[QUOTE=GLWasteful]
Right. But as we’ve already been told:
Y’know, just in case you were confused.
[/QUOTE]
That information came from the website not the movie so the point you’re trying to make is lost. The group is political. The movie itself seems less so, although trotting out a Bush figure to pray for as hero seems pretty political to me.
Boy, do I ever disagree with you there. The idea that homosexuals are in anyway not deserving of the same rights, priveledges, and respect due any other human being is one that absolutely must be stamped out, by any legal means possible. That the idea is at all controversial only makes it all the more imperative. Teaching children from a young age that there is nothing wrong with being gay is an excellent way to undermine any bigotry that they are being taught at home. The more a parent objects to this, the more vital it is that their children receive this message, because those are the children most likely to eventually vote against laws protecting gays and lesbians, to continue to block them from the basic rights granted as a matter of course to straight people, or to seek to cause physical harm to people because of their orientation. Homophobia is not a subject in which there is room to disagree. It is a sick, hateful, vile belief that needs to be rooted out of society like a cancer.
Tolerence, anti-bigotry, acceptance and diversity - part of the liberal agenda. Cool. Nice to hear someone actually admit this.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
That information came from the website not the movie so the point you’re trying to make is lost. The group is political. The movie itself seems less so, although trotting out a Bush figure to pray for as hero seems pretty political to me.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it seems pretty political to me, as well. As does the idea of taking back America for the good and Godly. And less political in no way equals not political. It’s just that after three pages of nano8track claiming that the movie isn’t political when it sure as hell looks that way to any thinking person, I’ve become a little testy.
I’ll have a bicarb and lie down for a while. I’m sure it’ll get better.
[QUOTE=GLWasteful]
Actually, it seems pretty political to me, as well. As does the idea of taking back America for the good and Godly. And less political in no way equals not political. It’s just that after three pages of nano8track claiming that the movie isn’t political when it sure as hell looks that way to any thinking person, I’ve become a little testy.
I’ll have a bicarb and lie down for a while. I’m sure it’ll get better.
[/QUOTE]
There certainly some political content in the movie , and the statement you quoted by nano said the group was not political which I think has been very clearly shown , is wrong. So, you were more right than wrong. 
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There is no such thing as a dogmatic presentation of science.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. An attitude which suggests that science is infalible and cannot be questioned is dogmatic. Also it goes against the nature of science which includes falilbility and questioning its own ideas.
I would have been against an interracial book in that context too. My objection is not to the message, but to the means by which the message is delivered. Controversial issues should be resolved by adults. I also have no objection to presenting the issue to teens in schools, because they have a fair amount of discernment as well and should be prepared when they reach adulthood. Young children do not have the same level of discernment, they will readily believe something that an adult or teen will not.
Teaching one side of a controversial issue to children in public school is brainwashing in my view. It doesn’t matter if you think the viewpoint is good or evil. The fact that the message appears good does not justify the evil means by which it is delivered IMO.
I admire that you are consitent. I can empathise with your viewpoint, but I do not agree with it. It is nice that books like “Heather Has Two Mommies” are available for parents to read to their children at home though.
I feel like we have swapped positions as compared to the Bush picture, lol. To me issues are of more relevance than a president, because a president can only last at most for 8 years. The issue I am referring to in this case is gay marriage. Surely you can admit that a couple raising a child can be associated with marriage.
KKK seemed weird when they dress up in their robes and did their nastiness at night, but the problem is that you couldn’t tell who they were with their robes off until you got to know them fairly well. Al Qaeda I can’t make a judgement call on, because I don’t know enough about Saudi or Afghan culture. I know their beliefs are extreme, but it’s possible their dress, speech, manerisms, and other behavior fit in with the rest of their culture. The other two groups I’ve never even heard of.
On the other hand groups such as African Americans, American Muslims, homosexulas, persons with mental disabilities, little people, and even teenagers with unusual appearance (such as a lot of piercings) suffer from intolerance simply because they are significantly different from the norm. And I’m just mentioning examples off the top of my head that are common in the US right now. If I went to the past the list would grow greatly. The reason they suffer from intolerance is because they seem too different to their persecuters. Being different or “weird” is an invitation to receive persecution. It isn’t necessarily an invitation to give it.
