Summary: The internet, particularly web 2.0, has fundamentally changed the landscape of human communication. Internet phenomena such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and YouTube have created an instant dialogue between people at opposite ends of the globe. Homo religious has taken this opportunity as a new frontier for communication between faiths and the faithful, with countless websites offering everything from aggressive proselytising to mild-mannered interfaith dialogue. In an inverted reflection of ‘real world’ interfaith work, web 2.0, particularly YouTube, has seen the proliferation of discussion that is primarily profanity-laden, intolerant, and often hate-filled. It seeks neither consensus, nor debate, but rather only a dogged commitment to the absolute truth of the individual’s belief system, at the expense of all others. It is the argument of this essay that the anonymity of web 2.0 has created an environment in which social mores no longer apply, and free from such constraints, ‘netizens’ feel free to lambast and pontificate, without fear of any consequences. This essay will continue to argue that, rather than constituting a ‘revolution’, interfaith dialogue online is, paradoxically, better understood as a return to the contact between and behaviour of religions in the pre-modern era. The denizens of the internet adhere more to the thinking of St. Augustine, Tertullian, and William of Rubruck, than to any modern or new mode of thought.
