Pages

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

No Internet, No God?

There are numerous excellent comments on the post below this one, but this comment by DAG made a very interesting point which I felt was worthy of a post: [edited for length and emphasis]
My question is, if the net is so evil, why allow it at work? The same porn and blogs can be accessed at work as at home.

I believe this rule is based on the presumption that people are in public at work due to the presence of their coworkers and traceable network histories. The idea is that people are less likely to view the darker side of the net while in the public eye than they are in the privacy of their bedroom, and that may well be the case.

But what does that fact say about their communities? I was often reminded in Yeshiva that a person who is willing to do an averah [sin] in private that he would not do in public is illustrating his rejection of G-d. Such a person obviously either believes that G-d can not see him in a closed room OR that he is more afraid of what people think than what G-d wants! Either option represents a true rejection of belief in the power and majesty of G-d.

If the public use of the net is permitted because people will be embarrassed to access inappropriate things in front of others, shouldn't the Rabbonim be much more concerned about what that fact means than attacking the medium used to access the material? Address the disease not the symptoms. Acknowledging that the net poses a much greater danger in private than public IS acknowledging a FUNDAMENTAL lack of bitachon and Yiras Shamayim. If people would abuse the net at home and not at work, they, by definition, do NOT believe in G-d. If this is the case, why are we wasting our time attacking the net? We have a much more basic problem to deal with; an apparent widespread rejection in Orthodox circles of the belief in G-d!

This is the equivalent of attacking the concept of glasses because without them, shortsighted men couldn't see inappropriate material. The solution to such a problem is NOT to outlaw glasses.
I think this is a very good point, even if a bit exaggerated. What does it say about a community where the people are not trusted to make basic decisions regarding their own home, but rather the community feels it has to make the decisions for them? Everyone recognizes the dangers of the Internet, but that does not mean the community should ban it from individuals - rather, it should provide guidance in how to utilize the amazing powers for good that exist online.

Address the disease, not the symptoms is right.

10 comments:

  1. Thanks for the mention....But it isnt just that they dont trust their community..its that they dont trust their community in private Re: behavior they do trust in public!

    Dag "here comes Roenick, Races over the line....cuts for the net......"

    ReplyDelete
  2. I work in computers and most companies use pretty high end filters which block porn site access. Some even block sports site access due to the amount of time spent on them instead of working. Allowing the net access at work, besides for being more public than at home, should not be a problem since few people are willing to lose their jobs because they were accessing porn sites.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you work for a big co, that may be the case....but in either event i dont think it changes the fundamental point

    ReplyDelete
  4. "If people would abuse the net at home and not at work, they, by definition, do NOT believe in G-d."

    DAG, this is human nature to be more afraid of peers than G-d. It doesn't mean they do not believe in him...it means that as human beings when our minds are caught up in the act of sin, the only concern is getting caught and public humiliation.

    Intellectually, when they take a step back and are not under the gun from the yetzer hara they feel guilty and realize that God would not approve.

    ReplyDelete
  5. DAG - I understand, sorry if the post made that sound different.

    Anon - As DAG said, that doesn't change the fundamental point.

    JH - True, which is why I say that part is a bit exaggerated. Nevertheless, the point is a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. While I don't agree with community censorship, understand that this isn't a surrender to the Godless. It is in response to incidents that have happened.
    I know of a young married man with children who was arrested recently for soliciting sex from minor boys. Wearing glasses wouldn't have enabled him to do this. The internet did.
    I don't believe that this is common, but it also isn't as isolated as I'd like to believe. And I'm guessing that these community bans are based on a number of similar cases.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I know of a young married man with children who was arrested recently for soliciting sex from minor boys. Wearing glasses wouldn't have enabled him to do this. The internet did.
    I don't believe that this is common, but it also isn't as isolated as I'd like to believe. And I'm guessing that these community bans are based on a number of similar cases.


    Yes, and I know of a not-as-young married man who did the same thing without the Internet. Some people are sick, true; but does banning the Internet for everyone stop them? I think not.

    Again, of course there are dangers, and of course there are terrible stories. That's why the focus should be on properly educating people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If the awarness of public vs private is there..the awarness of G-d could be there....the fact that being in public stops somone is a function of how the fear of peers outstrips the fear of G-d

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have posted a comment the argues on dag's point in the original blog and I am too lazy to copy and paste.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'people are not trusted to make basic decisions regarding their own home, but rather the community feels it has to make the decisions for them'

    What is that called?

    An authoritarian society.

    ReplyDelete