Sieg Heil!

[tosberg34]

And this is nothing more that elitist dismissism. You have nothing interesting to say or add, so you denigrate. You are compelled to be mean and rude to back off those who disagree with you and you are clearly an intolerant and empty soul, trying to fill your intellectual dishonesty by spewing meaningless, non-productive dribble.

 

At least detlef and I are having a conversation. Sit back and listen to how the big boys "talk" to each other without feeling compelled to insult when you have nothing germane or pertinent to add.

 

Where did you go again? I can't see you!

 

Ouch, that's gotta hurt! Well said, McBoog!

[McBoog]

 

Nice effort. I know this must be taxing on you. Thank you, that was insightful. Added a lot! Now try some actual words that contribute in an intelligent and civil way and you might impress my nine year old.

 

(Is this productive conversation for your level of communication? I'm just trying to respond in an "inclusive" way and encourage you. Do you feel caught up yet? )

[McBoog]

I subscribe to John 4:20

 

I love you too man! (Assuming 1 John 4:20 NIV)

 

If John 4:20... We're talking ROAD TRIP BABY!

[detlef]

OK, McBoog-

 

First off, let's just get one thing out of the way so we can stop bringing it up. Let's agree to agree that the overwhelming majority of religious camps all about positivity and thanking god for the sunset and all that. That there is no dogmatic crap going on. And let's also agree to agree that there do exist ones that are unfortunately not like that. And let's assume that you guys are, by no means, defending those that preach divisive religion. Fair?

 

OK, so. One thing that bears mention is that not everything that goes on in camp has to tie back to ideology of the sponsors. So, sure, at bible camp, a counselor can stop and thank god for the sunset. However, at a camp sponsored by a political group, they can just skip that association. They can just say, "Hey kids, look at that beautiful sunset. Here's some cool facts about the sun. Did you know that it's made of blah, blah, blah and that our entire ecosystem relies on our exact distance from the sun. That if we were a bit closer everything would burn and if we were any further, nothing would grow. And because of that..." Done. The liberals don't need to thank the power of labor for the sun. The GOP doesn't need to thank the free market. And the bit I just wrote above neither disputes or confirms the existence of a specific god. We're all good. Sunset noticed, sunset commented on, moving on.

 

In fact, a political party could sponsor a camp and basically lay off almost any "teachings" that have to do with that party. It could be nothing more than creating a positive association with their group. To show kids, "Hey we liberals are a really fun bunch of folks." And you know what, even that might be creepy, right? Because you're "luring them in". Well, here's why it's just as creepy if bible camp were exactly the same. Just a bunch of positivity that kids will associate with that church.

 

It's because of BeeR. Much of what he brings to the Huddle is divisive and hate-based. Yet, in this argument, he's coming right behind you with the "amen brothers". So, a guy like me, who's not in the church wonders, "OK, when does the other shoe drop? When does counselor BeeR stop by and drop his little version of 'sunsets and waterfalls'". Because if Bible Camp is selling "the church" as sunsets and waterfalls, and as a result, these kids will grow up to be more receptive for when BeeR gets to explain "the rest", well that's sort of creepy to. Just about as creepy as a liberal camp creating a positive association with that group and, in doing so, creates a person more receptive for when Waterman comes by and teaches about how profit is theft. In both cases, you're taking very impressionable minds and setting them down a path that history has shown time and again can end up in a pretty bad place.

 

That, if you're going to make the argument that we should wait until they can decide for themselves about one, maybe we should do so with the other.

 

Oh, and there's another, very important bit. The conversation has seemed to end up geared towards that which is appropriate for very young kids. But this all got started with a discussion about a camp filled with kids in their teens and 20s. OK, so focusing, of course, on the teens. By definition, some of them are already voting age, and half of the rest are approaching voting age and in HS. Azz? Tell me you weren't getting into political debates in HS. I know I was. In fact, for my first couple of years of HS, I was a little Republican. Just like my boy Alex P Keaton. Are we really saying that the teenage years are too early for parties to start making their pitch? Provided, at least, that they do so without trashing the other side of the isle?

