April 6, 2007

'Jesus Camp' and the art of brainwashing children



These kids don't have a chance.

Far right theocratic ideology







Expert evangelical techniques






Child abuse in the name of God



And they do this extraordinarily well. Too well.










Anonymous said...

I was exposed to this same type of fundamentalist brainwashing when I was a child during the 70's. However adolescence happened, I started to think for myself and realized none of what I was told made any sense.
Needless to say I did not make my parents very happy when I declared myself an atheist when I was 14. I never regretted it.

Christopher said...

In the same vein, and perhaps even more extreme, is the story of the Phelps family of Kansas and their Westboro Baptist Church which Louis Theroux captured very well in his BBC2 documentary The Most Hated Family In America.
Video clip here

Christopher said...

I also wanted to add that there is a new social network for transhumanists at transhumanists.org. Sorry if this seems like comment spam.

Jonathan Dotse said...

I cannot stress how much I think these people are going to be among the most dangerous people to the future in the coming years, and nothing short of a radical counter-movement will be needed to secure the future from their grips. These people are not rednecks; these kids are going to become bright doctors, lawyers, engineers and politicians. The mental faculties of the human brain work independently to a large degree, and the virus of religious dogma can develop unperturbed inside an otherwise brilliant mind.

I myself have escaped this fate, but I'm still considerably neck deep in these people's circles, and it's nothing less than an orgy of self-delusion and ignorance. The biggest problem with them is that they are all deeply well-meaning at heart, even with their twisted mentality of the world. This movement needs to be curtailed at all costs otherwise we could lose the future to their ultimately suicidal cause, because it's evolving into the perfect neural parasite.

Anonymous said...

Neuro-cogntive memetic parasitism…indeed. And, given a commitment to the cardinal principle of free thought and free expression---what to do? I concur that such radical, delusional, hyper-unsophisticated and –unenlightened meme-propagations should be stopped. But of course we can’t do this coercively. Aside from being inherent wrong (unethical), from a pragmatic viewpoint, it would be self-stulltifying in that it would “prove” to the evangelicals that, sure enough, “those” secular-humanists, free-thinkers, and atheists are evil. As much as Dawkins himself disdains conversing—much less debating—with these tragic bumpkins, I would think this may be the best route to winning the (intellectual/memetic) day, at least in the long-run. The problem is, if they attain power, there may not be a (viable, reasonable, transhumanist) long-run. But not only do I concur that religious indoctrination IS indeed child-abuse, I think a fairly good case can indeed be made for that. Education should be such as to enable and enhance the inherent cognitive faculties of a child. To bring them, as it were, “up to speed” cognitively/intellectually so that they may critically examine whatever ideas, concepts, notions, etc. may come their way. To stunt, to truncate that cognitive development, again, is, it seems to me, obviously, child-abuse and should be encoded and treated legally as such. One may teach the Bible, but as (purported) history and mythology, not as divinely-inspired. And, along with such a teaching, would go a more secular teaching. Once the children are sufficiently developed neuro-cognitively, then by all means let them delve into the pros-&-cons and esoterica of metaphysics, science, spirituality, etc., and make up their own minds (though in saying this here, I presume I’m preaching to fellow-Choir members…!).

Nato said...

Having recently spent several years in the US Army, my opportunities (inevitabilities?)for extended interaction with evangelicals (mostly Christian, but plenty of otherwise) have been many. This experience has convinced me that neither stridently radical action nor relentless logical refutation works best. Certainly there must be some action, to prevent ourselves from being silenced, and there must be logical refutation of - and alternatives to - the critically damaging portions of their belief systems, but these never seem to change peoples' minds. The only thing that really seems to bring people out of the hole is demonstrated humanity amongst secular people. When folks see something they would rather be, then they finally have a reason to reexamine rather than defend their internal status quo.

To some extent I think Harris, Dawkins et al complicate matters by making religious people think that the secularist is primarily interested in showing the religious to be idiots. Frequently this is an unfair judgment, but there's enough truth in it to make it easy for leaders of the Christianist groups to present secular activists to their flock as being shrill and contemptuous.

That doesn't mean I support those who want to give religion a special pass - Dennett's Breaking the Spell is right on target in that sense - but I think we have to take psychology seriously if we want to hold a real conversation with the religious and provide anyone anywhere with a real choice of what they want to believe.

casey said...

I, too, have been a little scared to see this film. But your bravery has inspired me.

Roko said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roko said...

Great post - It's a problem i've been thinking about myself for some time. A while ago I stopped worrying too much about it though; for 3 main reasons:

1. It's true that evangelical religion will probably gain ground (especially in the US), the message that they spread will continually be weakened by the progress of technology. Indefinate life extension will hurt religion very very badly - who wants to chance dying and going to heaven when you can live forever here on earth?

2. The best news, however, is that AI, when it is invented, will be immune to religion; I suspect it this will remain true even if the AI is designed by a deeply religious person. (anyone agree/disagree?) And what's the likelihood of a religious person being the maker of the first AI? Are there many christian AI programmers?

