Tornadoes and Jesus Camp

Two interesting events have happened to me this week. First, yesterday San Jose was struck by a tornado...this very rarely happens according to our friend Fred (a Tico). Two, I watched the documentary Jesus Camp. Each of these events follows on the heel of discussions I've had with friends. Respectively, I was describing to Shreya the two natural disasters I was most intrigued by: tornadoes and tsunamis. Less than a week later, San Jose is hit by a tornado. Then, I had several conversations with friends about the role of faith in our lives (a short transcript follows below). Amazingly, each of these 'happenings' (as the Japanese say) were brought to nexus in Jesus Camp, a short documentary about church camps in the Midwest. No doubt, church camps similar to those I grew up attending.

--------- BEGINNING OF CONVERSATION------
ME:
On faith in social activism and education: I personally think it is an important element of identity and has been left out of much dialogue on multiculturalism. It should be included in the discourse, and mainstreamed in certain spheres, as one additional identity that people hold. Hence, in addition to, not in place of, talks on race, gender, heterosexism, politics, ecology, etc., we should also talk about the role of faith in our lives. It is a contentious issue, as is faith in anything. To start, we should deconstruct the lexicon we use to convey images and meaning and the syntax it's packaged in. Is it inviting and opening, or is proselytizing and condemning? What does the word faith mean to each of us? (It will certainly have a different interpretation in each person.) Furthermore, What are the shared values between/underlying differing faith groups and how can they work together as forces for peacebuilding? The construction of such exchanges should be comprehensive, analyzing all identities each of us has (I am a white male, young, Kentuckian, US citizen, liberal, educator, traveler, brother, radical structuralist, etc, in one person--I am not simply one of these, nor is anyone else). Discourse ignoring the interface between these elements and the tremendous diversity within persons and faiths, in addition to between, is limited and anesthetized. I posit that it should be mainstreamed in organizations and educational institutions (comparative religions should be a course in the schools), but that it should not consume all of our efforts and be the only pardigm from which we depart. When such dialogue/curriculum is inititated it must be done in an honest manner; if it's coined interfaith, it should include Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Christianity, etc, not be an exchange between only Christians or certain denominations. And the means must be consistent with the ends...if we're proclaiming pluralism and democracy we can't live and learn in unity/standardized conditions and authoritarianism as our so schools often presuppose; the organizations must work in conjunction with peoples not above them, and must realize that education is neither apolitical, neutral, or even areligious. The classroom is a very politicized space, if we recognize it or not.

RESPONSE:
First, I found it interesting that you did not include certain lables of yourself (I assume you were not intending to be exhaustive, but the ommissions are interesting: First, you did not lable yourself as an monolingual, bilingual or multilingual- which I believe has a strong impact on our lives. Secondly, you did not mention what religious affiliation you have, if any. Not that I need to know, but it was an interesting ommission given the topic! Secondly, and only loosly related to your email, i have been reading a book "Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World" which follows the ebb and flow of languages through social, cultural and technological changes. The last chapter I read said that "the 'Shield of Faith' is a strategy for maintaining languages that would otherwise become extinct due to political or other pressure. They specifically focused on Coptic in Egypt, Ge'ez in Ethiopia, Welsh in Argentina and Pennsylvania Dutch in the US. These languages have remained (at least in these locations) largely because of the bible being translated into them and people using them to maintain their faith. Hebrew is another example as a language that has survived the diaspora. The next chapter I am reading is on Arabic, so I am sure it will be interesting to see how this language was influenced by the spread of Islam. More in response to your email, I agree with you that it would not be possible, even if we wanted to, to avoid religion in social spheres. I am not a very religious person, but i was raised as a catholic who only goes to church about once a year and for weddings. The tradition i feel most strongly about is being a godparent, however, i dont assist in the spiritual upbringing of my godson... I was very annoyed to see obama, clinton and edwards attending the politics and religion interview on cnn. as much as one cannot avoid religion, i still believe strongly in a respectable separation between church and state.

