<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/co1_9lR9EpM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/co1_9lR9EpM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Why would anyone want to imitate what's going on in Pakistan where extremist religion is breeding intolerance ignorance and terrorism? Teaching values and religion to children is one thing but teaching your children to be holy warriors ready to lay down their lives? As another posters said in the Pope thread the most we can hope for in a multiplural world is tolerance but what I'm seeing here is the opposite of it.
It appears to me some clever editing on this short youtube "piece" from abc leaves out the obvioius. The kids are praying for the president and their country, in the setting of a worship service. It is only Biblical. Perspective helps make the strange seem at least reasonable... and last I checked, even "secular liberal feminists" wouldn't mind a little prayer on their behalf. (the other viewpoint in the piece was from a woman described as such.) And why shouldn;t young children cry out against abortion? Seems like they at least have a voice to use. Why must the only "political voice" be a liberal one? These kids are not worshipping the "image of Bush Jr."
I find it scary that children are openly calling themselves "warriors" and that they are modeling this after the sort of religious indoctrination that occurs in madrassas in the Middle East. Children are very impressionable and as a result are susceptible to saying anything if told. Applying the bible to politics at such a young age seems ridiculous to me. These children can't make an informed political judgement at that age and asking them to pray for Bush (obviously the clip doesn't show the context but either way its injecting politics into a biblical camp, which crosses the line) is a bit too far for me. I understand the value of teaching basic ethics and basic religious doctrine and stories from the bible. And prayer is perfectly acceptable as well, but taking it to the next level and injecting politics into the equation is functionally indoctrination, whether you want to admit it or not. If this is ok, then I suppose the madrassas of Pakistan are ok too since this camp is modeled after them.
I don't think they're ruined. These kids are pretty young and they'll have plenty of opportunity to find out what it means to live a balanced life. Well, as long as they get out of North Dakota at some point. My point is, insular experiences at "camp" can be extraordinarily powerful, but their meaning tends to fade dramatically once you're no longer surrounded by their tightly-regimented communities. Still, this isn't Scooby Doo stuff. I can't fathom why anyone would look to Pakistan, Israel and Palestine as examples of how the faithful should live. That cut-out of Bush and all the gaybortion talk just goes to show that these movements are based more on politics and "causes" than any "faith" that's recognizable.
Again... I find it interesting that you say that kids cannot make informed decisions. It is this thinking that makes the political world so shocked when the public makes a paradigm shift every so often when a new crop of voters comes up. I remember since 1980, each "poll" that was conducted at our schools to see if our students in elementary and middle, to high schools could get the same results as the national elections it seemed that almost every time the results were close to identical. Was this solely because parents had such an influence on the "impressionable" minds of the kids? If so, then why during the teenage years of highschool, when kids are said to rebel against the parental traditions they're brought up in, did the sample "polls" still seem to be spot on? At what age do you propose the kids can form political opinions that count? 18 is very young as well... My point is that just because MTV pushes a viewpoint much different from the "Bible camp" settings, it does not make either necessarily right for the next generation. Remember, in ancient Rome it was the Christian viewpoint considered to be the rebel and unlawful stance... A paradigm shift is happening again. The thing that's interesting is that all of these "sides being drawn" scenarios have always been a part of every viable religious group. The double standard being revealed here is that these types of things are okay for some people groups, just not for American Christian teenagers. For those that automatically assume someone from these camp experiences will grow up to bomb someone at a clinic, I have this advice... You don't know this anymore than you know someone on a video in Pakistan will be the next suicide bomber. That makes zero logical sense. Hippieloser made some very valid points about how long these "camp feelings" will stick. MOst kids in my experiences are back to there carnal, self centered ways within 2 weeks of returning home. Why? Parental influence, peers, etc. Furthermore the term "warrior" doesn't bother me in the least. Paul write to the Ephesians to "put on the whole armor of God" and then describes the spiritual virtues he is calling "armor." He also makes very clear that our "warfare" is not "carnal" or material, but it is of a spiritual nature. These are more/less big pep rallies for the kids.... not terrorist training camps. I think the "army" of 5'2" teen girls and 5'8" teen boys are not a threat to the safety of the public.
mas wackiness ... Bush Tells Group He Sees a 'Third Awakening' By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, September 13, 2006; Page A05 President Bush said yesterday that he senses a "Third Awakening" of religious devotion in the United States that has coincided with the nation's struggle with international terrorists, a war that he depicted as "a confrontation between good and evil." Bush told a group of conservative journalists that he notices more open expressions of faith among people he meets during his travels, and he suggested that might signal a broader revival similar to other religious movements in history. Bush noted that some of Abraham Lincoln's strongest supporters were religious people "who saw life in terms of good and evil" and who believed that slavery was evil. Many of his own supporters, he said, see the current conflict in similar terms. "A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me," Bush said during a 1 1/2 -hour Oval Office conversation on cultural changes and a battle with terrorists that he sees lasting decades. "There was a stark change between the culture of the '50s and the '60s -- boom -- and I think there's change happening here," he added. "It seems to me that there's a Third Awakening." The First Great Awakening refers to a wave of Christian fervor in the American colonies from about 1730 to 1760, while the Second Great Awakening is generally believed to have occurred from 1800 to 1830. Some scholars and writers have debated for years whether a Third Awakening has been taking place, although some identify other awakenings in U.S. history. Bush aides, including Karl Rove, have read Robert William Fogel's "The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism." Bush has been careful discussing the battle with terrorists in religious terms since he had to apologize for using the word "crusade" in 2001. He often stresses that the war is not against Islam but against those who corrupt it. In his comments yesterday, aides said Bush was not casting the war as a religious struggle but was describing American cultural changes in a time of war. "He's drawing a parallel in terms of a resurgence, in dangerous times, of people going back to their religion," said one aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was not open to other journalists. "This is not 'God is on our side' or anything like that." The White House did not release a transcript of Bush's remarks, but National Review posted highlights on its Web site. On another topic, Bush rejected sending more troops to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas to find Osama bin Laden. "One hundred thousand troops there in Pakistan is not the answer. It's someone saying 'Guess what' and then the kinetic action begins," he said, meaning an informer disclosing bin Laden's location.
As a student of the 'Great Awakening' of the 18th century and the '2nd Great Awakening' of the 19th century, I find any comparison ridiculous and deceptive. There is no similarity I have observed.
Ignorant parents sending their ignorant children to be trained to be even more ignorant.... Wonderful ! DD
How stupid can you get? It's so obvious they weren't worshipping the image of Bush. Tell you what though: that whole camp seemed bizarre. I doubt these kids turn out violent because they will be bombarded by the same secular images other kids are after the camp ended. If these kids lived in some remote village in Montana without TV or any connections to the outside world, then I would be worried. Both the camp and the video seem a bit sensationalistic to me.
i think it was good that the piece did note that the movie might not be an accurate portrayal of the evangelical movement. even with that this stuff is pretty scary, but it was interesting to hear about the spike in enrollement at christian colleges and buying of christian music. who knows if those percentages are relative to enrollment and sales being very low prior to those new numbers.