School boards are wonderful things. Not only is a wise decision more likely to be made by consensus, but more importantly they have a personal stake in their own community. Because of that I am most worried about federal regulation and possibly state regulation as well.
Your worldview seems very black and white to me. It seems to assume that you are always going to be right. Haven’t you ever been mistaken about something?
My error was that I thought you were trying to make a convincing argument. Instead you were merely expressing your views in a way that to me suggested that they were infallible.
I replied to a similar comment in a previous post.
Thank you for bringing focus back to the thread. I agree wholeheartedly.
Finally! This is exactly the type of evidence that I’ve been waiting for. I completely concede that this group has a political agenda in light of the evidence. My main point from the start was to not jump to conclusions without sufficient evidence.
Thank you for your post. It is diametrically opposite to my own viewpoint, which is “the ends do not justify the means”. Wanting the government to brainwash someone elses children is evil no matter how good the message appears to be.
[QUOTE=nano8track]
Thank you for your post. It is diametrically opposite to my own viewpoint, which is “the ends do not justify the means”. Wanting the government to brainwash someone elses children is evil no matter how good the message appears to be.
[/QUOTE]
“Gays deserve to be treated the same as everyone else,” is brainwashing to you? Don’t be ridiculous. Do you think the kids in this camp ever hear a positive message about homosexuality at home, or from their church? Not a chance. School is the only opportunity most of these kids will ever have to hear the truth. It’s not brainwashing, it’s giving the kids a chance to make up their own minds about it. It’s the only way to prevent them from being brainwashed. And for most of them, it’s not going to work. Because the influence from their family is vastly superior to what can be exerted by a school. But some of them are going to hear it. And for the ones who are gay themselves, it could save their lives. That’s an end that justifies a whole lot of means.
[QUOTE=nano8track]
I would have been against an interracial book in that context too. My objection is not to the message, but to the means by which the message is delivered. Controversial issues should be resolved by adults.
<snip>
Teaching one side of a controversial issue to children in public school is brainwashing in my view. It doesn’t matter if you think the viewpoint is good or evil. The fact that the message appears good does not justify the evil means by which it is delivered IMO.
[/quote]
It seems, though, from your posts, that you advocate prayer in schools (please correct me if I’m wrong.) Prayer in school is a controversial issue, therefore, by your logic, it should not be allowed.
Huh? FriarTed wasn’t bringing focus back to the thread, because this thread has never been about the legality of these camps. It’s about the creepiness of these camps. FriarTed is using a favorite defocusing tool- you see, he doesn’t want to talk about how scary these camps really are, so he takes the focus off of that and sets up his little strawman about how these camps are legal. The tactic is designed to take the attention off of the real issue. See, in the first paragraph of his post he argues something that nobody has denied, and nobody in their right mind would oppose. Then, once he has you nodding your head and agreeing with him, he slips his personal views into the second paragraph in the hopes that you won’t think critically about them since you’ve already agreed with the first paragraph. Clever device, really.
[QUOTE=nano8track]
I would have been against an interracial book in that context too. My objection is not to the message, but to the means by which the message is delivered. Controversial issues should be resolved by adults. I also have no objection to presenting the issue to teens in schools, because they have a fair amount of discernment as well and should be prepared when they reach adulthood. Young children do not have the same level of discernment, they will readily believe something that an adult or teen will not.
Teaching one side of a controversial issue to children in public school is brainwashing in my view. It doesn’t matter if you think the viewpoint is good or evil. The fact that the message appears good does not justify the evil means by which it is delivered IMO.
[/QUOTE]
I understand the point you are making and I might agree that the book shouldn’t be placed in the cuuriculum. {But probably not}We have school boards and PTAs to discuss those things. Most of the objections were about this book even being available in the public library. Prejudice must be challenged in order to be overcome. It does not just go away after calm discussion among adults. Certainly we need criteria about which books should be available to younger children. Does it educate in a positive manner? Is it’s lesson valuble to our children? etc. Having met the criteria how do we fight prejudice? It’s ironic that we should argue this in a thread about a group purposely indoctrinating young children.
