 So I thought I'd try out my DGI pocket to create a kit. It's a lot easier than my iPhone. So I can just put this in my pocket and we'll see what the technical quality is. So reading this book, once again, Religion in Secular Society, and talks about the rise of the film industry. So the primary purpose historically for religion was to provide emotional reassurance. But now people often find that they get emotional reassurance in more effective ways, such as going to the movies. And so one of the definitions of a studio film is that a studio film confirms your understanding of how the world works. In other words, it provides emotional reassurance. And so people often find a lot more emotional reassurance, more viscerally and more quickly from going to the movies than from going to church. So it used to be that religion met the need for emotional reassurance. That people were troubled by life and they needed reassurance. And there was a common feeling, right, that religion would tap into. But now as society becomes increasingly individualized, as we have more individualized professions, we have more individualized circumstances and experiences, right, we're becoming individuated to use the academic term, then there's no longer that reservoir of common feeling for religion to tap into. So since the 19th century, we've had the explosion of a Veltenshaw, right, a secular world view, right, the expansion of science. Science proves itself in the eyes of man, and it leads to new pragmatic tests for ideological systems. So when religion says, oh, there's no conflict between religion and science, religion is essentially saying we don't want to compete with science, religion is saying essentially that science is won. So the technical achievements of the entertainment industry, of movies and videos like this, that's sufficient to confer interest and stimulate enthusiasm. Now what I'm doing and what movies do on TV, it's detached from the agencies of social control. So religion used to work for social control. And the industry I'm in right now is incredibly competitive and profit seeking. So from the outset, the entertainment industry, the movie industry, appear to immediate appetites and emotions. So religion doesn't offer that quick fix. So there's never any inbuilt or implicit restraint about what movies and TV and videos might offer. It's not in the service of any particular class or nation or political or government agency. So YouTube is ideologically uncommitted, the medium of video, not YouTube, the business. All right, so people who make videos are prepared to test the market, discover what people would pay to see as entertainment. They're prepared to defy social convention and accept immorality. And it's in the interest of profit to do so, and until government interference might occur. So the entertainment industry has been from the outset a challenge to religion. It offers diversion more viscerally and quickly than religion. It offers new interpretations of daily life. It provides new sources of emotional reassurance. And the entertainment industry competes with the time, attention, and money of the public. So spending time with entertainment is not just an alternative way of spending time. It's also an alternative set of moral values. So it's replaced religion's attempt to awaken public sentiments by offering titillation of private emotions. So, overwhelmingly, the entertainment industry has proved more viscerally compelling than organized religion. So as we've had the expansion of literacy, the development of the secular press and the cinema, radio and TV. The church and the synagogue and the mosque have steadily lost their near monopoly on information and their dominance of communication industry. So it used to be public communication was largely from the pulpit, why notices appended to the church door. Remember, Martin Luther attached his 99 theses to the church door. That used to be how you communicated. Prior to the 19th century, intellectual stimulation was almost always religious exhortation. But 19th and 20th centuries have seen the erosion of the church's influence as a source of information. So the clergy have become one of several voices with divergent religious messages. And they're competing with increasingly effective voices in the new technical means of mass communication that offer visceral non-religious distractions. So when the church uses the means of mass communication, it does so only marginally. Compared to the total amount of entertainment, music, news, drama, secular education, other types of information carried on YouTube or TV, radio, press and cinema, religious information counts for just a very tiny part of the pie.