 

It sounds like we've decided that even younger than that is not too early for religions to do so. Because, even if the kids don't come back saying they learned about how lame Muslims and Jews are, they've still been started on their way down a path that is intended to make them more inclined to choose the church that sponsors that camp. Now, maybe they'll do so and turn out great. Tolerant and respectful of others beliefs even as they are devout in theirs. On the other hand, maybe they'll become one of these a-holes who keeps on harping about how the Jews and Muslims and Atheists are ruining the world for good honest Christian folk.

 

In much the same way that a positive association with either party could yield a person who feels strongly about the values associated with that party but is not a dick about it or could turn out to be some Worker's Vanguard d-bag or Glenn Beck disciple.

 

And I fail to see why one is any worse than the other.

Edited July 30, 2011 by detlef

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The nature of adults is that we indoctrinate our youth to the best of our ability. Some indoctrinate them to free thinking, even to the point where that is an orthodoxy, which is ironic, some to specific tight and narrow views. We do this in our churches, our schools, both public and private, and in our voluntary associations, whether political or by hobby type interests. This is the basis of the culture wars here and elsewhere.

 

Our youth, at least many, fight this and try to indoctrinate themselves into a youth culture. This is part of a natural breaking away. It is the process of growing up. Thus it has always been.

 

The labels, the associations we make with those labels and past historical analogies, apt or not, do not change the fundamental condition we find ourselves in. We are all part of a chain extending far back and whether we fight that or embrace it, either tack is part of that process, that chain.

 

I try to give my children the tools of thought. Maybe I succeed somewhat, but I know I teach them my prejudices, my preconceptions as well. In the end there is no reason they cannot shake off the shackles of my ignorance and start thinking for themselves. We all believe we managed to do so, yet we fear that the next generation will not. Our fear is our arrogence.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders

[detlef]

The nature of adults is that we indoctrinate our youth to the best of our ability. Some indoctrinate them to free thinking, even to the point where that is an orthodoxy, which is ironic, some to specific tight and narrow views. We do this in our churches, our schools, both public and private, and in our voluntary associations, whether political or by hobby type interests. This is the basis of the culture wars here and elsewhere.

 

Our youth, at least many, fight this and try to indoctrinate themselves into a youth culture. This is part of a natural breaking away. It is the process of growing up. Thus it has always been.

 

The labels, the associations we make with those labels and past historical analogies, apt or not, do not change the fundamental condition we find ourselves in. We are all part of a chain extending far back and whether we fight that or embrace it, either tack is part of that process, that chain.

 

I try to give my children the tools of thought. Maybe I succeed somewhat, but I know I teach them my prejudices, my preconceptions as well. In the end there is no reason they cannot shake off the shackles of my ignorance and start thinking for themselves. We all believe we managed to do so, yet we fear that the next generation will not. Our fear is our arrogence.

Well said.

[McBoog]

The nature of adults is that...Our fear is our arrogence.

 

OUT-Standing!

 

[McBoog]

OK, McBoog-

 

First off, let's just get one thing out of the way so we can stop bringing it up. Let's agree to agree that the overwhelming majority of religious camps all about positivity and thanking god for the sunset and all that. That there is no dogmatic crap going on. And let's also agree to agree that there do exist ones that are unfortunately not like that. And let's assume that you guys are, by no means, defending those that preach divisive religion. Fair? Not totally fair, because as I have pointed out earlier, neither do I trust all that is done in religion. It is incumbent on the leader of the household to monitor and mentor appropriately. Defining appropriate is the difficulty here. But, yes, generally fair. My church does not preach divisiveness at any level.

 

OK, so. One thing that bears mention is that not everything that goes on in camp has to tie back to ideology of the sponsors. So, sure, at bible camp, a counselor can stop and thank god for the sunset. However, at a camp sponsored by a political group, they can just skip that association. They can just say, "Hey kids, look at that beautiful sunset. Here's some cool facts about the sun. Did you know that it's made of blah, blah, blah and that our entire ecosystem relies on our exact distance from the sun. That if we were a bit closer everything would burn and if we were any further, nothing would grow. And because of that..." Done. The liberals don't need to thank the power of labor for the sun. The GOP doesn't need to thank the free market. And the bit I just wrote above neither disputes or confirms the existence of a specific god. We're all good. Sunset noticed, sunset commented on, moving on. Awesome paragraph. Sounds more like the science camp my kids went to last year though.

