Terry, I'm reminded of Peter Hitchens (I think it was) who said he couldn't believe in God but really enjoyed the trappings of civilization and culture that those who believe in Him had created.
Or as the Dutch writer Oscar van den Boogaard said a few years ago, "I have never learned to fight for freedom, only to enjoy it."
What does this have to do with my post? I find it interesting that a nonbeliever/atheist is concerned about the spiritual issues linked to screens culture. I am thankful that he is and, frankly, I hope that he helps wake up the church
What reminded me of it was your comments about Haidt being an atheist but having a chapter on spiritual development. But perhaps I'm seeing a connection that isn't there.
It sounded like you were drawing a negative connection. I was saying that Haidt is, strangely enough, serving as a prophet to the modern church (and other religious groups) even though he is an atheist. The church is silent on this crisis, for the most part. He is not.
Agreed. It's weird that an atheist can figure out a threat to spiritual development that our own religious leaders are blind to, or at least too afraid to say anything about.
If it is true (and I think it is) that entertainment based screen time leads to spiritual degradation not just for teenagers, but for all of us. Why would the church be afraid to speak out on this topic? What do they have to gain from being silent?
> > Oh, and in the U.S., thanks to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, we parents can’t do anything about it. The companies have been granted immunity from lawsuits for what they show to our children, even underage users (under 13) because the companies have also been granted freedom from any duty to check or verify ages.
I think that the second sentence does not follow from the first. Parents can and may do plenty with respect to their children. While I am not a lawyer, I believe that under Section 230 they can even still sue the publisher of material. What they cannot do under Section 230 is consider the provider of third-party content as the publisher of it.
The key is that parents absolutely have to maintain age-appropriate control of their children: they cannot rely on random ISPs or web site operators to manage their children for them. I think that this is fair because we all have different standards for what is appropriate and when — there is much less common ground in 2024 than we like to imagine. For example, some people think the Drag Queen Story Hour is appropriate for their own young children! I (and I imagine you) vehemently disagree, but those same people may themselves disagree should we wish to permit or encourage kids to read the Chronicles of Narnia.
The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) would create greater accountability for what online platforms show to minors. It passed the Senate and is currently in the House of Representatives. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1409
So true. Reminds me of this:
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
― Alexander Pope
Terry, I'm reminded of Peter Hitchens (I think it was) who said he couldn't believe in God but really enjoyed the trappings of civilization and culture that those who believe in Him had created.
Or as the Dutch writer Oscar van den Boogaard said a few years ago, "I have never learned to fight for freedom, only to enjoy it."
What does this have to do with my post? I find it interesting that a nonbeliever/atheist is concerned about the spiritual issues linked to screens culture. I am thankful that he is and, frankly, I hope that he helps wake up the church
What reminded me of it was your comments about Haidt being an atheist but having a chapter on spiritual development. But perhaps I'm seeing a connection that isn't there.
It sounded like you were drawing a negative connection. I was saying that Haidt is, strangely enough, serving as a prophet to the modern church (and other religious groups) even though he is an atheist. The church is silent on this crisis, for the most part. He is not.
Agreed. It's weird that an atheist can figure out a threat to spiritual development that our own religious leaders are blind to, or at least too afraid to say anything about.
If it is true (and I think it is) that entertainment based screen time leads to spiritual degradation not just for teenagers, but for all of us. Why would the church be afraid to speak out on this topic? What do they have to gain from being silent?
Avoiding controversy in the short term among ADULTS who do not want to face this issue with their children.
> > Oh, and in the U.S., thanks to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, we parents can’t do anything about it. The companies have been granted immunity from lawsuits for what they show to our children, even underage users (under 13) because the companies have also been granted freedom from any duty to check or verify ages.
I think that the second sentence does not follow from the first. Parents can and may do plenty with respect to their children. While I am not a lawyer, I believe that under Section 230 they can even still sue the publisher of material. What they cannot do under Section 230 is consider the provider of third-party content as the publisher of it.
The key is that parents absolutely have to maintain age-appropriate control of their children: they cannot rely on random ISPs or web site operators to manage their children for them. I think that this is fair because we all have different standards for what is appropriate and when — there is much less common ground in 2024 than we like to imagine. For example, some people think the Drag Queen Story Hour is appropriate for their own young children! I (and I imagine you) vehemently disagree, but those same people may themselves disagree should we wish to permit or encourage kids to read the Chronicles of Narnia.
The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) would create greater accountability for what online platforms show to minors. It passed the Senate and is currently in the House of Representatives. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1409
It would address some of the issues. It would offer help in this moral marketplace.
I don't think it would remove the bigger questions that face religious institutions and families. Right?
that's our job. 😉 Thanks for writing! Great post. I really enjoyed reading this one too: https://www.tmatt.net/freelance/and-now-a-word-from-your-culture