The Jesus camp response

[scythekain]

Those of you touting the jesus camp as equivalent to muslim fascism/extremism, probably never read the responses…

here are a couple:

tedhaggard.com/jesuscamp.jsp

a couple of the questions:

Question: Many Americans are earnestly trying to understand this cultural phenomenon called Evangelicalism. Don’t we have to consider this film as research data in understanding born-again Christians?

Haggard Answer: If you consider Jesus Camp as research in understanding Evangelicalism, you might also look at Napoleon Dynamite to understand family life in America or Nacho Libre to gain insight on how the Catholic Church takes care of orphans. If you take this film as an earnest glimpse into Evangelicalism, then Uncle Rico has a sweet deal for you on some tupperware.

Question: So who likes Jesus Camp?

Haggard Answer:

1. Secularists who hope that Evangelicals are the equivalent to radicalized Muslims, training their children to accomplish their goals through violence. These opponents of religion fantasize that Evangelicals are trying to wage a sort of counter-jihad, and material like Jesus Camp fuels their concocted fear.
2. Michael Moore and his fans.

and this from a moderate christian who watched the film:

Will these children, trained exclusively in the Pentecostal forms of expression, ever grow up spiritually? This is what initially troubled me about this film. But as the movie wore on, the political “message” became more blatant and heavy-handed. And I came to identify myself as one of the beleaguered Christians.

Air America radio host Mike Papantonio’s “commentary” on the political significance of the Religious Right amounted to wall-to-wall left-wing clichés. He was painful to listen to. Michael Novak or Richard John Neuhaus or Robert George would have made mince-meat of him.

The real fear of the radical Secularist is that the Religious Right will overturn Roe v. Wade. Roe was the dominant political image of the film. The children at the camp held little plastic models of the fetus at various stages of development and chanted, “righteous judges, righteous judges,” as their prayer.

The radical Secularist is completely unable to understand the significance of Roe v. Wade for the Christian community. The Religious Right as a political phenomenon is entirely a creature of Roe. Without it, Catholics would still be New Deal Democrats, and Fundamentalists would still be abstaining from politics. It was Roe v. Wade that activated them, precisely because it conveyed the message that their values and beliefs were not welcome in the public square.

In the process, orthodox Christians of all denominations have been driven closer to one another. Evangelicals and Catholics work together with far greater respect and appreciation than would have been possible forty years ago. Even though this went unnoticed in Jesus Camp, the “righteous judge” the kids prayed for, turned out not to be one their co-religionists, but Sam Alito, a Catholic.

So the question this film raises is: with whom do you most closely identify? Jesus Camp made me realize just how deeply Roe v. Wade has changed the face of American politics and American religious life. People who used to think the pope was the Anti-Christ are now grateful for the leadership of Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict. Catholics have become grateful for the enthusiasm and energy of their Evangelical and Pentecostal brothers and sisters. These changes in attitude would have been totally unpredictable a generation ago. Some might even call it miraculous.

Another disturbing charge made by Jesus Camp is that the parents and the minister are brainwashing the children. One of the more hysterical comments was by Richard Dawkins, saying that “If the adults decided to hand out the special Kool-Aid at this camp, the children would all unquestionably partake.” Except for the small fact that no adults showed any inclination to give kids anything like Kool-Aid, this is a wise and witty observation.

BASICALLY, everything I stated in response to the jesus camp and moral relativism.

You know what’s hilarious… I bet on the first page someone will call me a christian.

[Peter_Kropotkin]

I fail to see a point anywhere in your post.
Give us something to argue for or against.
You have nothing here.

Kropotkin

[Xunzian]

So, what I’m getting from this is that there are no Christian moderates and that if we ever want to stop Fundamentalism from spreading and eliminating American culture we need to aggressively invade Christian Communities and replace their culture with American consumerist culture.

Only that way can we be safe. Isn’t that right Scythe?

[scythekain]

@Peter Kropotkin

I fail to see a point anywhere in your post.
Give us something to argue for or against.
You have nothing here.

Kropotkin

The point is relative, to you (and others of your ilk) thinking christians and muslims are of the same.

