Ju-eez-uss-uh Camp

[Gus Van Horn blog]

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

See. "Jesus" does have four syllables!

Recalling a recommendation by a fellow Objectivist blogger some time ago, I watched the documentary Jesus Camp today. Mike's capsule was accurate, but still did not prepare me for the depths of depravity some people can reach on the matter of rearing children.

I think this is an excellent case study of the fundamentalist movement. See how two very young children admire Christian martyrs, and how their pastor admires Muslim suicide bombers for their faith.

This pastor (Becky Fischer), fully aware of the controversy this movie has generated among the non-religious, points to a chapter from a book she wrote at the end of each question of a lengthy FAQ on the movie at her ministry's web site, in the way of offering further explanation for her actions.

Since she is so proud of it -- and it reiterates the most monstrous aspect of the brain-crippling practices that come across in the movie -- I shall quote from it below:

f we are to win the battle of transforming our children into spiritual champions, we must link arms and voices to get our message out because we can work our whole lives in our individual fields and not see much more accomplished than what we have right now. But if we work together, we have a better chance of making our voices heard and making a permanent, lasting impact. You need only to do a quick search on the Internet under "Palestinian children" to see how serious our enemy is about training their kids to walk in their vision. At all costs, we must redefine children's ministry in the 21st century if we are to save this next generation. [bold added]

At all costs, indeed. The steepest one will be the minds of the children themselves.

Although she was not telling children to blow themselves up, these children were being systematically programmed -- like young Moslems in Palestine -- to think about religion at every waking moment and in every aspect of their lives. One of the children the filmmakers focused on, who several times went up to complete strangers apropos of nothing to attempt to convert them, was at one point encouraged by her father, who said, "Way to be obedient!"

Indeed, the film caused enough people concern that one of the questions she fields (by quoting the makers of the film) is whether the children are "capable of violence". The "reply" -- which takes advantage of the wishy-washy moral relativism of the filmmakers themselves, dodges this issue by noting the demeanor and articulateness of the children and raising the red herring of "brain-washing" being a "loaded term":

Asked whether Fischer, the leading voice at the camp, was a "brainwasher" or an "educator," [Rachel] Grady says, "Let's put it this way: 'Brainwashing,' obviously, is a very loaded word. It made me look at that word differently... all parents are indoctrinating their children in their beliefs. It made me question--do you start calling it 'brainwashing' or 'indoctrinating' if the beliefs are different from your own?" She feels the film "made my worldview open up a bit. Would I raise my kids like this? No. But I don't that's really relevant." [bold added]

I beg to differ. There is more to the (proper) instruction of children than mere indoctrination. Education is not simply a matter of content, but of the epistemological method being taught to children. Ideally, a proper education, whose nature can be determined only after a rigorous inquiry into what, exactly a child is and what adulthood requires him to learn, will permit a child to develop an independent, rational mind. (Note that such an inquiry would depend on a prior rejection, root and branch, of the entire mystical metaphysics, epistemology of blind faith, and ethics of total obedience to which Fischer subscribes.) Such a mind will then be able to determine for itself whether its beliefs have a firm basis in the facts of reality and the requirements for human life and correct such beliefs, if need be.

In other words, the short, honest answer to the question of whether these children are capable of violence is: Not yet -- as far as anyone can tell. So what if it isn't apparent from the documentary alone that anyone has told these children (or that they may, as fundamentalists, determine later for themselves from the Bible) that God "wants" them to force others to obey his alleged will or to injure or kill those who do not? The idea of obedience is firmly entrenched, the possibility of the Bible being wrong rejected out of hand, and the violence within the Bible very well known. Indeed, Fischer herself says at one point that someone would have been "put to death" in Biblical times for an attitude she did not like.

This is a disturbing film. Despite Fischer's numerous protestations against the notion that she has a political agenda, it is plain from her focus -- at a children's summer camp of all places -- on abortion and the overturning of the Roe vs. Wade decision, that she is being dishonest about that matter. Furthermore, if her lot are in fact churning out large numbers of charismatic (i.e., explicitly mystical) fundamentalists, we are in store for a major push for an end to the separation of church and state in America, the introduction or reimposition of religion-based laws wherever possible, and, quite possibly, religious terrorism beyond the occasional abortion clinic bombing.

This will make you sick, but watch it anyway.

-- CAV

PS: Regarding the second to last sentence, the first two are already underway, and none of them require the spread of charismatic Christianity (or any particular sect) to occur. My point here is simply that Becky Fischer's particular brand of indoctrination will make the possibility of such things greater sooner than otherwise.

Updates

9-10-07: Added PS.

http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/002786.html

[Antonio]

I recently saw this film as well, and found it disturbing even if I was not surprised. It has, however, made me wonder though about Leonard Peikoff's statement before last fall's elections advising that Objectivists should vote for Democrats as the lesser of two evils, and that voting Republican, or not voting at all, are worse.

It's a provocative thought. Even voting for "good" Republicans would be bad. Sure, there are good Republicans like Ron Paul who advocate free markets and small government. But they would help add to the numerical majority and give the party, which is not controlled by good Republicans, control of Congress.

As much as I hate Democrats' socialist tendencies, I can be persuaded not to vote Republican because in all likelihood the U.S. economy is so strong that it could not be destroyed by the left. Altered perhaps, but not destroyed. Is the limitation of freedom advocated by religious extremist Republicans worse? After all, by and large Republicans aren't really small government.

Is the religious right more dangerous than the nonreligious left?

[TheEgoist]

Well, that question has been argued before. I would bring to you the concept of the Religious Left, which can be seen most prominently in big Democrats like Edwards and Obama, who I think genuinely believe. Also, there are very socially conservative Dems such as Lieberman and Zel Miller ( Is that nutjob still around? )

[Antonio]

Well, that question has been argued before. I would bring to you the concept of the Religious Left, which can be seen most prominently in big Democrats like Edwards and Obama, who I think genuinely believe. Also, there are very socially conservative Dems such as Lieberman and Zel Miller ( Is that nutjob still around? )

I know what you mean about the religious Left. I ran into them in the last church that we attended before I broke off of religion completely - the Congregational Church. Even when I was pretty decidedly a nonbeliever, I indulged my wife in attending with her because the people were very nice and they were certainly enlightened and open minded. For instance, they allow gays to be members and clergy, and they teach the truth about how faith and religion has its basis in myths, like how solstice celebrations started out of primitive fears of the days getting shorter and darker in winter and cheers for days getting longer and with more light in summer.

The problem was that they would allow statism to creep in to the lessons, especially after the 2000 elections. Most of them being pacifists, they talked all the time about gun control and they preached a lot of save-the-Earth kind of stuff.

My inclination when everyone on a ballot is insidious is to not vote for any of them. I guess it comes down to what is the goal of the vote. Some people vote to send a message. Some vote because they think they have to. Others vote because they specifically want certain people in office, while others vote to prevent some candidates from winning. It all comes down to personal choice of course.

One could argue that we should vote according to whatever might serve a selfish need. For example, having a disable daughter who is eligible for some government services, some would say I should vote Democrat because Republicans promote religious statism that reduce our freedoms, and Democrats at least would maintain social programs that return me some of my tax dollars.

Doing so could be a vote for achieving two goals: stalling the growth of the influence of the evangelical religious Right, and ensuring that some of my immorally taken tax dollars are returned to me. After all, if the programs are cut, taxes won't be reduced. And even if taxes are reduced, some of that money will be returned to me. Right? I still have a hard time with this because on the other hand, I feel it amounts to advocacy of statism.

[Tenure]

A small point I'd like to make about the Religious Left: whilst there might be religious components, the consensus-agenda of the party is not one focused on religion, so they are nowhere near an equal threat in terms of religiousity.... religiousness...religability... their crazy God thing.

