Jesus Camp

[joecoolfrog]

I know that this documentary has been discussed before but I only got to see it tonight, really found it disturbing to see young children manipulated in such a way. The highlight was definitely the epilogue which detailed both the demise of Ted Haggard and of the camp itself, closed because of the wave of disgust felt by most viewers when the film was first screened.

[Snorri1234]

I need to watch it some time, it sounds disturbing.

[got tonkaed]

I saw it around when it was first airing and i remember thinking it did a pretty good job. I think the telling thing was, other than Ted Haggard, everyone was pleased with how they were portrayed, which can be pretty difficult to do with a subject like this. I think there were a number of things which were definitely worth taking note of, no matter where you fall on a variety of issues, including church and state.

I think the biggest thing i got out of it, was a surprise at the sheer difference in worldview, which is something i think most people tend to miss. Its hard to believe that large numbers of people believe widely different things than we as individuals (no matter our beliefs) do. Yet these things end up leading to differences that matter and therefore its important to keep in mind.

[PLAYER57832]

This is definitely true. And usually, that diversity is part of what makes us strong ... when someone is always challenging you, you are less likely to be stagnant, more likey to really understand what it is that you believe.

However, when it goes from a difference of opinion to a difference of fact (regardless of the issue, actually) .. then this is not freedom, this is deception.

Whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Moslem, A Buddist, a Druid or anything else ... 1+1=2; The tides ebb and flow with the moon ... Shakespeare did write Hamlet, and... the bills still have to be paid.

[t-o-m]

omg i saw that show on Channel 4 last night!
those kids were actually crying about abortion!
i didnt know that kids that young could be so deep!

[PLAYER57832]

omg i saw that show on Channel 4 last night!
those kids were actually crying about abortion!
i didnt know that kids that young could be so deep!

I haven't seen the film, so I don't know what ages the children were. However, even a 3 year old may have some understanding of another child that is hurt or this thing called "death" (even if they don't fully understand exactly what death means,they tend to see it as "bad"). ... They are told that babies are being killed and that is what they understand... They don't understand the full complexities & ramifications of it all like an adult would.

[joecoolfrog]

omg i saw that show on Channel 4 last night!
those kids were actually crying about abortion!
i didnt know that kids that young could be so deep!

I haven't seen the film, so I don't know what ages the children were. However, even a 3 year old may have some understanding of another child that is hurt or this thing called "death" (even if they don't fully understand exactly what death means,they tend to see it as "bad"). ... They are told that babies are being killed and that is what they understand... They don't understand the full complexities & ramifications of it all like an adult would.

Some of the kids were as young as 6 which as you say is far too young to understand the full picture, it was brain washing pure and simple. The programme stated that the majority of evangelical Christians in the United States were ' saved " before the age of 13, which I find profoundly shocking and a little worrying. Regardless of the subject in hand should children be coerced into making life changing decisions at such a young age, no sane person would think so I hope !

[AlgyTaylor]

Some of the kids were as young as 6 which as you say is far too young to understand the full picture, it was brain washing pure and simple. The programme stated that the majority of evangelical Christians in the United States were ' saved " before the age of 13, which I find profoundly shocking and a little worrying. Regardless of the subject in hand should children be coerced into making life changing decisions at such a young age, no sane person would think so I hope !

Agree totally. If someone's not old enough to vote they're certainly not old enough to be making decisions about that kind of thing.

IMO it amounts to nothing less than child abuse. The people involved should be locked up for a very, very long time. This is me with my serious face on too ... they really should be.

[got tonkaed]

I think in some ways it just reflects how great the divide in thought can be sometimes. The individuals and types of individuals that were documented in Jesus camp, imo are not doing this for anything other than altruistic reasons (Ted Haggard perhaps excluded). When you hear the rhetoric used to describe what they are trying to accomplish "preparing the next generation to fight Satan" (a sloppy paraphrase perhaps, but i saw it a while ago) i dont think they are doing it, without having genuine concern for their children. its just in this case, their view of what the future will entail and how they need to prepare their youth for it, is widely divergent to the norm (in most cases).

[heavycola]

Also, the home-schooling was revealing. There must be a link between creationism's persistence and the home-schooling movement among evangelicals in the US. I love my mum, but I wouldn't want her to teach me biology.

