I don’t know about the ‘majority rules’ concept anymore. It’s more of a ‘mob rules’ mentality. Fear based conceptions of religions is nothing new. Christianity receives more criticism than the Islamic culture even though the Quran has been interpreted to persecute and kill infidels. That is not to say there aren’t Christian extremists. Some Islamic followers reject the idea of killing people who don’t acquiesce to their belief. It’s not the religion so much than it is the misguided people behind the religion. When they mess with God’s doctrine, then that breeds hate and mistrust.
Are you seriously going to sit there and say that teaching children to destroy their governing societies structure and figure-heads is just hunky dory?
That filling them with hate and anger is fine?
I haven’t alluded anything in that direction. All I said is people with their own perspectives and values will teach their children how they see fit. People with different mindsets will think otherwise and judge that type of upbringing as wrong…and vice versa.
That people feel the need to program their kids with what they percieve to be the truth should not be shocking… that some people believe this crazy shit, should also not be shocking… I mean it litterally is like putting one and one together… what did you think religion was?
It’s not concepts about the world that sprang from rationality… so that it be crazy and irrational should be no big surprise…
C’mon… this IS religion… these people are no more nuts than other theists… we just dislike the details of their beliefs… and that’s the only difference between these christians and the “good ones”…
The scariest part of religion is when other denominations of Christians believe they are in any way more “rational” than these nut jobs expressed in the original post. There is no mere degree of sanity in this case. You either are a religious fundamental or you are not. All Christians are the same and use the same faith-based-logic to promote their own emotive reasoning for life and its consequences. All Christians are the exact-same-people as the video expresses in the original post. The main difference between religious sects is how Christians, for example, hide their ignorance and dependence on false idols. It does not matter if you are Catholic, Protestant, or Mormon. A Christian is a person who believes in childish fairy tales.
A Christian believes in invisible entities which they cannot prove without Faith. There is no evidence. There is no reasoning.
All Christians are the exact-same as the video in the original post. All people program/indoctrinate their children. It is just a matter of how.
There are words for this: mass, mind, control. Do you think you are innocent? Do you think your religion is exempt from the rule?
(Because it’s not!!)
The difference is in what the purpose is.
Their purpose is not for the self.
They are interested in Religious take-over.
Good religion isn’t interested in this.
Good religion isn’t interested in hysterics.
It is interested in providing a construct by which people can have a personal and free willed religious experience for their own spiritual satisfaction and gain for personal peace of spirit, and pursuit of a moral guideline that fits in line with that peaceful spirit.
This isn’t the same as the extremes like the above.
And no, not all Religion is the same, and no, this should NOT be obvious as a result.
To suggest that this is obvious as a result is to suggest that it is acceptable for people to behave this way about anything, religious or not.
If this was a political party camp for children, this would not be acceptable, so suggesting that it’s fine and expected for Religion is just simply a careless free pass for Religious followers to behave recklessly and irrationally as people in hysterical manners with no requirement for responsibility.
And just because the premise of religions relies on concepts that are not capable of being proven does not mean that the rest of the actions from adherents should be expected to be irrational on the grounds of basic social function.
They should be expected easily to fit in with their social surroundings passively overall, as they are still rational minded people day to day.
You will not see them jumping to aggressive conclusions and threatening the well being of others.
People like this, they are extremists, and the religious pursuit is no longer the focus for them.
They are now pursuing personal motivations not related to the religious pursuit.
By case of my point that Religion does NOT excuse irrational behavior, let me just cite a bit of what this Pastor holds as her ambition and dream:
Now…I’m sorry, but I don’t know many Christians that are gung-ho for that summer camp slogan.
“I want to shoot people and blow myself up for Jesus” camp.
And no…that is NOT acceptable just because their excuse is Religion.
No more so than all horrible atrocities that have been made in the past in the bastardized name of Religion, and including current screwed up cases such as the Fundamentalist Islamic Militant movements she cited above that the world largely readily recognizes as a wrong use of Religion.
No it isn’t. These people didn’t sit down and plot their beliefs… they believe them to be true. It dosn’t have a purpose, it has consequences… and yes, the difference is the consequences… you just don’t like the consequences of THIS perticular world view. That’s all the difference there is.
They are interrested in the world knowing the truth so that we can all be saved… quite a noble cause if you actually believed that their religion was in fact the truth.
That’s just your opinion, which is fine, but that’s all this is… you’re opinion. You like the nice religions that don’t require others to believe what they do… fine… but you can’t fault these people for anything other than not conforming to what you personally think is a “good religion”.
