes of generating lengthy arguments.

My point is this: examining the question of what happens when the barriers of time and space are dissolved by technology, and individuals from far and wide are afforded a forum to “speak” to one another, what do they consider most important to say? Are we all that angry? Do most users feel an inherent need to attack everyone and everything with whom they disagree?

Ironically, the web — having arisen from its radio beginnings and later hardwired telephony — has evolved into a fascinating holistic system not terribly unlike the human brain. Because of, rather than in spite of, its tremendous outreach and the sheer numbers of participants, each of us has almost become akin to neural contacts, reacting individually, yet also resonating together to form a global thought process far exceeding the sum of its parts. Ideas and concepts that arise from such a massive interaction by Internet users — a feat impossible and unimaginable just 40 years ago — have demonstrated that although the denouncers and dispensers of hatred and intolerance abound, such pointless and irreconcilable outbursts have been progressively relegated to the background and have to be sought out rather than openly interfering with the general usage of the information highway.

For all its pros and cons, today’s Internet has evolved into a planetary symphony of thoughts and ideas, and serves far more as a platform of peaceful and informative exchange than its earlier progenitors. Not all sites are universally acceptable or globally beneficial, but the choice of what you have to read and decide to say (and to whom) has been greatly refined by the majority, who have made good use of a decentralized system which is controlled by no one person or government and which, aside from very minor instances, no one can completely highjack.

Could we be growing up at last? Have we instinctively or inadvertently created a medium that is more useful today than ever before? Since the days in the early Sixties when UNIX gave rise to what has become the spine of the Internet, our global population has quadrupled to nearly seven billion people (1960’s world population was less than one and a half billion), creating an extremely crowded neighborhood where dialog and the exchange of ideas is no longer a simple luxury or hobby. It is essential to our survival to seriously talk, listen and, perhaps most significantly, to no longer rely on controlled special-interest media sources that are far more guided by ratings and appealing to governments and mega-industries than delivering unbiased news and information.

The Internet is far from perfect. But then so too are its users. Both seem to be evolving and, for now at least, it seems to me like the best possible means to satisfy a growing hunger for getting to know one another better.

—Larry “Bear” Baker