Evangelical Ignorance and the Effect on the Public

[Pangloss]

And that's a judgement call on your part. An opinion.

[ydoaPs]

And that's a judgement call on your part. An opinion.

An opinion which has nothing to do with any prejudice. And it isn't as much of an opinion as much as me calling you out on reducing the millions(and growing) evangelicals to a mere hundreds.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss:

 

Millions of video games, thousands (or maybe only hundreds) of screaming zealots.

 

yourdadonapogos:

 

IIRC, 4% Evangelicals and growing. Given US population> 200 million, I'd say you are a little off on your screaming zealot number.

 

In response to that quote, that response is a judgement call, an opinion stating that you believe that evangelicals constitute screaming zealots.

[ydoaPs]

In response to that quote, that response is a judgement call, an opinion stating that you believe that evangelicals constitute screaming zealots.

Yes, many evangelicals are "screaming zealots". However, I was under the impression that instead of strawmanning, you were using the term to mean people like those in Jesus Camp. You know, what the OP was clearly talking about.

[Pangloss]

Okay, I take that to mean that you withdraw your objection. Got it.

 

Where's the straw man?

[ydoaPs]

Okay, I take that to mean that you withdraw your objection. Got it.

No, I want to see how you legitimately go from millions of evangelicals to hundreds.

 

Where's the straw man?

Where you replaced Evangelical with "screaming zealot" as I stated above.

[Pangloss]

No, I want to see how you legitimately go from millions of evangelicals to hundreds.

 

Where you replaced Evangelical with "screaming zealot" as I stated above.

 

You just did. Because I was talking about screaming zealots, not evangelicals. YOU made that connection, not me. Therefore you are replacing screaming zealots with evangelicals.

 

And in the process answering your own question about why that constitutes prejudice.

[ydoaPs]

You just did. Because I was talking about screaming zealots, not evangelicals. YOU made that connection, not me. Therefore you are replacing screaming zealots with evangelicals.

Excuse me for assuming that, in a thread about evangelicals, we would be talking about evangelicals. Boy, am I stupid.

 

And in the process answering your own question about why that constitutes prejudice.

Still see no connection to this imaginary prejudice you think I have. I still have not given my opinion on the subject.

 

If you haven't seen Hell House, you can watch it on YouTube.

[Pangloss]

Stop changing the subject. In the thread we are talking about evangelicals. But you responded to me personally, in this post right here, making a connection that I did not.

 

Pangloss:

 

Millions of video games, thousands (or maybe only hundreds) of screaming zealots.

 

yourdadonapogos:

 

IIRC, 4% Evangelicals and growing. Given US population> 200 million, I'd say you are a little off on your screaming zealot number.

 

In response to that quote, that response is a judgement call, an opinion stating that you believe that evangelicals constitute screaming zealots. That is the opinion that you have stated.

 

I don't know why you refuse to stand behind your own opinion, but I can't imagine what the problem is. Prejudice is a normal, human response, and everybody has them -- I certainly have my share. You even stand with the politically correct, accepted majority here at SFN, which clearly believes that religion is a bad influence on society, and that it must be attacked. What's the problem? Why not stand behind what you said and tell me where you're right and I'm wrong, instead of pretending you didn't say it?

[mooeypoo]

Yeah I'm not talking about protests or screams, I'm more concerned with the effect of brainwashing education over young children.

 

Most Evangelicals use homeschooling, btw, for the purpose of making sure their children interact with society as little as possible... controlling all aspects of their lives (yes, all. not some, not many, all. Specifically in a young age) and creating a generation of brainwashed lackies that - in turn - will do the same for THEIR children.

 

We're facing a whole subnation of people that encourage the war against science and are convicted to fight against *our* freedom. If you have any doubt about that, Watch "Jesus Camp", "Hell House" and "God's Next Army".

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

Homeschooling equates to brainwashing?

 

And I wouldn't have any doubt about that if I watched Jesus Camp, Hell House and God's Next army?

