# Jesus Camp.



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 20, 2006)

A new documentary that's coming out:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/jesuscamp/trailer/

http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/


Regards,



Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 20, 2006)

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Jesus. Tap. Dancing. Christ.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Sep 20, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again.
> 
> Jesus. Tap. Dancing. Christ.



No, no, no!

It's Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter

The first testament says "an eye for an eye."
The second testament says "love thy neighbour."
The third testament ... Kicks ***!!!

Jesus Christ: If I'm not back in five minutes, call the Pope.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Sep 22, 2006)

Great. First we had islamic nut bags trying to enforce their will on us. Now, we have a bunch of fundie evangelical nut bags to take things a bit further. Brainwash anyone?


----------



## tsdclaflin (Sep 22, 2006)

hongkongfooey said:


> Great. First we had islamic nut bags trying to enforce their will on us. Now, we have a bunch of fundie evangelical nut bags to take things a bit further. Brainwash anyone?


 
What's the difference between "brainwash" and "training"?  Do we believe in the benefits of martial arts?  Do we teach our children the benefits of martial training? Is it brain washing?

Thank God we live in a country where I can teach my children what I want and you can teach your kids what you want. As long as your children aren't trying to kill my children, we are both within our rights.

All "spiritual" training could be called brain washing whether it is Christianity, Islam, Buddism or whatever.

Sincerely,
A black belt "fundie evangelical nut bag"


----------



## Kacey (Sep 22, 2006)

tsdclaflin said:


> What's the difference between "brainwash" and "training"?  Do we believe in the benefits of martial arts?  Do we teach our children the benefits of martial training? Is it brain washing?
> 
> Thank God we live in a country where I can teach my children what I want and you can teach your kids what you want. As long as your children aren't trying to kill my children, we are both within our rights.
> 
> ...



I agree - as a teacher, I try to expose my students to as much of the world as possible - but years ago, when I offered to come into classes and teach kids about Chanukah (after about 20 kids asked me) I was told, almost universally, that the teachers were concerned how it would look if a Jewish teacher was teaching students about Judaism - they were concerned that the parents would see it as proselytizing.  

I am by no means particular observant, but I think that spreading _correct_ information about various religions is the way to better understanding - not making comments about stupid movies that (however unintentionally) come out as negative towards other peoples' belief systems.

In addition, having looked at the sites - the movie is about, by it's own description 





> A growing number of Evangelical Christians believe there is a revival underway in America that requires Christian youth to assume leadership roles in advocating the causes of their religious movement


 and the need for members of this community to teach their children to handle such roles appropriately - now, I may not agree with their beliefs, or even their methods, but I do agree with their desire to prepare their children for their role within society.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Sep 22, 2006)

People can teach their kids whatever they wish, I really don't care.
But, this lady is a nut bag. Watch the video clips. She herself says that she wants the children to have the same passion for jesus, that radical islamic suicide bombers have for allah. Then in another clip you have another person asking a room full of eight year old kids, if they are willing to die for jesus. Nut bags.


----------



## Kacey (Sep 22, 2006)

hongkongfooey said:


> People can teach their kids whatever they wish, I really don't care.
> But, this lady is a nut bag. Watch the video clips. She herself says that she wants the children to have the same passion for jesus, that radical islamic suicide bombers have for allah. Then in another clip you have another person asking a room full of eight year old kids, if they are willing to die for jesus. Nut bags.



They may well be - luckily, we live in a country where "nut bags" have the option to say what they like, teach what they like - whether we like it or not.  I'm sure her opinion of you (and even more, of me) is not any better, and I see no reason to stoop to that level.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 23, 2006)

tsdclaflin said:


> What's the difference between "brainwash" and "training"?


 
There's a big difference, actually. 

With genuine "training" or "teaching" or "education" or "learning", there is a genuine concern for the healthy growth and development of the student. If the student ends up seeing things differently from the teacher or doing things differently then the teacher, than it is perfectly acceptable provided the student came to that from a mature perspective based in independent thinking, personal responsibility, and balanced cognitive processes.

