PeaceBang

21 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. I haven’t seen it, and didn’t hear too much about it, but it’s probably true that people are put off by something that is unfamiliar. The DH saw it and it just reinforced his opinion that religion is largely about upholding the superiority of group-think. Having grown up in a religion with equally “weird” traditions (though perhaps none as dramatic as eating the body and blood of God/God’s son), it’s hard to explain how you can believe in truly odd, supernatural and irrational things and not be a quote/unquote “crazy” person.

   But looking back, I do think that a religious beliefs are potentially abusive, not to mention repressive. I’m trying to get to the point where I don’t excuse repressive and abusive teachings simply *because* they *are* religious. It’s hard to know where to draw the lines, though.

   Comment by h sofia — October 1, 2007 #

2. I really appreciated this film. I randomly saw it at the Angelika [SoHo moviehouse] and the directors were there. While I disagreed with some, if not much, of their editing, I really appreciated Becky’s creative commitment to her kids.

   When I told a colleague that she gave me some ideas in her object lessons, that colleague looked at me like I’d just suggested that we start killing puppies. I would never kill a puppy.

   What a shame it is when we can’t learn from each other.

   Comment by KRS — October 1, 2007 #

3. I haven’t seen it, because I lived it. And at the age of 40 I have only just begun to undo the damage that that kind of childhood caused me. Unless you know what it’s like to grow up in an environment like that–and to grow up as a curious, outspoken girl in an environment like that–you don’t know what you’re talking about.

   While you recognize that the Pentecostals and fundamentalists are living their tradition, they don’t. They are an ahistorical movement that believes in unchanging truth throughout time. They believe they are doing exactly what Jesus and the apostles did 2000 years ago. They don’t have the historical awareness of Catholics, Jews, or mainstream Protestants.

   And the level at which we are both trying to “fight for righteousness” and impose our morality is completely different. Please don’t be so willfully naive, you’re smarter than that. Working to remove people’s rights is different than working to expand them. It just is.

   And do you have any idea how chilling the phrase “America is a Christian Nation” is to someone who is not a Christian?

   I understand the problems you are having with UU, but I think they are causing you to look at a very dangerous societal force with undue misty-eyed optimism.

   Comment by MissConduct — October 1, 2007 #

4. You display the best aspects of true liberal thought in this review. And I’m not surprised, being a regular reader of both of your blogs. Thanks for this balanced and thoughtful post.

   Comment by Quotidian Grace — October 1, 2007 #

5. Whoa, there MissConduct. Do you mean that you must grow up in a fundamentalist family to “know what you’re talking about”? You can’t comment on fundamentalism unless you were raised that way? That’s going a little far.

   PB is commenting on a movie. IMO, anyone who sees a movie is qualified to write a review.

   PB, good for you for recognizing that folks who are fundamentalist, don’t necessarily–by definition–have hate in their hearts.

   Comment by Will — October 1, 2007 #

6. Yes, Will, I did overspeak a little on that line, because PB’s post left me literally sick to my stomach and I was perhaps not as precise in my use of language as I should have been. Obviously one does not have to experience a cultural phenomenon (I mean fundamentalism, not the movie) directly in order to comment on it. The other reasons I gave for why I thought PB’s post is naive could have been given by anyone, of course, not just someone with my background.

   Comment by MissConduct — October 1, 2007 #

7. @Miss Conduct,
   Of course I know what I’m talking about. I’m talking about a movie that I saw and that you didn’t see. How can you respond to a review of a film you didn’t see? Isn’t that the first rule of responsible dialogue? If I apply your logic to my life, then I would unqualified to comment on anything I haven’t personally experienced. Have you personally experienced everything your readers ask you for advice about? Of course not. Yet you speak from your own place of learning and authority. I’m speaking from mine.

   I can appreciate that you had a visceral reaction to my review. I can’t equally appreciate that you translated that reaction into a condemnation of my “optimism” (what, exactly, in this piece speaks of “optimism?”) and into a condescending, pat translation of my ideas (it must be my “problems with UU,” right? Wrong).
   For what it’s worth, I am speaking about my frustration with all liberals in this review (not UUs — who at least join in religious community to challenge intolerance) — and especially about the unchurched, smugly “over” religion secularists who gleefully demonized the people featured in this film.
   My problems with liberals come from a lifetime of being one of them — again, something you have not experienced.

   Pardon my pointing out the obvious, but I have to laugh when I am asked by a Gentile convert to Judaism if I understand how “chilling” it is to hear America described as a Christian nation. Yea, I have a sense of that. I was called a “Christ killer” and “kike” regularly in my youth, and my sneering gym teacher intentionally mispronounced my name and mockingly asked me every year what I was doing in school on Rosh Hashanah. I twice found a swastika on my locker in high school. I was pushed around in the playground and at the bus stop for being a Jew (ever had a group of fifth graders circle around and sing “HEY JEW” to the tune of “Hey Jude” at you? I thought not). My extended family in Romania was entirely exterminated by Hitler,and my great grandparents, grandparents aunts and uncles suffered terrible anti-Semitism when they came to America.