 

And nobody else sees even a potential for a problem with that line of reasoning, eh?

[ydoaPs]

Stop changing the subject.

YOU changed the subject.

 

In the thread we are talking about evangelicals.

Indeed, we are then YOU moved from evangelicals to "screaming zealots" and proceeded to argue against that. Enter the strawman.

 

I don't know why you refuse to stand behind your own opinion

How many times do I have to tell you that I HAVE YET TO STATE MY OPINION IN THIS THREAD?

 

You even stand with the politically correct, accepted majority here at SFN, which clearly believes that religion is a bad influence on society, and that it must be attacked.

Really? Thanks for informing me. Again, I still have not given my opinion.

 

And I wouldn't have any doubt about that if I watched Jesus Camp, Hell House and God's Next army?

 

And nobody else sees even a potential for a problem with that line of reasoning, eh?

Why are you twisting her words? She merely stated her opinion about the methods and tactics used by evangelical homeschools and provided examples of said methods and tactics.

[iNow]

Homeschooling equates to brainwashing?

 

And I wouldn't have any doubt about that if I watched Jesus Camp, Hell House and God's Next army?

 

And nobody else sees even a potential for a problem with that line of reasoning, eh?

 

For the love of Christ, man... That's NOT what she said. She was discussing how home schooling is used by evangelicals. Please... please... please stop misrepresenting people's posts.

 

 

Also, no offense intended, but as a moderator, I would hope you know how badly you and YD (who I think has been acting in self-defense) have been derailing this thread.

 

You did state that there were "thousands (or maybe only hundreds) of screaming zealots," so how about supporting that comment (which may perhaps be better described as the fallacy of "changing the subject" than a regularly encountered strawman, but it could be either) with citation or at the very least retract it as unsupported and allow the discussion to return to what was intended... evangelicals and their impact?

[Pangloss]

Nonsense, it's exactly what she said. If it isn't what she meant then I'm sure she'll be happy to clarify that when she posts again. What's the problem?

 

I must confess I am completely at a loss why people keep posting things and then when the most obvious inferrence of what they said is pointed out to them, they back off saying "oh nonononono that isn't what I said at all!" (Though I'm not even slightly at a loss as to why you let them get away with it but pounce on me when I point these things out.)

 

Most Evangelicals use homeschooling, btw, for the purpose of making sure their children interact with society as little as possible... controlling all aspects of their lives

 

That is a broad characterization and implication of widespread abuse.

 

We're facing a whole subnation of people that encourage the war against science and are convicted to fight against *our* freedom.

 

That is a broad characterization and implication of widespread abuse.

 

If you have any doubt about that, Watch "Jesus Camp", "Hell House" and "God's Next Army".

 

That is a logical fallacy supporting the above broad characterizations.

 

I'm not misrepresenting anything, iNow. I understand where people are coming from with these opinions, but I'm raising a fair and well-reasoned objection. I'm sorry you have a problem with it, but that's my right and I intend to continue doing it.

[mooeypoo]

When I state "If you have a doubt, watch ..." I don't mean that you would UNDOUBTEDLY be convinced, I am saying that I think those are good resources to understand why I am saying what I'm saying..

 

I would appreciate if you guys remember that:

1) I am not a native English speaker, so sometimes my language may be based on more "slang" derivatives than I am aware of. Simply pointing out that you didn't understand what I'm talking about would make me explain myself.

2) Don't take my every word literal, rather read the entire sentence and take it all in context... It's not my intention to humiliate anyone, I ahve a lot of respect to you guys, so please don't automatically assume I'm being an arrogant prick. I'm not. Well.. this time.

 

And there's a reason I added the link to "God's Army".. it's available online, so I figured you guys may benefit from watching. I have the other movies online links too, if you want.

 

And another point -- I am talking about Evangelists and their way of brainwashing their children *in america*. I am not talking about any other group.. I am well aware that there are OTHER groups that do that, and in my opinion *all* brainwashing of children is wrong, regardless of what religion, or what other belief system it is - whether i believe in it or not.

