Martyr Camp
I just saw a film clip of a camp which trains children to be future religious martyrs. Pretty dismal stuff. I'll just give a few quotes from what appeared to be 10-11 year-olds--articulate, but brainwashed 10-11 year-olds:
"A lot of people die for God and they're not even afraid. We're being trained to go out and train others to do God's will, be God's army." "There's an excitement, yet peace, at the same time. When my father goes into really dangerous areas, people yell, Martyr! Martyr!--it's really cool."
O.k., the rejoinder on that last one may have tipped you off that these are Westerners speaking. The above is from a film called "JesusCamp--the Movie," a documentary of an evangelical children's camp which was released late in 2006. Ted Haggard, disgraced head (unfortunate term) of the National Association of Evangelicals, is even featured lauding the kid's efforts. Among other activities, the kids are led to lay hands on a cardboard cutout of the President, and I tell you, it's darn good facsimile.
The take-home point is that fanaticism is fanaticism is not tolerance. What makes this fanaticism any different from Taliban fanaticism? And the only result of one of God's armies meeting the other is that one will be left standing, or at least, someone will be left standing.
The zealotry is the frightening part, as these folks--all zealots--think they will be rewarded for their fanaticism. They look forward to meeting their maker joyfully, even if, or perhaps especially if, their demise should occur in an intentional confrontation with heathens (="the other side.")
It is Haggard's stated opinion that "If the evangelicals vote, they determine the election." An inspiring thought for the democratic principles of America.
--Lisa
"A lot of people die for God and they're not even afraid. We're being trained to go out and train others to do God's will, be God's army." "There's an excitement, yet peace, at the same time. When my father goes into really dangerous areas, people yell, Martyr! Martyr!--it's really cool."
O.k., the rejoinder on that last one may have tipped you off that these are Westerners speaking. The above is from a film called "JesusCamp--the Movie," a documentary of an evangelical children's camp which was released late in 2006. Ted Haggard, disgraced head (unfortunate term) of the National Association of Evangelicals, is even featured lauding the kid's efforts. Among other activities, the kids are led to lay hands on a cardboard cutout of the President, and I tell you, it's darn good facsimile.
The take-home point is that fanaticism is fanaticism is not tolerance. What makes this fanaticism any different from Taliban fanaticism? And the only result of one of God's armies meeting the other is that one will be left standing, or at least, someone will be left standing.
The zealotry is the frightening part, as these folks--all zealots--think they will be rewarded for their fanaticism. They look forward to meeting their maker joyfully, even if, or perhaps especially if, their demise should occur in an intentional confrontation with heathens (="the other side.")
It is Haggard's stated opinion that "If the evangelicals vote, they determine the election." An inspiring thought for the democratic principles of America.
--Lisa
posted by rangeragainstwar at 12:48 AM
14 Comments:
It takes a lot to turn my stomach, but this qualifies.
"And the only result of one of God's armies meeting the other is that one will be left standing, or at least, someone will be left standing."
Not if we're really, really lucky.
Yeah, pretty distressing stuff. If one can't see the error of one's own ways, there is little hope of right engagement with another who is is not of the sane stripe.
I have always thought organized religion a most devisive institution. It all good and well to love one's neighbor as thyself, and see all men as brothers, but you undo the thing when you draw in and affiliate only with the bretheren in your own little organization.
anon,
I don't understand your comment, but it could be construed to mean you're suggesting we kill all of them. It's the position of this blog that killing is never a solution.
anon,
With the benefit of a more well-humored friend, he suggests that your comment may be tongue-in-cheek. If you are saying that perhaps we will have NO fighting evangelicals--or any organized zealotry--then I say "Amen, brother."
I'm not nearly that sophisticated or nice. I was merely suggesting that maybe the two sides might kill each other off, to the last zealot. Repeat as necessary.