So, what I’m getting from this is that there are no Christian moderates and that if we ever want to stop Fundamentalism from spreading and eliminating American culture we need to aggressively invade Christian Communities and replace their culture with American consumerist culture.

Your the one trying to eliminate american culture. It’s not enough to stop yourselves from propagating you have to convince others to do so as well.

This culture, and government are based upon god, and to a lesser extent christianity, even though ben franklin, and jefferson were deists, that was a secondary role, they were still christians, and that is why they still make appeals to god.

The fundamentalism is on both sides of the fence, you idiots are trying to rip down culture, government and values, and they are trying to hold them up. Look at what you are saying, that you need to agressively invade christian communities?

WTF?

As for the american consumer culture? That’s a whole 'nother bag of worms. It is both good and bad, and certainly better than the alternative of communism either under god, or under despot.

Only that way can we be safe. Isn’t that right Scythe?

by invading christians you can be safe?

hello darkness my good friend. I can no longer tell right from wrong.

I sing to you because I’m depraved. I no longer have a god to crave.

Oh please don’t let those kids be happy for god. I just want the sound of silence.

A little song for you guys…

[Xunzian]

You do realize that post was a parody of your position on Islam, correct?

[scythekain]

@Xunzian

You do realize that post was a parody of your position on Islam, correct?

of course I did… And you’re equalization of Islam and Christianity, which was your point… is extremely short sighted.

Christianity and Islam are about as equal as an elephant and a kangaroo… They are both animals, but they are VASTLY different.

They both believe in god, but again… what they’ll DO for their god is VASTLY different.

They both believe in Heaven… but ONCE again, what they’ll do to get to heaven is VASTLY different.

Not that I’d expect you to understand, differences xunzian… to you A = B through Z.

[Xunzian]

Fundamentalists of all strips are strongly anti-Enlightenment in their thought. A loaded ideology is far more dangerous than a loaded gun. Look at what a war-torn wasteland Europe was during the 17th century. And look at what came out of that.

Compare contrast with what was going on in the Middle East. People are, by and large, expendable. Ideas are, however, of enduring value.

Which also ties in with your comment about the Founding Fathers. If one were to restrict them to one religion, Enlightenment philosophy would be it (given how people claim Science is a religion, Enlightenment philosophy fits the bill there as well). Given the friction between the Enlightenment and Christianity, saying that they wanted to create a Christian nation is foolhardy. The idea of Christendom went out with the Protestant Reformation.

[ravencry4all]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/
“30 out of 35 people found the following comment useful:-” = 86%

[scythekain]

@Xunzian

Fundamentalists of all strips are strongly anti-Enlightenment in their thought.

Completely and totally disagree. The founding fathers of the USA fundamentally believed in a creator of the universe, and still were able to come up with a great piece of enlightenment. In the same token, I agree with you. Fundamentalism taken to the extreme can be dangerous. Not being a relativist I can tell the difference between Good fundamentalism and bad fundamentalism.

This is a great example of BAD fundamentalism:

epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

The liberals in the USA (and possibly abroad) want to charge the skeptics of man made global warming with crimes against humanity.

fucking fascists in the face, and I’ll bet that you relativists still won’t be able to tell the difference between good fundamentals and bad fundamentals.

A loaded ideology is far more dangerous than a loaded gun. Look at what a war-torn wasteland Europe was during the 17th century. And look at what came out of that.

Europe grew from it did it not? War is horrible, but the outcome seems to always be a stronger culture and economy. Look at the revolutionary war, the patriots fought by the skin of their teeth to gain freedom from England. France didnt’ back the US, until we took over an english ship during a fierce battle that lead to the sinking of one of our ships.

Compare contrast with what was going on in the Middle East. People are, by and large, expendable. Ideas are, however, of enduring value.

Yes, even the stupid and dangerous ones. Communism is idiotic, and has managed to survive to this day. Why?

There is still a KEY difference though. When you go into battle for ANY OTHER idealogy besides communism and Islam, you are valued as a warrior, and are taught how to survive. In Islam, communism and WW2 japanese imperialism, you are valued as human fodder. If all else fails make yourself the weapon.

