The URL in the syllabus is no longer functioning. Download the article by Matt Taibbi here.
This article talks about American Evangelical Christianity and, more specifically, what the writer calls Christian Zionism. The group that Taibbi visits might be called “Fundamentalist,” although I never liked that term. Pentecostal, evangelical, radical, what else?
What did you like in this article, if anything? What did you dislike?
It reminds me of Jesus Camp or even the scenes in Borat where Borat gets “baptized in the Holy Spirit.”
These are not images of traditional Christianity, right? What are these images of?
How is the presentation of this article different from any other “anti-Christian” type of reporting that one might find in other media? We can assume that this article appeared in the print version of Rolling Stone magazine, although I’m not sure that it’s clear from the online article.
This article was originally posted online, and included with it a comments section. Often, online articles include a forum for response in a much more immediate sense than writing letters to the magazine affords. There is also much less gate-keeping, in terms of editorial control over the responses that are culled from such an article. In addition to this, there is less inhibition on the part of the respondants--they are anonymous posters online. Do you have an opinion of comments sections on the web in general?