[Buddha-l] [Fwd: [skepnet] Documentaire: Jesus Camp (2006)]

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Joy Vriens schreef:
> According to Régis Debray, and who am I to not believe him, religions are mainly about building a group identity. 
>   
I agree with you here, I think it was Dürkheim who first articulated the 
relation between tribal consciousness and religion. I wonder if that can 
be an excuse, several mild and respectable rituals have cruel and 
primitive backgrounds, but that doesn't give the people the right to 
evoke the meanings of yesteryear.
>  But when you come to think of it, how is it possible that those eroded religions have been built on the foundations of a hardcore religion and evolved out of it and are still considered as being that same religion. It seems to me that the substance of this connection is simply group identity. If as a religion your ennemy tells you that there is religion and religion and that yours is ok, then you may wonder what is left of your original hardcore religion?
>   
This is the machinery of rituals, where the act becomes a metaphore. The 
transformations of signifiers in hinduism are wellknown and part of the 
Vedas or Samhitas (Aranyakas), but I think it's also one of the meanings 
of the myth of Abraham and Isac.
> If you dig a bit into any religion, dig, not superficially look at the image they give to the outside world, then you will be astounded at all the madness you discover.  
>   
No argument here. But in many rituals the meaning has become uncertain 
and has to be revived again. This gives an excellent opportunity to fill 
in another agenda and in many cases like here I suspect this is 
motivated by resentment and spite.
>> I hope there are no Buddhacamps anywhere in the world. 
>>     
> I noticed the special effort that was put into making the children feel special. They were special individually, their generation was special etc. And I was reminded how at the beginning of basically every Buddhist teaching we were reminded of the opportunity we had to be born human, to have met this particular form of Buddhism, this particular form of Tibetan Buddhism and this particular teacher. As for the military aspects, I will invite you to have a closer look at the Kalacakra teachings. Don't stop at the surface, dig further, don't buy all the spiritual interpretations of the symbolism. Does spirituality really need such a heavy infrastructure to be passed on?  
>   
Good point, Tibetans could object that they don't say that they're 
chosen, but that they merely have an excellent opportunity to achieve 
something. I noticed the Shiv Sen atmosphere in the Kalacakra too, do 
you know people who take it litterally and sort of prepare themselves 
for war?
>> the fact that everybody still looks happy doesn't prove anthing,  
>> Hitlerjugend also used to look very happy. 
>>     
In comparison, look at the youth in the West (moody bored adolescents, "hangjeugd" etc.), who are daily equaly coached and manipulated to become manpower and consumers. What we can learn from that? 

That smoking pot isn't as healthy as we thought in the sixties. In some countries they even kill each other. But I think you're a bit unfair. Children who go to a camp usually are quite happy, whether it are boyscouts or a birdspottersweekend or a baseballtraining or whatever. They get attention, support and they can do things they like in a close and safe group. The young gangsters are those whose parents cannot afford a camp or just don't care. 


> The treatment of other group members by a group has its importance. I don't think the Evangelical Christians have a bad score at all in that field. Is their rejection of the ennemy (Muslims) stronger than that in hinduism? I don't know, the Evangelical Christians stand nearer to us and that is why we (I include myself) feel a stronger rejection towards them, but as for the bare facts, are they really that bad?
>   
The mind of an E.C. is like a black box to me. I wonder if atheïsts are not their main ennemy or maybe Texan philosophy professors. I know some hindus and they tell me that they've no beef with muslims per se, but only with those who threaten their way of life. But then again they also hate christian missionaries and dalits who consider themselves not hindus. 
There's a side to this which is not confined to E.C.'s, I admit. Zygmunt Bauman calls this postmodernism. In modernism there was a  direction for history and a goal to be attained. Then there were the rational means to get there. Now truth and illusion are entwined never to be separated again. It's like a social Law of Gödel: every goal needs another one, and so does every justification and every truth. The media have developed into infosoaps. One way to escape this is blind belief, just convince yourself of anything to get rid of this nasty nagging feeling of inadequacy and incertainty. Some beliefsystems make me more worried then others however, especially the more millitant ones, but then again it may not always be right to put all the blame on the believers.

Erik


www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
weblog http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950
products: http://stores.lulu.com/jehmsstudio