 

Just a side note, my Ex Boyfriend is a 'refugee' of the Ultra Orthodox community in Israel. He was brainwashed too, as a child, and it is *still* wrong. They're using other methods, and it may be a good debate to discuss what they are doing to the children and to the community around them, but it's not for this current debate...

 

I'm just wondering about the effect on the *public* of these Evangelists in America -- Specifically, what we are facing from this 'front' of thousands of people educating (brainwashing!) their children to try and combat free thought and stomp on *our* rights in the name of faith.

 

Personally, I find it alarming. One of the reasons I raised this topic up is to try and figure out if there *is* a way to combat at least some of it, by law (against brainwashing!? I dont know..) or by public debate.

 

 

~moo

 

p.s: I have a lot of respect to all of you, and this isn't an empty statement - I really do, or I wouldn't be "wasting" time debating you guys. I think this is an awesome debate other than a few minor hickups along the way.

 

I would *terribly appreciate it* if you show the same amount of respect to me, my friends, and don't speak as if I'm not here Saying "she meant" or "she didn't" or whatever else, is void.

 

Ask me. I'll be glad to explain. Say "I understood that.." it sounds much better. Please give me the same respect as I give you, and don't presume to explain my words for me. I'm right here, so.. uhm.. ask

[iNow]

I'm not misrepresenting anything, iNow. I understand where people are coming from with these opinions, but I'm raising a fair and well-reasoned objection. I'm sorry you have a problem with it, but that's my right and I intend to continue doing it.

How about supporting your comment about the numbers then, or at least keeping the conversation on topic?

 

 

Moo - My apologies for any disrespect sensed from me (I have both Israeli and Palestinian friends who have been brainwashed, and it's amazing how robustly and easily it can be rationalized in their heads, as well as those who agree with their particular stance on the topic... It baffles me).

You too, Pangloss. I was just frustrated by the apparent pissing contest, and took it out on you since you clearly disagree with me on this issue. That is something I should not have done.

[mooeypoo]

Pangloss --

 

I agree with you that my claims are generalized, but the reason is because I'm taking a very limited group -- Evangelist Christians in America, specifically the type that create/handle/follow/send-their-kids-to Hell Houses and the Ultra Conservative College depicted in "God's Next Army".

 

In this Generalization I don't mean to demean anyone, but rather face the *problem* that comes from THESE types of people. Whether these are the entirety of evangelists or only 'some' of them is irrelevant to the issue of dealing with the PROBLEM that is created by the SPECIFIC group I am talking about.

 

I agree that Generalization is a fallacy, I just don't think it is taking off anything of my specific argument...

 

Homeschooling by itself is not a brainwashing, but it can be *used* for brainwashing technique. I was giving it as another example because the point was raised that the kids were not 100% surrounded by the evangelist dogma. I disagreed with that suggestion. I claim they are, indeed, 100% influenced -- their ENTIRE surrouding - by religion. I gave homeschooling as one point; the Evangelist parents in all these examples stated CLEARLY that they homeschool their children because they don't WANT them to encounter the doubt and opinions of the public (and even other christian PRIVATE) schools.

 

It's *used* for brainwashing, and when a parent actively admits he is homeschooling his child so that he can control what the child receives as input, specifically to make sure his entire upbringing revolves around Jesus (which the parents admit to), it is ADMITTED brainwashing.

 

That was my point.

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

I apologize as well, to iNow, Mooey and YDOAPS, if I went too far with the last few posts. Looking back on it, regardless of what people actually said, it was kind of a dumb and fruitless place for me to go on an otherwise pleasant Thanksgiving day.

 

When I state "If you have a doubt, watch ..." I don't mean that you would UNDOUBTEDLY be convinced, I am saying that I think those are good resources to understand why I am saying what I'm saying..

