My own mother bought me a car fish sticker that says "Linux" inside the fish, thinking that it was cute and that I'd like it, having been a linux user since slackware was a pup and being a Xtian. I can't imagine putting it on my vehicle though, as I'm not sure what message it transmits.

Unlike something like Taoism, that appears to bond easily to some other worldview (Celtic-Taoist is a combination that is not necesarily incongruous, for instance), the Christian/Darwinist fish symbol bumper sticker wars have made the situation so contentious that I'm afraid someone will misconstrue my intent.

What message does an Ichthys with the word Linux inside it actually present?

That Linux is my religion? I mean, I like Linux, and it *is* a gateway to salvation and all, but I'm not willing to give up Jesus for it yet. Maybe after another 20 years. (Side note: I'm sure that Linus is a $%#$& %^$^#$^% Saint.)
That Linux is bigger than religion? That would be like the one where the Evolution fish is eating the little Christian Ichthys and this one isn't like that.

Anyhow, I'm sorry for the guy who lost his darwin fish thing. I'm sure it was clever and not at all designed to demean someone else's heartfelt expression of their belief in the fisher of men. In any event, the person (or wind, or adhesive that loosened the paint when moisture collected) was wrong for taking it, regardless of their intent, religion, cosmology or "act of God/Nature/Physics"-ness.

"Grubby sheepherders" pretty much tells us where you are coming from, brother.

In terms of bigotry, I think you just gave us an object lesson in it.

If I "catch your drift" as far as what you mean by "places some grubby sheepherders above all other people", you show your thorough ignorance of Christianity and of the importance of the Abrahamic family story that preceded it, in terms of describing not just metaphysical points, but also in giving one big extended family's view of a very important period in human history. "Chosen", in a Biblical context is more like "Those that have Chosen", than what I think you are meaning by it.

"religion of dominion".... I'm not sure what to say about that. Around 1095 (let's just round up and call that 1000 years ago), Pope Urban II at Clermont exhorted Christian men of arms of both means and those without means to travel to the holy land to push back against the Mahometans[sic] that had been steadily pushing (for "dominion", perhaps?) westward. It lasted for c. 200 years and the West (Christendom, if you will) hasn't had much in the way of religious wars since.

As for "hacked and re-hacked" and politics. Sure, even the cleanest water will be tainted if it is poured into rusty vessels. People will get it wrong and some people will get it *very* wrong. (It even says that it in the Book.) But looking at the central goals, precepts and directives of the Judaeo-Christian worldviews, I don't see the malice that so many people claim to see there in its core. Sure, there's lots of sin, lots of "missing the mark", even among people claiming to be leaders. There will be lots of people who fall into literalist or mysticist traps and even more that hide their cynicism under a veneer of practiced faith.

That the Church has been used by the state on occasion does not confirm or deny the church's message and actual purpose. It just shows that people suck and can be corrupted or coerced. All the more reason to give them access to a worldview that, while understanding their faults, exhorts them to do better and not suck so much.

Most of the preachers one sees on American television will fall into some kind of heresy within a few minutes. "Word of Faith", "Seed Money" and "Give to Get" are almost ubiquitously connected to Christianity, despite being thoroughly off the map, as far as Christian doctrine goes. Here's an example of where Christian church folk have grown. Christians no longer burn or otherwise kill heretics. Haven't done so in quite awhile. Its always been in the rules ("let he without since cast the first stone", and all) but people are slow to catch on.

Try not to judge a religion by those who *haven't* gotten it right. Try to take a look at what it is really asking of its adherents, what its most thoughtful proponents claim as its goals and ideals, not what its most bombastic hangers-on shout about.

It is no accident that so many hospitals and schools all over the world bear the names of Catholic saints. You can claim "world dominion" all you want, (btw, I'm no huge fan of the Roman Church myself) but they put their money where their mouths were time and time again and fed the hungry, clothed the poor and cared for the sick. Power corrupts, though, and the Reformation provided a bit of a reset. I think we're in another of those reset periods again, where the choices the big American denominations made over the past 100 years are leading to another Reformation,

More often than not, though, I see anti Jew or anti Christian folk that want to ignore their own basic reasoning skills and go prooftexting out the description of one Biblical incident or another, or a law from Leviticus, pointing out how horrible [this or that] is, or trying to frame an incident from, perhaps, the Bronze Age, using a 21st century western perspective or maybe go straight for the Crusades

The stakes aren't quite as high, in terms of the potential for squelching freedom of speech in the present world where Internet access is far more vital than telephone access.

Also, telephony is long established and one-on-on, for the most part. Internet freedom of expression and of receipt of information is, for what it's worth, access to the common dataset of humanity now.

While I don't think that this ICANN move is that dangerous in and of itself, the phrase "slippery slope" and images of Blue Helmeted Cyber Cops eventually out looking for OUCHTHINK and BADTHINK won't stop echoing in my head as I try to finish this reply.

Where you see ITU, I'm sortof thinking U.N. "Human Rights" Council and U.N. profiteers.

The Internet started out and has remained open and free because it is a system designed, like the United States was designed, to be about individual right of access and local control under an accepted set of protocols designed for maximum cooperation.

The U.S., at our best, and codified in our Constitution, shows the power of the rule of law and puts the individual's absolute right of expression at the top of the list, just as "the Internet" at its best represents cooperation and individual freedom of access to, and dissemination of, information.

Someone (here on Slashdot, I think. My apologies for not having the attribution at the moment.) wrote:

Cacophony of international interests mucking about? Not so much.

While I completely agree with the bulk of this and the main point, I have to call BS on part of it. It isn't "where the internet went widespread". It is where the Internet was conceived, birthed and raised. This is not a trivial distinction.

Better than leaving it to the guys that practice stoning or decapitation of journalists, don't you think. The UN, if it had ever been useful, has long since been co-opted by the 7th Century Set and financial/political opportunists.

The UN is directly in the business of not allowing conflicts to be resolved. How is that beneficial for the Internet?

The problem is that your "almost every State in the world", most of the time, looks like the bar scene from Star Wars. The US may be going through some political turmoil, as Americans struggle to push back the Big Govt types that have gained a foothold over the last century. That doesn't change the fact that the Internet's structure, whether you like it or not, reflects the culture that gave it life.

I, for one, long for the days when the Internet had a strong hand on the wheel. A dictator at times, perhaps, but power was wielded not for political gain but for the good of the network and to express the will of those of us who called it home. RIP Jon Postel.

It was no accident that it was the University of California where the groundwork for this thing we all rely on so much was laid. Is there any other country in the world where the statement "Be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept from others." could have been written (and taken on so many levels)?

Or where the notion that a network of individual, independent hosts, connected by simple and well-defined protocols, could become something so much more than the sum of its parts could arise?

The rest of the world may have adopted the Internet, but acting like it wasn't born in the same crucible that formed our (currently sullied and slightly battered) Constitution is just silly and unproductive.

History is what it is, and the Internet as we know it, despite regional flavours, is the American Ideal expressed in electronics.