"Brainwashing" takes place when there really is no concern for the growth and development of the student. There is only concern that they act and respond in the way you want them to. The perspective they are coming from or the cognitive processes they used to come to this state is irrelevant. All that matters is the product, not how they got there.

In "teaching", it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with the teacher or the authority structure if one has sound reason for doing so. In "brainwashing", disagreement is unacceptable.

Another key feature to "brainwashing" (outside of shut-in communities) is the wholesale attempt to "convert" others to your position after the fact. Because, ultimately, the "brainwashed" do not really care about the thinking or reasoning or experiencing that brought you to where you are. They only care if you agree with them.

This movie is clearly a documentary about "brainwashing", not "training".

Laterz.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Sep 23, 2006)

Kacey said:


> They may well be - luckily, we live in a country where "nut bags" have the option to say what they like, teach what they like - whether we like it or not. I'm sure her opinion of you (and even more, of me) is not any better, and I see no reason to stoop to that level.


 

I am sure her opinion of me wouldn't be very high, I won't lose any sleep over it. Some people may think she is great, and a messenger of God. I wouldn't want my children anywhere near her or her flock.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Sep 23, 2006)

tsdclaflin said:


> What's the difference between "brainwash" and "training"? Do we believe in the benefits of martial arts? Do we teach our children the benefits of martial training? Is it brain washing?
> 
> Thank God we live in a country where I can teach my children what I want and you can teach your kids what you want. As long as your children aren't trying to kill my children, we are both within our rights.
> 
> ...


 
I don't know about you, my martial arts training isn't about spirit and being a good person. It's a selfish pursuit about efficient self protection. And, it was my choice to train. 

Religion, on the other hand is introduced to children by their parents. They don't have a choice in whether they want to attend services when they are young. That is why it is important for this lady to get the children in her camp. If she can instill fear at a young age, she will have control over them. This woman doesn't want these children to think, she wants them to be subservient to her brand of religion. 

I think the real reason for her camp is political. People like this want to run the lives of others through the church. A sure path to civil war in America is through a theocracy.


----------



## Kacey (Sep 23, 2006)

hongkongfooey said:


> I am sure her opinion of me wouldn't be very high, I won't lose any sleep over it. Some people may think she is great, and a messenger of God. I wouldn't want my children anywhere near her or her flock.



I rather doubt her opinion of me would be high either, and I doubt that she'd want my children near hers at all (Judaism might be catching, y'know) - but isn't it nice that we can legally disagree with her?

From The American President, one of my favorite movies:

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Sep 23, 2006)

Kacey said:


> I rather doubt her opinion of me would be high either, and I doubt that she'd want my children near hers at all (Judaism might be catching, y'know) - but isn't it nice that we can legally disagree with her?
> 
> From The American President, one of my favorite movies:
> 
> America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.


 



Kacey, 

Sure, it's great to be able to disagree with others.

I spent a lot of time growing up with a Jewish family and I didn't catch anything! They didn't force their views on me and vice versa. In fact they treated me more like family, than the vast majority of Christians that I knew back then. The Christians were always judging everyone they met, and preaching all the time. It got  old, quick. To me it seems that Christians are always screaming about religious tolerance, but are rarely tolerant of others.


----------



## Kacey (Sep 23, 2006)

hongkongfooey said:


> Kacey,
> 
> Sure, it's great to be able to disagree with others.
> 
> I spent a lot of time growing up with a Jewish family and I didn't catch anything! They didn't force their views on me and vice versa. In fact they treated me more like family, than the vast majority of Christians that I knew back then. The Christians were always judging everyone they met, and preaching all the time. It got  old, quick. *To me it seems that Christians are always screaming about religious tolerance, but are rarely tolerant of others*.



Sadly, this is all too often true... and it may be the case with this "Jesus Camp" (and in fact I suspect that it is) - but I will not deny anyone their right to pass on their views, or educate their children to meet the future, no matter how much I might disagree with them... and I try not to classify groups of people by the beliefs of a few of them, because I've been lumped into too many groups myself in the past.


