Shock rocker Alice Cooper is funding a $3 million youth center in Phoenix to be called The Rock. Not surprisingly, students will have a chance to learn how to play guitar. Perhaps surprisingly, students will also be introduced to Christianity through on-staff counselors. “We are overtly Christian,” he says, “but we’re not going to beat you over the head with a Bible.”
It’s not surprising for Cooper, who said he became a born-again Christian 16 years ago. In 1995, he founded Solid Rock Foundation, a non-profit organization that provides money to children’s causes and college scholarships to Christian students. Cooper still admits that many may be wary of him promoting morality. “It’s a great juxtaposition,” he says. “Trust me, I walk that tightrope every day. Part of the fun is the edge of it.”
I doubt he’s pushing your sort of Christianity.
I don’t know what “sort” of Christianity he represents. Most people that define themselves as “born again” are usually fairly conservative in their theology. I don’t care if he promotes exactly what I believe or not. If he is helping troubled teens and he is introducing them to Christianity, I am all for it.
Well, helping troubled teens is good. Introducing them to Christianity obviously isn’t. It leads to further troubles of a different variety.
Yes, teens coming to a center and being introduced to Christianity is obviously a bad thing. Why not just give them all iPods with sexually charged songs? That will do the trick.
Aaron,
I think it’s quite clear that introducing children to Christianity warps them, because all they learn is hatred of those that are different. Go to a Young Life meeting sometime – those are little clones running around, spewing forth exactly what they’ve heard. There’s absolutely no critical thought involved.
Giving children a place to go is fine; making them pray that gays convert to straightness is something else altogether. But I don’t think Alice Cooper is doing that sort of thing. He seems like to nice a guy.
because all they learn is hatred of those that are different.
This is liberal lingo for “learn right from wrong.”
*** Polemic on ***
Yes, in liberal parlance, the only moral wrongs are to disapprove of sexual perversions, to prevent people from killing their children, and to refuse their right to make a socialist government the savior of the irresponsible and morally debased, at the expense of those who want to live freely and responsibly.
Liberal politics used to be in some ways admirable – now it is the supporter of sexual debauchery, infanticide, and neuvo-socialism. It is an embarassment to people of intellect, a shame to it’s heritage, and an affront to God and people of morality and faith.
Giving children a place to go is fine; making them pray that gays convert to straightness is something else altogether. But I don’t think Alice Cooper is doing that sort of thing. He seems like to nice a guy.
Yeah, he wouldn’t be so mean as to preach sexual purity and stuff like that. Of course, his Solid Rock Foundation is partnered with Child Evanglism Fellowship, who I’m sure preach such awful stuff. Maybe Alice Cooper isn’t nice enough to stick to relief work and stay away from the icky gospel stuff.
However, I do want to acknowledge that places like Young Life scare me a little – I don’t want my kids to be evangelical drones. While I want to inspire them with good works and sensical doctrine, I want them to learn to think for themselves rather than be parrots in the “let’s make mommy and God happy” club.
But when they get into the pre-teens, I am all for programs that inspire them to sexual purity, like the True Love Waits programs, as well as inspiring them to do great things for humanity and God.
And teaching kids that homosexuality is a dysfunction that can and should be healed is also fine with me because I believe it to be true. They don’t have to learn to despise people different, but in fact, need to pity them as being caught in the snare of sin just like all and any of us can be.
You don’t despise the sick, you bring them medicine. If they refuse persistently, sometimes the best choice is to shake the dust off of your feet and move on. You can’t make people change or act with wisdom, you can only offer it.
I’ve never been to a Young Life meeting. Do they chant, “Jesus hates different people?”
Young Life breeds sameness. I'm not sure I can effectively write about how awful sameness is, but it just…well, it sucks. Whatever Liberal youth groups that are out there give me exactly the same feeling. I hate it when everybody I'm interracting with is exactly the same. That bores me to tears.
Which is one of the many reasons that I love gays.
What if everyone around you is gay – is that not sameness as well?
Where would I be, exactly, that everybody surrounding me would be gay? My point is that I like having a variety of people to interact with here in America. And groups like Young Life? Well, they're not interested in that. They're interested in teaching sameness to everybody. And you know who else is interested in sameness? Liberals. And conservatives. Everybody wants everybody else to be the same, and if they refuse, to force them to be the same. I don't understand that sort of thinking. Christianity isn't alone in trying to ruin that which makes America great.
