Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Huge Help Needed!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
codebuster11 Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:12 AM
Original message
Huge Help Needed!
Hey everyone,

Alright, here is whats up. I recently saw a trailer to that new "Jesus Camp" movie. It was, well, shocking to say the least. It really just got my passions up in flames and I really feel that more people should know about this. For those of you who dont want to YouTube the video, basically the trailer is for a documentary that tells about Fundamentalist Christian brainwashing of children into almost literally being Soldiers for Jesus.

Before I continue, here is the YouTube trailer link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE

Now, I have the unique oppourtunity to write for my school newspaper. I was kinda arbitrarily given this assignment to write about a current event that would affect students in any way shape or form, and I feel this topic fits those needs.

This is unlike any subject I'd have to research. Generally if I ever write about the war, or global warming, or big issues like that I have absolutely Zero trouble finding information on ALL of its aspects. This subject is different.

I need help. Links, sources, anything. I dont want to sound like im simply blasting off at the Christian religion, because thats not what I'm out to do. Its informative, with a slight liberal slant.

Thank You all very much in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. Soldiers for Jesus?
There was nothing militant or dark about Jesus. He did preach fisherman of souls?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. Start with google. Use other engines if that doesn't suit.
Double check your sources. Then check again. Off to the library. Check MICROFICHE, and LEXUS/NEXUS.

Look, kid, no offense, but don't ask anonymous people on a political forum to do your homework and research for you.

Jayson Blair and those sorts got in trouble taking shortcuts like that.

Look the shit up yourself, and read it yourself. One more time: double check your sources.

Write your piece, put it away for a day, read it critically, and put it away again and think about it. Tweak as needed.

You want critique on your finished product? Run it through this joint. AFTER you write it.

But don't ask people to do your footwork for you. You'll have trouble if you do that kind of thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
codebuster11 Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. ...
First, this isnt homework. I dont have to do it if I dont want to. But i want to do it, so dont bitch at me about that.

Second, I do do my own research but I cant find anything thats both a) useful enough and b) a reliable source

So, after doing all the google, etc. etc. searches, I have yet to find ne thing, so i came here asking for help

im not asking one to do ne of my footwork for me, im simply asking for help
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. OK, head for the library, as I said. Have the librarian help you
with a LEXUS NEXUS search.

No offense, but if you can't find the stuff you seek on the net, why would you think anyone else could?

Clearly you're one of these young net-savvy types? You're probably more skilled than many here.

You could also pick up your phone and try to interview the producer, director, actors, or get ahold of the publicity wonks for the film. They may take pity on you and fax you some promo materials or arrange a phone interview. If they do the latter, get your questions in order BEFORE you dial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. Dang, lighten up a tad?
"No offense, but if you can't find the stuff you seek on the net, why would you think anyone else could? "

Um maybe it's poor choice of search terms? I'm about as 'internets' savvy as anyone and a poor search term choice will lead you far off the beaten path. I often have trouble selecting the right terms even with a pretty good vocabulary. The dude asked for some pointers to follow.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. It wasn't my intention to be mean, just to preserve the kid's own
integrity.

It's just when someone is writing for publication, it's a good idea to do the work oneself. Start off doing it right, and there are fewer problems down the line. "Shattered Glass" anyone? Jayson Blair?

We aren't talking about a terribly complex topic, here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. www.theocracywatch.org
that has some good stuff. check out their links to the yurica report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
6. Here's a good place to start
Articles On the Rise of Dominionism in America from the Yurica Report.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/DirectoryRiseOfDominionismInAmerica.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
7. A great non-biased source of information is religioustolerance.org
See their essays on christian reconstructionism/dominionism:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Don't forget TheocracyWatch.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Yes, thank you.
I don't have access to my pc and am using a laptop, so I'm trying to go by memory here. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
8. Here's my separation of church and state file from an old post...
We can expect a rasher of the talibornagain gnashing of teeth and wailing over their perceived persecution. Bring on the Lions!

In light of that, I thought it appropriate to provide a review of Church-State history in the U.S. As it happens, I have a file full of snippets of events that seem sorta relevant.

This is stuff I've gathered from all over.

The continental dollar of the Revolutionary War, was designed by Benjamin Franklin in 1776:The mottos on this coin are "Mind Your Business" and "We Are One."

The Tripoli Treaty of 1797 - States unequivocally the US is not a
Christian Nation:
ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as
the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
---
This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and
President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification;
the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this
was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it
was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no
record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in
full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there
were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today."

THE WHOLE ARTICLE: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

This is confirmed by at least 2 of the Founders. Now remember this one later:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress
consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of
religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in
the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an
establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains
establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to
be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them,
and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not
involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a
provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of
the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by
Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation? -- Madison In "Essay on Monopolies,"

Moving right along now... to Jefferson:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. - Thomas Jefferson 1/1/1802

In 1837 Congress passed an Act that specified which mottos and phrases
were allowed to be printed on currency; this included the national
motto, "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many One). The motto was not
required however.

And then the shit storm starts:

* In 1860, during the Civil War, Protestant denominations organize the 'National Reform Association', which aimed to amend the Constitution to "declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ."

