Vacation Bible School Has Changed A Lot

My mother sent us to Vacation Bible School. It was a week long, in the middle of summer and, while she is a Christian, I am sure she sent us to have a short break. There were maybe twenty kids in each grade level and the activities were simple. My mom, who is deaf, taught everybody to sign the song, “Jesus Loves Me” and we made Christian themed art out of clay, pipe cleaners and yarn. While I no longer identify with any religion, I have mostly good memories about my VBS experience. It is hard to find fault in lessons of “love thy neighbor.”

But it seems that VBS has changed. I found this article at ABC News online about a documentary, “Jesus Camp” and am more than a little concerned.

Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush “” these are some of the activities at Pastor Becky Fischer’s Bible camp in North Dakota, “Kids on Fire,” subject of the provocative new documentary, “Jesus Camp.” “I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places,” Fisher said. “Because, excuse me, we have the truth.”

Wow. If Ms. Fischer’s comments aren’t enough to make you scratch your head, maybe the comments of the little ones are.

“A lot of people die for God,” one camper said, “and they’re not afraid.” “We’re kinda being trained to be warriors,” said another, “only in a funner way.”

Nope, this is not the VBS I remember. I am certain that there are still camps where paper plate art is the norm, but camps like “Kids on Fire” in North Dakota have little ones taping their mouths against abortion and speaking out on political issues like gay marriage.

As a libertarian, I generally support parental choice on everything. Watching the video makes me cringe though. Between the clips of kids praying in front of a Bush photograph, Ms. Fischer openly screaming, “this is war” and boys in battle fatigues, I see a generation of kids being trained for a holy war. I have to wonder how well this would go over if the kids were calling on Allah.

I do think people of every political and spiritual inclination need to pay attention to this trend. This is our future and they know it.

One child in “Jesus Camp” goes so far as to say, “We’re a key generation to bringing Jesus back.”

Freedom to worship as one wishes is part of this country’s foundation. I would never speak out against it. Little training camps for children are different. Extremists are a problem no matter the god worshiped. Unless, of course, the worshiped is the god depicted best by macaroni art.

posted by michelleshinghal
  • Sandra Kallander

    Whenever I see people in other countries who are in similar camps, I remind myself they don’t represent their entire country, and I sure do hope they know that the operators of this camp know that these campers are not representative of Americans.

    If we all relied on headline stories to shape our view of the world, we’d think the U.S.S.R. was scary and out to get us.

  • Sandra Kallander

    Try that again.

    One of the lessons I learned in Vacation Bible School:
    Samaritans: those alien, baby-eating, foreign-sounding people with a strange religion, feared or despised by everyone, may surprise you and turn out to be “good,” and those who you’d think would be kind and helpful may turn out to be uncaring.

    Respecting each person as an individual is central to New Testament Christianity and one of the things that formed by libertarian views.

  • http://360.yahoo.com/pong_god Robert Mayer

    Wow, this is pretty freaky stuff. I guess they take their slogan, “Kids on Fire” pretty seriously. Sounds like they want to turn them into little flaming suicide bombers.

  • http://mythofhonor.blogspot.com/ JH

    Over here in Europe its getting a lot of play on CNN International.

    I expect it will be a feature story on BBC, surprised they didn’t run it first, considering how biased it makes the US look.

  • Michael

    Is anyone surprised by this? Fundamentalist Muslims have gotten their way through violence and threats of violence. Look at what is going on with the Pope. Look at how book stores and newspapers ran scared during the Mohammed cartoon crisis. Madonna hangs herself on a disco-cross and it’s seen as “brave” and “defiant”. Kane West dresses as Jesus on the cover of Rolling Stones and it’s “cool”. Do you think Rolling Stone would have the balls to post a cover of a Hip hop star dressed as Mohammed? Or TV to air a rock star appropriating a Muslim symbol for her concert? Why not?

    Recent events have shown that intimidation works. Violence works. It was only a matter of time before members of other religions got the message.