 

In fact, a political party could sponsor a camp and basically lay off almost any "teachings" that have to do with that party. It could be nothing more than creating a positive association with their group. To show kids, "Hey we liberals are a really fun bunch of folks." And you know what, even that might be creepy, right? Because you're "luring them in". Well, here's why it's just as creepy if bible camp were exactly the same. Just a bunch of positivity that kids will associate with that church. True. But a bit Pollyana-ish. The point of a camp IS to at least expose one to the principles of the sponsor. No? At some point, they would need to address the 400 lb gorilla sitting in the corner.

 

It's because of BeeR. Much of what he brings to the Huddle is divisive and hate-based. Yet, in this argument, he's coming right behind you with the "amen brothers". So, a guy like me, who's not in the church wonders, "OK, when does the other shoe drop? When does counselor BeeR stop by and drop his little version of 'sunsets and waterfalls'". Because if Bible Camp is selling "the church" as sunsets and waterfalls, and as a result, these kids will grow up to be more receptive for when BeeR gets to explain "the rest", well that's sort of creepy to. Just about as creepy as a liberal camp creating a positive association with that group and, in doing so, creates a person more receptive for when Waterman comes by and teaches about how profit is theft. In both cases, you're taking very impressionable minds and setting them down a path that history has shown time and again can end up in a pretty bad place. It is unfair to label or judge me based on what BeeR does or says. If in this instance he is agreeing with what I say, all that shows is that in this scope of the conversation, he believes he has some common ground with me. I don't reside here in the Tailgate the way I used to. Many of the "old guard" I used to do "this with" have been banned or are no longer around . That said, I have not read a lot of what BeeR posts. IF, he is the fire and brimstone, highly judgemental you are all going to hell type of Christian that I am imagining you are referring to, then he would have no place in my church and I would not want someone like that having an influence on my children either. The "selling the Church as sunsets and waterfalls" was a little condescending, think?

 

That, if you're going to make the argument that we should wait until they can decide for themselves about one, maybe we should do so with the other. My Church does not baptise anyone until they are ready to be baptised. We do not baptise babies and a minister talks in depth with any child about what they are about to do (under 16) to see if they are ready and really want to. Even then, a child can always be baptised again as an adult if they ever find Christ in an even more meaningful way later in life. I assume that those attending the "camp" that was targeted were there voluntarily and old enough to grasp the concepts of opposing views of political dogma. In this environment, I would contend that it would be easier to slip Waterman in the curriculum than BeeR into my kids day camp. My church does a full criminal background check on all speakers and volunteers that are going to be around the kids

 

Oh, and there's another, very important bit. The conversation has seemed to end up geared towards that which is appropriate for very young kids. But this all got started with a discussion about a camp filled with kids in their teens and 20s. OK, so focusing, of course, on the teens. By definition, some of them are already voting age, and half of the rest are approaching voting age and in HS. Azz? Tell me you weren't getting into political debates in HS. I know I was. In fact, for my first couple of years of HS, I was a little Republican. Just like my boy Alex P Keaton. Are we really saying that the teenage years are too early for parties to start making their pitch? Provided, at least, that they do so without trashing the other side of the isle? I cede this point and actually realized it as well. But thought the conversation was evolving in an interesting direction. Doesn't happen here in the Tailgate that we actually can "talk" about these things without calling each other "tool"... Well, at least some of us As long as the attendance is voluntary at this age, have at it.

 

It sounds like we've decided that even younger than that is not too early for religions to do so. Because, even if the kids don't come back saying they learned about how lame Muslims and Jews are, they've still been started on their way down a path that is intended to make them more inclined to choose the church that sponsors that camp. Now, maybe they'll do so and turn out great. Tolerant and respectful of others beliefs even as they are devout in theirs. On the other hand, maybe they'll become one of these a-holes who keeps on harping about how the Jews and Muslims and Atheists are ruining the world for good honest Christian folk. Clubfoothead in the other thread said he subscribes to (1) John 40:20 "Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." We tread a thin line when we start to judge those around us rather than to pray for them. I have learned to do my best to interpret the Bible and apply the words to making me a better person, for strength and inspiration. It saddens me that some try to use its words as a tool against others. Until you take care of yourself, you cannot take care of others (That was the message of our service last Sunday). "

 

In much the same way that a positive association with either party could yield a person who feels strongly about the values associated with that party but is not a dick about it or could turn out to be some Worker's Vanguard d-bag or Glenn Beck disciple. I am on the same page with you the whole way through here bro!

