I have seen Jesus Camp twice, and I agree that the indoctrination is distinctly theocratic, even though Becky and the other adults involved would probably be loath to call it that themselves.

by Frederick Clarkson on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:53:31 PM EST

Have finally gotten around to reading Chris Hedges though John Danforth is more my type.  Kids on Fire is scary even to an optimist like me.

I do think this definition--
Freedom in the conservative lexicon means "freedom to achieve my own ends without any interference from anyone." This is reflected in a scene from Jesus Camp where kids are told to smash coffee mugs with the word "government" written on them. However, another definition of freedom--the progressive definition--is "[F]reedom from being coerced to do things that are neither for your good nor the public good."
--would be exactly reverse by the conservatives I know.

by Don Niederfrank on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 05:14:54 PM EST

This is an incredibly informative post. Thank you for your extremely valuable observations.

But what Jesus Camp is truly about is arousing passion that leads directly to factionalism in its worst form. This is a different dichotomy than that of unrestrained self-interest as Rev.Brooks-Thistlethwaite seems to imply in her supplied definitions of freedom.

Both Hume and Madison wrote of its dangers. Madison, understanding the danger factions represent, sought to make our federal system sturdy enough to contain and withstand them. What is troubling is seeing these children basically giving lessons in "non-civics" (for example, the smashing of the cups marked "government"). To accomplish this goal she appeals to religious anxieties and passions. It is action built upon reflex, not clear thought. As such, it flies in the face of both Classical and contemporary liberal thought.

Pastor Becky Fisher is clearly trying to shape a generation of children to impose their specific religious beliefs upon the general population, even if it conflicts with the aggregate will of the populace. In order to do so, she is not appealing to self-interest--something that requires calculated thought, but to a very different conception of the common good.

Sadly, it is this highly subjective type of "common good" that allows for group cruelties upon minorities, including religious ones. Fisher actually does not want these children to act in their own self-interest, especially when it means self-preservation, since she is instilling the virtues of martyrdom. Instead, she is trying to achieve a type of hyper-communatrianism. This is the complete opposite of what either Enlightenment-derived contemporary liberalism or Barry Goldwater conservatism values; albeit, in varying degrees.


by Frank Cocozzelli on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:30:31 PM EST

Thanks for this chance to learn and discuss, Susan

You wrote:

Should children be used as a means for their parents' political and religious ends, or do they have their own rights to some religious and political freedom in a democracy? How can they learn to be free if they're not allowed to achieve goals separate from their parents and be with those who expose them to different views?

I agree with this appeal for "justice for the innocents," and with your implication that justice cannot be served as long as certain brands of child training are not abandoned or outlawed.  However, I doubt there is any recourse if these Charismatics are not open to abandoning their methods, as the public rights of children are not usually on a par with longstanding judicial precedents establishing the right of private self-determination of parents over their offspring (in cases not involving great bodily harm).

But while I doubt that charismatic parents and church leaders will "see" the morally correct answers to your three questions, I think some good may come from trying to make them understand that their right to be morally wrong in this dire matter is not one that is protected by the First Amendment (freedom of religion).  Because I think it is instead dependent upon Fourth Amendment precedents and rulings on citizen rights to privacy and due process.  All of which underlie the Supreme Court's many key decisions which protect citizens against undue molestation of their persons and affairs by the state in as many areas of private decision-making as possible - where no vested interest of the state is concerned (i.e. the right to privacy in medical and childbearing decisions, in choice of mate, of religion, etc., no less than methods of child rearing and raising).

God bless the whole world - - No Exceptions
by John Anngeister on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 01:56:40 AM EST

As a member of the UCC, who has followed you for years now, I am proud to have you join us on this site and congratulate you on such a balanced effort taking on what is, to be sure, an extremely troubling phenomenon. Your counsel to parents who do not want to pattern or repeat the behavior of those whose tactics trouble us is wise, to be sure.
Shalom, Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer "Time makes ancient good uncouth; we must onward still and upward who would keep abreast of truth." from Lowell, "The Present Crisis"
by John Dorhauer on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:26:45 PM EST

I haven't yet seen the movie, although I have family members who have sent their children to programs similar to Jesus Camp in the past. I found myself hard-pressed not to recoil in shock at some of what my young cousins said they learned about American history and politics there. Their parents are college graduates and certified teachers, but seemed unconcerned with the distortions. I think, therefore, that your concern, "I wonder if anyone talks to kids about Jesus camp after they come home--if they're asked to reflect and think critically about what they experienced[,]" is secondary to this: Do the parents who send their children to such programs employ critical thinking skills themselves when it comes to anything that conforms to their own world view?

by RevRuthUCC on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:04:02 PM EST