  • Timothy West

    All revealed religions are governments of the soul. They are based on fear of death and conformity. While I dont care what each person chooses for themselves, too often religion choice is not done by choice but by indoctrination by parents who demand their kids be just like them instead of being who they are.

    The Pharasees are alive and well.

    Any religion that teaches that others will burn in hell unless they convert is not a religion but a cult of fear.

  • IanC

    Here’s a thought. Howsabout we start enforcing the “Freedom of” clause of the whole she-bang AGAINST those religions that would be exclusive in nature?

    I.e.; “Sure, it’s fine that you believe and all that jazz. Whatever. But don’t you DARE tell ANYONE else what THEY have to believe. You got that, buster?”

    Bust this camp for violating the 1st Amendment, and watch what comes out of the woodworks. >:)

  • Michael

    err….Here’s a thought. Howsabout we keep government busybodies from telling parents how to raise their children. As long as the parents aren’t being forced to send their children to this camp, and the children aren’t being abused, it is perfectly acceptable (although creepy) for a parent to send their child.

    I’m not sure if you were joking (if you were, my apologies), but the 1st Amendment restricts what the *government* can do with respect to religion and speech.

  • HippyChimp

    two random comments…

    I) Fundamentalism, be it christianity or islam, is an enemy of Freedom.

    b. It continues to amaze me that a religon that diefies Jesus can display so few of the attributes he espoused. WTF happened to “Love thine enemy” and “Blessed is the peacemaker”? christians today (in general) are some of the most bigoted, intolerant, hateful people I know.

    3) Bong hits for Jesus!

  • Timothy West

    I would include fundamentalist libertarianism as a enemy of freedom as well. It’s a alternative religion for many who cant bring themselves to believe in God, so they choose a higher ideal that they can rationalize.

  • paulie

    There’s no reason why “fundamentalist” (ie real) libertarians can’t believe in God. Whether we do or not, we can’t be an enemy of freedom since we don’t seek to impose anything on you.

  • http://www.lpgeorgia.com Trevor Southerland

    HippyChimp:

    While I’ll agree that some Christians fit your mold, I’d say there’s at least 1.1 billion of us who don’t.

    It is funny to watch Muslims burn cars, burn crosses, etc… because they’re not a violent religion.

    Mind you, I don’t think all Muslims are violent… but these guys over there destroying holy symbols sure aren’t helping their cause in the West.

    Muslims were up in arms about a damn drawing… but destroying our churches is okay… makes sense, right?

  • Timothy West

    Yes, you do. You impose upon me that I must accept the pledge
    and agree with it, or I have no claim to being a libertarian.

  • Stuart Richards

    It’s creepy but they’re not literally being trained to kill people.

  • IanC

    Timothy West has the truth of it. Fundamentalism of ANY stripe, ANY AT ALL, is the enemy of freedom. Period.

    Fundamentalist libertarians are much like the proverbial crabs in a bucket; too busy clawing at each other when one makes a move to get over the lip to realize that they are STOPPING THE PROGRESSION OF FREEDOM.

    How many times have you all heard someone here say, “Since Person X agrees with everything about libertarianism BUT Subject Y, he isn’t a *REAL* libertarian. PEOPLE: Person X is a FASCIST in L clothing!!!”

    It’s a recipe we’ve all seen FAR too many times. The demand for ABSOLUTE purity is the ABSOLUTE enemy of progress.

    It’s alright to say, “I believe this should be so.” It’s another thing altogether to demand OTHERS to live up to YOUR standard.

    And Stuart — they’re only children now. Wait ’till they grow up. And I suspect a certain gay man in Montana named Michael would disagree with you had he not run into a few good christians with chains and a truck.

  • paulie

    Why should you have a claim to be a libertarian if you’re not? If you advocate the initiation of force you don’t fit the definition. Would that the rest of you were to not coerce me beyond what I can call myself, and I would happily renounce the label. Until that happens, there should be a term for those of us who oppose the initiation of force; for the moment that term is libertarian. It’s not enough that you claim all sorts of rights to make decisions for us, but we are not even allowed to have a term to describe those of who oppose this?