 

And I fail to see why one is any worse than the other.

 

I never meant to imply "worse". And true, the context did shift in age of the victims, who are the ones we should be remembering.

 

Both forums have appropriate application as long as it remains in the theoretical and intellectual. Radicalization and extremism in either case is dangerous to all of us. I think we agree that the worst case scenario in either of these is equally bad. Determining which has more positive value in the long run is a matter of personal belief and values. As least I know I'm going to Heaven, and that is a pretty good outcome in my perspective!

 

My points is that one venue "SHOULD" focus on the enhancement of the spiritual being, where the other does not truly lend itself to that. Well monitored, spiritual wellness in our youth, independent of the path one chooses, is a good thing. Again, one or the other being better is a matter of personal belief.

 

BTW:

 

BeeR. Nothing I said above was to imply anything negative about you personally and I hope you didn't take it as such. I have not read many of your posts and do not presume to know specifically what detlef is talking about when referring to you. Proverbs 11:25

[detlef]

I never meant to imply "worse". And true, the context did shift in age of the victims, who are the ones we should be remembering.

 

Both forums have appropriate application as long as it remains in the theoretical and intellectual. Radicalization and extremism in either case is dangerous to all of us. I think we agree that the worst case scenario in either of these is equally bad. Determining which has more positive value in the long run is a matter of personal belief and values. As least I know I'm going to Heaven, and that is a pretty good outcome in my perspective!

 

My points is that one venue "SHOULD" focus on the enhancement of the spiritual being, where the other does not truly lend itself to that. Well monitored, spiritual wellness in our youth, independent of the path one chooses, is a good thing. Again, one or the other being better is a matter of personal belief.

 

BTW:

 

BeeR. Nothing I said above was to imply anything negative about you personally and I hope you didn't take it as such. I have not read many of your posts and do not presume to know specifically what detlef is talking about when referring to you. Proverbs 11:25

My guess is that, as usual, we're not as far apart on the topic as it seems. My quarrel, initially, was with people making a point of thinking, in general, the notion of a camp sponsored by a political party was "creepy" and, yet, because the specific religious camps they've sent their kids with seemed cool, were totally cool with that.

 

And I suppose that seemed naive.

 

As for the "luring them in" paragraph, I was just really talking "worst case". Really, despite my aversion to organized religion, I'm not even particularly creeped out by the notion of some tolerant church having a camp for kids. In general, I'm exactly as creeped out by the notion of bible camp as I am about political camps because it seems to me that both have exactly as much chance as the other of being either chill or some nut job brainwashing fest. In other words, I'm not going to make a blanket statement about the existence of either one.

 

But mostly I'm just saying that a camp sponsored by people of a specific political party could absolutely create a program that doesn't harp on the kids about partisan crap. Rather, they could simply do workshops and exercises that build up the the sorts of values they think are important. In other words, sell what is admirable about that party's ideals. Of course, mostly, the kids should spend the day running around and learning about the world around them free from specific lecture.

 

And, you know what, let's just leave BeeR out of it. I don't know the guy besides what I've seen him post here and I'm sure plenty of us, myself included, don't always show our best side in these forums. But, regardless, I wasn't attaching him or anyone else to you or your camp. However, just again, reminding you of what you already know. That god's name gets evoked by people for a number of reasons. Not all of them good.