THAT ALONE, makes our idealogy and culture better.

Which also ties in with your comment about the Founding Fathers. If one were to restrict them to one religion, Enlightenment philosophy would be it

Possibly. That enlightenment philosophy was not seperate from their fundamental belief in a creator of the universe though. As for the “seperation of church and state”, it doesn’t even exist in the constitution. It’s in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a baptist pastor. You secularists think that means “freedom from religion” That’s NOT what the founding fathers had in mind, and that marginalizes those who believe in god.

IMO, enlightenment philosophy is dead. Being enlightened means that you are free to criticize. Where do you see that in the PC culture created by the left? Where do you see that in the media that is afraid to make the connection between Islam and Violence?

Being enlightened means having a healthy dose of skepticism, but still retaining faith. You want to read enlightened philosophers? Check out Thomas Paine, he didn’t understand Islam as well as Robert Spencer, but he still understood enough to be critical. Being in the age of reason doesn’t mean giving up faith for worship of man.

(given how people claim Science is a religion, Enlightenment philosophy fits the bill there as well). Given the friction between the Enlightenment and Christianity, saying that they wanted to create a Christian nation is foolhardy. The idea of Christendom went out with the Protestant Reformation.

foolhardy indeed… Can you name ONE founding father who was a secular atheist? Can you?

Even if a fraction of them were Free-masons, they were ALL still christians. The reason they FLED EUROPE WAS RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. They wanted to be free to practice religion the way they wanted to… a fundamental of the first ammendment is that religion is a protected right… congress shall not pass laws restricting the practice of religion.

And yet… here you stand telling some great lies that the founding fathers were enlightened atheists. The problem is, atheists aren’t enlightened. They aren’t “brights”. They’ve thrown away their faith for reason. You can’t have reason without faith, and you can’t have faith without reason.

ravencry4all:

Great a review from a moral relativist. Does it surprise me that 30 out of 35 found the review useful? Not at all. 1/4 of americans believe that Bush was responsible for 9/11. Stupid minds think alike more often than great minds. My guess is that you’ve never even been to a church, and if anything you are jealous of how HAPPY they are… why can’t you ever feel that happy in your denial of god?

and more from haggard who was in the film:

Question: What concerns you about your portrayal? When you tell the camera to “repent,” most people can tell it was in jest. Are you concerned that viewers will take you literally?

Haggard Answer: They taped for hours at New Life and they chose to use the footage where we were playing around with negative stereotypes for the use in the film, which was a major alarm for me. I think the producers want to make the unusual normative.

Question: Anyone who has spent much time with Evangelicals knows that Jesus Camp portrays a narrow slice of Evangelicalism. Is that your concern–that it doesn’t represent evangelicalism? Was is concerning that this was the particular subset of evangelicals chosen?

Haggard Answer: The group they chose is a sub-group of the charismatic movement portrayed as mainstream. Then by using the portion where I am joking around and casually talking about the growth of Evangelicalism, they make us all look like we’re dominionists, which we are not. Not only does the movie misrepresent Evangelicalism, but it misrepresents the Charismatic movement. It does represent a small portion of the Charismatic movement, but I think the film demonizes it.

Question: You’re in the charismatic movement. Was there anything portrayed that you disagreed with on theological or other grounds?

Haggard Answer: After September 11th, most Christian groups stopped using militaristic language because of the evolution of meaning in the secular world. We’ve known that anti-Evangelicals would try to portray Bible-believing Christians as radicalized Christians in order to equate us with violent Muslims. This movie successfully does that.

This isn’t a documentary, it’s a slandermentary… In the same style of a michael moore hack piece. Let’s face brass tacks… The narrator is a KNOWN vehement anti-christian. Don’t you think he is going to try to throw a slight slant onto things?

Don’t you think the editor is going to try to edit it to make the church look negative to secular atheists, who THEN of course say, “WOW THEY ARE AS MESSED UP AS VIOLENT MUSLIMS!”