----------



## Brian King (Sep 24, 2006)

I recently had the chance to hear the two filmmakers pimping their show on a couple of radio stations. Listening to the two film makers made me long for the days when documentaries were just that, not the biased agenda driven monstrosities that they have seemed to become. Here is a review from Michael Medved eye on entertainment. 
http://images.michaelmedved.com/images/pdf/jesuscamp.doc



> *JESUS CAMP
> 
> 
> Jesus Camp is the name of a new documentary that is bitterly hostile to Evangelical Christianity.
> ...


 
Not the most unbiased person out there but honest about it, his reviews have saved me much money and I have regretted ignoring his warnings in the past. This is a movie that I will not be seeing. 

Forewarned is forearmed

See you on the floor soon
Friends
Brian King


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 24, 2006)

Brian,

With all due respect, I couldn't helped but be amused when I read that. The entire notion of "personal objectivity" is nothing short of a popular fantasy. An opinion, by its very nature, is anything but "objective" --- no matter how well-grounded it is in facts and evidence. A point-of-view cannot be objective or else it is not a point-of-view.

Whenever I hear the argument of "bias" and we're not talking about statistical procedures, that always comes across to me as basically saying "well, I disagree with my opponent's conclusion but I don't have the intellectual werewithal to refute his arguments, therefore I'll just say he's not being objective". Everyone and everything is biased, so it's really a non-argument. It's basically akin to condemning someone's position just because it exists in the first place. It's intellectual nonsense.

Personally, I am much more interested in accuracy than I am in bias. A statement can be completely "biased" but still be completely accurate and factual at the same time. So far as I can tell, nothing from the aforementioned clips or the trailer was anything in the way of inaccurate --- unless there is something specific you would like to highlight.

But, hey, that's just my opinion.

Laterz.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 25, 2006)

Brian said:


> Not the most unbiased person out there but honest about it, his reviews have saved me much money and I have regretted ignoring his warnings in the past. This is a movie that I will not be seeing.




I'll go see it.  

This reminds me of the Michael Moore movie, "Fahrenheit 9-11" thread of some years ago where people were dissing the movie without having actually seen it.  I've seen the same done with "The Passion of the Christ" and "Brokeback Mountain."   People based their opinions on what they heard, or what they'd been told...and didn't check it out for themselves.  

Regardless of the film maker's bias, the actions and the words of the characters in the film may well be worth seeing.  

As for the reviewer saving you money...how would you know?  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Swordlady (Sep 26, 2006)

Did anyone else catch this statement in the front page of the official website:



> The film is a first-ever look into an intense training ground that recruits born-again Christian children to become an active part of America's political future.



Not to mention that the background music is downright creepy.

I also watched the videoclips.  I'm leery about the way Becky Fischer appeals more to the children's _emotions_, rather than their hearts.  And there is a certain..._cultness_...about it.

After being a part of an ultra-conservative Christian church with many cult-like practices for over 12 years, I could smell this stuff a mile away...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 26, 2006)

The woman who is the centerpiece of the documentary likes it.  She sees it as a positive film showcasing what she believes.

She, at least, doesn't see a bias.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 26, 2006)

Swordlady said:


> I also watched the videoclips. I'm leery about the way Becky Fischer appeals more to the children's _emotions_, rather than their hearts. And there is a certain..._cultness_...about it.
> 
> After being a part of an ultra-conservative Christian church with many cult-like practices for over 12 years, I could smell this stuff a mile away...


 
I'm not so sure whether this camp could fall under the categorization of a "cult" in the way that social scientists use the term. However, it does seem to exhibit several of the charactertistics associated with cults --- rigid absolutistic morality, dichotomizing "us vs them" thinking, an insulated shut-in community structure, and a desire to "convert" in both the private and the political sector.

Whatever the case, I have no doubt "camps" such as these will be damaging to these children's development in the long run. Scary stuff.

Laterz.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Sep 26, 2006)

Swordlady said:


> Did anyone else catch this statement in the front page of the official website:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Theocracy = civil war


----------



## hongkongfooey (Sep 26, 2006)

Anyone else besides me, think that this borders on child abuse?


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 26, 2006)

hardheadjarhead said:


> The woman who is the centerpiece of the documentary likes it. She sees it as a positive film showcasing what she believes.
> 
> She, at least, doesn't see a bias.