That last sentence gets creepier the more i read it.

[MeDeFe]

Also, the home-schooling was revealing. There must be a link between creationism's persistence and the home-schooling movement among evangelicals in the US. I love my mum, but I wouldn't want her to teach me biology.

That last sentence gets creepier the more i read it.

It does... *shudders despite the heat*

[Gregrios]

The teachings of the Bible should NOT be forced upon young children but it's essential for it to be INTRODUCED to them.

[Anarkistsdream]

The teachings of the Bible should NOT be forced upon young children but it's essential for it to be INTRODUCED to them.

Just like evolution.

[Gregrios]

The teachings of the Bible should NOT be forced upon young children but it's essential for it to be INTRODUCED to them.

Just like evolution.

Wow Nark. You actually agree with me.

As my statement impies, children should be given the choice and not have something forced upon them. Since evolution is the opposite of creation, you've accidently agreed with me. Do you want to take that back now?

[Frigidus]

The teachings of the Bible should NOT be forced upon young children but it's essential for it to be INTRODUCED to them.

But using that logic you should introduce them to every freaking religion of consequence. That would be downright difficult, and it would just confuse them.

[joecoolfrog]

The teachings of the Bible should NOT be forced upon young children but it's essential for it to be INTRODUCED to them.

Just like evolution.

Wow Nark. You actually agree with me.

As my statement impies, children should be given the choice and not have something forced upon them. Since evolution is the opposite of creation, you've accidently agreed with me. Do you want to take that back now?

The problem is that the evangelical homeschool movement DOES NOT want to give the children a choice, they do not want their kids exposed to anything that contradicts or challenges their particular beliefs. If what one is being taught is not balanced and comprehensive then it is not education, it is simply pushing an agenda. It is an utter misnomer to suggest that not teaching creationism alongside evolution is in any way suspect,one belongs in the realms of science, the other in religious or philosophy classes.
If evolution poses a problem to ones faith then they must attempt to reconcile it, to deny the concept of evolution is ignorant, to deny the truth to children is criminal.

[PLAYER57832]

The teachings of the Bible should NOT be forced upon young children but it's essential for it to be INTRODUCED to them.

Just like evolution.

Wow Nark. You actually agree with me.

As my statement impies, children should be given the choice and not have something forced upon them. Since evolution is the opposite of creation, you've accidently agreed with me. Do you want to take that back now?

The problem is that the evangelical homeschool movement DOES NOT want to give the children a choice, they do not want their kids exposed to anything that contradicts or challenges their particular beliefs. If what one is being taught is not balanced and comprehensive then it is not education, it is simply pushing an agenda. It is an utter misnomer to suggest that not teaching creationism alongside evolution is in any way suspect,one belongs in the realms of science, the other in religious or philosophy classes.
If evolution poses a problem to ones faith then they must attempt to reconcile it, to deny the concept of evolution is ignorant, to deny the truth to children is criminal.

Never is this more clear than in the Creationist vs Evolution thread begun by Widowmaker.

Christ is about truth. ANYTHING that disguises truth is NOT from Christ, it is from the enemy. Science is about truth also. Science is a TOOL for finding truth, it is not one particular mode of thought. Can folks using science make mistakes, of course. So, too, can folks using the Bible. In EACH case, the failing is not science itself or the Bible itself (for a Christian ... others absolutely disagree), it is the HUMAN interpretation that is at fault.

Christ told us himself that he could not give us the whole truth because we would not be able to understand. Science is one way of finding some of those truths. It does not go "against" the Bible, (for believers), it works beside the Bible.

In the Middle Ages, many thought that suggesting the Earth revolved around the sun was "against the Bible" most of us now would say that was plain ludicrous. When folks saw the evidence, they realized that science did provide the truth ... and that their INTERPRETATION of the Bible was just wrong.

Unfortunately, as JoeCool pointed out, too many now simply want to fail to teach science. Worse, what they DO teach is so outright incorrect, so based on lie upon lie .... it is anything BUT Christianity. Christianity is truth, it does NOT depend upon children learning lies.

Well, view Widowmakers arguments and most any random additions (or skip to the bottom) and you see what I mean.