[REMOVED BY POSTER]

there were no kids like this in the Jesus Camp:

news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/ … cb95a8a14c

news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/ … 604655.jpg

Let’s face it… the christians are teaching kids to be moral and you can’t stand that. They aren’t training to be warriors like the muslims, which are following their religious doctrine. They are following the religious doctrine of christ to live a moral, good life.

[Club29]

@Xunzian

So, what I’m getting from this is that there are no Christian moderates and that if we ever want to stop Fundamentalism from spreading and eliminating American culture we need to aggressively invade Christian Communities and replace their culture with American consumerist culture.

Only that way can we be safe. Isn’t that right Scythe?

What do you mean spreading? It’s dissolving.

[Kriswest]

Teaching kids to be moral? Well they can and I hope they do. People need morals. But, not all people need the same ones. There are certain morals that may be sort of universal but, the rest are personal and should be so without judgement or force.

I still find it funny that they boycott Disney yet, use to Disney companies to push their beliefs. Is that not wrong? And if they are teaching morals what kind of moral is that?

[Xunzian]

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.”
-Thomas Jefferson’s letters to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

• James Madison, “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785

“What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the ‘index expurgatorius’, the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine.”

• John Adams, letter to John Taylor

“On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.”

• Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of…Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
-Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)

It was during Adam’s administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

Now, I do agree with you that they believed in a divine Creator – nearly everyone did at that point, what is your point with respect to that? One can be Enlightened, indeed, one can be religious without being anti-Enlightenment. Heck, in France there were Enlightened pastors, one of them even serving on the Council of Public Safety (Naturally the Jacobites too their thought a little too far. I can recognize bad fundamentalism and if you want an example of bad Enlightenment fundamentalism the Jacobites would be it!)

Now, I also think you missed my point comparing Europe to the Ottomans. The Ottoman Empire was stable, and relatively peaceful but ideologically stagnat. Europe, on the other hand, was a hotbed of ideas and a hotbed of violence. Which one came out looking better? The death of individuals is irrelevant, but the death of ideas, now that is something to fear!

As for critics of Global Warming, I’ve yet to see a credible scientific report that challenges it. A lot of smoke a mirrors, but that’s it. Need I cite the Science article which shows the results of a lit search regarding Global Warming? While charging them with crimes against humanity is going too far, part of any rational philosophy is rooting out the incorrect elements. Clinging to an incorrect idea is damaging indeed.

As for Communism, while I am not a supporter of Communism I would point you to several of Mr. P’s very good points on it. The Corporate Welfare State is a form of nationalization of the economy. As a counter-point, both Cathrine and Peter the Great tried to enact capitalist reform in Russia and it failed to produce any economic movement forward because there was no middle class to take advantage of it. In both the PRC and in Russia a middle class has been created because of Communist reforms. I’d say that is quite impressive.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Kriswest

Teaching kids to be moral? Well they can and I hope they do. People need morals.

Natural ones, too. The kind that autocratically form within, after a good education and a loving home. Commandments are useless.

[Uccisore]

You people are still carrying on as though the Jesus Camp position is still reasonable starting ground for how to think of Evangelical Christians. The point is not that we need to rethink ‘what to do about’ these people, the point is that the film (as an extension of the media in general) is mis-representing them. It’s only because of these self-same misrepresentations that the comparison between Christian Evangelicals and Muslim Extremists has any baring. Yes, they both ‘believe stuff’. Yes, they can both be considered ‘stubborn’, and even to be against various forms of what their critics will call ‘progress’. The problem comes from wanting to leap from those vague, frankly uninteresting parallels to make some sort of implied commentary by putting both groups in the same class. In any useful sense, in any sense that affects how we ought to treat the two groups, there is no comparison at all.

[Xunzian]

I think it is difficult to argue that groups like the Christian Right and the Moral Majority aren’t anti-Enlightenment.

That’s the kind of fundamentalist I fear.

[Kriswest]

An Evangelical is not an extremist. There are Christian extremists though. I would say that there are the equivelent Islamic evangilists or perhaps orthodox or what ever name that is used for strict adherents.