[BeeR]

I would contend that it would be easier to slip Waterman in the curriculum than BeeR into my kids day camp. My church does a full criminal background check on all speakers

and volunteers that are going to be around the kids

Now was that nice

 

BeeR. Nothing I said above was to imply anything negative about you personally and I hope you didn't take it as such. I have not read many of your posts and do not presume to know specifically what detlef is talking about when referring to you. Proverbs 11:25

Neither does detlef. Thanks but no worries. FWIW if you (or he) knew anything about me you'd know I'm far from some "fire and brimstone" fundamentalist or whatever. Re. your posts, I simply agreed where I thought applicable; you stated yourself well (and shrugged off the morons very well). I may tell you you're full of it about something else tomorrow and feel free to return the favor. Unlike some people here, I focus on the person's post, not the person, agreeing with what I think makes sense and disageeing with what I don't, even if we butted heads earlier or I don't generally agree with their beliefs or whatever. Which is more than I can say for some here. But to be fair more often than not I think detlef is pretty good about it. In fact, I give him credit for making some good posts and points here, as he has elsewhere.

 

The thing is that if his buttons are pushed or someone consistently stands up to the challenge, esp about a topic like religion, he can let his rationality/reasoning slip and even digress to the level of convenient but pointless and inaccurate labelling, etc like some of the lesser kiddies here get off on. His "it's because of Beer" BS is but one example and shows he knows little about me regarding my religious beliefs or frankly much else but it was convenient, so he leaned on that house of cards, but whatever. In fact enough on all that - back to Beck being a POS -

 

Edit: oh sure. I post this then I see he took it back. Bastage.

 

Edited July 30, 2011 by BeeR

[Azazello1313]

My guess is that, as usual, we're not as far apart on the topic as it seems. My quarrel, initially, was with people making a point of thinking, in general, the notion of a camp sponsored by a political party was "creepy" and, yet, because the specific religious camps they've sent their kids with seemed cool, were totally cool with that.

 

And I suppose that seemed naive.

 

so my perception of the spheres of religion and politics and their respective appropriateness for children is naive. whereas apparently yours is well-informed. okay, I can buy that. I mean, who could know more about religion and raising kids than you?

[detlef]

so my perception of the spheres of religion and politics and their respective appropriateness for children is naive. whereas apparently yours is well-informed. okay, I can buy that. I mean, who could know more about religion and raising kids than you?

One of us is making assumptions and being absolute. And that person is not me. I am not claiming to speak from authority about kids, I'm saying that there is enough evidence of creepy religious camps that there's no reason to give them a pass en mass if you're going to assume that camps sponsored by political parties should be looked on suspiciously.

 

You are the one saying that one is fine for kids but the other is not. I'm saying both can be either creepy or cool.

 

And again, since we're actually talking about teens, did you or did you not engage in political debate in HS? Or did your parents make a point of sheltering you from that sort of "grown-up" stuff.

Edited July 30, 2011 by detlef

[bpwallace49]

And again, since we're actually talking about teens, did you or did you not engage in political debate in HS?

 

Det . . . Azz doesnt debate. Debate implies that there are two sides to a discussion that have merit.

 

Azz KNOWS.

[gbpfan1231]

Det . . . Azz doesnt debate. Debate implies that there are two sides to a discussion that have merit.

 

Azz KNOWS.

Oh my god - this has to be the most pot calling the kettle black post I have ever seen in my life.

 

Pure gold here folks.

[detlef]

Oh my god - this has to be the most pot calling the kettle black post I have ever seen in my life.

 

Pure gold here folks.

Do you mean because of who is saying it or because of who he's saying it to? Because it's sort of a daily double if you think about it.

[gbpfan1231]

Do you mean because of who is saying it or because of who he's saying it to? Because it's sort of a daily double if you think about it.

Saying it.

[bpwallace49]

Do you mean because of who is saying it or because of who he's saying it to? Because it's sort of a daily double if you think about it.

 

He is atking a shot at me. When I challenge his closely held Fox News dogma, he gets flustered and upset that anyone would dare challenge their integrity and resorts to taking personals shots. Happens in almost every thread with him, as personal insults and attacks are the last refuge of the unintelligent. I guess asking questions is anathema to gbpfan . . .

[gbpfan1231]

He is atking a shot at me. When I challenge his closely held Fox News dogma, he gets flustered and upset that anyone would dare challenge their integrity and resorts to taking personals shots. Happens in almost every thread with him, as personal insults and attacks are the last refuge of the unintelligent. I guess asking questions is anathema to gbpfan . . .

Ahh got it- ripping on me for taking shots because I said it is like the pot calling the kettle black about a post you made about taking a shot at someone. Got it.