 

Fair enough. I don't know that I would call them good resources but I DO consider them valid points of view (bearing in mind that I've not seen all three of them yet, only two of them, but I think I get the general idea). You and I agree that they express a valid concern AND it's a concern that people ought to hear.

 

 

It's not my intention to humiliate anyone, I ahve a lot of respect to you guys, so please don't automatically assume I'm being an arrogant prick. I'm not. Well.. this time.

 

Believe me, I didn't think that for a moment.

 

 

...in my opinion *all* brainwashing of children is wrong, regardless of what religion, or what other belief system it is - whether i believe in it or not.

 

I agree with this general sentiment, but I think one of the reasons that, for example, I keep butting heads with some here is because of exact definitions -- we draw these lines in different places. I would include, for example, the typical episode of the Oprah Winfrey show in that definition. Conversely, some here at SFN feel that just going to church on Sunday and singing hymns falls into that category.

 

Maybe we should have a conversation about defining gray areas like that. It seems to be at the heart of a lot of things.

 

Homeschooling by itself is not a brainwashing, but it can be *used* for brainwashing technique. I was giving it as another example because the point was raised that the kids were not 100% surrounded by the evangelist dogma. I disagreed with that suggestion. I claim they are, indeed, 100% influenced -- their ENTIRE surrouding - by religion. I gave homeschooling as one point; the Evangelist parents in all these examples stated CLEARLY that they homeschool their children because they don't WANT them to encounter the doubt and opinions of the public (and even other christian PRIVATE) schools.

 

It's *used* for brainwashing, and when a parent actively admits he is homeschooling his child so that he can control what the child receives as input, specifically to make sure his entire upbringing revolves around Jesus (which the parents admit to), it is ADMITTED brainwashing.

 

That was my point.

 

~moo

 

I greatly appreciate that qualification, both on the level of smoothing over this discussion, and on a personal level (having several close friends who are doing home schooling, one of whom is quite liberal!). With that qualification I agree with what you're saying 100%.

[ydoaPs]

Nonsense, it's exactly what she said. If it isn't what she meant then I'm sure she'll be happy to clarify that when she posts again. What's the problem?

This is nonsense. At 12:58(times according to my SFN clock) Moo posts what is clearly just her opinion about the methods and tactics used by evangelical homeschools and provided examples of said methods and tactics. Then, you, at 1:00(LESS THAN 2 MINUTES LATER) post a reply which quite obviously is misrepresenting what she said. This is behaviour that you have been undertaking in this thread since you started replying to me. Each of your replies to me have been a minute or less from when I posted. Does this suggest that you actually took the time to read them and digest what the poster meant? Your action in this thread coupled with your posting behaviour in the thread regarding the teacher being fired indicate, in my opinion, that you are not mature enough as of now to post on the subject of religion.

 

The problem with this site's religion forum was not just the "politically correct, accepted majority here at SFN, which clearly believes that religion is a bad influence on society, and that it must be attacked"(a marginal at best group with whom you have inexplicably lumped me) but also people like you who get too emotional any time anything even close to what could be perceived as challenging religion comes up. It's time to end the martyr complex. Both sides there are wrong(one for being oversensitive and being convince they are being persecuted and the other for being jerks). Both extremes are present here and neither, imo, are mature enough to post about religion.

 

That is why religion on SFN has yet to succeed. If we are to bring it back, even some moderators(like yourself) should probably be on the list of those not mature enough to have access. However this list of users unable to access the religion forum would most likely take out the majority of the users interested in the forum, so it may be best for those wanting to post about religion to find a separate religion forum.

 

And, Pangloss, this time, I AM stating my opinion.

 

I apologize as well, to iNow, Mooey and YDOAPS, if I went too far with the last few posts. Looking back on it, regardless of what people actually said, it was kind of a dumb and fruitless place for me to go on an otherwise pleasant Thanksgiving day.

No problem. I hope you had a nice dinner. Now, what were we talking about?