A Religious extremist is one who, by force one way or another, tries to make you believe their beliefs or they eliminate you one way or the other. And this is not applicable to just one religion. When a group teaches fear and hate of others they are walking that extremist line pretty closely. For there will always be those that cross that line. Evangalize all you want. Preach hate and fear all you want but, you really should be prepared to be hated and feared in return.

[ravencry4all]

…in any sense that affects how we ought to treat the two groups, there is no comparison at all

On what grounds?

SWT = EAT !
Southern White Trash is very much alike then Eastern Arabic Trash or East Indian Trash …

Are there Jesus Camps for older kids? With weapons and explosives training?

Do you consider the K.K.K. a Christian organization?

[Uccisore]

Xunzian

I think it is difficult to argue that groups like the Christian Right and the Moral Majority aren’t anti-Enlightenment.

That’s the kind of fundamentalist I fear.

I don't have a problem with the claim that the Christian Right is anti-Enlightenment.  That's suffeciently vague that it would be argue to argue for [i]or[/i] against, I think.  I have a problem with using that vague characterization to put the Christian Right in the same boat as the Islamic Extremists we're at war with. 

Kriswest

A Religious extremist is one who, by force one way or another, tries to make you believe their beliefs or they eliminate you one way or the other.

Emphasis added.
Again, that’s fine, so long as you mean it. But if you’re going to go on from that very true statement to try an argue that putting leaflets under windshield wipers, picketing abortion clinics, or sending kids to Bible-camp counts as ‘force’, then no, you’re full of beans and the comparison doesn’t work anymore.
Are there Christians out there who are blowing people up in the name of Christianity? Yeah, sure, probably- and if there’s not now, there no doubt has been at some point. Does the Christian Right, Evangelicals, or the people in Jesus Camp have anything to do with them? Not as far as I can tell.

ravencry4all

That you would make the leap from “Evangelical Christians” to “Southern White Trash” indicates a prejudice on your part that you can’t expect me to address. What sort of argument were you hoping for?

[Xunzian]

Confusing Christianity with the Christian Right
One of the tactics used by the Christian Right to defend their extremist position is to accuse critics of not simply attacking them, but also of attacking Christianity, God, Jesus, religion, and faith generally. They act as though they have a lock on all those things - that a person can’t be a Christian or religious without also agreeing with them.

Publius writes:

The logical error is that the form of rigid rule-based, Pharisee Christianity practiced by Ayatollah Dobson is merely a particular manifestation (or subset) of Christianity proper. One can be at peace with a whole range of Christian interpretations and soundly reject the anti-Enlightenment, anti-woman, anti-privacy, anti-freedom, anti-science, anti-homosexuality, anti-everything-that-doesn’t-look-and-think-just-like-me version of Christianity. An attack on Dobson Christianity is not an attack on Christianity. Just like an attack on the Ayatollah’s interpretation and exploitation of Islam for political purposes is not an attack on Islam itself. 

August 2005, Volume 12 Nr. 30, Issue 165

The Counter-Enlightenment

Jozef Hand-Boniakowski

History texts call the period where people realized that they could use human reason to counter superstition and ignorance, “The Enlightenment”. It was a time when humanity surged forward using human reason to challenge the ingrained aristocracy of the times and the control religion had over people’s lives. The aristocracy in power by virtue of their birth, royalty and inherited wealth dominated society. The Enlightenment confronted the domination of the many by the few. The Enlightenment was a period of intellectual explosion coming about from the cumulative logic and knowledge acquired by all the previous philosophers and current thinkers ranging from Michel de Montaigne, Galileo Galilei, Copernicus and Rene Descartes to Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and many others. The United States revolution against the tyranny of England’s King George was a defining moment in the birth of a nation built by those who continued the Enlightenment through the 18th century. The United States “founding fathers” rejected the dominant paradigms of their time. They were not content with the influence the Church had on society and the emerging new and independent nation. Incorporating Jean-Jaques Rousseau’s deist god and the French concept of equality, they wrote the Declaration of Independence. The revolution in the North American colonies was a break from the royalty and the Church of the past, and the old ways. Just as the Enlightenment in Europe had broken nations away from the old order, the United States had broken away from the Old World. Creativity, ingenuity, critical thinking and knowledge flourished.

