The Biible and Net Neutrality

Yes, the title might seem like a non sequitur. As far as I know, the Bible is rather ambiguous about the internet and lacks any prophetic utterances about whether Craigslist, Facebook or Amazon are "Christian sites." The deeper issue, broadly understood as the use, critique and affirmation of technology within Christian life, is a real issue though, especially considering how common internet "fellowship" (e.g. Facebook) is becoming. So I don't mean to trivialize it, but suggest instead that we need to mine the resources of the Bible and the Christian tradition in order to think about how to use such technology. But I can suggest one example of how not to use the Bible in relationship to the internet.

Before delving into the substance of my argument, a quick definition to make sure that we are all on the same page: Net Neutrality. Huh? Well, as far as I understand it (so correct me if I am wrong), this idea is about legally obligating internet providers to ensure that all content is equal in terms of the right to use the internet. Example: if you imagine the internet as a highway, and this blog is a moped and Amazon is a semi-truck, Qwest, my internet provider, has to ensure that there is equal regard for both my moped and the semi-truck. Well, Congress, specifically several Republicans, are debating with the FCC over who has the right to regulate the internet and this net neutrality regulation, which the FCC has approved as a regulative principle. The issue is that internet providers--like Verizon--want to make more money off the internet. In their view, if the highway is filled with semi-trucks that have to pay lots of money to use the net, rather than mopeds that don't, then Verizon can make more money. So they want to end net neutrality because they want more paying trucks on the highway. Make sense?

So what does this have to do with the Bible? Well, a leading conservative Christian, Dave Barton, makes the claim that the Bible is opposed to net neutrality because it isn't just as it promotes the radical redistribution of income, and is thus a form of the wickedness that is socialism. In his radio show on Tuesday, he said:  "But we talk about it today because it is a principle of free market. That’s a Biblical principle, that’s a historical principle, we have all these quotes from Ben Franklin, and Jefferson and Washington and others on free market and how important that is to maintain. That is part of the reason we have prosperity. This is what the Pilgrims brought in, the Puritans brought in, this is free market mentality. Net Neutrality sounds really good, but it is socialism on the Internet." (Ironically, this puts him in opposition to the National Religious Broadcasters and the Christian Coalition.)

In order to muddy his water a bit, I'll just use the Bible (Acts 4:31-36, NRSV): 31 When they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness. 32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

Hmmm, the Bible is a free market guide that exposes the wickedness of socialism? Maybe it doesn't affirm the non-theistic, Marxist form of Socialism based on value being derived from making a product, but these passages (i.e. no private ownership) certainly affirm a sense that all property is social property, rather than individual property (which is also counter John Locke's use of Genesis).

I'd be glad to hear more from Mr. Barton about a biblical affirmation of the free market in order to better have a debate about the Bible and economics. Do you think he'd be up for it? I would.... We need it to ensure that Christianity and capitalism are not synonymous, but that Jesus' call to feed the hungry and bring news to the poor centers our ethical lives and moves us all towards the full life that God calls us to each day.

For more on Mr. Barton: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barton-bible-opposes-net-neutrality

Imagining our Neighbor

Much of the political wrangling this past week has been over competing budget proposals, one by the GOP (led by Paul Ryan) and one proposed by Obama. I'm not going to summarize them too much, as you can find details all over the internet, though the GOP cuts the budget deficit by $4.4 trillion over 10 years by cutting taxes and programs (inc. Medicare) while the Obama plan cuts it by $4 trillion over 12 years (by cutting some funding but also increasing taxes on the most affluent). Having competing visions over the role of government and the common good (hopefully) will make the political debate over which vision is better substantive and interesting.

I'd like to think about both in relationship to the idea of imagination. For some of my research as an ethicist, I've been looking at and thinking about the role that the imagination plays in ethical deliberation and action. Being a Protestant, my tradition is somewhat ambivalent about the imagination's fantastical ability to think about nearly anything (ex. Calvin thinks it creates idols, Luther was more concerned about the heart). Folks like Kant and Hegel described how the imagination was active in producing new, creative and free ideas and possibilities for human action. I am looking at the imagination as helping us think both about what each of us should be (i.e. to "imagine" oneself as striving to enact Christ-like love) but also as a means to become empathetic (i.e. to "imagine" what it is like to be in another's shoes). 

Obviously, such imaginative activity is difficult, but if following Christ means to love the neighbor as oneself, it requires us to strive to "imagine" the life that our neighbor lives in order to properly love them. It is to imagine their needs in order to help them find fulfillment. Such an imaginative act requires, to the best that we can, properly seeing the needs of our neighbors: hunger, poverty, lack of opportunities, poor education, hopelessness. 

Yes, our neighbors include the affluent, but to imagine the needs of the affluent is to largely see the lack of an ethical imagination; in other words, it is about an ignorance towards the depths of human misery related to material and social conditions. For example, in October, Limbaugh spouted "There is no equality" because "some people are just born to be slaves" whole others are "self-starters'" meaning that the poor are poor because they choose to be poor. Rush, like many with wealth, has a need to truly see poverty, hunger, hopelessness, to see how many work hard (rather than choose to be lazy) yet struggle. So the imaginative act requires us to see everyone as a neighbor.

There is a danger here too--that we imagine such needs without truly knowing the neighbor. Maybe part of the difficulty of this imaginative act is that we live next to people like us (ex. the poor live in poor neighborhoods, the rich in rich communities), meaning we lack diverse communities that help us see the true depth and diversity of human need. But with this reality,  the Christian imaginative act requires us to find, engage, work with our neighbors throughout the world, in Haiti and in the Hamptons.

So if we think about both budget proposals, which one is more imaginative in this Christian ethical sense? Which one better adheres to this imagining of the needs of the neighbor? Granted, neither of the options are "perfect," but which one better sees the true material, social and imaginative needs of the neighbor, both poor and wealthy? 

On the one hand, the Ryan plan's imaginative vision states: "More important, it is based on a fundamentally different vision from the one now prevailing in Washington. It focuses government on its proper role; it restrains government spending, and thus limits the size of government itself; it rejuvenates the vibrant market economy that made America the envy of the world; and it restores an American character rooted in individual initiative, entrepreneurship, and opportunity – qualities that make each American’s pursuit of personal destiny a net contribution to the Nation’s common good as well." 

Might the GOP's imaginative vision be about the unique, individual responsibility of each person to create one's own destiny? In the process, by cutting programs (inc. Medicare) and taxes on the affluent to get government out of the way, it is less about imagining the diverse needs of the other and the sociological elements (education, health care, infrastructure) that affect one's destiny, and more about seeing one's own needs (esp. if you are the affluent) first and foremost. You are the true neighbor, and your imagination is to envision your 'personal destiny.'

On the other hand, Obama's plan states: “But there's always been another thread running through our history -– a belief that we're all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. Part of this American belief that we're all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us. "There but for the grace of God go I," we say to ourselves." 

Here the imaginative activity is directed at seeing the common needs of all humans, and every one is a neighbor, affected by the shape of our wider community.

Shouldn't we strive to use our imagination in a Christian sense? Aren't we all neighbors?

Limbaugh's comments are here: http://www.projectthevalues.net/mmtv/201010080031