I’m also unsure as to how the book represents one side of a controversial issue. How controversial is tolerance and equality? I do see your point, really, but at some point society must work to move forward. Civil rights might never have happened if everybody waited until the majority agreed and it was no longer controversial. What about the children that suffer because of existing prejudice? When do we stand up for them?
Does that mean you think this book should not be available in a public or school library? Not as curriculum but just a one choice out of many. When parents complain and say I don’t want my child even stumbling on that kind of book by accident do we cave in to them? I guess it’s a matter of how we move forward and when. There are no perfect solutions.
I see. So no books indicating same gender couples should be available in school until the gay marriage issue is resolved. Not because it is right or wrong but because it is contriversial. Is that about it? Funny. You were defending this group saying trotting out the president for prayer isn’t really political, but somehow a childrens book depicting a happy same gender family is brainwashing.
Do you think merely showing that a happy same gender couple does exist is somehow forcing a moral judgement on young children? Showing a positive same gender couple is somehow brainwashing kids to accept that gay marriage is okay?
I think indicating Bush as some kind of Christian hero is far more controversial if not downright dishonest.
Well, I think we’ve exhauted the subject and although we don’t agree I thank you for your input.
Hmmmmm There are varying degrees of intolerance. “You kids get a hair cut” and “God hates fags” are both examples of intolerance but hardly comperable. I believe your point was that unusual groups usually invite intolerance rather that exhibit it. There is ample evidence that is incorrect. Some unusual groups are the authors of intolerance.
I appreciate your honesty. I agree with your point. I do think there was enough evidence there to make a reasonable judgement call before.
No one has suggested or promoted any such thing. Do you think parents should be allowed to teach any vile belief they desire to their children? The balance is society has an obligation to protect children but also to respect the rights of parents. The children are not the private property of the parents. They are people and citizens and society {that means the government} has a responsibility to protect them and further itself by nurturing positive influences. There is controversy over where that line is drawn and that controversy helps move us forward. It really surprises me how you throw out the brainwashing word simply because people want to present ideas to children.
I agree the government should not be brainwashing kids, but under your definition how do we discern brainwashing and teaching positive ideas? I guess if it’s in any way controversial it should not be taught to young children until the issue is resolved. Is that it? I don’t find that totally unreasonable. I guess it’s a matter of deciding where the lines are drawn.
[QUOTE=nano8track]
Teaching one side of a controversial issue to children in public school is brainwashing in my view. It doesn’t matter if you think the viewpoint is good or evil. The fact that the message appears good does not justify the evil means by which it is delivered IMO.
[/quote]
Then you are ignorant of what happens in public schools. Fortunately, you’re in the right place to have your ignorance fought. Now, as to whether or not it will happen remains to be seen.
Honestly? You’ve never heard of the Swifties? Or MoveOn? I see that your ignorance is more all-encompassing than I originally thought.
Trust me, Slick, I was against the clusterfuck that is No Child Left Behind long before it ever got whittled down to it’s final form. You, though, seem to be operating under the misapprehension that if any government is involved, then that’s automatically a bad thing. It’s not. Again, ignorance fighting and all like that.
If you honestly have only taken from my postings that I operate in a very black/white world, then you are now willfully ignorant. Further, if you believe that I have in any way indicated that my assumptions are always going to be right, then you are incapable of basic english comprehension, as well.
Y’wanna know what I’ve been mistaken about most recently? That you were capable of learning something. Alas, you have demonstrated the length, breadth and roundth of my mistake.
Once more, The Government (see, it works just as well as The State, you really oughta look into it) isn’t in the business of brainwashing anyone’s children. That you continue with this nonsense tells me that you don’t want to believe anything that might disagree with your worldview. Sounds like you have an awful lot in common with those who run the Jesus Camp.
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
It seems, though, from your posts, that you advocate prayer in schools (please correct me if I’m wrong.) Prayer in school is a controversial issue, therefore, by your logic, it should not be allowed.
[/quote]
Yes you are wrong. I don’t want institutionalized prayer any more than I want “Heather Has Two Mommies”. Don’t get me wrong. I think teaching children to pray is a virtuous thing. But as I’ve said before, “the ends do not justify the means”. Teaching children to pray should be a thing done at home or a religious institution. It should not be forced upon young children in a public school. Forced goodness is not really goodness.