 
Steve,

I am suddenly reminded of Carol Gilligan's "feminist" critique of Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning. In essence, Kohlberg's theory (which describes that an individual's sociomoral perspective develops from preconventional to conventional to postconventional stages) was seen as unduly privileging "male values" (such as agency and "rights") to Gilligan, and she therefore concluded that his theory was biased against women.

Well, guess what?? Over the years, Kohlberg's methodology has been reproduced time and time again. Meta-analyses have consistently found no significant difference between men and women in the context of Kohlbergian moral reasoning. In other words, Gilligan's critique of Kohlberg's theory being "biased" has essentially been disproven by raw data.

So, then, we have to ask ourselves: if Gilligan didn't have the data to back up her assertions, why did she make them in the first place?? What was the rationale for her accusations of "bias"?? This is precisely the crux of the matter, in my opinion. 

What seems to have happened here --- and happens too often in American academia --- is that the critic makes an a priori rejection of a certain position without really going through the work of diffusing the claimant's arguments or analyzing the claimant's data. In essence, "I disagree with the conclusion, therefore it is wrong". The most common tactic underlying these rejections is the accusation of "bias". 

If the claimant asserts a position you find uncomfortable, simply accuse him or her of being "biased" and all is well. Of course, actually proving there is bias there is another thing altogether.

This is why, unless we're talking about statistics, I take any and all accusations of "bias" with a grain of salt. You wouldn't want to be trapped on Gilligan's island now, would you??

Have a good one.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 26, 2006)

hongkongfooey said:


> Anyone else besides me, think that this borders on child abuse?


 
I don't know about child abuse, but this definately falls under the purview of bad teaching.

These children are young adolescents. They are just around the age where Piaget's formal operations should be starting to emerge in their cognitive repertoire. What _should_ be happening here is that these childen would be exposed to environments and education that encourage rational thought, third-person analyzing, hypothetico-deductive reasoning, and good ol' critical thinking. Ask any teacher or educational psychologist in America and they will tell you are children are in short supply of genuine critical thinking (that is, rationally analyzing various options to choose the most "correct" or appropriate one). This is the cause for much of the changes in educational structure over the last two to three years (at least in Florida).

What this camp does is advocate the opposite of critical thinking. It teaches the children that there is one way and only one way of seeing the world. They are not taught to think for themselves or use hypothetic-deductive reasoning to come to an answer themselves. Instead, they are simply told to conform to the authority structure (the Bible and the Church). These children are just at the age where critically thinking should be encouraged, and these camp leaders are effectively sabotaging their cognitive and moral development.

Y'know, maybe it is child abuse, after all.

Laterz.


----------



## Brian King (Sep 27, 2006)

*Heretic888 wrote*




> With all due respect, I couldn't helped but be amused when I read that. The entire notion of "personal objectivity" is nothing short of a popular fantasy. An opinion, by its very nature, is anything but "objective" --- no matter how well-grounded it is in facts and evidence. A point-of-view cannot be objective or else it is not a point-of-view.


 
I for one am surprised and happy that you are so easily amused. Humor is such an essential and needed product of a healthy psyche. I admit freely my own biases, the critic I quoted also admits his own biases, and you appear to admit to also having biases. So the only people saying repeatedly that they have no biases, no agenda, and no motive are the two producershuh huh. I listened to them on two different radio shows (both coming from different political slants) and have to call B.S. on them. The way they communicated on the shows, with the clips shown (heard) and the way it (the movie) is being promoted, in my opinion shows where they are coming from quite clearly. I am sure that you will agree, that producers can take things out of context, can edit, can add sound bites, music, and backgrounds and voice-overs to propagandize their views. 

*Hardheadjarhead wrote*




> I'll go see it.
> 
> Regardless of the film maker's bias, the actions and the words of the characters in the film may well be worth seeing.



and




> As for the reviewer saving you money...how would you know?


 

Good on you. I encourage you to see it two or three times. I am a strong supporter of supporting theaters and live music. If you think that this movie is worth your time and money then by all means go and be blessed and enjoy yourself. Take your family and your neighbors. For me I have too little time and far too little money to spend on this movie but would not deny you your pleasure in viewing the show. I hope that you post a review of the film as well; I always enjoy hearing/reading peoples reviews and hearing their opinions.