[mooeypoo]

I apologize as well, to iNow, Mooey and YDOAPS, if I went too far with the last few posts. Looking back on it, regardless of what people actually said, it was kind of a dumb and fruitless place for me to go on an otherwise pleasant Thanksgiving day.

 

It's all good, I just tried to stop the deterioration towards personal self-defense here in this post. I figured ti took a bit of a personal pinch, so.. It's cool

 

Fair enough. I don't know that I would call them good resources but I DO consider them valid points of view (bearing in mind that I've not seen all three of them yet, only two of them, but I think I get the general idea).

Well, not quite -- I understand what you're saying but I think there's a difference between a *scientific* resource (which these are DEFINITELY not) and an emotional/POV resource. I started this post with a movie, and my own personal impact on it, accompanied by a specifically feeling/emotional Personal POV, so I guess this CAN fit as a 'resource'.

 

It's true, though, that if we get into the science behind the impact of evangelism on kids, we should probably get some SCIENCE behind it to prove the point. I am going to check out some psychological resources, I think it's important to see researches of just how much a young child is affected by his surroundings, and maybe we can infer how "brainwashy" the method is..

 

You and I agree that they express a valid concern AND it's a concern that people ought to hear.

Yup, that is my point -- the concern of KNOWING about it, and trying to see how to DEAL with it.

 

Conversely, some here at SFN feel that just going to church on Sunday and singing hymns falls into that category.

I have a lot to say about Sunday classes and churches, but I would never presume to enter it into such a personal-POV thread like the current one. We're debating the effect of Evangelists on the public, and that's a generalized - quite emotional - response POV, and I think we should be careful not to add too many "other" groups into the discussion *because* we are using a generalization here.

 

So yeah, I agree. We should just be careful in the discussion.

 

Maybe we should have a conversation about defining gray areas like that. It seems to be at the heart of a lot of things.

That's a good point, but I think that in such debates it's very hard, so what we should probably do is realize that since we *are* generalizing, we should watch out from over-generalizations, and we should try and be more specific in our arguments.

 

This last one is for me, mainly I'll do my best hehe

 

I greatly appreciate that qualification, both on the level of smoothing over this discussion, and on a personal level (having several close friends who are doing home schooling, one of whom is quite liberal!). With that qualification I agree with what you're saying 100%.

Oh, DEFINITELY! I know some people who were home schooled too, and they're very good in rational thinking. Actually, their parents home schooled them mostly BECAUSE they lived in an environment that was quite conservative and leaned towards NOT teaching rational and critical thinking.

 

The difference is not the method it is the PURPOSE.

 

And another point -- in Israel "homeschooling" is not an option. Since Israel is semi-socialistic country (egh, not exactly, but I guess it's a fair definition for a 2 second point I'm making) we have a strict law about sending kids to school. The schools, however, are STRICTLY separated in science and religion. When I grew up, I went to secular school, and while we DID learn the bible - we did that in RELIGION class, and we analyzed it secularly (it's very interesting, actually). When it was time for SCIENCE class, it was *strictly* science. No one ever even thought of sneaking religious agenda in there.

 

For many reasons that I will elaborate on if you want me too (but are not quite relevant to this discussion atm) the case of "Dover" would have *NEVER* happened in Israel. Ever.

 

So for me, homeschooling is a new concept.. which is also why I checked out who and what goes into it. It's not a bad think at *all*. It's horrible to me, however, that it's being USED for such terrible outcomes.

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

It's true, though, that if we get into the science behind the impact of evangelism on kids, we should probably get some SCIENCE behind it to prove the point. I am going to check out some psychological resources, I think it's important to see researches of just how much a young child is affected by his surroundings, and maybe we can infer how "brainwashy" the method is..

 

I agree. Here are some of the specific questions that would help convince me that religious zealotry is an actual, significant danger in this country:

 

- Are "jesus camps" growing, in frequency and number?