[Azazello1313]

One of us is making assumptions and being absolute. And that person is not me. I am not claiming to speak from authority about kids, I'm saying that there is enough evidence of creepy religious camps that there's no reason to give them a pass en mass if you're going to assume that camps sponsored by political parties should be looked on suspiciously.

 

absolutes? all I am saying is that an education program developed by a political party is, by definition, going to have a partisan political message that in my view is inappropriate for kids. if it's something about politics sponsored by a school or some sort of civics society or something, it's not at all the same thing. nor is a church camp necessarily the same thing. I would tentatively be in favor of both of those things.

 

I also happen to think that most parents probably agree with me, which is why you don't see many "democrat camps" and "republican camps" for kids. they apparently do exist, but not, it would seem, in anywhere close to the same kinds of numbers as church camps or non-partisan educational camps. a political party is just not the right kind of organization to run those sorts of things, in my mind or in the minds of most others.

 

And again, since we're actually talking about teens, did you or did you not engage in political debate in HS? Or did your parents make a point of sheltering you from that sort of "grown-up" stuff.

 

my parents and the better teachers I can remember tried to deal with those issues in a balanced manner. that, to me, is what is appropriate for kids of that age to hear from authority figures. partisan indoctrination is not.

 

obviously, you feel otherwise. go ahead and write another 3,000 words of blather saying the exact same thing yet again if you feel compelled to do so, but I don't really see this going anywhere...

Edited July 30, 2011 by Azazello1313

[gbpfan1231]

absolutes? all I am saying is that an education program developed by a political party is, by definition, going to have a partisan political message that in my view is inappropriate for kids. if it's something about politics sponsored by a school or some sort of civics society or something, it's not at all the same thing. nor is a church camp necessarily the same thing. I would tentatively be in favor of both of those things.

 

I also happen to think that most parents probably agree with me, which is why you don't see many "democrat camps" and "republican camps" for kids. they apparently do exist, but not, it would seem, in anywhere close to the same kinds of numbers as church camps or non-partisan educational camps. a political party is just not the right kind of organization to run those sorts of things, in my mind or in the minds of most others.

 

 

 

my parents and the better teachers I can remember tried to deal with those issues in a balanced manner. that, to me, is what is appropriate for kids of that age to hear from authority figures. partisan indoctrination is not.

 

obviously, you feel otherwise. go ahead and write another 3,000 words of blather saying the exact same thing yet again if you feel compelled to do so, but I don't really see this going anywhere...

You would think that computer has to almost out of ink by now.

[bpwallace49]

. if it's something about politics sponsored by a school or some sort of civics society or something, it's not at all the same thing. nor is a church camp necessarily the same thing. I would tentatively be in favor of both of those things.

 

+1

[bpwallace49]

You would think that computer has to almost out of ink by now.

 

I dont think you know how the internet works . . .

 

Does your computer use ink when you type on an online message board?

[detlef]

absolutes? all I am saying is that an education program developed by a political party is, by definition, going to have a partisan political message that in my view is inappropriate for kids. if it's something about politics sponsored by a school or some sort of civics society or something, it's not at all the same thing. nor is a church camp necessarily the same thing. I would tentatively be in favor of both of those things.

 

I also happen to think that most parents probably agree with me, which is why you don't see many "democrat camps" and "republican camps" for kids. they apparently do exist, but not, it would seem, in anywhere close to the same kinds of numbers as church camps or non-partisan educational camps. a political party is just not the right kind of organization to run those sorts of things, in my mind or in the minds of most others.

 

 

 

my parents and the better teachers I can remember tried to deal with those issues in a balanced manner. that, to me, is what is appropriate for kids of that age to hear from authority figures. partisan indoctrination is not.

 

obviously, you feel otherwise. go ahead and write another 3,000 words of blather saying the exact same thing yet again if you feel compelled to do so, but I don't really see this going anywhere...

Most parents in this country, that is.

 

But, you're right, I'm certainly the only one between the two of us who keeps repeating himself and ignoring what the other is saying.

[McBoog]

... However, just again, reminding you of what you already know. That god's name gets evoked by people for a number of reasons. Not all of them good.

 

Word.

 

Unfortunately

[Azazello1313]