Jesus Camp

Originally posted by lucifershammer

No more than the home is. I don't see anything fundamentally "inappropriate" in 8-year olds being encouraged to see themselves as "soldiers of the Lord" when it's clear that their "weapons" are not violent or anti-democratic (and being "soldiers" does not automatically mean there is an "enemy" -- the primary role of the army is defence, after all). ...[text shortened]... ness campaigns, handing out leaflets etc.) then would you see a problem with it?

The home can be an unsuitable learning environment--families can be toxic, in extreme cases requiring intervention--but is not categorically so. Each case must be evaluated according to known facts. The same holds for religious camps--they are not categorically unsuitable for children!

I think it is inappropriate for children to see themselves as soldiers, period. After all there are real child soldiers out there, who have killed people themselves--not something I'd like my kids to aspire to. Would you appreciate a rhetoric of martyrdom, too, being levelled at young children? The stated aim of the Jesus camp people is to inspire their children with the sort of zeal supposedly found in countries that produce suicide bombers, where I'm led to believe martyrdom is extolled by some as a worthwhile ambition. They want to "take the country back for Jesus"--well--apart from the fact that it never belonged to Jesus--who exactly are they taking it back from? Apparently the photograph of President Bush is a key to unravelling this enigma.

As for helping others--"community service" is adequately descriptive, and I'm not against it, although it can be mishandled. There's no reason to treat a social problem as some sort of war, unless you want to create a generation of environmental extremists.

Mao's Red Guards are an example of where this behaviour can lead, taken to extremes. Weren't they fighting against their country's ideological enemy?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]And an explanation of why they are good habits does work better than a flat command.

In the hypothetical conversation I cited, how do you think the mother could've explained why stealing is wrong better?[/b]

I do actually have children, LH, so I can draw from experience. Telling them something's wrong doesn't mean they automatically accept it is just because you say so. The issue does present an occasion to teach reciprocity, although that lesson may take a life-time to learn! Ultimately children appear to learn best from example. My son's grandfather is moralistic and authoritarian, always ready to bellow out commands; his grandmother is firm, patient and reasonable and always takes the time to explain things, a hundred times if necessary; guess which one he respects and responds to?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The home can be an unsuitable learning environment--families can be toxic, in extreme cases requiring intervention--but is not categorically so. Each case must be evaluated according to known facts. The same holds for religious camps--they are not categorically unsuitable for children!

I think it is inappropriate for children to see themselves as s ...[text shortened]... , taken to extremes. Weren't they fighting against their country's ideological enemy?

I think it is inappropriate for children to see themselves as soldiers, period.

I don't. To a certain extent, many kids already do see themselves as soldiers. What do you think a kid who identifies with his favourite comic or cartoon super-hero is doing?

The soldier motif is a good way of communicating several virtues society considers valuable -- courage, honour, tenacity, camaraderie etc. Even competitive sports implicitly adopt this motif. Heck, even chess is nothing but a war simulation!

Would you appreciate a rhetoric of martyrdom, too, being levelled at young children?

If young children can/should be taught the value of sacrifice, then I see no problems in teaching them that, under certain circumstances, they must be willing to stand up for what they believe in -- no matter what the personal cost. After all, if you can't tell kids about martyrdom, then you can't tell them about people like Abe Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Gandhi etc. either.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I do actually have children, LH, so I can draw from experience. Telling them something's wrong doesn't mean they automatically accept it is just because you say so. The issue does present an occasion to teach reciprocity, although that lesson may take a life-time to learn! Ultimately children appear to learn best from example. My son's grandfather is m ...[text shortened]... to explain things, a hundred times if necessary; guess which one he respects and responds to?

You didn't answer the question.

How would your mother (mother in law? it's not clear from your post) explain to your son why stealing is wrong any different from the mother in the hypothetical I provided?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't. To a certain extent, many kids already do see themselves as soldiers. What do you think a kid who identifies with his favourite comic or cartoon super-hero is doing?

He's fantasising. It's a different matter to a child thinking he really is a soldier and parents reinforcing that belief. In fact blurring the line between fantasy and reality is something that fanatics are particularly good at, leading to a host of social ills.

Make no mistake: a soldier's primary function is to kill. If you want camaraderie, try fishing.

"courage, honour, tenacity, camaraderie etc." are qualities that ordinary people display under unexceptional circumstances.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How would your mother (mother in law? it's not clear from your post) explain to your son why stealing is wrong any different from the mother in the hypothetical I provided?

Your example is fine, LH--it raises the issue of reciprocity, which the child comes to understand with experience. It takes time and patience to convey the message, and it doesn't take place in isolation either--countless real-world incidents add to and reinforce the basic message. Perhaps the mother could demonstrate that it hurts to be stolen from by stealing the kid's toys herself...simulating crime to convey a message. Parenting includes an element of subversion and trickery...