P-town, San Francisco? I don't know it just struck me as odd that you said you love gay people because you like being surrounded by "different." Do you ever engage and interact one-on-one with Christians? Or are they too same to be part of the "different?"
Gosh Aaron, I cannot think of a group of Christians whom I regularly interact with. Daily. Online. I just can't think of anybody who fits that description.
Also, this may come as a surprise to you, but everybody in San Francisco, and Provincetown, isn't gay. True story. I've never been to San Fran, but P-Town was Fabulous. Lots of people, OUT and about, comfortable and friendly. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, I guess.
I know everyone there isn't gay. It was a small, poor joke I guess. I did read a story recently about P-town where they were trying to squash "different" there.
Yes, I know you talk and discuss with us here, but it is different from interaction with people face to face. This is good and I enjoy it, but I think you get a different picture of someone when you sit down and talk with them, instead of read what they type.
Whatever Liberal youth groups that are out there give me exactly the same feeling. I hate it when everybody I'm interracting with is exactly the same
I think there are a few reasons why this sameness exists, some defensible and some not:
1. Teens have a developmental need for a somewhat homogenous peer group.
Developmentally speaking, tweens and teens are in a period of identity moratorium, and while they are trying to figure out whom they want to become, they feel very insecure, and group identity helps them feel safe. So this sameness dynamic is actually somewhat safe for them.
2. All ideologically-driven organizations have a tendency towards homogeneity
This is a sad but true condition, that is caused by both the practical need for such (you can't cater to everyone's needs), and by the fact that leaders are often lazy and promote external sameness because genuine spirituality that allows for differences is more work ;). Unfortunately, this is a human tendency that needs to be consciously countered.
One of the refreshing things about my time in Youth With A Mission (YWAM) was their total LACK of homogenieity – when I got to their University in Hawaii, I saw many races, I saw girls with punk haircuts, guys with long and short hair, people dressed up and down (mostly down, it was Hawaii) – they emphasized the internal characteristics of spirituality, not the externals.
3. People often confuse unity with uniformity.
While narrow or dying churches often emphasize uniformity, which is unhealthy, unity of purpose with diversity of people is what healthy churches aim for. I think critics of churches sometimes mistake unity with uniformity, and of course, some churches make the opposite mistake, thinking that you must have uniformity to have unity, which is BOgus.
Aaron,
That story about P-Town was interesting, because it yet again showed that gays are no different from straights when it comes to harboring ill will, logical or otherwise. What's funny is the reaction from conservatives, conservatives who couldn't care less when rednecks are screaming "Nigger" at passing blacks suddenly start to be offended by gays screaming "Breeder" at passing straights. Pretty telling.
conservatives who couldn't care less when rednecks are screaming "Nigger" at passing blacks suddenly start to be offended by gays screaming "Breeder" at passing straights.
Who says conservatives aren't concerned about those using epithets like nigger, fag, or breeder? I certainly don't use such language (well, maybe when I'm mouthing the words to the latest yung joc song :), and I disapprove of those who do, for sure.
But the conservative reaction to "breeder" isn't really because it is being used as an epithet. Rather, it is because of the radical anti-nature quality of it – it's like saying "breather" – we are born to breed baby, just like we are born to eat and breathe.
To accuse people of "breeding" is not only anti-sensical and anti-nature, it plays right in to the whole Romans 1 description of those who have left their senses to pursue unnatural acts (homosexuality), and who have descended into illogic.
Another reason why conservatives react to the whole "breeder" thing is because it has roots in the whole Overpopulation Myth, which is a main motivator behind the genocidal, anti-human and anti-life policies of abortion proponents and other "population control" freaks. "Breeders", they say, are the problem, rather than the corrupt and selfish men and governements who misappropriate resources and abuse their people.
I don't want to get off into a tangent about birth control in developing countries (since it may be necessary in the short run, but it's not a long term solution), but needless to say, the term "breeder" has, in the minds of conservatives, lots of connections to other objectionable ideologies, including the anti-human population arguments, the anti-child abortion arguments, and the laissez faire attitude to promiscuity embodied in the whole condom-pushing liberal program.
Yeah, well, you're right Seeker, the use of "Breeder" is certainly as offensive, and probably more so, than the use of "Nigger" by idiotic rednecks. Thanks for clearing that up. Why just today I was remembering the gay lynch mobs who oppressed innocent straights for hundreds of years…