Slashdot Mirror
Christian Science Monitor Putting OSS at the Helm
Jane Walker writes to tell us that the Christian Science Monitor is becoming quite the proponent of open source. The aggressive nature of OSS was a large part of what drew CIO Curtiss Edge into the fold, it seems. From the article: "But beyond the tangibles like open source code it was the community that made a convert of Edge. Behind all the open code, it was the forums and flexibility that were the driving forces he believes breeds better developers than those that toil away with proprietary code. Open source software makes developers more aggressive and more apt to go out into the communities that exist around the software to find solutions to their problems, Edge said, rather than holding on some proprietary help desk line while tech support looks up the answer."
I respect the fact (as I did in my original post) that the CSM has a very good reputation. I haven't ever read it myself, but I will probably check it out one of these days (no, not now, I'm too damn sleepy. Ranting on /., however, is always a great way to keep awake) and as I read it I will try to keep an open mind. I merely think it is highly foolish to say that a newspaper (which DOES contain daily religious content) owned by a freakin' Christian church has absolutely no religious slant. From what I hear it sounds like they've done a great job keeping their biases under control. That's great; go them. For the record, here are their *potential* biases that I object to and my reasons for objecting to them:
1. As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.
Truth is not gained through faith; faith is the antithesis of truth. The Word of the Bible was decided upon by a commitee of very failible humans. Life by definition must not be eternal.
2. We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or divine Comforter; and man in God's image and likeness.
None of these things exist. If the God of the Old Testiment (the demiurge, whom really does seem to be a different character entirely from the God of the New Testiment) did truly exist, I would coinsciously choose not to worship him; I would rather spit on his name and burn forever in Hell than worship such a petty, hateful, jealous god, and I doubt the sanity of anyone who can perfectly reconcile the pitifully shallow, weak and evil God of the Old Testiment with Jesus's 'loving father'.
3. We acknowledge God's forgiveness of sin in the destruction of sin and the spiritual understanding that casts out evil as unreal. But the belief in sin is punished so long as the belief lasts.
The only sin I recognize is opposite over hypotenuse.
4. We acknowledge Jesus' atonement as the evidence of divine, efficacious Love, unfolding man's unity with God through Christ Jesus the Way-shower; and we acknowledge that man is saved through Christ, through Truth, Life, and Love as demonstrated by the Galilean Prophet in healing the sick, and overcoming sin and death.
Pure nonsense.
5. We acknowledge that the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection served to uplift faith to understand eternal Life, even the allness of Soul, Spirit, and the nothingness of matter.
If the surviving followers of David Koresh said he was resurrected (but no one else saw him before he disappeared again), would you believe them? Christianity, like all religions, was originally a cult, and its scriptures were written by fantatical cultists. Divine authority begs the question--who says the Bible is divinely inspired? Why the Bible does, of course.
6. And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.
Drivel. Very noble drivel, but drivel nonetheless.
7. Not a strict requirement, but many Christian Scientists believe that prayer is an acceptable substitute for medicine. I'm all for treating the mind as well as the body, for taking into account the placebo effect and trying to encourage joy and optimism, but outright substitution and denial of proven, conventional treatment is seriously fucked up, especially when you pass on such bullshit to your kids (one of my best friends from Jr. High was a Christian Scientist and he never took any medicine no matter how sick he got.) This is a rather major bias, IMO. Can anyone comment on the CSM's coverage of the medical field?
So now, to be fair, here is my bias:
1. I really don't think I'll ever fully trust anyone who professes to believe any of the above seven points... and the owers of the C