As for how he saved me money LOL I have to admit to being drawn in by big name big budget movies and trailers with actors whose past work I enjoyed and what I thought we interesting or exciting subject matter, ready and eagerly waiting the opening weekend, only to be warned that this movie was going to be a bust, or that it had excessive and needless violence or crude behavior. Deciding to wait and see how the movie performed and what my friends who did go thought of it, found that the warnings were legit and that I saved my hard earned dollars and even more important my time while my friends wasted theirs. I have learned that this critic and I have the same tastes in movies and I trust his reviews, and even if I do go to a movie that he dislikes I am now not surprised by movies that turn out different than their trailers, or by the treatment of subject matter. On his reviews I have seen good movies that I would not have seen otherwise. Thanks for asking my friend and enjoy your movie experienceand go see a live band this weekend as well!!

Anybody seen the movie yet? 

See you on the floor soon
Friends
Brian King


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 27, 2006)

This camp is no more an example of "evangelical Christianity" than the "terror school" madrasses (sp?) in Pakistan are an example of Islam as a whole. Much like we wouldnt want the "chi ball" screwballs held up as an example of all martial artisits. Those guys are free to do whatever they want as long as no laws are broken and nobody is hurt or prompted to hurt someone else. Yes we share common roots and beliefs but are taking different paths.


----------



## exile (Sep 27, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Over the years, Kohlberg's methodology has been reproduced time and time again. Meta-analyses have consistently found no significant difference between men and women in the context of Kohlbergian moral reasoning. In other words, Gilligan's critique of Kohlberg's theory being "biased" has essentially been disproven by raw data.
> 
> So, then, we have to ask ourselves: if Gilligan didn't have the data to back up her assertions, why did she make them in the first place?? What was the rationale for her accusations of "bias"?? This is precisely the crux of the matter, in my opinion.



Well said, Heretic. But the problem is, your critique here is based on the assumption that quantifiable prediction, observation and verification (or rejection)---the bread-and-butter of the scientific method---should be the basis for empirical claims. You clearly haven't been paying attention to the last two decades of `critical theory' emenating from folks like Derrida and his inheritors, including Gilligan, whose response to you would no doubt be that nomological-deductive reasoning (the reasoning that tells us that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, as vs. the earth being flat and having the sun revolve around it---the reasoning we use to make sure, for example, that the bridges we drive our cars over are meet design specification ensuring that we get to the other side alive) is male/Eurocentric and skewed in terms of gender/sexuality assumptions. Conservation of momentum reflects colonialist ideology, and your attempts to shore it up by showing that it actually captures the facts in 100% of physical interactions _also_ reflections a colonialist ideology. You can't win, pal.

The humanities in certain quarters have, over the past two decades, become so farcical that they embarass all of academia. CP Snow didn't know the _half_ of it when he wrote _The Two Cultures_.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 27, 2006)

exile said:


> Well said, Heretic. But the problem is, your critique here is based on the assumption that quantifiable prediction, observation and verification (or rejection)---the bread-and-butter of the scientific method---should be the basis for empirical claims. You clearly haven't been paying attention to the last two decades of `critical theory' emenating from folks like Derrida and his inheritors, including Gilligan, whose response to you would no doubt be that nomological-deductive reasoning (the reasoning that tells us that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, as vs. the earth being flat and having the sun revolve around it---the reasoning we use to make sure, for example, that the bridges we drive our cars over are meet design specification ensuring that we get to the other side alive) is male/Eurocentric and skewed in terms of gender/sexuality assumptions. Conservation of momentum reflects colonialist ideology, and your attempts to shore it up by showing that it actually captures the facts in 100% of physical interactions _also_ reflections a colonialist ideology. You can't win, pal.
> 
> The humanities in certain quarters have, over the past two decades, become so farcical that they embarass all of academia. CP Snow didn't know the _half_ of it when he wrote _The Two Cultures_.


 

Uhhh...yeah, what he said. :erg:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Uhhh...yeah, what he said. :erg:


 
He's making a satirical commentary about some of the more extreme wings of postmodern philosophy.

Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic to many aspects of postmodern thought --- particularly the insight that knowledge is both contextual in nature as well as a construction. However, the problem emerges when postmodernism devolves into relativism, nihilism, and sheer subjectivism.

It's really a reactionary movement, and reactionary movements rarely see things in as sober a light as they should.

Laterz.


----------



## exile (Sep 27, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> ]the problem emerges when postmodernism devolves into relativism, nihilism, and sheer subjectivism.
> 
> It's really a reactionary movement, and reactionary movements rarely see things in as sober a light as they should.
> 
> Laterz.



Exactly right, Heretic---particularly your identification of the nihilistic element of postmodernism. If you really believe that everything is constructed, then the horrors of all those deaths in Auschwitz, in the Stalinist gulag, in Cambodia and so on become nothing more than objects of `theorizing'. The problem is that this sort of thing cuts both ways---an awful lot of people who subscribe to this sort of thinking are indeed passionate critics of colonialism and the oppression of cultural and ethnic minorities (at least in principle). But if you reframe such moral judgments as nothing more than individual texts constructed on behalf of certain subjective preferences, then nothing that has happened in history, no matter how horrible, has any particular meaning or moral impact....


----------



## exile (Sep 27, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> He's making a satirical commentary about some of the more extreme wings of postmodern philosophy.



Actually, I'm not sure that what I was saying was really satiric. I've actually read allegedly serious attacks on science, the scientific method on on specific scientific disciplines which took  _exactly_ that line, written by critical theory types who typically confuse the sociology of science with the status of its results.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 28, 2006)

I would really like to continue this discussion, but I'm afraid we're getting a bit off-topic here.


----------



## exile (Sep 28, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> I would really like to continue this discussion, but I'm afraid we're getting a bit off-topic here.



You're probably right... never quite sure how that happens---one thing just leads to another...

But it's interesting that we've now covered two polar opposite positions in this thread---absolute, total conviction about division of the world into black/white, no gradation whatever (the Jesus camp), on the one hand, and an almost completely relativist position with its contempt for moral judgment (postmodernist nothing-good-or-bad-but-thinking-makes-it-so subjectivism)... and both of them are pretty scary.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 28, 2006)

So what is the middle ground between absolutism and relativism?


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 28, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> So what is the middle ground between absolutism and relativism?


 
Well, relativism _is_ absolutism --- just in veiled form --- so it's kind of a moot point.

I would argue for contextualism, personally.

Laterz.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 28, 2006)

But then were right back to relativism arent we? Wikipedia says this about contextualism...



> Some philosophers hold that context-dependence may lead to relativism; nevertheless, contextualist views are increasingly popular within philosophy.





> "In ethics, "contextualist" views are most closely associated with situational ethics, or with moral relativism."



Personally, I think moral relativism is a philosophical excuse to avoid putting your *** on the line for something you believe in, by having nothing to believe in.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 28, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> But then were right back to relativism arent we? Wikipedia says this about contextualism...


 
No. Wikipedia is wrong (surprise surprise), at least in the way that I am using the term.

Contextualism states that knowledge is inevitably bound up within certain biological, psychological, and cultural contexts. It means that there is no context-free "bottom line" that we can judge all existence by (which is the claim of both absolutism and relativism). That knowledge is contextually-bound does not mean knowledge is relative. 

For example, the meaning of the word "bark" in a sentence varies depending on the context that it is used in. This does not mean you can use "bark" however you so wish, at least not without running into epistemological anarchy.

Knowledge is built into contexts. But, these contexts themselves are not arbitrary or relative in nature.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 28, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Personally, I think moral relativism is a philosophical excuse to avoid putting your *** on the line for something you believe in, by having nothing to believe in.


 
No, relativism is a philosophical point-of-view. It tells us nothing about the psychology of the person that subscribes to it.

The argument "well, you only believe Y because you are X" is a common fallacy in logical discourse. Especially in politics.

Laterz.