   Perhaps you might have phrased your question more in the form of a statement, as in “I can’t believe you’re not horrified when you hear the phrase ‘Christian Nation!’ Then we could have had a discussion. Which, in my opinion, is so much more productive and interesting than emotional attacks and condemnation. But your comment proved my point perfectly. Yes, it’s satisfying to lash out from fear and hurt. It’s just remarkably nonproductive, and divisive. I no longer see its virtues; in fact, in a post 9-11 world, I believe it may truly be the end of us all. As I see it, religion isn’t the problem. Human nature is the problem. I’ve spent my life in the liberal context and am deeply convinced by now that we (liberals) are — out of fear and self-righteousness — utterly failing to live out our most basic principles. I have a tremendous amount of hope that we can do better. The first step, if I may be so bold as to suggest one, might be to heal from the wounds of our past. Twenty years ago someone like Becky Fischer would have filled me with venomous hatred. Now I want to have lunch with her. I dare claim some progress in this area.

   What interests me, even given my past, is the question: how can we abide together as neighbors and peaceful ideological opponents in a pluralistic society, and world? My favorite guiding quote in this is from Albert Einstein, “nothing in life is to be feared, it is to be understood.” Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about the difference between seeking understand in its true form, and seeking understanding in the spirit of “Oh, I’ve got YOUR number,” which is how I think many of us go about it. I’m interested in the kind of understanding that makes us neighbors, not so much the version where I get someone under my microscope and suss out the origins of all their dysfunctions so I can smugly analyze them and go home. I will be writing about this soon, because it’s been on my mind a LOT.

   Comment by PeaceBang — October 1, 2007 #

8. I’m sorry we’re hurting each other and I’ll bow out now.

   Comment by MissConduct — October 1, 2007 #

9. I blogged about this movie when I viewed it with my teenage daughter back in June, including both our impressions as we watched it. (I’m not one of those who compared Becky Fisher to Hitler, btw.)

   I agree that they’re indoctrinating their children. All religions do this to some extent, and any UU who thinks “we” don’t needs to think about what we teach our children.

   Because you really didn’t discuss it before launching into a critique of extreme liberals, I’d be interested to know what you saw as positives in these children’s lives, because what I saw concerned me.

   I could be wrong, but what I saw was children being manipulated and not being allowed to fully enjoy childhood. I saw little real joy in this film, on the part of the children or the adults. I was left with an overwhelming sense of sadness, not superiority.

   Comment by Earthbound Spirit — October 1, 2007 #

10. I had the same reaction, Peacebang. There were some things in the film that made me cringe, there was a lot of theology that I *really* didn’t agree with, but it was nowhere near the nightmare I’d heard described. There were pieces I appreciated. (One light note: I loved the little girl who wanted to minister by being a manicurist. Honestly, I thought she was fabulous.)

    (And, for the record, I did grow up in fundamentalist churches, and I’m now a fairly liberal Episcopal Postulant. And I’ve always been outspoken.)

    Comment by Mrs. M — October 1, 2007 #

11. I guess what concerned me most about the movie and distracted me from noticing anything positive about it was my sense that children were being abused. I’d take it a step further than Earthbound Spirit and say that it looked like grooming to me, the kind of creepy grooming that prepares someone to be victimized. I saw children who were haunted by their sense that they were unworthy, particularly the beautiful little boy praying so fervently that he would be made whole.

    I wish you hadn’t gone off on Miss Conduct as you did. I think it was over the top, considering the fairly measured tone of her post.

    Comment by mskitty — October 1, 2007 #

12. I happened to watch “Jesus Camp” for the first time last night.

    While I would agree that the Hitler comparisons are a little silly, I am not sure but that it is Pastor Becky’s own rhetoric that invites the comparisons. Doesn’t she compare her work to with young Christian to the indoctrination that the young muslims undergo to become suicide bombers? Am I really demonstrating an inability to appreciate context if I did not see any good things happening in these children’s lives?

    Comment by Vinny — October 1, 2007 #

13. This film was disturbing for me because I live in a region of the country that this is a way of life. I understand the conviction to their faith, but when you are ministering to children I would hope that we would allow them to discover that God on their own rather then having it be so forced.

    I assume that children growing up in a God centered home would find God because they saw him in action… they don’t need to be coerced into finding God.

    It made me feel that perhaps her own convictions were shaky because it was through fear that she needed to share this faith. Fear isn’t freedom and in my mind it isn’t God.

    Comment by jacqueline — October 1, 2007 #

14. Peacebang,

    You might want to check out this interview with Becky Fisher:

    Jesus Camp Camp
    http://www.jewsonfirst.org/07a/becky_fisher.html

    The interviewer is Jack E. Jett, the co-host of The Queer Edge television show with Sandra Bernhard. Even with the differences in world views, the interview sounds like a polite chat.