MY RESPONSE:
I purposefully omitted the faith identity, as I don't identify with any one faith; I identify as having faith (more in the secular sense) but not with any particular group, though I grew up Southern Baptist. I also agree that language is a very important id that influences nearly every aspect of our understanding...was just trying to be brief in my list. I do think the presidential candidates should publicly discuss religion but the way in which it is framed should be critically analyzed. It's usually from a Christian perspective alone, is not pluralist; and it is this reason that I believe ignoring the role of Christianity in State policy and international affairs is extremely dangerous, because US policy is largely Christian or at least perceived by other nations as such. Many times we take the 'separation of church and state' concept to mean the State is not propagating religion in any way. This simply is not true. Though, as you say, I do think it is in our best interests to have secular governments, but as much as governments are made up of people they reflect the ids of those in office. Take Globalization, for instance, the US is the major driving force behind this; it is destructive to foreign communities, their identities, religions, languages, economic systems, etc.; it is racist in practice and is subtly Christian. Many of the MNCs operate with Christian values so to speak. I agree that the State should not be involved within any one religion and definitely should not act as a proselytizing force. However, the interpretation of 'separation of church and state' is usually manifest in silencing conversations and serious social discourse on the issue of faith. Take for instance the enforcement of the policy in schools: no discussion on faith may be initiated by instructors or administration. For what reason? This limits the analysis of faith's presence and creates an ignorant, unarticulative populace when it comes to faith. Are you familiar with 'color blind' policies? They're national and corporate policies that ignore the role of race in forming social and political power dynamics and access to goods and equal opportunity in life. The notion is that we're all the same and that race should not be taken into account in any sphere, because since we are all the same, we're not treated differently--but of course we all know this is farce. White men primarily, and patriarchy, control the social and governmental institutions; minoritites don't have access to the highest offices, and those that do often emulate White men or they're trophies. Race impacts the opportunity of all marginalized groups, despite all the rhetoric out there claiming the end of racism. In the end, I completely agree with you that we have to be cautious in how we handle faith and talk about it.

HER FINAL RESPONSE
Yes, I know exactly what you mean by the color blind policy. I took a current literacy theory course last semester and we talked a lot about the negative effects of supressing racial inequality by calling ourselves colorblind. frankly, i really hadn't
connected that same effect to religion. i absolutely agree that we/children/adults should learn about various religions and about the concept of religion in general, and historically- whichever way it can be analysed. i guess what i was thinking in the last email, and what i think you stated a little more clearly, is that politicians and the government do not discuss religion criticially very often. i took a world religions class in college and really enjoyed it. since then, i have mostly talked comparative religion with my saudi students. i really enjoy this- one of my students had to analyse the painting of the last supper, and a satire on this painting with star wars characters replacing each religious figure. it was fascintating to see how each religious figure was represented in our respective religions, and how the star war characters brought new meaning to the painting!

(At this point the conversation diverges to thoughts on Japan and xenophobia, and Bush and Sudan....)

----------END OF CONVERSATION--------

Much of what was said in the transcript above is touched on in Jesus Camp. In the end, it is a great documentary far too close to the experiences I had as a child with church and politics in rural Kentucky. I.e. Republican=good Christian; Democrat=secularist. Therefore, nothing else matters and we should all be obediant Republicans. Additionally, you see in the film how the church is propagating Bush as the return of Christian principles and leadership to the US, how the kids connect the church with the military, and how all of this is embodied in the notion that the US was founded by Christians on Christian values and hence should return to this radical hertitage.

Now...why all the excitement over the tornado in San Jose? Primarily, because it's further empirical proof that climate change is radically occurring, yet many of our cultures wish to ignore this phenomenon or brush it off as overbloated-liberal-'doomsday-ish'-rhetoric. Jesus Camp comments in several iterations about global warming (to the feel that they believe it to be exaggerated or cooked-up); this commentary on global warming, politics, religion, the arts (the church camp in the film denounced Harry Potter as evil), etc., illustrates the argument made above very well. Moreover, I am sincerely amused by the fact that if when people become aware of issues going on around them, the problems become so bright and plainly visible; but if people are focused too much on other, lesser enigmas, the important issues slip right past them (thus the power of decoys and spectatorship in politics). It's essentially a type of conscientization, and I'm always intrigued by how, when illuminated, everything comes together so well, like a jigsaw puzzle. More on the film....

CRITIQUE OF JESUS CAMP: THE DOCUMENTARY
All this being said, the film is actually quite annoying. Though it offers tremendous insight into fundamental evangelical youth movements, the directors talk over the film the entire way through, disrupting the flow so that you miss what is actually going on behind their blah, blah, blah. Furthermore, the directors are appropriating what Jesus Camp means by making their commentary about the actual events--they talk so much you don't hear the 'characters' statements. It's very annoying, and further, they aren't even saying anything of worth; they just keep qualifying everything with lame, inconsequential adjectives. Nonetheless, it's certainly worth the hour to watch it.