Originally posted by Bosse de Nage 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?
No -- I'm just pointing out the folly in calling something "indoctrination" when it happens (in a sense, has to happen) all the time, in every family. It's just easier in the modern climate to call something "indoctrination" if it is religious in nature.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage 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.
I don't know -- that would depend on how open he is to reasoning.
Originally posted by rwingett 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 c sodic about the notion of martyrdom. It's not just a bunch of kids singing religious hymns.
I'll keep an eye out for it in case it hits my local theatre.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage 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.
I have been told that "watch towers" ( I have forgotten what they call themselves) call preists in other christian churches the anti-christ. Many of these other christians respond by saying that "watch towers" are not christians.
Originally posted by ivanhoe 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 ?
No, the makers didn't hint at that comparison, but it is an obvious one. There is no narration in the movie. It simply shows the activities of the camp in action and lets the participants speak for themselves.
The movie is bracketed with scenes of someone from Air America talking about the dangers of encroaching militant fundamentalism, which could conceivably cause a conservative viewer to claim the film has a 'liberal' slant to it.
It's the same dynamic in that they're both indoctrinating children to become the footsoldiers in their respective struggles. Many of the most fanatical Nazis came from the Hitler Youth, and this camp is doing its best to churn out a whole generation of fanatical christians who will have fewer qualms about laying down their lives for the cause.
Originally posted by lucifershammer I don't know -- that would depend on how open he is to reasoning.
He says he believes Muslims are anti-Christs because the Bible tells him so and every word in the Bible is true. He's an extremely intelligent professional who happens to have a frighteningly literal interpretation of his holy book.
Originally posted by lucifershammer No -- I'm just pointing out the folly in calling something "indoctrination" when it happens (in a sense, has to happen) all the time, in every family. It's just easier in the modern climate to call something "indoctrination" if it is religious in nature.
OK, so Mao's Red Guards were not ideologically indoctrinated because every family has to have discipline. Have I got the measure of your logic?
Originally posted by rwingett Many of the most fanatical Nazis came from the Hitler Youth, and this camp is doing its best to churn out a whole generation of fanatical christians who will have fewer qualms about laying down their lives for the cause.
And presumably you think it's only a short step from laying down your life for the cause to taking someone else's?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage OK, so Mao's Red Guards were not ideologically indoctrinated because every family has to have discipline. Have I got the measure of your logic?
Not really. My argument is the other way around - Mao's Red Guards were, indeed, indoctrinated; but so are children every day in whatever environment they grow up in (be it directly through discipline and parental speeches or indirectly from their parents' behaviour). Calling one "indoctrination" and not the other is simply setting up a bogeyman. You aren't addressing an issue if you simply stick a label of rhetoric on it.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage He says he believes Muslims are anti-Christs because the Bible tells him so and every word in the Bible is true. He's an extremely intelligent professional who happens to have a frighteningly literal interpretation of his holy book.
Is he open to looking at the historical, social, cultural and linguistic context of Biblical verses?
Originally posted by lucifershammer 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 def ...[text shortened]... need to know how to fly a plane; if he were in the Navy, he would need to know how to swim).
You can play it by definition if you want. What is a soldier? A member of an army. What is an army? A large body of people organized and trained for war. What is war? The waging of armed conflict against an enemy. Does armed conflict involve killing people? Yes, it does.
The other functions of the army that you mention could be carried out by unarmed organisations. Weapons, death, destruction--that is the business of an army, whether in attack or defence. Perhaps the US Army really was defending the USA by attacking Iraq. How did it defend the USA? By killing Iraqis. Find me an example of a war that did not involve killing people.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Not really. My argument is the other way around - Mao's Red Guards were, indeed, indoctrinated; but so are children every day in whatever environment they grow up in (be it directly through discipline and parental speeches or indirectly from their parents' behaviour). Calling one "indoctrination" and not the other is simply setting up a bogeyman. You aren't addressing an issue if you simply stick a label of rhetoric on it.
I'm using indoctrination in the sense of "teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically". As you've already pointed out, children are very critical of their parents' efforts to indoctrinate them! At a later stage, it seems, some children are encouraged to think en masse, uncritically. Surely you see the difference.
Or, what makes one type of indoctrination healthy and another not?
Originally posted by lucifershammer Is he open to looking at the historical, social, cultural and linguistic context of Biblical verses?
He triumphantly considered the discussion closed with the citation of that particular verse. I said, "Don't you think that's a rather extreme view?" He responded, "If believing what the Bible says is extreme, then I'm happy to be an extremist!"
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage You can play it by definition if you want. What is a soldier? A member of an army. What is an army? A large body of people organized and trained for war. What is war? The waging of armed conflict against an enemy. Does armed conflict involve killing people? Yes, it does.
The other functions of the army that you mention could be carried out by unarm ...[text shortened]... end the USA? By killing Iraqis. Find me an example of a war that did not involve killing people.
What is an army? A large body of people organized and trained for war.
That doesn't define their purpose. Why does nearly every country on Earth have an army? Do they intend to wage war against their neighbours or any other country?
Weapons, death, destruction--that is the business of an army, whether in attack or defence.
Are you saying that whether it is used in attack or defence does not make a difference? Are you drawing a moral equivalence between violence used in aggression and self-defence?
Originally posted by lucifershammer Are you saying that whether it is used in attack or defence does not make a difference? Are you drawing a moral equivalence between violence used in aggression and self-defence?
No, functional equivalence. A blade cuts whoever wields it, a soldier kills whom he's told to. Typically, both sides in a war think they're in the right, so it's all good in the end, because only bad people get killed.
Jesus Camp
16 Oct '06 13:43
YouTube
Back to Top