[Napoleon Ier]

The problem is that the evangelical homeschool movement DOES NOT want to give the children a choice, they do not want their kids exposed to anything that contradicts or challenges their particular beliefs. If what one is being taught is not balanced and comprehensive then it is not education, it is simply pushing an agenda. It is an utter misnomer to suggest that not teaching creationism alongside evolution is in any way suspect,one belongs in the realms of science, the other in religious or philosophy classes.
If evolution poses a problem to ones faith then they must attempt to reconcile it, to deny the concept of evolution is ignorant, to deny the truth to children is criminal.

But surely by putting Creationism into an RS syllabus you are indoctrinating kids by telling them Creationism is categorically wrong (and I agree with you on that, but it still raises a rather sticky ethical situation for the standard you've laid out above)?

[MeDeFe]

You could also tell them that there's no scientific evidence pointing towards creationism, which would be factual.

[Napoleon Ier]

You could also tell them that there's no scientific evidence pointing towards creationism, which would be factual.

In our opinions. If education wre truly balanced, it would present both sides of the argument. And if you're so confident evolution is sooo much more convincing, what have you to fear?

[got tonkaed]

ill begin to accept the idea that teaching creationism as science is legitimate when we take time out of science classrooms across the country, where the US is lagging distressingly behind, to teach every single religious creation story that there ever was.

Otherwise, ill just continue to advocate that the legal precedent set by the establishment clause suggests it should stay to RS. The fact that it is discussed as a fairness issue, suggests a bit of a bias that i think most of the advocates do not realize.

[PLAYER57832]

You could also tell them that there's no scientific evidence pointing towards creationism, which would be factual.

In our opinions. If education wre truly balanced, it would present both sides of the argument. And if you're so confident evolution is sooo much more convincing, what have you to fear?

This really was covered pretty well in Widowmaker's thread, but the basic crux is that it ISN'T "both sides".   There are really 4 different concepts here.1. Christian view of the Bible.   Only a small percentage of Christian believers and even fewer Jews think that Genesis means the Earth was created in seven rotations of our earth.  This is a legitimate RELIGIOUS discussion.  It can and should be discussed in religion or broader philosophy classes that encompass religion.2. Science  -- science is a PROCESS.  you make a theory, you test it using observations, measurements -- all verifiable, reproduceable events.   If I put salt into a cup of plain water, it will dissolve whether I am a Christian a Buddhist or a Pagan.  If I look at the process under a microscope, I will see the same thing in the US, in China or Russia -- with a few exceptions based on Altitude, temperature, etc.  (but consistant variations)3. Evolution (big "E") this is a Theory, the basic idea is that things evolved from other things over time.    BUT, here is where things start to get tricky.PARTS of the evidence for this theory are real and proveable.   Genetic mutations DO occur, DO change how things come out, for example.  Natural selection DOES occur.  Things DO change to "match" their environment because those that don't "fit" tend to die off.      There is more, but they get pretty intense and complicated.   PARTS of this theory are NOT proven, but ARE supported by some pretty significant evidence.  Fossils DO show a progression of species ... not an exact progression, there are gaps, but no where near as significant gaps as many so-called "creation scientists" like to claim.    We DO know how rocks form, we ARE able to date things roughly using Carbon 14 and other  more modern dating techniques.  These HAVE largely been verified by corrospondance to actual, otherwise verifiable dates (historical dates, that is, such as when Rome "fell", etc.)PARTS of the theory will NEVER be known.The PROBLEM is that NO current Creationist theory truly and accurately addresses any of the above.  There are many claims, but they are based upon faulty science.4. FINALLY -- there is a newer theory called "Intelligent Design".   Loosely, this looks pretty much like what any Christian who also believes in evolution (the vast majority of folks in the US) thinks... that God made this world, that evolution is one of the tools or methods he uses.  God is in charge.  BUT here is the thing.    THAT is a philosophy.   It talks about WHY evolution occurs, it does NOT talk about how.  When it DOES try to bring God into the "how", then it either gets into that murky stuff that isn't science, its philisophical discussion (various ideas that can be argued, but not emirically PROVED and tested the way science requires).    OR it attempts to introduce "Creation Science" which is not science at all -- that is, it looks aroud and basically tries to fit the world into a particular view.  HOWEVER, unlike real science, it does NOT stick to the truth.  For example, you will see claims that the fossils were all "mixed up" in the flood, but this is just no the truth.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be true if you really understand the mechanics necessary.  (FACT, not theory).