Why did you ask, anyway?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
He's fantasising. It's a different matter to a child thinking he really is a soldier and parents reinforcing that belief. In fact blurring the line between fantasy and reality is something that fanatics are particularly good at, leading to a host of social ills.

Make no mistake: a soldier's primary function is to kill. If you want camaraderie, try fishing.

Make no mistake: a soldier's primary function is to kill.

I'm sorry -- I'll just have to disagree here. A soldier's primary function is to defend his country -- killing is just the means to that end (as the necessity arises).

Not all armies are military in nature (what is your take on the Salvation Army?) and not all operations by the [military] Army are military in nature (why are the armed forces always the first to be sent in when a natural disaster, like the tsunami, strikes?)

It's a different matter to a child thinking he really is a soldier and parents reinforcing that belief. In fact blurring the line between fantasy and reality is something that fanatics are particularly good at, leading to a host of social ills.

Thanks for the insight into "fanatics". I'm sure your kids grow up with lots of respect for your "fanatical" Evangelical neighbours.

In any case, within the Christian belief system, it is perfectly orthodox to consider oneself part of the "Lord's Army" and "fight" against evils in a non-violent manner. Being a soldier isn't a "fantasy" -- it's very much a reality in that belief system. The key point being that a "Christian soldier" does not use violence (something you repeatedly ignore -- is there any evidence that the organisers of said 'Jesus Camp' were advocating hatred or violence?) -- his weapons are prayer and charity.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Your example is fine, LH--it raises the issue of reciprocity, which the child comes to understand with experience. It takes time and patience to convey the message, and it doesn't take place in isolation either--countless real-world incidents add to and reinforce the basic message. Perhaps the mother could demonstrate that it hurts to be stolen from by ssage. Parenting includes an element of subversion and trickery...

Why did you ask, anyway?

Your example is fine, LH--it raises the issue of reciprocity, which the child comes to understand with experience.

The "with experience" bit is what I'm driving at -- until then the child simply has to be told (or "indoctrinated" ) that it's wrong. When they're old and experienced enough, they'll figure it out.

Perhaps the mother could demonstrate that it hurts to be stolen from by stealing the kid's toys herself...simulating crime to convey a message.

Would you advocate the same approach if your child has been, say, bullying a smaller kid at school?

EDIT: In the example I gave, the child challenges the principle of reciprocity itself on the basis that stealing is something entirely unlikely to happen to him from his classmates. The mother stealing from the child to "teach him a lesson" would not necessarily address that point (it might even reinforce the opposite "might is right" viewpoint -- after all, the only reason the mother's able to steal from the child is that she's bigger and stronger than him and in a position of authority).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
EDIT2: I am reminded of the position of the English philosopher G.E. Moore who said that "goodness" cannot be analyzed in terms of other properties. Essentially, it's impossible to explain completely why stealing is wrong -- you'll end up with some fundamental set of values that just has to be accepted.

Good and bad can be analysed and explained to children, though we often are too busy (or lazy) to actually do so. Children do often respond much better when they have and explanation, but overdoing the explanations can lead to them refusing to do something unless a sufficient reason is given or unless they can understand the reason so sometimes it is better to teach them that in some cases they must just do what they are told!
As for Christian youth camps, I have no real objections to them in general (except that they are promoting a faith I do not agree with personally). However the origional post was concerned about the possibility that the material the children were being indoctrinated with had the potential to harm society and that the leaders had sufficient sway over the children that they could potentially seriously abuse thier positions. Whether this was true or not I cannot say without at least watching the documentary.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not all armies are military in nature (what is your take on the Salvation Army?) and not all operations by the [military] Army are military in nature (why are the armed forces always the first to be sent in when a natural disaster, like the tsunami, strikes?)

It's a different matter to a child thinking he really is a soldier and parents reinforcing sure your kids grow up with lots of respect for your "fanatical" Evangelical neighbours..

No, some groups (the Salvation Army, Army of Lovers) use the word "army" metaphorically. Use the term "military" if you prefer.

My neighbour (thanks for the insult) belongs to the Salvation Army. As far as I can tell, he's not a fanatic at all. By the way, my use of the word was not directed specifically at Christians. Fanatics exist in all walks of life. I'd be interested if you could give some examples of just what you think fanatics are. Would the SS qualify? They were just protecting their country, and their camaderie was quite inspirational. As for their heroism in battle...I get hard just thinking about it.

The armed forces go in when there's a disaster because they have the capability, thanks to huge defence budgets. If the emergency services received more funding no doubt they wouldn't have to call in the army. The point remains: a soldier cannot be a soldier unless he knows how to kill, ergo killing is his primary function. All the rest is a lovely bonus.



