The American Jihad in its crib?

I saw this movie, Jesus Camp, a shocking movie about the indoctrination of kids which harks back to those videos of brainwashed jihadist kids.

Movie main scenes / Highlights -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

Critique / discussion -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGceAojHR6o

More from/about movie -
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...gs_upl=7789l9461l0l9693l10l7l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0

Science, knowledge and human society -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tysZO...feature=relmfu

Religious censorship and importance of free speech -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnC7Nwqw5Dg

Importance of scientific naturalism -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0pjF...feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The main problem is connected to the liberal propaganda machine which includes the main stream media and Hollywood. These paint a nasty picture of the USA since this sells and justifies all their "paid experts" acting self righteous. Media is one of America's leading exports, causing foreign people to see the USA in a negative light out of proportion with the reality of everyday life in USA. The jihad fights against this imaginary foe.

To test this theory, ask people outside America to describe the USA, based on the information that get from American media and movies. Liberalism is based on mass manipulation which is why these two masters of manipulation (media and Hollywood) prefer the democratic party; birds of a feather. You can also add the lawyers to this support. They too are not noted for their honesty and fit right in. The thieves stick together and paint the USA in their own images. The Jihad fights this demon thinking this represents all of USA.

For example, the attack on 911 was against the world trade center. This symbolized capitalism. Which party also fights capitalism with propaganda to create a distorted picture of reality using media, Hollywood and lawyers?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is a good critique of the american media, but that doesn't address the fact that there is/are such camp/s where hundreds and thousands of children, the people of tommorrow, are being indoctrinated into the same kind of people as are the products of radical islam. These are children just a couple of generations after the nation claimed the biggest moment in history - the first time a member of our species every set foot on another celestial body - the crowing glory of the modern sciences and from that point on, instead to driving towards greater progress and achievement, the country is plunging into a abyss of ignorance and stupidity, lead by the religious radicals - creationists, fundamentalists, evangelicals and such [garden?*]tools of indoctrinations as these camps. Religion is good, fanaticism in not. This is not the future the founding father of the nation would have intended.

* - Becky fisher

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with you, but indoctrination is made much easier if the enemy appears more credible. If you tried to indoctrinate people to think the little old lady in the corner house is a evil person, this will be much harder if she comes out each day smiling and saying hello, offering you cookies and playing with babies. Common sense will compare the propaganda, to this reality, creating an inner conflict that inhibits easy programming. The programmers needs to avoid any opposing reality check.

If Hollywood and the media could use special effects to make the little old lady's head appear to spin 360 degrees, and spit green bile, and make this look credible, this will help the indoctrination against the old lady. You can even do this with proper editing. The media benefits because this is an investment in future news; the old lady will get beat up out of fear.

If the terrorists, after indoctrination camp, could to spend a summer in the USA living in heartland America, there would be a reality check. All the heads of these demon Americans don't spin???? The media will not offer since POV, since this path will preempt potential negative news stories. Negative news sells more product. People need to stay tuned to appease their fear allowing more commercial views. If it is a happy ending you might change channels to a something else.

If the hurricane is coming, you stayed tuned to hear the experts. This also means you will see more commercials. If the hurricane passes by and misses you (happy ending) you might change channels to a movie and miss their commercials. Dwelling on the negative, to keep you there, also paints a credible fear picture for the terrorist to help with their propaganda; head always appears to spin. The indoctrination can say, " don't take my word for this evil empire, watch this America news done by Americans. They will show you that Americas are all liars, and evil perverts. The experts talk and talk about how sneaky they are and how you can;t trust them.

 

You posted a link to a small "documentary" movie. It appears to have been made by two "progressive" filmmakers, apparently with the willing cooperation of the woman who supposedly ran the camp. She invited them in to film and apparently has never criticised their finished product. My guess is that some of what's shown was likely staged.

It's easy for outsiders to ridicule Pentecostals. Their emphasis on receiving their "holy spirit" lends itself to ridicule. "Holy rollers" have always been the butt of jokes, even from more Biblically oriented fundies. They are an easy target.

The Pentecostals' religious ecstacies already create the presumption of fanaticism in many minds and it isn't very difficult for unsympathetic individuals to emphasize that visible passion for dramatic effect and to then to construct their own "American jihad" narrative around it.

I'm an American. I'm not a Christian. I don't for a moment feel any danger from my Christian friends and neighbors. I certainly don't fear them nor believe that they are engaged in some holy war against me. I've never heard of them killing anyone like myself for religious motives. When I see people being intolerant of other religions, it's atheists being intolerant of Christianity as often as it's Christians being intolerant of atheists. This thread is a good illustration of that. What's more, the thread title's suggestion that an imaginary Christian jihad is somehow is an American thing, an expression of the essence of the country that I love, is something that I find deeply insulting.

 

Might have been. But for what?

Which suggests a few things about how correct they might be.

I posed no such narrative. American jihad is not my phrase either. I can completely ignore the soul saving and born again, etc. kind of things that adults do to adults. This is indoctrination of kids into angry, unyielding soldiers of misinformation, or worse. This is not acceptable behaviour by any sane guardian of a child.

The weapon of christian fundamentalism is not actual projectiles or explosives, but misinformation, ignorance and plain stupidity. Those are things all should rightly be intolerant of. They are free to think or believe what they want, but they are not free to spread misinformation which leads to a setback in the scientific literacy of the masses. Such populations are more likely to put religious zealots in charge of the sole superpower on earth.

And you should. The fact that there are such people in this great country who are subjecting their children to such things should be insulting in itelf. As I said before -

"These are children just a couple of generations after the nation claimed the biggest moment in history - the first time a member of our species every set foot on another celestial body - the crowing glory of the modern sciences and from that point on, instead to driving towards greater progress and achievement, the country is plunging into a abyss of ignorance and stupidity, lead by the religious radicals - creationists, fundamentalists, evangelicals and such tools of indoctrinations as these camps. Religion is good, fanaticism is not. This is not the future the founding fathers of this nation would have intended."

I understand you feel the same hurt that many muslims feel when people talk of muslim jihad, I supathise. But such behaviour simply isn't becoming of the sole superpower in the world, especially when it spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined and the guys in charge are, and are voted by, religious people, who might be such fanatics. I think we should put the blame, shame and responsibility squarely were it rests and also on those who are affected by it. This/such religiousity IS an American thing [in the western/christian world] and when it reaches such levels, it not something to be loved or sympathised with, it is something to be stopped or corrected.

 

I own the movie myself. Can't say I was too surprised, but it is representative of American fundies. I don't think it's any less moral than evangelical Christianity in general, which is in many ways immoral. I mean the problem isn't so much that they indoctrinate children, which is bad, as it is the hate filled belief system in the first place.

 

Well your argument is idiotic since this was an even handed approach to the documentary. They simply showed what happens at this camps and let the facts tell the story. If reality paints a nasty picture of evangelicals, it is what it is.

 

So you didn't write this thread's subject line?

I agree with you in opposing some forms of religious indoctrination of children. If that was all that you had said, then I could stand alongside you.

Unfortunately it isn't. I disagree, profoundly and non-negotiably, in your idea of "American jihad" and with your equation of Americans like myself with terrorists and suicide bombers.

So you favor the United States abandoning its principle of free-speech? What kind of authority would you install atop us to control what people like myself can and can't say? How would you enforce that authority? How would you insure that only good atheists exercise the authority? Seeing as how atheists are a minority of the population, would this mean our having to abandon democracy as well?

My own belief is that Christians should have the freedom to say their thing, and atheists should enjoy equal freedom to say theirs. That's basically how it already is. If atheists want to prevail in the marketplace of ideas, then they need to be more convincing than those they disagree with. That's true for everyone.

"Behaviour"? You don't even live in the United States, do you? I'm curious what country you do live in. (Canada?) I won't trash your country, because chances are, I like it.