Actually I agree… it is kinda like that. I would no less “brainwash” my kids into being very careful crossing the road, cuz i believe it could cost them their lives.or have safe sex, or stay away from drugs. Now imagine something that could not only cost my kid it’s life, but an eternity of torture… damn right i’d “brainwash” em into paying attention before taking the lords name in vain (or whatever). You cannot fault them for making their kids aware of danger and teaching them how to protect themselves from it. All you can point out is that the danger in this case is imaginary… but to do that, you need to examine where the belief came from… and suddenly you have an issue with religion in general… since it’s all equally imaginary.
that’s because political opinion is considered an OPINION… NOT truth. Religion is rarely considered an “opinion” among the religious.
I can’t help but disagree… I think you’d have a hard time arguing that these people are in the wrong IF you take as a given that what they believed is true.
It all makes sense IF you believe what they believe… they are not being “extreme” or irrational… they are being perfectly reasonable GIVEN their irrational belief.
If I believed that I was on fire and that jumping off the bridge into the water below might save my life or in the very least grant me a quick death instead of this torture… you won’t get far by arguing with me about how suicide isn’t the answer, and that time can heal all wounds… no… you need convince me that I’m not actually on fire… and that I’m crazy for thinking so…
I don’t care if what they believe is true of false.
Their actions are unacceptable for a proper society.
If that means that in their eyes I get to go to hell, then fine.
But the scary crap is that it is possible in their eyes that I deserve to die from some form of fanatical Jesus soldier attack, should I pose enough of a threat.
At least, that’s what she admires about the extremists in the middle east.
Religion is a belief system, yes, but we do actually have an acceptance for how far is too far.
If you don’t think we do, then look at the countless events that the American government has had to go in and take over a religious camp because that religious camp was posing a threat to the safety of the society it resided in in the eyes of the Federal system and the local communities.
The only part that baffles me, is that this lady is left free blatantly saying that she wants to focus on the 1/3 of the worlds population (children) and that she wants to see children as willing to fight and die for Jesus as the extremist militant Islamic fundamentalist child warriors of the middle east.
Her target? American children, and she has actively done this with hundreds of children.
Further, she takes this idea of the above willing to die and mixes it with messages of destroying portions of the American government that she perceives as standing in the way of an absolute reign of militant Christianity in America.
Now…I’m sorry…this isn’t just my opinion…this is a direct threat.
If someone had said any of this about Islam and held Islamic camps like this in America, they would be in Guantanamo.
Why she’s not there is beyond me.
[edit]
As an after thought:
The example given about street crossing.
It’s not comparable to this; or rather to say to be comparable we would have to suggest that it’s alright to “brainwash” your kids into attacking other children and adults that do not cross the street in the same way that you teach your children to cross the street.
That’s what I meant by the purpose.
Your purpose of the crossing the street lesson was to protect your children.
Her purpose of crossing the street lesson is to attack anyone that does not cross the street her way.
The two are vastly different.
TheStumps
I think you’re missing my point here.
I compleatly agree with you that these people are nuts, and that we, as a society, ought to stop such lunacy from spreading.
What i’m arguing is that their actions are perfectly reasonable GIVEN what they believe.
Also, I usually don’t mind it when people demonize nutcases like these, but you’re being a little harsh. She wasn’t actually telling kids to go physically assult anyone… nor do i believe that was her ultimate goal. She wanted those kids to be ready to die in DEFENSE of their faith… I doubt very much that translates to her wanting them to bully atheists in the schoolyard… In which case it does compare to crossing the road carefully and in your own time, adding that if anyone pushes you to cross the road before you’ve look both ways, you ought to push right back!
Look even you said it:
SHOULD YOU POSE ENOUGH OF A THREAT!
that’s the key here… I would teach my children no less.
The problem here is not the policy to defend yourself against a threat… The problem is that these peopel are not rational, their beliefs are not rational… they might consider you a threat without good reason and act on it. THAT’s the problem.
But then again that’s the problem with all religion. It’s just not rational…
We might very well decide as a society to allow irrationality so long as the consequences remain peaceful, and only act when the consequences might result in disorder or violence… and that’s fine. but when we talk about why these people are any worse than other people, we’re gonna have to admit that the only difference is the consequences of their delusions… they are no more nuts than the rest… they are no more “extreme”… their brand of delusion just happens to have consequences we don’t like.
MMP, I’m largely with you as to your underlying point, though I think there’s still grounds within the context of a constitutional democracy to demarcate realms of “extreme”, as, for instance, in the case of radical sects of Mormonism practicing pedophilia-via-marriage. From the social point of view, it’s beyond a “threat” issue with these children, as they have actually entered the premeditated experience of psychological abuse by their mentors. The fact that their mentors are perverse does not excuse their perversity. When the “We” is so disposed, the “consequences we don’t like” provides sufficient cause for intervention, at least when it can be done with reasonable grounds. That the “We” is not so disposed is an indictment on them as much as the extreme sect.
Right, all religious people are exactly the same just like all the non-religious. Therefore, Stumps is just like Rasputin and you are just like Stalin. Litinenbolt is the Grand Inquistor and MadMan is the Unibomber. Or each person should be judged on their own merits. Which seems more rational to you?
That’s the entire point.
Why we have jack else to talk about is beyond me, as that was my only point.
I don’t care what you think about religion as a whole.
I’m saying when people take religion to this degree, it should be stopped.
What is the formula for religious fanaticism if it’s not fear and isolation?
These people are frightened. Somehow they have let their fear of a tiny minority of moslems blind them to
the foundations of their faith; turn the other cheek, the golden rule…
The question is, how do you address their fears and end their isolation (perhaps cocooning is a better desciption)?
We are a society of laws that we are all equal under. Unless we pass a law against a certain behavior, we have no right to intervene. If democracy was simply in the form of majority rules, than being unpopular would be sufficiant cause to punish someone. I think we can all agree that such a system would be bad.
I might agree that what we saw in that video needs to be prevented… but I don’t see under what charge we ought to do so… because they believe in something for which they have no evidence? well then religion in general has to go out the window… because they are teaching their kids to defend themselves, even use violence if need be? I would like to be able to teach my kids the same thing, so that seems silly.
If you wish to say these people crossed a line… then you need to define the line first!
I would be tempted to say this falls under the “hate speach” catagory, but the only people they were taught to hate was themselves and Harry Potter as far as I could tell… and Harry’s fictional.
I’ll gladly sign that page that makes violent encouraging religious practice illegal.
Yeah, I know, you’ll probably have an itch to pick that apart in nit-picks about determining such a thing.
Simple…this shit that we’re talking about right here; pretty damn simple.
If you’re doing crap like handing kids swords and telling them they are soldiers of Jesus and then having them smash cups that represent people or organizations of people, and you’re professing about admiration of extremely violent religious militants by comparison to yourself, then that would fall in the lines of illegal.
And I’m perfectly fine with such a restriction.
Hell, we simply don’t have a need for that kind of crap in society any longer.
You’ve got to be fricken kidding.
They were taught various American agencies.
Their general society.
“Fat and lazy” Christians.
Middle Eastern religious extremists
And really…anyone that isn’t the Pastor’s idea of Christian.
“Satan’s army” (love that one; see all of the listed above for a definition of who this is.)
I take your point on the theoretical technicality of constitutional democracy (though I’d suggest the realpolitik is somewhat more vague).
Nevertheless, if I might envision the notion that, say within 50 years, the social relevance of atheism (loosely) contrives a manner of democratic reform which disestablishes the privileged position of “religious tolerance”: might there be room to suggest that, whether by law or by convention, a character of overlapping consensus might emerge which stuffs such psychological abuse as the above down the civil toilet and flushes?
If so, then I’m simply attempting to encourage that social movement by leaking out my vitriol onto the floor of the present, such that the slippery slope might in this instance slide more efficiently. 
I do think we all do for ourselves.
I think you way of thinking is pretty similar to their way.
They separate good people (Christian) from bad people (all the rest).
You separate good religion from bad religion.
They advocate actions against bad people.
You advocate action against bad religion (by making what they want illegal).
Mentality is the same.
You are a bit more moderate because you don;t advocate direct violence but may be you are a bit coward because you try to punish them by legal proxy rather than directly attacking them.
And brain washing done in family can be pretty similar to the brain washing done in organized religion (or other form of organized brain washing like that of military, communism, Walmart, etc. 
)
It’s not cowardice when you call for legal action.
It’s saying that this should handled accordingly under law so that violent militant propaganda doesn’t run freely coursing through a very powerful and influential force; religion.
People always bitch that religion is the cause for a number of violent actions throughout history.
I am saying…yes, because no one has taken a stance against violent religious stances until it’s too late and the only option is violent suppression.
I’m saying, let’s stop that before it ever gets that far.
And there is a difference.
I’m not suggesting that they should all be killed.
And I’m not saying that because I lack some form of courage. I’m saying that because I value human life over ideological views of religion.
Advocating preemptive strike can be popular among people with victim mentality.
They are scared because they consider themselves as “victims” and thus they can be victimized, again. Being “victims”, they feel weak.
They also tend to believe they are good/right because they do hate and consider oppressor/enemy as bad/demonic/etc.
This kind of silly mentality (pretty common among Monotheists, communists, feminists, etc) let them think in simplistic good/bad frame in which they feel justified to do nearly anything against oppressor/enemy.
And they loose (if they had already, somehow) their ability in feeling the pain of others, to the point they can plan and commit aggressions.
These Christians in video and you are very similar is this regard.
It’s like Jews acting like Nazis and children of violent family beating their own kids.
And I do think (organized) religions are generally harmful in understanding the nature of these things (and other things) because they restrain perspectives of followers, making them less free/able in thinking/observing.
In short, religions jail the mind of people.
And I’d say that religious people love to jail the mind of others, too.
In your case, you are advocating to jail religious fanatics (by legal means, probably up to physical imprisonment, which may have violent consequences).