----------



## exile (Sep 28, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> No. Wikipedia is wrong (surprise surprise), at least in the way that I am using the term.
> 
> Contextualism states that knowledge is inevitably bound up within certain biological, psychological, and cultural contexts. It means that there is no context-free "bottom line" that we can judge all existence by (which is the claim of both absolutism and relativism). That knowledge is contextually-bound does not mean knowledge is relative.
> 
> ...



Yes, I think you're kind of forced into this sort of stance, simply to avoid the twin bottomless pits of moral absolutism and  moral nihilism. Far from being opposed, the two are perfectly complementary:

Complete Absolustist: _I know how it must be and you must do it this way, because that is the only right way to do it_

Complete Relativist: _Well, who am I to judge your vision of things? Relative to your community of practice, my view of things is unacceptable; but, of course, on the other hand blah blah blah_[In background, Complete Absolutist can be heard setting up Courts of Inquisition...

The contextualist view you're arguinng for actually does pick out what I think is the safe middle ground between the CA's views and CR's, but it sure as hell has some steep drops on either side...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 28, 2006)

So...where the rubber meets the road, how does a person live his life?


----------



## exile (Sep 28, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> So...where the rubber meets the road, how does a person live his life?



Hmmm... you are asking the best question of all. I was about to say `hardest', but then it occurred to me that that's not really true. Of all the people you know, wouldn't you say that most of them are a positive force in the world's life---that they do the right thing (mostly), have the right responses (mostly)? That the world would be poorer if they weren't there? And they're that way, for the most part, without having deliberately worked out a detailed blueprint for how they were going to live. I've always thought that, _Lord of the Flies_ and other exercises in fashionable pessimism aside, most people in their local settings do quite well... something happens, though, when you scale things up. A lot of the posts on the `world's tilted axis' thread seem to reflect this sense of something that's wrong with the world on a larger scale intruding its way into ordinary daily life. 

Most people are not absolute moralists, nor are they knee-jerk relativists. They live pragmatically---if they didn't, life in society wouldn't be possible. And I suspect that if you work out in detail what a pragmatic approach to social existence requires, it would look a lot like what Heretic's `contextual' approach to moral choice is. 

I guess we'll just have to wait to find out till he writes his book on it! ;-)


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 28, 2006)

exile said:


> Most people are not absolute moralists, nor are they knee-jerk relativists. They live pragmatically---if they didn't, life in society wouldn't be possible. And I suspect that if you work out in detail what a pragmatic approach to social existence requires, it would look a lot like what Heretic's `contextual' approach to moral choice is.


 
I find that people like to be absolutist regarding their opinions and relativist towards those who disagree with them.


----------



## exile (Sep 28, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I find that people like to be absolutist regarding their opinions and relativist towards those who disagree with them.



That sounds like a very pragamatic approach to me ;-)

Actually, it reminds me a bit of something that I once read by a social psycologist named Anthony Wallace who was interested in mathematical models of the way people view their transactions with other people. He came up with a very interesting formal proof of the claim that, looselys speaking,  it isn't necessary for everyone in a society to have the same mental map of their interactions with others. There are, for quite ordinary interactions, thousands of maps which differ but which are mutually compatible. You don't need lockstep uniformity of perspective to have a harmonious society, one that `works'. All you need is to ensure that the diversity of models are organized so that people with wildly different views of what's going on can interact in a way which meets their respective expectations---and the point of the proof was that there are a vast number of such ways. It struck me then, and still does, as a very plausible way of thinking about how societies work in practice.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Oct 5, 2006)

You guys give me a headache.


----------



## exile (Oct 5, 2006)

hongkongfooey said:


> You guys give me a headache.



Better than a stomach ache, I guess... or a toothache. Yes, that's it! Think of it that way---you read our posts and _don't_ get a toothache! There---doesn't that feel better already? :wink1:


----------



## Marginal (Oct 7, 2006)

exile said:


> Better than a stomach ache, I guess... or a toothache. Yes, that's it! Think of it that way---you read our posts and _don't_ get a toothache! There---doesn't that feel better already? :wink1:


 We'll be safe as long as there's no posts involving kittens soaked in honey, covered in marshmellows, and cooing baby talk then. 