    Comment by Steve Caldwell — October 1, 2007 #

15. @Vinny: My friend and I were talking about that very point. She felt like Becky was really encouraging a literal “soldiers for Christ” attitude among the kids — even to martyrdom — and I didn’t initally take her rhetoric so literally. By the end of the film I wasn’t so sure, and wished we had more footage on that particular aspect of the camp. The dude who had the children smashing teacups with hammers was definitely scaring me.
    @Steve: I actually link that very article at the end of my post. I thought it was great.

    For everyone who is curious about what I saw happening for those kids that was positive:
    I think that might open up a whole ‘nuther can of worms so I think I’ll decline to address that now. I think we’d have to wrassle over how we define things like love and nurturance and care, and even God. I think my overall sense was to compare their intense sense of God’s presence in their lives to my own upbringing, where I had no God at all. Was that passion in their eyes just fundamentalist mania? I don’t know. But they were bright little things, and I hold out hope that their own powers of discernment, their encounter with people of different backgrounds (it’s bound to happen sooner or later!) and their natural maturation process will help them to be happy, well-adjusted adults who can take the good from their upbringing while they reject the abusive.
    There was that one little blonde boy who seemed a natural skeptic — I think HE’S going to be a free-thinker for sure!

    Comment by PeaceBang — October 1, 2007 #

16. I think there is more to the soldier metaphor than just doing battle. Soldiers are trained to obey orders without question which may be necessary on the battlefield, but not so good in a participatory democracy.

    Comment by Vinny — October 2, 2007 #

17. I feel sorry that MissConduct went away.

    Comment by h sofia — October 2, 2007 #

18. PB, having grown up with an intense love of God in my life, even I, knowing what I know now, once in a while still feel the twinge of nostalgia and think, “oh, those days.”

    But the reality is that more than loving God, I feared Him. Far more. I can’t even describe the intensity of the fear I lived with, every hour, every day. I would sooner put my kids in an orphanage than put them through that experience, that is how unhealthy it is.

    That kind of devotion might seem adorable or even admirable to some folks, but the grass may only seem greener when one fails to take into account that this is ALL these kids know. They don’t know that there are people out there who believe in a different kind of God; - or if they do, they think those people are all going to Hell. They don’t have a choice, but more than that, they don’t have any perspective. The reason their belief is so intense is because it occupies every corner of their heart; there is no room for anything else.

    I really, really wish that my parents and religious community hadn’t tied up love and fear so tightly together, so that it seemed normal to call fear of an authority figure a “love,” or to say without a trace of irony that it was loving act for a child to fear its parents.

    Comment by h sofia — October 2, 2007 #

19. Thanks, HS. I have often wondered what it would feel like to be raised in that kind of pervasive sense of fear of the Lord. My grandmother had it, I think, and I know the Puritans had it. What does that do to one’s psychology? Certainly the Universalists had a lot to say about that: they thought it warped the soul. I guess some people recover and go on to integrate the experience, some stay in the fear forever, some drop God out of their lives. Is there anything good about it? In moderation, I think so. Awe is a good thing.

    Anyway, just random thoughts but thanks for chiming in. Let me cautiously say that when someone is so wounded by their past that they can’t even listen to someone suggest certain ideas without getting sick with anger and disgust and lashing out, I don’t think a blog is the right place to expect them to work that stuff through. This blog is a community salon — it is not a congregation or a therapy group. I am not the pastor of this cyber-community; I am a religion writer who writes often from my perspective as a minister. Subtle difference, but very important one. I think that this is really not the place to continue conversations that require space, time and privacy. so sometimes people do need to go away. I respect that.

    Comment by PeaceBang — October 2, 2007 #

20. That is a good point, PB. A blog can only do so much - and starting a conversation, generating thoughts - that is probably what it can do best. Yours does that well. We each have a responsibility to do our own emotional work.

    Comment by h sofia — October 4, 2007 #

21. This is ancient history by now, and I’m not sure anyone other than you, dear PB, will see my comment. I’ve been away for a while.

    I, too, anticipated watching this film with fear and trembling, based on what others had said (including my daughter, a family and child therapist AND a UU). Though I found it disturbing, I came away from it thinking “Wow, those guys are doing a lot better job of giving their kids something to believe in than we are.” I remember the boy who was so clear about his ministry, and the girl who was so clear about what her gifts are. I disagree that what they listed are the most important gifts, but the point I’m trying to make is that many of these kids had a lot of self-confidence, they were very articulate about their beliefs, and they were strongly committed to something. I wish we could reach those goals with more of our children–WHAT they are committed to would be vastly different, of course, but I am not seeing that kind of passion in our UU kids, and I’m sorry about that.

    I want to show this film to our Religious Education Committee and/or to a parents group at our church and have some conversation with them about what we can learn from it that would be useful in OUR children’s religious education.

    Comment by Judy Welles — October 28, 2007 #

Leave a comment