As for the film, I saw it last year and what shocked me the most, was the fact that it didn't shock me. Everything happening on their seemed perfectly normal to me. This is for two reasons: the community I was in at State school was a Christian (well, it was a Church of England school!) one and people there would quite easily support a lot of the sentiments in this film; this Jesus Camp, and the agenda it follows, seems perfectly in line with the direction religious extremism has gone in America.

If this was the 1950s/60s, I would be surprised, as Peikoff says, because religion was such a joke back then. But now its had this huge revival, all the stuff in that film, speaking with an eye towards how the rest of America - and the world - behaves, this doesn't seem surprising at all.

That thing that dancing girl says though, it sent shivers down my spine: "I'm not to dance for my own gratification, and I catch myself doing it, and I'm meant to only be doing it for the Lord". It sounded just like all the girls I met at school and especially like the groundings of the girl my ex-gf became.

*shudder*

Edited September 14, 2007 by Tenure

[Antonio]

A small point I'd like to make about the Religious Left: whilst there might be religious components, the consensus-agenda of the party is not one focused on religion, so they are nowhere near an equal threat in terms of religiousity.... religiousness...religability... their crazy God thing.

I think that is a major basis for the argument some Objectivists make about U.S. politics that Democrats, while they are of the left wing, do not generally base their policies on religion. And it's the religion that is the greatest threat to our freedoms, while bad economic and fiscal policies can be dealt with while still maintaining political freedom. Of course I am speaking only anecdotally, but most of the atheists I know are either Democrats or not Republicans, and I have never met a Democrat who wanted to use religion as a basis for public policy.

It's a tough one because when you take the region where I live, for instance, the Democrat or left faction, while not religious, pitches stifling environmental, anti-growth and anti-business policies that limit freedom from the economic standpoint. The Republicans, or the right-leaning element, tends to favor property rights and is supportive of business, job creation and economic growth. But then they're religious extremists who are often homophobic or in the most extreme cases, racist.

Granted that Peikoff's arguments about religious right-leaning politicians being the greatest threats to our freedom are quite sound. But the policies advocated by the left are just so patently offensive that I would have a hard time voting for one of them.

As for the film, I saw it last year and what shocked me the most, was the fact that it didn't shock me. Everything happening on their seemed perfectly normal to me. This is for two reasons: the community I was in at State school was a Christian (well, it was a Church of England school!) one and people there would quite easily support a lot of the sentiments in this film; this Jesus Camp, and the agenda it follows, seems perfectly in line with the direction religious extremism has gone in America.

If this was the 1950s/60s, I would be surprised, as Peikoff says, because religion was such a joke back then. But now its had this huge revival, all the stuff in that film, speaking with an eye towards how the rest of America - and the world - behaves, this doesn't seem surprising at all.

Indeed, this is a schism in America that is getting worse all the time. They get the kids started early. When they are very young their afterschool religious activities are all centered around fun, so it looks innocent. But then they are roped in and when they get older they are driven by fear into obedience. My daughter gets invitations to go to Awana and other little "fun" church-based activities, and it's really hard explaining to an 10-year-old why that's bad.

[DarkWaters]

I think that is a major basis for the argument some Objectivists make about U.S. politics that Democrats, while they are of the left wing, do not generally base their policies on religion.

There are a decent of Democrats who exist who would base their agenda on religious teachings, but many of them are currently not in office. Some examples include former President Jimmy Carter and Harold Ford Jr. I personally think Harold Ford Jr. embodies what the typical religious Democrat will look like over the next two decades if current trends continue. Such a Democrat would base policies on religion, but they would be on entirely different aspects from their religious Republican counterparts. This would include religious arguments for pacifism, multiculturalism and socialism.

Thus while evangelical Republicans will argue with christian Democrats about which religious reforms to integrate into government, they will still both agree on the more fundamental principle of Dominionism. That is, that Christians should strive to transform the government of their country into on that operates on Christian principles. Unfortunately, the precedents set by the Bush administration has really paved the way for Dominionists.

The Republicans ... [are generally] supportive of business, job creation and economic growth.

