Dark Christianity
.::: .::..:.::.:.
Back October 2nd, 2006 Forward
dogemperor [userpic]
The UK Notes "Jesus Camp"


Yet another article about the film.

They Cry, Pray to Bush and Wash out the Devil - Welcome to Jesus Camp

"Amid all the controversy generated by the film, Pastor Fischer has defended herself. 'Excuse me,' she says in the film, 'but we have the truth.'"

God save us all from people who think they have The Truth.

dogemperor [userpic]
The Heterosexual Agenda


The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths

This obvious parody uses the same research methods and distortions as most anti-gay propaganda. Not only does it have humor value, it also talks about the methods the Dominionists use in putting together anti-gay text. A must-read.

dogemperor [userpic]
A link and some personal...musings about "jesus camp".

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]kittynboi)

I don't think anyone has posted this. If they did, I can't seem to find it.


This is an interview with the creators of the film Jesus Camp.

Okay, first off, I haven't seen it, so lets get that out of the way.

But there is something I want to say and some things I want to ask of everyone here.

I'm kind of nervous about this film. I'm leaning towards not seeing it after reading that interview. Why? Maybe I just want a more clearly anti-dominionist documentary, but it seems that these two people seem comfortable with the subjects of their film, comfortable enough to make me uncomfortable. You see in the interview that they are extrmely dodgy when it really comes to taking a definitive stance. Maybe they just want to appear unbiased for tactical reasons, but some instinct in me says thats not the case.

But what do I think is the case? I think its a combination of things, but to be specific; I think that the desire of the filmmakers to be objective and nonjudgemental, they come across as having been totally blindsided by the "niceness" that many of these people often exhibit (intentionally, as many here will know.) for just this purpose, to make themselves seem much less threatening.

Maybe someone here who has seen the film can give me a more solid idea of where things really stand with this?

Maybe its a part of me that thinks its irresponsible to be giving kinder, gentler portrayals of dominionists in the current climate that makes me wary of any documentary that doesn't really seem willing to directly address the threat they pose.

Not having seen the film, I can't say if the above characterization is accurate, but the interview I linked to makes it seem like that is the case with the filmmakers personally; they are either unaware of the threat of dominionism (possibily as a result of the blindsiding tactic I mentioned) or they are, for whatever reason, unwilling to directly address the issue.

Maybe the film does have a purpose. Maybe a film thats not outright anti-fundamentalist has a better chance of reaching a mainstream audience.

Whatever the case, I'd appreciate it if anyone here could share any insights in to this matter.

Am I the only one who feels slight trepidation about this film due to the seeming unwillingness of the filmmakers to really tackle some of the more troublesome and thorny issues?

dogemperor [userpic]
Another film that might be of interest;

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]kittynboi)

This film is not explicity about dominionism, but the relevance is obvious. Its about "Red america" in general and the political beliefs of the "heartland", and when you address the topic of modern american conservativism, the only way not to get in to the issue of dominionism is to intentionally avoid doing so.

I haven't seen this film either, but it sounds interesting. I don't think it ever uses the term "dominionism", but the subjects interviewed often express dominionist beliefs. There's a post about it and an interview with the filmmaker here;


Based on the interview and descriptions, the people interviewed in this film, most of them anyway, aren't QUITE as extreme as the more explicitly dominionist groups and individuals we discuss here, but I thought this film and the post I linked to might be of interest to some.

dogemperor [userpic]
Weakening science has consequences


Here's an interesting Talk To Action article about the impact of teaching intelligent design is having in our scientific communities:

This war [against teaching evolution in schools] could decimate the development of U.S. scientific talent and erode whatever competitive advantage the United States enjoys in the technology-based global economy. Already, U.S. high school students lag near the bottom in math skills compared with students in other developed nations, and high school seniors are performing worse in science than they were 10 years ago.

These trends can only worsen if students come to regard evolution as questionable or controversial. Thirty-seven percent of the high school Advanced Placement biology examination tests knowledge of evolution, evolutionary biology and heredity, according to the College Board. Students who do not thoroughly understand evolution cannot hope to succeed on this exam; they will be handicapped in competitive science courses in college and the careers that may follow.

By teaching intelligent design or other variants of creationism in science classes at public schools -- or by undercutting the credibility of evolution -- we are greatly diminishing our chances for future scientific breakthroughs and technological innovations, and are endangering our health, safety and economic well-being as individuals and as a nation.

Kansas has become something of a bad example of what happens to scientific inquiry when the controversy jerks the state- and its students- back and forth between science and religion. They are having a hard time attracting scientists and professors to teach and study in their state. And the whole ID mess is also starting to wear on the US as a whole.

Houston, we have a problem.

Back October 2nd, 2006 Forward