Enough, more discussion belongs on the Creationist thread.

[Napoleon Ier]

You could also tell them that there's no scientific evidence pointing towards creationism, which would be factual.

In our opinions. If education wre truly balanced, it would present both sides of the argument. And if you're so confident evolution is sooo much more convincing, what have you to fear?

This really was covered pretty well in Widowmaker's thread, but the basic crux is that it ISN'T "both sides". There are really 4 different concepts here.1. Christian view of the Bible. Only a small percentage of Christian believers and even fewer Jews think that Genesis means the Earth was created in seven rotations of our earth. This is a legitimate RELIGIOUS discussion. It can and should be discussed in religion or broader philosophy classes that encompass religion.2. Science -- science is a PROCESS. you make a theory, you test it using observations, measurements -- all verifiable, reproduceable events. If I put salt into a cup of plain water, it will dissolve whether I am a Christian a Buddhist or a Pagan. If I look at the process under a microscope, I will see the same thing in the US, in China or Russia -- with a few exceptions based on Altitude, temperature, etc. (but consistant variations)3. Evolution (big "E") this is a Theory, the basic idea is that things evolved from other things over time. BUT, here is where things start to get tricky.PARTS of the evidence for this theory are real and proveable. Genetic mutations DO occur, DO change how things come out, for example. Natural selection DOES occur. Things DO change to "match" their environment because those that don't "fit" tend to die off. There is more, but they get pretty intense and complicated. PARTS of this theory are NOT proven, but ARE supported by some pretty significant evidence. Fossils DO show a progression of species ... not an exact progression, there are gaps, but no where near as significant gaps as many so-called "creation scientists" like to claim. We DO know how rocks form, we ARE able to date things roughly using Carbon 14 and other more modern dating techniques. These HAVE largely been verified by corrospondance to actual, otherwise verifiable dates (historical dates, that is, such as when Rome "fell", etc.)PARTS of the theory will NEVER be known.The PROBLEM is that NO current Creationist theory truly and accurately addresses any of the above. There are many claims, but they are based upon faulty science.4. FINALLY -- there is a newer theory called "Intelligent Design". Loosely, this looks pretty much like what any Christian who also believes in evolution (the vast majority of folks in the US) thinks... that God made this world, that evolution is one of the tools or methods he uses. God is in charge. BUT here is the thing. THAT is a philosophy. It talks about WHY evolution occurs, it does NOT talk about how. When it DOES try to bring God into the "how", then it either gets into that murky stuff that isn't science, its philisophical discussion (various ideas that can be argued, but not emirically PROVED and tested the way science requires). OR it attempts to introduce "Creation Science" which is not science at all -- that is, it looks aroud and basically tries to fit the world into a particular view. HOWEVER, unlike real science, it does NOT stick to the truth. For example, you will see claims that the fossils were all "mixed up" in the flood, but this is just no the truth. It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be true if you really understand the mechanics necessary. (FACT, not theory).

Enough, more discussion belongs on the Creationist thread.

That's your opinion. Mine as well, for that matter, but key to this issue is that some Creationnists do have an argument, and it should be presented. Your above proof (which, to be brutally honest, I haven't been arsed to read) which you're so sure dismantles their view should be presented, and if indeed it is sooooo leik totally amazing, all the kiddied will be convinced and your sworn Creationnist nemeses will e humiliated in a public forum of debate. In fact, you have everything to win...

[Gregrios]

The teachings of the Bible should NOT be forced upon young children but it's essential for it to be INTRODUCED to them.

But using that logic you should introduce them to every freaking religion of consequence. That would be downright difficult, and it would just confuse them.

Creation and evolution are the only 2 beliefs that are studied by the majority in North America. Anything else is of the minority.

[got tonkaed]

The teachings of the Bible should NOT be forced upon young children but it's essential for it to be INTRODUCED to them.

But using that logic you should introduce them to every freaking religion of consequence. That would be downright difficult, and it would just confuse them.

Creation and evolution are the only 2 beliefs that are studied by the majority in North America. Anything else is of the minority.

in theory, the number of people interested in the beliefs should have no bearing whatsoever on what is good classroom material for a science class.