Jean-Jaques Rousseau, the 18th century philosopher advocated self-rule over the dictates of religion. Rousseau wrote in The Social Contract that “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains”. Rousseau said that by capitulating to society’s will under the guise of doing what is best for it subscribes its members to a societal totalitarianism that puts society’s needs ahead of individual needs. Society’s will is with few exceptions determined by those who have the power and means to define and implement it. History is thus written by those possessing the means to write, disseminate and inculcate it. We are taught what society wants us to teach. We think what society wants us to think. We behave the way society wants us to behave. We are what society wants us to be, until that is, we choose to be otherwise. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin picked up on Rousseau’s notion that people are inherently good, but that they are corrupted by the evils of society. They believed that people act against their nature because they are uneducated. Jefferson and Franklin showed us that we can break away and be free. We can choose otherwise.

Anti-Enlightenment Totalitarianism

History texts place the age of The Enlightenment as being 1600 - 1800. The 19th and 20th century saw big advances in philosophy and science. From Karl Marx through Albert Einstein, to Edwin Powell Hubble, human understanding advanced. During the last 20 years of the 20th century and the opening decade of the 21st, especially in the United States, however, fetish regressionism has taken hold. There now exists a fetish commodification of simplistic religious belief being sold by the anti-Enlightenment establishment. The neo-conservatives have much to gain from an ignorant and pliant public. Their merchants of ignorance peddle a deliberate and eager reversal and distortion of the accumulated wisdom and knowledge acquired by the world’s greatest thinkers and philosophers. More importantly, there is an institutionalized engineering leading people into extremist apotheosis. Televangelical proselytizing peddles the opiates which the masses crave. Television, the plug-in drug for tens-of-millions, has the “faithful” boldly going anywhere those in control want to take them.

The televangelist Pat Robertson, on his August 2, 2005 “700 Club” program, prayed to God for creating further vacancies on the Supreme Court so that the Court could be further stacked with like-minded anti-visionaries. Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State stated that,

Robertson seems to view God as a divine hit man, taking out justices or anyone else who gets in the way of the Religious Right agenda....I think most Americans don't like to see God dragged into this kind of divisive and demagogic politics.  

While Lynn is correct, the average US citizen would be hard pressed to define demagogic politics. The anti-enlightenment totalitarianism of the 21st century is no accident. It is orchestrated by those smart enough to understand that manipulating society’s will manipulates what society further wills. First, establish an addiction to God and religion within the masses. Karl Marx called religion the “opium of the masses” referring to religion as being a painkiller that salves our psychological pain, a narcotic that makes us sleep and numb to the suffering around us. Marx saw religion as the illegitimate response to disbelief in God (“Opiate of the Masses Religion as Socio/Political Control”, Todd F. Eklof (2004). Second, establish an abundant and well-financed cadre of television evangelists and church preachers claiming credibility in communicating with God and who privy to the “holy solution” save us from the pain and suffering that science has “failed” to eliminate. Finally, tell the conditioned masses what God wants and the masses will want it too. Society’s will is thus re-established in the image and likeness of its creator, that is, the pusher’s religious phantasm becomes our “salvation”.

What me read?

In the opening days of the 21st century, the world is witness to another King George. George W. Bush and his legions of vassals, crusaders and preachers, foist a religious adherence to their notions of virtue and proper behavior onto the nation and the world. Literature, science and critical thinking must be attacked as they directly threaten their self-serving and power-drenched regime. The Bible replaces the biology book. Christo-babble replaces the dialectic. Belief replaces knowledge. Faith replaces fact.

By sporting an air of ordinariness, George W. Bush cleverly associates himself with the common man. He skillfully disguises the fact that his class is far removed from the common man’s daily existence. Bush co-opts the working class never experiencing what it means to be part of the it. He is incapable of understanding the working class and does not seem to particularly care about them. The masses, well-indoctrinated into professing their “pre-ordained” will of society blindly nod and go along. They are “with him”, and may fear not being with him will brand them as being “against him”. As with their God, they see a life without Bush as being adrift, going nowhere.