Best if they could manage it without collateral damage.
anon,
Historically, the Israelis have had good success playing the groups they deal with off of each other. As ex., see Hamas and Fatah killing each other off. Obviously, this is a win-win situation. But of course, we don't espouse violence. Then again, this doesn't break our hearts, either.
"But of course, we don't espouse violence. Then again, this doesn't break our hearts, either."
I'm right with you, Ranger.
Also, the Israelis pretty much have to try to play some of their various enemies off against each other. Even with massive U.S. support, they are in a lousy situation - surrounded and hopelessly outnumbered (they've been playing the underdog card for a long time, too).
Anyway - keep up the good work. I very much enjoy your writing.
anon,
Glad to have you with us.
Israel has been our most steadfast ally in the region, and their situation is certainly dire. I do not know why we've stuck the stick in the hornet's nest, but the situation in the Middle East only bodes more ill for Israel.
A friend sent me something tangentially related, and I'll share a portion:
"The Jews are not promoting brainwashing their children in military camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths...The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.
Perhaps the Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.
If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."
Ranger,
"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel"
True words.
I'm not a big fan of either side in this particular fight. Each has legitimate (and deeply held) grudges with the other. Your friends point is taken, but it isn't the *only* issue to be considered - there are others that need to be addressed before we can start thinking about which side appears to be "nicer" (read: more like us) on the surface.
Unfortunately, the single most important issue (overpopulation, particularly in regards to local resources) can never even be mentioned in public - because there is no current, palatable solution.
Now that I've outed myself as a population loony, I'll leave you alone.
Anon,
I don't think you're a "population looney"; limited resources, esp. water, is a fact. The earth has only a certain carrying capacity. We're over 6 billion humans now. There will come an unsustainable point, and a crash will ensue.
To borrow from Mae West, niceness has nothing to do it. Pragmatic self-interest is the order of the day in political alliances. Anyway, these days I'm thinking "niceness" does not equate with "being like us."--Lisa
follow-on to anon:
Re. your statement that there is no "palatable solution" to the overpopulation problem, it is called "birth control."
If I were a cynic, I'd say the churches don't advocate it because it would mean less future tithers. The church would also lose authority in the arena of guilt.
If sex is o.k. minus the imperative to procreate, then you remove guilt, then you remove the need for contrition, confession, repentence and all of it. The payoff for disallowing birth control is too big. Even the immanent population crash is important to maintain current theology. L.
"If sex is o.k. minus the imperative to procreate, then you remove guilt, then you remove the need for contrition, confession, repentence and all of it. The payoff for disallowing birth control is too big. Even the immanent population crash is important to maintain current theology."
Sounds like you've got a pretty good grasp of things (at least as I perceive them).
B.C. is a technical solution, but until you can get everyone to voluntarily use it, all it does is make sure that one segment of the population lowers it's birthrate. Solid, well rounded education - with an emphasis on critical thinking! - is the key, in my opinion (that would lower the numbers of zealots, too).
Trouble is, the powers that be don't want a well educated population, so it isn't likely to happen any time soon.
The more I think about things like this, the more I realize that the future is looking pretty bleak. I guess I never should have tried to overcome my public school edumacation.
Anon,
Critical thinking, y'say? Is that a necessary skill for shopping at Bed, Bath and Beyond?!
Two things come to mind: My humble high school gifted class had a teacher with the temerity to introduce "values clarification" to the curriculum. Talk about an incensed school board. You can't have them clarifying their values! Society imparts collective values, and a thinker is a dangerous thing--a threat to the status quo.
Second: The WSJ just ran a 3-pt series on education, as they saw it. One argument was for the hopeless character of the average individual. An argument from biology--that the individual cannot transcend their genetic inheritance.
Of course, this also damns the hapless student who underachieves due to poor environment. Your internal + external environment collude to create your potential. The teacher who sees an avg. I.Q. on the form, but doesn't see the blight of the home situation, condemns that student to mediocrity or worse.
Bottom line: yeah, the powers that be don't want a well-educated populace.
Post a Comment
<< Home