Likewise tolerance is a virtue. Tolerance is a type of human right. Where does our desire for human rights come from? Clearly desire for human rights comes from a love for freedom. Therefore since the desire for tolerance comes from a love for freedom, freedom is the greater virtue. It is purely illogical to want to force tolerance upon someone. “If they won’t listen to reason, then I’ll make their kids be tolerant.” That idea is purely illogical, and furthermore since freedom is virtuous, it is an evil thought.
A person who wants to force virtue upon young children does not want to solve the problem. They want to be the problem. It is clear they want to solve their problems simply by being more powerful, and forcing their ways upon those who don’t agree with them. Specifically wanting “Heather Has Two Mommies” in a school curriculum is not a virtuous desire. It is just as bad as wanting institutionalized prayer.
In regards to the other posters I apologize for not having time to reply to your posts. However I think we have debated the topic enough that each of us has had plenty of opportunity to present his or her case.
[QUOTE=nano8track]
Yes you are wrong. I don’t want institutionalized prayer any more than I want “Heather Has Two Mommies”.
[/quote]
How does this jibe with your earlier statement that forbidding prayer in school is just as politically motivated (and therefore just as objectionably) as allowing prayer in school?
There is a difference between “forcing” tolerance and “teaching” tolerance. What’s wrong with exposing children to the idea that, hey, maybe there really isn’t anything wrong with being gay? If the parents disagree, they’re free to teach their kids the opposite at home. If their position is so clearly the correct one, surely their children will agree with their arguments and grow up to oppress and discriminate against homosexuals just like their parents do. It’s not a matter of, “If they won’t listen to reason, then I’ll make their kids be tolerant.” Rather, the idea is, If they won’t listen to reason, then I’ll try to reason with their kids, instead." Throwing around the word “freedom” is a red herring. No one is talking about strapping these kids down Clockwork Orange style and forcing them to watch Queer Eye until they properly gayed up. If the kids decide they want to further the bigotry of their parents, there’s nothing I could do to stop them. But there’s absolutely nothing immoral or unethical about exposing them to other viewpoints on the subject. And again, since a small but significant percentage of the children in question are, themselves, gay, teaching tolerance to these children is a direct service to them. Would you rather these kids grow up hating themselves because they can’t stop being attracted to the same sex? Isn’t it the moral, ethical thing to throw these kids a lifeline, to let them know they aren’t alone, that there’s an option besides repression, self-loathing, and suicide?
You like to say, “the ends don’t justify the means” quite a bit. Well, I’ve got another pithy little aphorism for you: “All generalizations are wrong.” Sometimes, the ends do justify the means. If keeping some poor fourteen year old queer from opening up his wrists means telling him something his idiot shithead parents don’t want him to hear, that is a mean that is eminently justifiable.
The problem here is the pervasive, institutionalized, legally sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians in this country. I assure you, I do not want to “be” that problem. I want to end it. Getting out the message that it’s okay to be homosexual is the best way to achieve that end, and it should be spread at every available opportunity. There is no middle ground on this issue. You either support equality, or you are a bigot. I’m not willing to let our school curriculums be dictated by bigots. Being gay myself, I simply can’t afford to.
Oh, don’t quit now. I haven’t even gotten started yet.
[QUOTE=nano8track]
A person who wants to force virtue upon young children does not want to solve the problem. They want to be the problem. It is clear they want to solve their problems simply by being more powerful, and forcing their ways upon those who don’t agree with them. Specifically wanting “Heather Has Two Mommies” in a school curriculum is not a virtuous desire. It is just as bad as wanting institutionalized prayer.
[/QUOTE]
You are describing those parents who force their own moral values onto their kids, but don’t allow any other viewpoint, right? Because the parents have the most power over their children, and it’s the parents who can’t stand the thought of their child even hearing one other fact. (Apparently they are too unsure of their brainwashing).
I wonder: do you really not understand the difference in degree between brainwashing or propaganda at schools in despotic rulerships; and presenting different viewpoints then what children learn at home from narrow-minded parents in normal, secular countries like the US?