"Extreme liberals who look at this should be quaking in their boots," Pastor Fischer says at one point in the film. She goes on to tell the children, mostly aged from seven to 12: "This is a sick old world. Kids, you got to change things. This means war. Are you part of it?"

Such statements are open to interpretation--perhaps too open. Are Fischer and Co dangerous fanatics? I don't know. I find their rhetoric inflammatory and their use of symbols (incl. the Israeli flag!) confrontational, but they haven't blown up any abortion clinics yet. I will pray to my God that they never cross that line.

Edit: Speaking of rhetoric: Why does Fischer tell children that change equates with war? Why does changing things mean war?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Your example is fine, LH--it raises the issue of reciprocity, which the child comes to understand with experience.

The "with experience" bit is what I'm driving at -- until then the child simply has to be told (or "indoctrinated" ) that it's wrong. When they're old and experienced enough, they'll figure it out.

Perhaps the mothe child is that she's bigger and stronger than him and in a position of authority).

Why are we discussing the difficulties of raising children? It seems wildly off topic. Are you trying to draw some sort of analogy between family dynamics and the behaviour of the Jesus Camp crowd?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
A reasonably balanced report on the movie:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/movies/15747854.htm

And no, I haven't seen it yet.

EDIT: Quite amazing how a bunch of kids singing religious hymns suddenly seems to become "Hitler Youth" for some people.

Only an ignorant, dogmatic, superstitious, christian freak would fail to see the similarity between the two.

When you've seen the movie then I'll consider giving you more than the standard ad hominem. Especially note the scene where they work the kids up into a tearful frenzy and have each of them release that emotion by taking a hammer and smashing a ceramic mug with 'government' written on it. Or the scene at the end where the kids are waxing rhapsodic about the notion of martyrdom. It's not just a bunch of kids singing religious hymns.

Tangentially, on fanaticism:

A colleague of mine stated categorically to me that Muslims are (collectively) the Anti-Christ. He quoted a verse from 1 John to the effect that anyone who doesn't believe in Christ is an anti-Christ. Do you think he qualifies as a fanatic? I haven't told him any of my views because he supplies me with work, but I am considering ending the relationship.

Originally posted by rwingett
Has anyone else seen this movie yet? I saw it today, and found it to be a horrifying film. A whole generation of evangelical zealots in the making. It's the Hitler Youth all over again, but with different slogans. They swap out the "Heil Hitler" for a "Praise Jesus", but it's the exact same dynamic at work. The preacher seemed to think that the willingness ...[text shortened]... [/i] and its "Two Minutes Hate."

If these people get in charge, we're all doomed.

I haven't seen the movie, but could you elaborate on what you wrote ? In particular the comparison you made with the Hitler Jugend is interesting. Did the makers of the film hint at this comparison or did they explicetely mention it ? How did they do this ? What is this "exact same dynamic at work" you are referring to ?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No, some groups (the Salvation Army, Army of Lovers) use the word "army" metaphorically. Use the term "military" if you prefer.

My neighbour (thanks for the insult) belongs to the Salvation Army. As far as I can tell, he's not a fanatic at all. By the way, my use of the word was not directed specifically at Christians. Fanatics exist in all walks o ...[text shortened]... her tell children that change equates with war? Why does changing things mean war?

No, some groups (the Salvation Army, Army of Lovers) use the word "army" metaphorically.

So do most Christian groups that speak of "soldiers for the Lord" or "Lord's Army".

I'd be interested if you could give some examples of just what you think fanatics are.

For me, a fanatic would be someone who implictly or explicitly rejects the role of reason in evaluating his/her beliefs and actions.

The point remains: a soldier cannot be a soldier unless he knows how to kill, ergo killing is his primary function.

That's rubbish logic. A doctor cannot be a doctor unless he knows how to perform an appendectomy; that doesn't make it his primary function. A doctor's primary function is to safeguard the life and health of his/her patient -- knowing how to perform an appendectomy is required to achieve that end. Similarly, the soldier's primary function is to defend the realm -- knowing how to kill is required to achieve that end (if he were in the Air Force, he would need to know how to fly a plane; if he were in the Navy, he would need to know how to swim).

Why does Fischer tell children that change equates with war? Why does changing things mean war?

In context, I don't think she's telling them that "change=war" generally -- she's telling them that change requires serious commitment and action (like a war would) in the current situation. I agree it's open to misinterpretation if this is the only thing she said -- but unless I know the other activities at the camp (i.e. whether the "war" being spoken of is violent or not), I can't say which interpretation is being absorbed by the kids.