 

- What is the actual statistical percentage of stated evangelicals who send their children to "jesus camps"? Is that number growing or shrinking?

 

- What kind of acceptance (mind share) do they actually enjoy (statistically speaking) amongst the mainstream majority of the evangelical community? (put another way, how do they "poll"?)

 

- What happens to these children long-term? Do they find themselves unable to attend non-religious higher education schools, for example? Are they unable to succeed/excel in mathematics and science?

 

One of the problems we find with the modern documentary feature is that they tend to follow one specific line of reasoning and approach. They're not trying to be objective and present all sides. That's a GOOD thing, because if they were then we would feel less impact and thus miss the important point that's being made. As you say, we need BOTH inputs. At the moment we can't seem to get those from the same sources, but that's okay -- doesn't mean we can't find out the answers.

[mooeypoo]

Those are good points.. only one I must challenge:

 

Why is the number of evangelists (or, the fact that they're growing [if..]) is so important to the proof of the statement? It's obviously important to the EXTENT of the problem, but even if they're not growing, a strong minority can be *extremely* influencial... I think it's more effective to check how zealous they are in going INTO politics..

 

Not trying to shoot myself in the foot here (being Jewish and all ) but look at the Jews.. it's a minority.. actually quite a SMALL minority compared to america.. and yet they're EXTREMELY influencial..

 

Okay I'm still looking things up, but check this out:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

 

Specifically the section under "The American Religious Identification Survey", and count the growth percentage of all Pentacostal and/or Evangelical ministries.

 

All hail wikipedia..

 

more to follow...

 

~moo

 

 

ADD--->

 

Statistics:

 

Evangelizing Friends:

http://www.thearda.com/quickstats/qs_66.asp

1) Not at all 1053 (64.3%)

2) 1-2 times 364 (22.2%)

3) 3-4 times 127 (7.8%)

4) 5 or more times 94 (5.7%)

Evangelizing Strangers:

http://www.thearda.com/quickstats/qs_67.asp

1) Not at all 1292 (79.1%)

2) 1-2 times 231 (14.1%)

3) 3-4 times 69 (4.2%)

4) 5 or more times 41 (2.5%)

Religion's Influence on Politics (Specifically: 'Would you rather see religion have greater influence in politics and public life...'):

http://www.thearda.com/quickstats/qs_42.asp

1) Greater influence 273 (27.1%)

2) Less influence 362 (36.0%)

3) About the same influence 356 (35.4%)

4) Don't know/No opinion 15 (1.5%)

 

Should political leaders rely on religious beliefs to make decisions?

http://www.thearda.com/quickstats/qs_45.asp

1) Yes, they should 421 (41.8%)

2) No, they should not 531 (52.8%)

3) It depends 41 (4.1%)

4) Don't know/No Opinion 13 (1.3%)

(GEESH!)

 

Should religious leaders try to influence politicians?

http://www.thearda.com/quickstats/qs_41.asp

1) Should try to influence 359 (35.8%)

2) Should not try to influence 627 (62.5%)

3) Don't know/No opinion 17 (1.7%)

(.... GEEEESSHHH!!!)

 

...and more to come (but not tonight.. i need sleep)

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

Why is the number of evangelists (or, the fact that they're growing [if..]) is so important to the proof of the statement? It's obviously important to the EXTENT of the problem, but even if they're not growing, a strong minority can be *extremely* influencial... I think it's more effective to check how zealous they are in going INTO politics..

 

I didn't include a question along those lines (which were focused on the child brainwashing issue). You may have misunderstood one of the ones I did include. For example, I'm looking for whether the number of "jesus camps" is increasing, but not because I'm wondering if the number of evangelicals is increasing, but rather because I want to better understand their influence and popularity within the evangelical community. How common is it for evangelicals to think "those guys are a bunch of loons and I would never do something like that to my kids", for example. Is the trend going one way or another? That sort of thing.

[mooeypoo]

Ah, gotcha.

 

Not sure where to check that, but I'll try.