Or do you not want to understand, because accusing messages of tolerance and normality as liberal propaganda and calling it “brainwashin” serves your own bias and agenda?
[QUOTE=nano8track]
Yes you are wrong. I don’t want institutionalized prayer any more than I want “Heather Has Two Mommies”. Don’t get me wrong. I think teaching children to pray is a virtuous thing. But as I’ve said before, “the ends do not justify the means”. Teaching children to pray should be a thing done at home or a religious institution. It should not be forced upon young children in a public school. Forced goodness is not really goodness.
Likewise tolerance is a virtue. Tolerance is a type of human right. Where does our desire for human rights come from? Clearly desire for human rights comes from a love for freedom. Therefore since the desire for tolerance comes from a love for freedom, freedom is the greater virtue. It is purely illogical to want to force tolerance upon someone. “If they won’t listen to reason, then I’ll make their kids be tolerant.” That idea is purely illogical, and furthermore since freedom is virtuous, it is an evil thought.
A person who wants to force virtue upon young children does not want to solve the problem. They want to be the problem. It is clear they want to solve their problems simply by being more powerful, and forcing their ways upon those who don’t agree with them. Specifically wanting “Heather Has Two Mommies” in a school curriculum is not a virtuous desire. It is just as bad as wanting institutionalized prayer.
In regards to the other posters I apologize for not having time to reply to your posts. However I think we have debated the topic enough that each of us has had plenty of opportunity to present his or her case.
[/QUOTE]
The previous posters have already said it very well. I agree with you in that forcing ideals on people is not a positive thing. The concept that gays are somehow perverted and sick simply because of their sexual orientation is the one being taught. Presenting a book like HhTM is only a** suggestion** that it is okay. It’s not forcing anything. It’s offering them one alternative way of thinking about things. Granted that with the weight of school approval it is a pretty strong suggestion. Please tell us how you propose to fight prejudice. Are you asserting that it is the parents right and only theirs to teach moral lessons to their children. That seems pretty narrow minded and unrealistic.
I asked you before, what about simply having the book available in the school library rather than part of the curriculum? Would you object to that?
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Um, I think Jesus told people they should be willing to die for Him. He did tell His followeres to leave, even to flee, persecution at times, but He also told them that when they had to either back down or die, it was better to die.
Take it up with Him.
[/QUOTE]
Take it up with Him? First of all, he’s not around. Second of all, just because some alleged crazy extremist allegedly told some other crazy fishermen to die for the cause 2000 years ago, doesnt mean its OK for these nutbar sunday school teachers to be telling underage children to die for that alleged nutbar. They are manipulating children into their cult. The ONLY difference between those idiot evangelical pastors/teachers and David Koresh is the number of followers. They are both clearly insane and need to be kept as far away from children as possible.
I saw the movie this last Friday. The 6:45 showing was pretty sparsely attended in Kansas City, (but/and) I’ve seen absolutely NO press on this flick apart from the movie trailer I stumbled across on apple.com.
It struck me as fairly even-handed with the slight exception that the soundtrack was the “low-note gravitas” tone that I generally associate with “foreboding.” But the filmmakers didn’t narrate or opine, so unless there was some egregious editing going on, the viewer was free to make their own mind up about the subject.
The subject matter focuses primarily on 5 primary subjects:
The majority is on Pastor Becky herself, who works hard at acting on her beliefs. She uses PowerPoint to make presentations and picks up toys at the toy store to create visual metaphors for the principles she is preaching. She is entirely devoted to her cause, staunch in her beliefs and is on a crusade. She believes that her brand of Christian doctrine should be the foundation of setting policy in America.
Less focus is directed on Mike Papantonio, the Air America Radio Host who speaks out against fundamental Christian sects. In the film, he comes across pretty much the same way conservative mike-jockeys do in the media: lots of hyperbole with calls from listeners basically saying “me too!” The one exception is the final cut of him actually conducting a phone interview with Pastor Becky where there was actual debate going on between the two.
Then the kids. All these kids are raised in fundamentalist households. The most prominently displayed person was Levi, who at 13 has already begun “preaching” to congregations. There is an eerie intensity in this kid’s eyes that’s unusual in kids. It reminded me of clips I’ve seen of members of hate-groups that I don’t want to dwell on here.