Off topic, but the brief snippet of that documentary played on The Colbert Report was truly disturbing. The Kids on Fire lady wants kids as fanatical about Jesus as suicide bombers are fanatic for Allah. Sounded a skosh unhealthy/insane the way Colbert presented it...


----------



## hongkongfooey (Oct 7, 2006)

Marginal said:


> We'll be safe as long as there's no posts involving kittens soaked in honey, covered in marshmellows, and cooing baby talk then.
> 
> Off topic, but the brief snippet of that documentary played on The Colbert Report was truly disturbing. The Kids on Fire lady wants kids as fanatical about Jesus as suicide bombers are fanatic for Allah. Sounded a skosh unhealthy/insane the way Colbert presented it...


 

Glad I'm not the only one that feels that way. Somehow, I feel that this preacher woman will mess these kids up in the long run.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 10, 2006)

Well, whatever. If you want an opposing viewpoint, see the movie "Saved" and get a few laughs.  It's still a free country.  Sort of.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 10, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:


> Well, whatever. If you want an opposing viewpoint, see the movie "Saved" and get a few laughs. It's still a free country. Sort of.


 
For a third viewpoint, there is also The God That Wasn't There.

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 3, 2006)

Okay ... so I haven't seen the movie. No desire to see the movie ... but ... 


Apparently, Ted Haggard was in the movie. Mr. Haggard was accused of having a relationship with a Gay Prostitute yesterday. The relationship is reported to consist of gay sex and meth use. 

And ... Mr. Haggard apparently has a *weekly* phone call with the President of the United States. 



This ... is called ... irony.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Okay ... so I haven't seen the movie. No desire to see the movie ... but ...
> 
> 
> Apparently, Ted Haggard was in the movie. Mr. Haggard was accused of having a relationship with a Gay Prostitute yesterday. The relationship is reported to consist of gay sex and meth use.
> ...


 
Apparently, Mr. Haggard and President Bush have a lot in common.  Both are (were?) drug users and both had relationships with gay prostitutes.

Jeff Gannon ring a bell?

Ah the Ironies of Evangelical Christianity!


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 3, 2006)

You know, I really don't like that I brought this up. I don't care if this Haggard guy is gay. I don't care if he's having an affair on his wife. I don't care if he likes to use Meth. 

That he can and does call the President every week, really kind of bugs me. Why does he get the audience? Because he is ridiculed by the administration (see David Kuo)?

The hypocrisy is obscene. 

That this guy is human, and suffers human failings ... I really shouldn't be bringing that up. 

If you're going to be in the closet ... keep all of your opinions in the closet, eh?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> The hypocrisy is obscene.


 
Undoubtedly.  

A Culture Warrior who is a closet homosexual is his own victim.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 3, 2006)

OK ... I have to reverse myself. 

I was kinda feeling some sympathy for this guy. But, I just saw an interview between Richard Dawkins and Reverend Haggard. I no longer feel sympathy for the National Evangelical Movement. 

If you are brave enough ... quickly take a trip over to crooks and liars. The video clip is about 6 minutes ... at about 4:30 ish, the Reverend takes a dive off the deep end into a pool with no water. 

Again ... that this lunatic gets a weekly call to the President is obscene.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> OK ... I have to reverse myself.
> 
> I was kinda feeling some sympathy for this guy. But, I just saw an interview between Richard Dawkins and Reverend Haggard. I no longer feel sympathy for the National Evangelical Movement.
> 
> ...


 
I posted the full video that Richard Dawkins was making when he interviewed Mr. Haggard in this thread...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41220


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2006)

In keeping with having reversed myself ... I just found this ... I am so sorry. I do need to stop looking at this train wreck. 

This is from another evangelical pastor. 

http://theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-11-03_evangelical_leader_quits



> Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors&#8217; wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband&#8217;s sin, but she may not be helping him either.


 
It is not the fact that Haggard is gay; it's that his wife won't 'DO' him right, and hasn't visted the gym often enough. 

One wonders which 'team' the pastor is taking one for?


EDIT - 

A wife who is not sexually available in the ways of the Song of Songs ..... Good Graciousness - My wife studied Kenpo for several years - She'ld 'Effing' Kill Me 

 - END EDIT.


----------