I suggest re-evaluating this perspective. The Bush Administration has overseen one of the greatest expansions of government into the public (non-defense) sector since the Lyndon Johnson Administration. Consider the enormous prescription drug benefits plan and No Child Left Behind. Furthermore, prominent Republican leaders such as former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist who were giving speeches on the senate floor about the need to penalize oil companies for their "windfall profits" after Hurricane Katrina. Finally, the Republicans are often in greater much favor of keeping Mexican immigrants out of the labor market. If you are interested in delving into this further, I recommend listening to Dr. Yaron Brook's lecture "Why Conservatives are Anti-Business." It is available on the "registered users section" of the Ayn Rand Institute's website. Registration is free.

The Republican Party probably has more individuals who are still pro-Capitalism (such as Rudy Giuliani) and the Democrats still possesses some of the most anti-Capitalistic (such as John Edwards and Representative Barney Frank), but I think overall the parties are not that ideologically different in economics anymore.

[Antonio]

I suggest re-evaluating this perspective. The Bush Administration has overseen one of the greatest expansions of government into the public (non-defense) sector since the Lyndon Johnson Administration. Consider the enormous prescription drug benefits plan and No Child Left Behind. Furthermore, prominent Republican leaders such as former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist who were giving speeches on the senate floor about the need to penalize oil companies for their "windfall profits" after Hurricane Katrina. Finally, the Republicans are often in greater much favor of keeping Mexican immigrants out of the labor market. If you are interested in delving into this further, I recommend listening to Dr. Yaron Brook's lecture "Why Conservatives are Anti-Business." It is available on the "registered users section" of the Ayn Rand Institute's website. Registration is free.

The Republican Party probably has more individuals who are still pro-Capitalism (such as Rudy Giuliani) and the Democrats still possesses some of the most anti-Capitalistic (such as John Edwards and Representative Barney Frank), but I think overall the parties are not that ideologically different in economics anymore.

Your editing of my quote to read "The Republicans ... [are generally] supportive of business, job creation and economic growth." is misleading because it conveys a different perspective than what I wrote originally. What I actually wrote was that "...when you take the region where I live, for instance, the Democrat or left faction, while not religious, pitches stifling environmental, anti-growth and anti-business policies that limit freedom from the eco"nomic standpoint. The Republicans, or the right-leaning element, tends to favor property rights and is supportive of business, job creation and economic growth. But then they're religious extremists who are often homophobic or in the most extreme cases, racist."

All politics being local, as the old saying goes, that is the stance of most Republican officeholders and candidates in the area of California in which I live. No evaluation of that perspective is necessary because their voting records and campaign statements indicate what I said. I suspect that my local Republicans favor small government because Democrats in this area are overwhelmingly environmentalist (the lines divide here between pro-growth/anti-growth) and most come from the Bay Area. Because most local Democrat efforts tilt toward intervention with property rights and development, the natural opposition would look to Republicans.

Naturally, this is not the case everywhere. In California's Central Valley, for instance, Republicans favor big-government farm subsidies and other interventions such as milk price supports (some would say welfare) for the massive (many of them corporate, in contrast to the family-run or mid-sized operations where I live) farms and dairies in the region. There I suspect the lines would break on the pro-business/anti-business line. Central Valley Democrats tend to favor government intervention to protect farm workers while Republicans tend to favor government protecting agribusiness.

The common thread, however, is whether they favor big government like the ones in the Valley or the small-government variety in my area, is that many of them are Christian extremists. So while Republicans might be pro-capitalist as you describe, yes, many are also pro big-government because they are pro-business. In choosing the lesser of evils, I generally favored pro-business because it's supposed to create jobs (though that often doesn't happen). But I agree that the parties are quite similar in terms of advocating government intervention in the economy. And both parties have grown increasingly authoritarian in that regard.

The stronger religious overtones and Christian authoritarianism of the right have bugged me for a long time. I've politely put up with it among my Republican brethren, even when I do state my own contrary views, but I'm not sure if I can for much longer, or if I should.