3. I have spent a fair few hours arguing with the local christian student group, and of course logical argument does not work. These people have already decided, in advance, that they won't listen to your logic, it realy is the most pointless of activities. I know a fair few students who are members of extreme, prosletising christian organisations, and I have noticed that many of them are people with big problems in their lives - maybe they struggle with the academic work, maybe they are timid or ugly people who don't make freinds easily, or maybe they're geeky loser-types. This suggests that the real reason people believe in god is that they need something to make life worth living. They need someone to tell them that things will be better and that they have a purpose in life. It makes perfect sense that no amount of logic will persuade someone to stop believing in god - they need that belief; it's not just of academic interest to them.

What you need to stop someone believing in god is an alternative to religion - an alternative life philiosphy, an alternatve sense of belonging and worth, and an alternative worldwide network of local groups of like minded people. We have that alternative - we have transhumanism. I think that the transhumanist message itself is the best defence against evangelical religion.

Chris Williamson said...

I will pick this up ASAP. I have recently been pondering becoming a card-carrying member of the Council for Secular Humanism and it seems like after watching this I'll be ready to pull that trigger.

Anonymous said...

Evangelicals saying there is a "God", does not make it so. Free thinking examines the flip side of this statement -- Secular Humanists saying there is not a god, does not make it so either. There is either a God or there is not. If there is a "God", humans saying he exists or not does not affect "His" existence. If he is, he is. If he is not, he is not. The reason Evangelicals are so radical is they have found the one who says He is. As he said to Moses: I AM that I AM. Our opinion does not affect his existence.

PennyB said...

I haven't seen the movie, but after reading all these comments, I can only find encouragement that these children are not being taught to kill or blow themselves and others up for Allah as the Palestinian children are being taught(brainwashed). I would rather my children/grandchildren learn how to share the love of Jesus with others. The only blood shed is that of Jesus on the cross.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I wouldn't go so far as to call religious education among the youth "child abuse." I myself was educated to be Jewish when I was a child, and became an atheist of my own accord later anyway. What is important, and something my family did provide for me, was an openness to whatever beliefs a child comes to when they are old enough to start using their own senses to tell them the reality about, well, reality.
Everyone has their own beliefs and spirituality; even as someone who does not believe there is a god or that there can be a being that is truly omnipotent, I do not judge people who believe differently until they start telling me I am wrong. Even then, they have a right to do so but they are subject to my judgement haha. My point is that the beliefs of individuals will always be different and therefore each individual should not necessarily expect others to agree completely with their own worldview. It seems even odder to me that, if someone disagrees, they are labeled as evil or misguided. If we were all truly honest about our faiths and followed this particular path, we would believe all others besides us are evil and that the self is the only good.
Religion serves as an outlet for a specific human need: that of faith. I choose to have faith in humanity itself, as well as the intricacy and chaotic genius of nature, which is how I can live my own life without stressing over death or looking for a divine comfort. What atheists and nonreligious people must provide to religious people if their intent is to stop indoctrination is a more attractive alternative, which must include an outlet for faith. This, however, poses a quandary, because how can a group of people who specifically do not believe in faith or organized religion possibly wish to attract other members to their "flock," as it were, or offer them some better, more fulfilling life? That sounds like yet another -theism to me.
Don't worry too much. Eventually we as humans will mature out of organized religion, although spirituality and perhaps individual belief in the powers that be will always be present. It is simply part of our nature to desire comfort.

liminalD said...

Religious instruction of those who have not yet developed the critical thinking skills to examine what they're told for inconsistencies, who are in a position of dependency for such basic provisions as food and shelter, where such provisions can be denied or withheld in the event of noncompliance, is ABSOLUTELY an abuse of power.

Where a fair and balanced provision of religious alternatives is offered, this is not the case, yet in how many instances are children actually exposed to the many possible religious and secular explanations of the world around them? Overwhelmingly, the child is presented only with only one account, and actually encouraged to disregard alternative explanations without examining them, and indeed to scorn those alternatives and all proponents of them.

This makes a child an instrument of their guardians' prejudice, and the child will likely encounter hostility as a result, they may have difficulty making friends, they will filter whatever they are taught in school, discarding anything that does not fit with their preconceptions, effectively receiving less than a full education.

Teaching a child to regard as nonsense anything that their guardians do not agree with cuts off their critical fuculties before they have even been given a chance to develop, and this may have lasting repurcussions for the remainder of that child's life. They may find it harder to pursue tertiary education or succeed in the job market as adults, they may have difficulty mastering social skills and find themselves without enduring, meaningful relationships, and suffer poor self-esteem and mental illness as a result.

Let me reiterate, it is not the exposure of children to religious themes, per se, that constitutes abuse, but the indoctrination of children into a particular worldview, with all its accompanying limitations. The solution? Children should be exposed to a range of alternatives and encouraged to think critically about them, or such education should be left until they are older and more capable of discerning for themselves what they believe.