Rachael is an interesting case. It’s clear that she is marginalized in her social groups (outside of the church) due to her beliefs, which only compels her to seek more shelter in those beliefs, presumably continuing the cycle. We see her twice trying to evangelize to total strangers (with Jack Chick tracts, no less!) Once was in a bowling alley. After praying to Jesus to help her get a strike (unanswered), she goes to a woman in her late teens/early 20’s and starts talking to her about accepting Jesus as their savior. Later she approached a trio of older African-Americans in D.C sitting around.
The third kid, Tory is featured very little in the film, apart from her introduction.
It’s staggering to me to see these kids presume to be so more insightful than the adults they try to evangelize, not stopping to think that these adults may have had just a thought or a million about faith in their lifetime. It’s naivety in it’s purist form.
The camp itself is disturbing to me. It seems to break kids down to then build them back up in the preferred image. The clips you may have seen online where they are driven to tears are after Pastor Becky tells them they are sinners, that they say one thing in church but do another thing in life. They are told to confess their sins and “wash themselves” (from Pastor Becky’s Nestle-brand water bottle).
These kids are not being taught to think critically. Between these ministries and the homes that support them, these kids are being systematically brow-beaten into an activist Christian sect that is actively seeking to break down the wall between church and state.
[QUOTE=Hey you!]
I saw the movie this last Friday. The 6:45 showing was pretty sparsely attended in Kansas City, (but/and) I’ve seen absolutely NO press on this flick apart from the movie trailer I stumbled across on apple.com.
[/quote]
Where in KC is it playing? I would be interested in catching it, myself.
So much for it not being about politics.
I know bupkis about Papantonio, and I’m too cheap and/or broke to get XM, anyway, but the idea of an honest-to-goodness debate between Becky and anyone else intrigues me. Now I really want to see it. Was it a debate? Or a shouting match?
And this is something that’s always bothered me about those who proselytize. It’s bad enough when dealing with an age equivalent individual, but maddening to the point of distraction when you’re told by some kid who knows precious little about the world at large that you are wrong and hellbound, while this snot-nosed punk claims to be tapped into Jesus’ sweet, sweet mainline.
Okay, now I simply must see this movie. The whole concept of holy water has always struck me as absurd, but when it comes from a bottle marketed by Swedes, then there’s a new level of amusement that’s been interjected.
And this is really too bad. I’m Polyanna enough to think that everyone should be free to make up his or her own mind. That these kids aren’t getting that chance disturbs me a great deal.
[QUOTE=GLWasteful]
Where in KC is it playing? I would be interested in catching it, myself.
[/QUOTE]
Tivoli (where else?).
[QUOTE=GLWasteful]
…the idea of an honest-to-goodness debate between Becky and anyone else intrigues me. … Was it a debate? Or a shouting match?
[/QUOTE]
Light debate over the phone lines. I don’t recall them raising their voices or talking over one another ala Crossfire. But it was the one time in the film where the opposing forces weren’t preaching to their respective choirs. I wish there was a little more of this kind of dialogue in the film.
[QUOTE=GLWasteful]
Okay, now I simply must see this movie. The whole concept of holy water has always struck me as absurd, but when it comes from a bottle marketed by Swedes, then there’s a new level of amusement that’s been interjected.
[/QUOTE]
Just to be clear, it wasn’t presented as Holy Water — which is the domain of Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., which these people aren’t. I perceived Pastor Becky to be using water as a prop, the way that she uses Barbie & Ken dolls, lion plush toys, brain molds (I’m not kidding), and other assorted bricabrac to create metaphorical lessons and experiences.
One thing I forgot to mention before. I’m heartened that it’s scoring a 100% Fresh rating on the Tomatometer. Though I expect the average to dip a bit once it is more widely seen, I’d be surprised if it didn’t maintain a relatively strong rating.
Damnit! My post was eaten. I’ll try again.
I saw it last night, and while the crowd was sparse again, it was a Monday night. And the Tivoli website says that it was mentioned in the Star. I wouldn’t know, though.
I went in expecting more political talk than existed. It was definitely there, but not quite the onslaught that I anticipated.
Something that struck me was the life-sized photo of Bush fils seemed awfully youthful. The thought that went through my mind upon seeing it was, “Damn! He cleaned up nice for his bar mitzvah.”
Pastor Becky struck me as creepy. Her adamancy that the US was founded as a Christian nation was delivered with such surety I wondered how she could lie with such conviction. When she said that liberals would watch the movie and be scared to death, I thought, was a little more self-importance than was necessary. As a liberal, I didn’t leave scared for myself or my nation, but for those kids that she made cry. And some of the parallels that she was drawing between children in Muslim countries being taught to handle grenades, rifles and automatic weapons and what she was doing came pretty damned close to nutjobbery, I thought.
Inre Papantonio: I was glad that he openly claimed to be Christian. It helped bolster his argument that the RR is acting in opposition to the teachings of Christ. And while I really liked the exchange between he and Becky, his comment upon ending the call spoke volumes, I thought.
Levi, I thought, was just a kid. A kid who was being taught utter nonsense in his home school, but I can see Levi getting busted for running a crank factory in another five to eight years. His mother, though, was working my last nerve with her idiotic nonsense about what a public school is and does. She should get together with someone who has posted to this thread, and they could be wrong and ignorant together. Or have sense laid out for her. But I don’t imagine that sense would mean a damned thing to her.
Rachael was more than interesting, she was full-tilt-boogie gone. What saddened me to no end was her stated desire to be a nail technician when she was nine years old. Kids of that age should want to be race car drivers, president, firefighters &c. It’s not until life has ground them down that they should desire nothing more than painting fingernails at the local mall. And the young lady in the bowling alley looked familiar to me, which lent a whole new level of surrealism to the scene.
Also, the pastor in Colorado Springs (all apologies, but I don’t recall his name) was weirdly gregarious. “Use any of this and I’ll sue you,” I thought was a good line, but I wasn’t entirely sure that he didn’t mean it. And the look on his face as he claims that as long as evangelicals vote, then they can sway elections, struck me as akin to a kid who has discovered a new toy. Or self abuse. Either or.
The exchange between Rachael and Levi in DC as they’re standing on the street handing out propaganda and witnessing struck me as very grown up. If it was spontaneous, wow. And I’ve no reason to think that it wasn’t. As Hey you! points out, the filmmakers don’t interject themselves at all, and let the movie focus on the subjects. They use printed figures sometimes (and I’m not sure I buy that 75% of home schooled students are evangelical) but it’s more by way of illustration. I really liked the movie, and for whatever it’s worth, that comes from an old-school atheist.
[QUOTE=Hey you!]
These kids are not being taught to think critically. Between these ministries and the homes that support them, these kids are being systematically brow-beaten into an activist Christian sect that is actively seeking to break down the wall between church and state.
[/QUOTE]
No they’re not, and yes they are. But I grew up around kids very similar to those in the film. Some remained hard-assed Christians, some gleefully threw themselves into the opposite camp, but most became worthwhile citizens who look ruefully at the things that they said and did when they were younger. Pastor Becky and her zeal were the most troubling aspect of the entire movie, I thought. Well, and her proximity to me.
[QUOTE=Hey you!]
Since 2000, I have seen a trend towards “conservative Christian” values in governmental policies. But I considered that as an inevitible pendulum swing of the way that America’s culture has always drifted back and forth regarding conservatism.
I discovered a movie preview the other day about a movie opening next weekend: Jesus Camp
It’s a documentary that focuses on a Pastor Becky Fischer’s “Kids on Fire” summer camp where she mobilizes kids to “fight in Jesus’ army.” One would hope she’s being metaphorical about this, but one of the clips shows her saying how she wants kids to lay down their lives for Jesus the way that Islamic fundamentalits lay down their life for Islam.
I find that a little alarming.
Yes, I know that America has always been predominantly Christian country, and I know that this subject has been done to death here many times before, but I’m interested to hear people chime in on what they think of the movie or it’s subject matter. It’s because of this subject matter that I posted this in GD instead of Cafe Society.
[/QUOTE]
I just saw a clip of this documentary on BBC world
Scary things