Ignorance creates post-modern regression: the counter-Enlightenment. As a consequence the people become, as Jason Miller (civillibertarian.blogspot.com) calls it in his piece of the same name, “Forgotten Victim’s of America’s Plutocracy”. However, It does not matter if they are “forgotten” as along as there is some mythology and/or someone to hang on to that fulfills the promise of their illusion with more illusion. Jason Miller states that, “Like wolves among sheep, America’s Plutocracy preys on the weaker and less fortunate members of society.” This plutocracy is the anti-enlightenment totalitarianism regime that is presently in control of the United States of America. It is the regime that is in charge of the world’s only superpower. It is a regime steeped in the counter-Enlightenment, and it is bringing the nation to new lows. That which was unacceptable is now routine as torture and extreme rendition become commonplace. That which was venerated as the crowning jewel of Unites States republicanism is discarded as the Bill of Rights is shredded by the misnamed and acronymaniacal “USA PATRIOT Act”. That which was once a prized accomplishment of society, literacy, is now no longer so considered as the president of the United States, the husband of a librarian, sees little value in reading books.

The New Enlightenment

Isaiah Berlin, a liberal philosopher who lived through most of the 20th century first used the phrase “counter-Enlightenment”. Berlin correctly labeled the opposition to rationalist thinking and the ideals of The Enlightenment. Berlin said,

...the counter-Enlightenment embodies a pluralist vision, accepting the fundamental irreconcilability of cultural values and their ineradicable conflicts with rationalism, as well as the conflicts within Romanticism, irrationalism, mysticism, and neo-Medieval forms of religious thought.

Berlin’s goes beyond portending what the anti-Enlightenment totalitarianism and the New Dark Age have in store for critical thinkers and those with a naturalist world view. Berlin compels us to determine what must be done to create a New Age of Reason (not the “new age”) leading into the New Enlightenment. The opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, written partly as a result of the Enlightenment’s 18th century manifestation offers us a good clue:

When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.  

Norman D. Livergood, in his essay Completing the American Revolution, writes that there are two “American” revolutions. The first was “the revolt against British oppression by Americans”, and the second is, “the revolt against wealthy American merchants and financiers by the common people of America.” The second revolt, however, will come when the New Enlightenment emerges. The ferocity and viciousness of the anti-Enlightenment totalitarianists suggests that they know the New Enlightenment is imminent. Perhaps, a thousand years from now, if humans still exist, they will look back upon the 21st century and wonder how the Dark Ages ever returned?

Our gods are dead. Ancient Klingon warriors slew them a millennia ago. They were...more trouble than they were worth. 

--Worf, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, “Homefront”  

These are two fairly shitty essays I pulled up within about 30 seconds (reading inclusive0 ON GOOGLE. J. H C… they use freakin’ Star Trek as a source!

Would you like to me dig around and show that Farwell and his ilk are anti-Enlightenment?

It ain’t ambiguous at all.

[Mastriani]

All I can say at this time, are a few words that are true in my perspective:

1. I hope Michael Moore takes a pair of deer slugs to the face at close range.

2. I hope I am present with a digital video recording device if (1.) does occur.

3. I have no problem with Christians, or their beliefs, whether or not there is common agreement to be found.

4. Islam is a faith built on deception and hatred, and even “moderates” support, through financial channels, the extremists.

5. There is no such thing as “American culture”, unless people in this country are so blindingly moronic as to believe that stupidity, drunkenness, drug addiction, and immorality based upon the right of avarice do a culture make.

6. If you do believe (5.) is in error, I have my spatula ready, to peel your lips off the short bus window.

7. Using the words “human” and “enlightenment” in conjunction forces me to enact (6.) yet again.

8. Humanity doesn’t change, we just shift from one side of the pendulum, to the other … and wait for all the shit we laid to come sliding back over to us.

9. Christians are not responsible for every idiot and political puke who invokes the religion to suit their own purposes.

10. It is the individuals responsibility to use education, information, and discernment to separate scumbags like Bush and their library of lies, from dedicated Christians who will never agree with him or his ilk, because they know it is all subterfuge, using Christianity as a smokescreen, to cover his true agenda.