  • Pete

    Sometimes, I think it should be illegal to expose children to religion…

    Sure freedom of religion for adults – but this seems a lot more like brainwashing.

  • Stuart Richards

    No, I can guarantee you that this isn’t harming them.

    I grew up, went to school in an environment like this. Most of my classmates have long since abandoned the faith, a few (like me) moved on to more realistic versions of it.

    I can’t think of anyone who was subjected to this crap as a kid who still believes it as an adult, except for the ones doing the actual indoctrination.

  • http://UnCivilDefence.blogspot.com MRJarrell

    TW: If you do not accept the pledge you are not a member of the LP. That’s the deal and the qualifier.

  • Leroy

    Why should you have a claim to be a libertarian if you’re not? If you advocate the initiation of force you don’t fit the definition.

    Paulie, it depends on what definition you use. If you mean you’re only a libertarian if you’re at the very top top of the Nolan Chart, then you’re right. If that definition applies, I don’t see how libertarianism is different from anarchism. If you mean a libertarian is someone who is in the top 1/4 quadrant of the Nolan Chart, then you can still advocate some initiation of force (that is, some taxes) and still be considered a libertarian.

    Also, “initiation of force” needs to be clarified. I would say that initiating force against a sentient animal is always wrong, while most libertarians would disagree with me.

  • paulie

    If that definition applies, I don’t see how libertarianism is different from anarchism.

    Not all anarchists are libertarians. Otherwise I agree.

  • paulie

    Which by the way is a good thing. Of course I wouldn’t call anyone who supports tax extortion a libertarian. Not even close! We’ve already had to create a new brand after “liberal” was changed around. We should not have to do it again. Call yourselves something else, please.

  • paulie

    As for the topic of this post:

    It should be clear that this camp is not Christian. They are satanic idolaters blasphemously worshipping the evil demon Dubai-ya. The Bible tells us in these days there will be churches deceived into worsipping the enemy as Jesus. They are fulfilling this prophecy by bowing to the devil’s emissary on earth, the white house resident usurper.

  • Sandra Kallander

    The Press, of course, report the extremes and make them seem more important and powerful than they are. The public, of course, buys what the Press offer, teaching them to keep doing it.

    It will be interesting to see what the Internet does to alter this dynamic, if anything.

  • Julian

    It is only a matter of time before some federal law enforcement agency raids the camp and children die.

    Remember the Branch Davidians at Waco.

    To all of you that criticize and want the camp shut down, you may get your wish.

    It is not the libertarian way to interfere with the choices made by others regarding their children or religion so butt out!

    By the way, we are embroiled in a religious war and calling it by any other name is nothing but wishful thinking.

  • paulie

    nah, they idolatize w….they’ll be the new shock troops of bushitler jugend

  • IanC

    Paulie — your definition of a libertarian is false on its face. The NIFP is by no means definitive of libertarianism. A desire for social and economic freedom, THAT is definitive of libertarianism. The two are by and large wholly unconnected, save that they move in parallel directions.

    As to the matter of the pledge, and the NIFP itself, I have spoken here and elsewhere more than a few times as to why they are failed, irrelevant tools. (Case: What version of the pledge, with the same wording mind you, do you have to swear to, to be a libertarian? Case: Who defines force, who is permitted to respond, and how MUCH response is permitted?)

    As far as this camp, and fundamentalism of any stripe — I shall call it as I see it, and advocate equally. I draw the line at making laws; perhaps I should have been more clear on this. My earlier statement was mostly humor, and perhaps to instigate a line of conversation that never took root.

  • IanC

    For further emphasis:

    Fundamentalism of any color or stripe, regardless of the nature of the ideology taken to with such extremist devotion (this very statement notwithstanding), must never be regarded as ANYTHING other than the enemy of freedom.

    Period.

  • paulie

    You can’t have freedom and oppose it at the same time. the NIFP means you don’t trample it, that’s all. Nothing failed or irrelevant about it. Your questions have been answered before. Why pretend otherwise?

  • paulie

    Ever had your anus penetrated against your wishes? How does this grab you “vote LP, we promise we’ll be gentler next time…and we have a smaller cock than those other guys”?

  • IanC

    Paulie — if I was being raped by a 600 pound gorrilla whose dick had a 4-inch circumference and was a foot long, given that the question is who will replace it — not make it go away altogether (as that is NOT an option *NOW* and we ALL *KNOW* this.)?

    I’d probably find it appealling.

    However — you have NEVER answered my points in any manner that resolved them, nor has anyone else. PERIOD. Nothing to pretend about it. The NIFP is NOT equivalent to libertarianism. Try actually paying attention, man. *s*

    Here, Paulie, you are comitting to jingoism. Catch-phrases and sound-bytes are great for what they’re worth, but you CANNOT base a society on them. PERIOD.

    If you care to go into this discussion further, with more detail, please feel free to contact me offlist. E-mail: vizier_tae@yahoo.com. Include “Libertarianism = NIFP?” in your subject line.

    I’m done *here* for now.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    ”” if I was being raped by a 600 pound gorrilla whose dick had a 4-inch circumference and was a foot long

    Well then you are either a 600 pound gorilla yourself, or you’ll die from a perforated colon like the guy in Seattle with the horse.

    For now or not for now, the only way it can end is if you first state that you want it to end and do everything you can to end it, not just mitigate it.

    Who gets to decide what is force and how much response? An arbitration will sometimes be needed. Who gets to decide what’s constitutional or legal? There are no perfect systems, but that doesn’t invalidate the principle. It’s a goal to shoot for; if you don’t set it, you can’t reach it.

    I don’t care for long e-mail discussions with no audience. For one thing, I type slow and get carpal. This is about as detailed as I wish to get. If you want detailed, I’ve suggested books and articles. If you don’t want to talk on here, of course you’re free not to…others can make your point(s)?

  • GreginOz
  • Stuart Richards

    Of course I wouldn’t call anyone who supports tax extortion a libertarian. Not even close!

    Apparently we don’t have to worry about legalizing pot anymore, kids… orange crayons work just fine.

    Seriously though, WTF? Anyone that isn’t an anarchist can’t be libertarian? That’s a really tiny box of a world you’ve built for yourself.

  • Timothy West

    Anyone that isn’t an anarchist can’t be libertarian?

    YES. That’s the “unprincipled” shit they keep rappin about. and the tiny world they built is called the Libertarian Party.

    They want it to stay that way. Anyone who wants to change that is unprincipled. There’s only ONE principle at stake, you see. Theirs.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    If you believe you have the right to demand money from me at gunpoint, for whatever reason, even if you’ve never held a gun yourself, at least have the decency not to call yourself the one name in the world that stands opposed to such practices. How hard is that?

    I welcome anything you do to help legalize pot or end the wars overseas, so being an extreme anarchist does not mean we can’t build coalitions. It’s just a semantics/strategy disagreement we have about the role of third parties and ideological movements. It took a variety of strategies for socialists to succeed – some were moderate, some extreme, some infiltrated major parties and others had their own.*

    Greg – read Taibbi’s rant. He might have half a point if it weren’t for the even more abominable record of atheists in power, specifically communists. I sincerely hope he’s kidding when he talks about putting religious people in concentration camps and mental asylums. If not, he should read the Black Book of Communism.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    *BTW some of their most radical extreme parties – the communists – came to power in many countries. They also had different grades of socialists run numerous third parties simultaneously. If libertarians achieve success, it may well take different approaches being undertaken simultaneously.

    Learn from your enemies. For myself, I prefer that at least some beacon of truth shine. If it’s called something other than “libertarian” so be it, we can survive the loss of the term just as we survived the effective use of “left wing” and “liberal” – but I’d rather not give up another brand we worked hard to establish without a fight.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    The record of official atheism in the short time/space constraints where it has been allowed to rule. The only thing worse than *organized* religion…

    http://www.amazon.com/Book-Communism-Crimes-Terror-Repression/dp/0674076087

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

  • http://www.originaldrugmanualforkids.com JT Barrie

    Paying homage to a pathological liar? Turning churches into unpaid wings of the GOP isn’t what Jesus would have taught. If anything typified Jesus it would be avoidance of organize politics and repudiation of self serving religious dogma. But that doesn’t make parents feel good about themselves as much as putting down gays, promiscuous women, and the “drug lifestyle”. Using religion as an instrument of self glorification was the number one pitfall foreseen by the real Jesus and the real apostle Paul.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli
  • IanC

    Paulie — in each of those cases the atheism in question was in fact a Cult of the State. The state itself should be wholly atheist/secular; it should be *blind to the existance* of faith.

    That does NOT mean it has permission to suppress faith. There is a distinct, powerful difference there; in each of those cases you illustrate, religions were suppressed because THEY CONTESTED WITH THE STATE, and no other reason. That’s not atheism in and of itself. It’s The State in lieue of Jehovah.

    And as to arbitration and the NIFP — that in principle defies the NIFP as used/abused by the majority of people whom espouse it.

    As to holding a gun at your head — I demand the right to expect remuneration for obligations owed from legitimate services provided. The jury’s still not out on the issue of taxation *INHERENTLY*being theft, no matter how much people such as yourself INSIST on it being so.

    (cont’d)

  • IanC

    Paulie — as to the 600 pound gorrilla and horse-lovers (lol) …

    Either shit or get off the pot, chief. It’s one thing to have a declaration of what is wanted. But if declaring that only results in keeping the 600 pound gorilla, you really don’t want it gone.

    To return from the metaphor: Either you support “moving public policy in a libertarian direction” or you do not.

    If at every instance you decry something for not being absolute, or impure, or what-have-you, then in truth you advocate increased state authority.

    In this, I specifically denounce *YOU*, ‘paulie canolli’ as one whom fits this definition of the advocate of increased state authority.

    (Read: Smither, taxation, and NIFP-pledge-or-bust.)

    He whom refuses to act on his principles has none. Your principles refute action. You have none.

    How’s THAT sound for purism?

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    The state itself should be wholly atheist/secular;

    The state itself should not exist. While it exists, it should be neutral between various religious faiths and atheistic faith. That is, what I believe you mean by secular? It should be distinguished from atheistic, which is itself the affirmative faith that there is no god – thus distinguishing it from agnosticism (neutrality on the question).

    it should be *blind to the existance* of faith.

    I think I agree with you, but this is worded badly. It’s impossible to realistically ignore such large social phenomena as race, sexuality/gender and religion. I would agree that it ought not take sides.

    If you read the article Greg linked, Taibbi does in fact advocate that the state suppress religion, although I optimistically believe he is not serious.

    As to holding a gun at your head ”” I demand the right to expect remuneration for obligations owed from legitimate services provided.

    If I did not ask for them what (cont)

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    (cont from 43) to provide those services, what makes them legitimate? Apply this anywhere outside the realm of state action. Suppose you own a house. I declare myself the homebuilding and repairs monopoly for three thousand miles around. I enforce this monopoly by force. I come to your house and build a porch you did not ask for, charge several times what could be considered reasonable, and do an extremely shitty job (which also means I’ll be back frequently to demand more money for repairs and maintenance). Am I justified in demanding payment?

    http://www.geocities.com/yossarian70038/PIANOSA9/social_contract_1989.html

    As for your point that my principles refute action that is categorically false. I’m all for action, but the question is which action and when. I don’t accept all actions which on the surface or allegedly move incrementally in a libertarian direction as on balance doing so overall.

  • http://360.yahoo.com/pong_god Robert Mayer

    Paulie,

    Matt Taibbi is a very funny writer who often makes very good points, but I think in most cases you can’t take him too literally.

  • Timothy West

    The state itself should not exist.

    of course it should *exist*. Demanding it should not is useless in a political context, only a revolutionary one, for no one will ever vote in large enough numbers to get rid of it. You’ve had 35+ years to try. You havent even eliminated a speck of it, not a dot. But your mindset has reduced the ability of others to attempt to try through the political process.

    All one has to do is read the history of the LP itself to confirm this. It’s all there in black and white, and it stongly suggests that everytime the LP starts to get a bit of traction, those that achieved it are promptly attacked as unprincipled, just like “the reformers”. The most obvious example is Clark in 1980.

    Your premises are great in theory – but there’s never been a modern example of it in practice that worked. It cant be done. Mankind is too greedy, selfish, and flawed.

    Better a minimalist state. That has been done, and it worked rather well for almost 150 years.

  • IanC

    Paulie — you participate in the benefits, you pay for them. It’s that simple. Please note that we are not discussing *HOW THINGS ARE NOW* but rather *THE PROCESS ITSELF*. What you describe is an abuse of an otherwise legitimate system. That abuse is illegitimate, and this I have acknowledged multiply. Describing the *system* as illegitimate because of *ABUSES* of the system is abject falsehood.

    As to your refutation of the principle statement…
    1) Your defense was wholly impersonal in nature, which *IS* appreciated (unexpected given my tone previously, but I was making a point.)

    2) That point was to show you precisely how people in my position are placed by those like yourself whom demand absolute purity, and are accused of being “un-principled.” Imagine if the bulk of individuals agreed with my position. What headway would you make?

    3) The social contract argument has been made unto death. Your position on it is fallacious but that doesn’t belong here.

    (cont’d…)

  • IanC

    4) As Mr. West states… when there are no good options, and you continue to hold out for them, what you are advocating is *INACTION.* There are no good options **N** **O** **W**. What you advocate, *NOW*, is inaction. What you advocate, *NOW*, is the increase of the state. So how pure are your principles if *IN EFFECT* your actions result in the increased potential of the state to expand itself?

    To reiterate… [Me]: “He whom refuses to act on his principles has none. Your principles refute action. You have none.”

    Those like myself, whom are concerned with getting something, ANYTHING, be it even that blade of grass as we fall off the cliff, consider the situation *NOW* to be something considered. Anything that gets the ball rolling is *GOOD.*

    There is also the necessary awareness of cohesiveness. I will donate money to any “purist” whom is willing to put forth a non-’paper candidacy.’ Wether I agree with them is moot.

    Is it too much to ask that you do the same?

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    Demanding it should not is useless in a political context, only a revolutionary one, for no one will ever vote in large enough numbers to get rid of it.

    I would disagree those are my only two options, as I’ve stated elsewhere. Education, non-compliance, civil disobedience, monkeywrenching…there are lots of options.

    You’ve had 35+ years to try. You havent even eliminated a speck of it, not a dot.

    I would say we’ve raised the profile of some of our positions and quite possibly laid the groundwork for future success. I like to compare the state to an oak tree, which rots from the inside out. Even as its force is spent, it appears strong from the outside, but is ripe to be toppled. 35 years is a very short period of time historically. How long was abolitionism around?

    But your mindset has reduced the ability of others to attempt to try through the political process.

    Again I disagree. In negotiating, don’t give away your starting position in return for nothing.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    Mankind is too greedy, selfish, and flawed.

    Giving some people the “right” to initiate coercion against others does not make it less so.

    Better a minimalist state. That has been done, and it worked rather well for almost 150 years.

    I would say it’s failed. A limited state is like limited cancer.

    you participate in the benefits, you pay for them. It’s that simple.

    Did I ask for these “benefits”? Who is to judge whether I consider them such? Why can’t I choose a provider, if they are?

    Describing the *system* as illegitimate because of *ABUSES* of the system is abject falsehood.

    Correct. I consider the system illegitimate and abuse inevitable given the setup and human nature. What’s more, the system is geared to make the abuse worse over time.

    What you advocate, *NOW*, is inaction.

    Incorrect. Click on my name and scroll down. I advocate interim measures with some regularity.

    Anything that gets the ball rolling is *GOOD.*

    Not if…

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    (from 50)…it backfires and causes the boll to roll over you.

    I will donate money to any “purist” whom is willing to put forth a non-’paper candidacy.’ Wether I agree with them is moot.

    Is it too much to ask that you do the same?

    It depends on whether I think they would do more harm than good. For example, I believe some interim proposals, such as medical marijuana and citizen initiative, do more good than harm; whereas others, such as sales taxes and school vouchers, do more harm than good.

    In the case of Mr. Smither, I’m concerned that his stated goal of perpetuating a Republikkkan leadership in the House of Representatives would outweigh the likely good he could do as a lone Libertarian in the House. I’m also concerned that publicaly identifying the LP with the so-called “fair tax” plan may outweigh the benefit of having one representative. But, that does not mean I can’t be persuaded on these points. When it comes to strategy, I’m quite open minded.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    Matt Taibbi is a very funny writer who often makes very good points, but I think in most cases you can’t take him too literally.

    I realize this. That’s why I said that I optimistically don’t believe he’s serious. Nevertheless, I considered it worth pointing out that some people do take such proposals seriously, and thought it might be worthwhile to take a look at their track record.

  • Timothy West

    In negotiating, don’t give away your starting position in return for nothing.

    That’s not a starting position. (smashing the state) That’s a ending position. Thats what you hope to get from starting to negotiate in the first place.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    Starting position meaning what I’m asking for, that is, if I had it 100% my way. Ending position, yes, in the temporal sense.

  • Julian

    It appears to me that Paulie Cannoli’s position is that we should have no government because it is and cannot be flawless. If we have government, no matter how small, there is the real potential for corruption, abuse and denial of personal freedoms.

    Is this the same as denying a human his/her existence because that human is flawed? Because the person is imperfect either physically or mentally, we should not permit that person’s existence.

    I have tried to be open minded and follow his/her (what is the gender for real as Paulie is gender neutral?) arguments but they just seem to be mumbo jumbo to me. I guess all the education I have and my study of deductive reasoning is proving to be useless when trying to understand his/her position or am I just a plain old stupid Georgia redneck with no predisposition for deep political philosophy?

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    Julian, Paulie is not gender neutral. Ever watch the Sopranos or anything about New York or surrounding areas? It just means Paul. As I’ve signed here enough times. Sheesh! I know you wish to pretend I’m female so sorry to disappoint you.

    Is this the same as denying a human his/her existence because that human is flawed?

    So according to Julian governments are sentient beings with a right to life? Governments’ very existence is predicated on and composed of trampling on the rights of people. They are not living, breathing beings; they are coercive by their very nature; and they are unnecessary. What’s so hard to follow?

    I guess when you try hard enough to be ignorant, Julian, you are capable of success.

  • GreginOz

    So…is not Agorism a *viable* strategy in regards to ongoing minimilization of the State, including of course what Paulie calls ‘monkey-wrenching’ (I rather like that:-)?

    Re JayZeus, if there ever was one, imagine how quick Homeland Suckkkyourdickity would have ‘im (HA, avoid that pesky ‘to capitalise or not to capitalise’ question!) waterboarded after he wandered into the Fed Reserve!!! See, I can stay on topic, you lot…like herding friggin’ cats. Sigh.

  • Stuart Richards

    LOL I love you, Greg.

  • Mike G

    Worship a picture of President Bush? Doesnt the Bible speak against worshipping idols, much less worshipping idiots? Yeaaaaaah.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    It also speaks of churches being deceived into worshiping the antichrist in the end days.

  • Michelle Shinghal

    This is scary. From DMN letters:
    Where were you?

    My husband and I were shocked to see only 20 people in the Saturday night, prime-movie-time showing of Jesus Camp at the AMC Grapevine Mills 30. We were puzzled at why other Christians were not flooding the theater in support.

    This incredible documentary depicts the spiritual boot camp training of our children to pray and war in the spirit ”“ especially for our own President Bush ”“ and it includes additional training of the children to lay down their lives for the cause of Jesus Christ.

    Wake up, America! Islamic extremists are training their 5-year-olds to lay down their lives to kill infidels. These are the children who will face our own around the corner! Ask yourself, “Is my child prepared for what is ahead?”

    Linda Edwards, Arlington