* In 1861, Rev. M. R. Watkinson writes Salmon P. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, a letter suggesting "the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins". He suggests "God, Liberty, Law" as a motto on a "beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object".

* In 1864, Congress approves "In God We Trust" for use on one-cent and two-cent coins.

* In 1865, Congress acts to place the motto on all coins.

In 1865, with the conclusion of the Civil War, a new Act was passed by Congress to allow the addition of the phrase "In God We Trust" to currency. "In God We Trust" was still not the national motto at this point and was not used on all money. It was simply allowed to be used on coins, and was used mostly on small denomination coins along with the national motto, "E Pluribus Unum."

Round one: Talibornagain.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 it read:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I like that, simple and to the point.

When the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 "In God We Trust" remained absent from paper currency.

In the 1950s Congress changed the national motto from "E Pluribus
Unum" to "In God We Trust" (which is how “In God We Trust”
became required to be printed of federal money), "So help me God" was
added to federal oaths (despite the fact that the Christian Bible
clearly states not to swear by God or any other person, place, or
thing when taking an oath. Matthew 5:33-37, James 5:12), and "under
God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

This was also about the time the Presidential Prayer Breakfast started.

* In 1957, the motto is first used on paper money.

* On July 30, 1956, a bill is passed by congress and signed by the president declaring "In God We Trust" the national motto of the United States.

Round two: Talibornagain.

John F. Kennedy September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

Clearly, some people still 'get it.'

* In 1970, The constitutionality of the motto is challenged (Aronow v. United States). The Circuit court determined it "has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion".

* In 1979, Madalyn Murray O'Hair of American Atheists challenges the motto (O'Hair v. Blumenthal). The circuit court ruled "the slogan was secular".

* In 1994, The Freedom From Religion Foundation challenged the motto citing it's survey that showed a majority of Americans consider the motto religious. lawsuit was dismissed by the district Court without trial

On September 4, 2002 Michael Newdow was a guest on the popular FOX program Hannity & Colmes. On this program Mr. Newdow stated that he felt that Congressional Chaplains violated the Separation of Church and State. Sean Hannity responded by saying:

"Who hired the first chaplain for congress? ...James Madison in 1789. Did you know that?"

You want to refer to some liberal activist judge..., that's fine, but I'm going to go directly to the source. The author of the Bill of Rights hired the first chaplain in 1789, and I gotta' tell ya' somethin', I think the author of the Bill of Rights knows more about the original intent--no offense to you and your liberal atheist activism--knows more about it than you do."

Which would bring us back to the second paragraph, where Madison
Himself admits the Chaplin is a violation of Church-State separation. BWAAHAAAHAHAAAA Go bark at the moon you friggin Codger!

But, sadly it's come to this:

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, introduced into both houses
of Congress on February 11, 2004, "includes the acknowledgment of God
as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of
executing his office."

And with this quote from CNN on March 24, 2004:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said there "are so many references to God" in public affairs, noting "In God We Trust" was on U-S currency and coins. She added the Supreme Court opens all its public sessions with the words, "God save the United States and this honorable Court.”

We can expect no help from the Courts with a problem so clearly subversive of the Constitution.

Sad, isn't it? I mean how well versed our public speakers are on the issue? I mean it's like calling a Wiccan a Satanist.

No wonder the talibornagain echo chamber is so freakin loud!

Folks, if you haven't figured it out, we're in round three and I'm tired of loosing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. It's now the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005.
The 2005 House bill is http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20%26%20Legal/ConstitutionRestorationActOf2005_S520.html">HR 1070 and the 2005 Senate bill is http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20%26%20Legal/ConstitutionRestorationActOf2005_S520.html">S. 520.

:mad:

And it still makes my blood boil.

How many people even know about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Not many...
It makes mine boil too. I'm sure there may be a 2006 edition too.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 02:27 AM
Response to Original message
11. Here's an idea. Lie. Sort of.
Start out talking about muslim youth training camps in Afghanistan, develop it along those lines. Then about 3/4 the way through say "But this isn't Afghanistan, and these aren't Muslims. This is in the United states, and it's your neighbors going to the camp"

I dunno, just might throw em for a loop ;)

(btw, amd christian myself but I got a lot of problems with my fellow brethern. But then, a lot of the bible is spent bashing the actions of believers by prophets, jesus, and the disciples. A little food for thought eh).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. No need to lie, and that's a great twist!
Just don't mention they are Christian camps until 2/3s through. Us ambiguous terms like Religious camp. You can pick stereotypical 'moslem sounding' names and announce they are fake names and drive the blade home at the end.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-04-06 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
16. See if this helps you any...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2042642&mesg_id=2042693

There may be some points you could include in your article, not all of it is directly relavent to the topic but they both go hand in hand, when you read the post I think you will undestand what I mean....

I dont mind what they do if those kids make the choice to do it, but if no other options are shown to them and they are not allowed to choice from all the other faiths...Then I have problem. The religious system those kids are being forced into is one of dominance and control, it also teaches them to be intolerant of anything different from them or their faith...Its scary shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC