RE: Jesus Camp

RE: Jesus Camp (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Emperor1956 -> RE: Jesus Camp (9/17/2006 10:23:58 PM)
quote: Julia: (Some snips before and aft) I am completely and totally for the rights of parents to instill any sort of backwards belief system they want to give their children. We can't take away someone's right to instill values into their offspring, even if we do not agree with them. If someone wants to teach their kids that the earth is flat and only 6000 years old, they should have that right. Well, we DO limit what people can teach their children, however. An attempted defense raised by molesters who abuse their own children is that they are teaching personal beliefs -- and we (thank God) prosecute them for incest and molestation and whatever other heinous crimes they commit in their evilness. The Washington DC sniper raised the defense that he was teaching the younger man (his "son" by claimed adoption) a political and social view of the world that included random murder. Again, we prosecuted that. So you can't really hang your hat on "parents should be allowed to teach their kids anything". The fact is we make judgements about what we as a society deem acceptable. Jesus Camp, Muslim camp, Israeli-zionist camp, computer camp, fat camp, socialist camp, ecoterrorism camp (so long as they don't act it out), horsey camp, Boy and Girl Scouts camp are all acceptable in our societal view. And CrappyDom has it mostly right...the Jesus Camp girls were good...but the GIRL SCOUTS at the camp across the lake were the real hotties. Man, in one summer I learned about anal sex, oral sex (she wouldn't do vaginal...until we were seniors) and smoking hash...Who knew they had merit badges in that stuff? E.

StrongButKind -> RE: Jesus Camp (9/17/2006 10:30:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 Well, we DO limit what people can teach their children, however. An attempted defense raised by molesters who abuse their own children is that they are teaching personal beliefs -- and we (thank God) prosecute them for incest and molestation and whatever other heinous crimes they commit in their evilness. The Washington DC sniper raised the defense that he was teaching the younger man (his "son" by claimed adoption) a political and social view of the world that included random murder. Again, we prosecuted that. The sniper is being prosecuted for shooting people, not teaching the boy to shoot people. And child molestors are prosecuted for molesting children, not teaching them to be child molestors. Until it rises to a level of abuse or neglect, we can't interfere. Forget morally, just pragmatically.

BrutalAntipathy -> RE: Jesus Camp (9/17/2006 10:38:57 PM)
*Yep, parents are free to raise their children to be hate mongering bigots if they so choose. Then the kid grows up and becomes president. Gawd bless the U.S.A.!*

Emperor1956 -> RE: Jesus Camp (9/17/2006 10:39:09 PM)
Strong but Kind: No, Muhammad was charged with conspiracy to commit murder in the Washington sniper cases, and a raft of lesser charges including his influence on Malvo, the 18 year old boy he corrupted into (apparently) pulling the trigger. Muhammed did in fact argue both at trial and sentencing that he was not the murderer, his "son" was. From a recent AP story on the sentencing: quote: Muhammad's lawyers have raised several issues which will probably form the main points of an appeal. They argue that under Virginia law only the person who pulls the trigger in a shooting can be eligible for the death penalty. The six-week trial never conclusively determined who pulled the trigger, but much of the evidence suggests that it was Malvo. Judge Millette sided with prosecutors who argued that Virginia law allows the death penalty in cases in which a defendant can be shown to be "the instigator and moving spirit" of a killing. My point remains: We tolerate most behavior from parents vis a vis their children, NOT all. E.

StrongButKind -> RE: Jesus Camp (9/17/2006 10:48:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 Strong but Kind: No, Muhammad was charged with conspiracy to commit murder in the Washington sniper cases, and a raft of lesser charges including his influence on Malvo, the 18 year old boy he corrupted into (apparently) pulling the trigger. Muhammed did in fact argue both at trial and sentencing that he was not the murderer, his "son" was. From a recent AP story on the sentencing: quote: Muhammad's lawyers have raised several issues which will probably form the main points of an appeal. They argue that under Virginia law only the person who pulls the trigger in a shooting can be eligible for the death penalty. The six-week trial never conclusively determined who pulled the trigger, but much of the evidence suggests that it was Malvo. Judge Millette sided with prosecutors who argued that Virginia law allows the death penalty in cases in which a defendant can be shown to be "the instigator and moving spirit" of a killing. My point remains: We tolerate most behavior from parents vis a vis their children, NOT all. E. I can't find a reference to any charge that would not have been the same had Malvo been an adult. Here's a decent list, but not updated in a while: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/28/sniper.charges/index.html Perhaps I am unaware of other charges pertaining to corruption of a minor or whatever. For my own interest, if you have a more current list of charges, would you post or send to me? My point is that we let parents teach their kids even hate. And I don't see the reasonable alternative, horrible as it is that so many parents teach such bad things. Like racism, intolerance, being a Yankees fan and such.

juliaoceania -> RE: Jesus Camp (9/17/2006 10:51:24 PM)
Child molesting is against the law, being ignorant isn't

LadyJulieAnn -> RE: Jesus Camp (9/18/2006 5:13:08 AM)
I hardly think following three children attending "Jesus Camp" is representative of what is going on in our country as far as religious education. It's a portrait of extreme religious indoctrination, no different than following the camps of children brought up in the KKK and other racist groups. Be well, Julie

philosophy -> RE: Jesus Camp (9/18/2006 5:22:51 AM)
Faith and children is a bit of a minefield. Is it the Jehovahs Witness that don't accept blood transfusions? i know there have been cases where doctors have wanted to give a child a life saving procedure that a parents religious faith prevents. An adult can make an informed decision about such stuff, but does a parent have the right to refuse such a thing on their childs behalf? If we concede that they don't then the question is where do we draw the line? Where does parental influence become harmful? i think it is entirely possible that a christian youth camp can indoctrinate children with harmful paradigms, just as an Islamic or Jewish or Pagan or Scintologist or, and importantly, aetheist youth camp could. This question drives at an incredibly important principle for all of us. At what point does the state have the right to interfere with the family? We could stand on principle and say 'never'.......but if we do that we have to allow harm to be done to children because their parents believe it is in their best interests....however to find the place in the sand to draw the line is incredibly difficult. A last point, this is a very VERY old question. Arguably every single greek tragedy that survives from the 5th century B.C. is pondering this question.........all of them feature ts their most basic dramatic heart, a conflict between 'polis' the law of the city, and 'oikos' the law of the family.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125