I just wish that you would stop caricaturizing us.

 

Jesus, Muhammed, Darwin, what's the difference? In 300 years it will all (objectively) look like similar hogwash. If it brings people happiness so much the better.

 

I hope you are joking. You suggest evolution as a religion and consider it to be morally just to indoctrinate children with bronze age myths and hatred of McDs and Harry potter, to mentally torture them and make them cry and to what end? Breaking cups? Dragging America down to the dark ages?

 

Ok. I see, jihad is a loaded word, like God, and cannot be stuck on anything. I intended it as a comparision of fanaticisms of fundies and jihadists. @ Mods - change the title if you consider it inappropriate. And to Yaz, I apologise - completely and totally; for unintentionally and naively suggesting jihadism. And no, its not my phrase, I picked it up from a rant against religion, sorry - it was inappropriate to call it 'American' Jihad. Maybe christian "re-crusades" would be more fitting. I this we have settled our disagreement there, would you concur?

No. All are free to speak, all are free to believe - but people should not be free to indoctrinate children into dogmatic and potentially harmful mindsets. That is the only thing I am suggesting.

Of course. Complete agreement there. Though speaking of marketplaces of ideas, I remember someone suggesting that the recent rise of atheism and irreligion has also caused a rise in fundamenalism too. Is that correct? I found no data on this. Competition between rationality and irrationality perhaps?

OK. But my point still remains - a country cannot allow such things to be done to its children, its future, especially when this country is a military superpower. Imagine if Rick Perry were to have become president - the chances of such things increase if such camps are allowed to churn out thousands of brainwashed children that would be a part of the working community in the new few decades. People must do something about this. Prayer in schools or the stupid creationism/Id teaching debate are minute and insanely insignificant compared to this.

 

The preferred term is "American Taliban".

I'm sorry, but it's perfectly legal to brainwash your children in this manner.

 

Darwinism is just as occult through misguidance, it will one be clenched to as ancient wisdom by modern crack-pottery as much of myth is today. The concept of evolving is not darwinism, it's been around for thousands of years! I will probably teach my children to hate McDonald's and Harry Potter as well, since I despise them both. If they cry about it, oh well.

 

You are indeed joking. Good, do pass be the bag of shrooms you had - must be very good.

 

Every time physicists make a new discovery Imam's and Pastors come out saying "The bible predicted this". Similarly people today misappropriate concepts of evolution to Darwin which he could have not possibly understood. This namely because he stands as an icon to atheists for his dispelling of a transient Lutheran principal of static species (which really only came into fashion post- Martin Luther). In 300 years the the 100 difference between our understanding today and our understanding in 1900 will be just as blurry as 1500 and 1600 are today to the average individual.

The idea of animal evolution, however was not. Immanuel Kant wrote 80 years earlier "an orang-outang or a chimpanzee may develop the organs which serve for walking, grasping objects, and speaking-in short, that lie may evolve the structure of man, with an organ for the use of reason, which shall gradually develop itself by social culture". Darwin's own father made claims remarkably similar decades earlier.

What was NOT novel about Darwin's theory was natural selection and the ability to mutate advantageous traits. However, even since 1860 our knowledge of this has far exceeded his relatively simple idea. There's no reason for us to assume it won't be as trivial a fact in 300 years as Newton's -- yes it will be roughly true, though primitive.

In both cases, taste.

 

Since the 'edit' button doesn't work I have to re-post. Correction: The latter 2 -- taste.. I have no problem with evolution.

 

Darwinism is evolution, although no one calls it that anymore. Neo-Darwinism is the proper term. But what is it about Darwin's discovery you object to?

 

People should be allowed to send their kids to any camp that teaches anything they want. I'm sure you would all find fault in my beliefs also; likewise, I'm sure I could find inconsistencies in anyone else's, given enough information. People are crazy, and always have been. Most of them are just careful with their quirks, because they know everyone else is watching. Good for these guys for being so honest and out there with it.