Talk:Battle Cry Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


WikiProject Christianity / Charismatic (Rated B-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.
 

Defining position on Theocracy[edit]

Does anyone have information on the intentions of this group in relation to theocracy? From this point of view, one could say Battle Cry Campaign seeks a form of electoralism to influence secular politics in its recruitment drive. It is basically a question of getting enough voters to sway elections.

--220.239.179.128 (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Luce (founder of Teen Mania Ministries) said on Fox News, in a discussion with Sunsara Taylor (a representative of the organization World Can't Wait) mediated by Bill O'Reilly [1] that BattleCry was not a political group and had no interest in a theocratic government. (Sethc87 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
The very same day Luce made that claim on Fox News, he spoke at a political conference run by Vision America. Later that same year, Luce spoke at the political conference run by Family Research Council's lobbying arm. An obvious reason for his appearance at both of these events was to call for political action. Then there's last Friday's event in Times Square, that included sending a list of "questions" to Presidential candidates that, in effect, serve as calls for action by political leaders; this is obviously a political act, this time, with full involvement of the organization, with Teen Mania's name fully attached to the mailing. Two years ago, Luce apparently tried to leave the impression that his organization's involvement in politics is zero, and that is demonstrably not true; one of the many things he and his organization are doing involve activity in the political arena, cultivating relationships with politicians, along with, in at least one case, encouraging his audience to become involved in political matters. Much of this is detailed in the article with numerous citations. The focus here, particularly for the purposes of this article, should be on the facts of what the organization is doing and saying, rather than trying to characterize Luce and his organization with preconceived, poorly-defined notions such as "theocracy" which holds different meanings across subsets of people and communities. Mike Doughney (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible article split[edit]

Seeing as the BattleCry website has grown into more of a social networking site while still remaining part of the Battle Cry organization, I believe there should be more coverage of it in the article and possibly split it into two articles: Battle Cry organization and Battle Cry website. (Sethc87 (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Well, The Wikipedia's notability (for inclusion) guidelines for web sites states in short:
Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
Please see WP:WEB for more info. Frankly it would seem pretty doubtful that the Battle Cry Website has sufficient notability outside of the BattleCry organization itself, particularly if it basically serves as a "social networking site" for BattleCry participants, registrants, and the Teen Mania staff. Nevertheless if you can come up with some convincing assertions of notability, then by all means we can give it a try. I would suggest first expanding on the nature of the BattleCry Web Site in a separate section of the main article. If as a result the article becomes too big and cumbersome, then that might become justification for splitting it off into a separate article. Since notability "is not inherited" from "parent" to child" articles, the candidate Web Site Article would have to show a lot of notability to pass muster in a notability discussion in an article for deletion debate, which can be brutal. Frankly very few corporations and organizations have separate articles about their web sites. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How militant is Battle Cry?[edit]

Battle Cry is just starting up, so it's not yet clear how militant it will become. The leader, Ron Luce, has advocated disruptive non-violent protest in the past [2]. The language gets aggressive at times: "A R.I.O.T. Squad is a group of wild teens who want to stir up some trouble for the devil. They are tired of living a boring Christian life and they want some action." This is a concern. There's no verified track record of violence. But Luce is forging a weapon. What will he do with it? --John Nagle 18:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You would really need to try to understand the concept of "spiritual warfare" before you can begin to understand the "weapon" metaphors that Ron Luce and other evangelistic Christian ministers use in sermons and exhortations. Christianity teaches that there is an ongoing spiritual war for the souls of mankind, and some sects and denominations teach that there are "demonic forces" at work. One example in Christian literature that illustrates the principle is Frank Peretti's novel This Present Darkness (and others in the series). The "fight" that Luce promotes is against personal sin and immorality, and in actively avoiding placing oneself in positions of temptation. The "weapons" that Luce speaks of are spiritual tools that provide teens with means to resist their temptations, and to help their friends to resist as well.
Luce explains that some cultural icons (such as MTV, prom night, etc.) tend to promote and encourage immorality (and illegal activity) among young people (eg: underage drinking, drug use, rampant sexual activity, "date rape", etc.), and that young people are being desensitized by non-stop imagery and immoral role models provided in the media. The "action" is in the teen's personal lives, as they engage in prayer and ministry to each other, to overcome their temptations, and to live Christlike Godly lives. The plan is to "stir up some trouble for the devil (demonic forces)" by forming and growing active networked Christian youth groups, to the point where the majority of teens are striving to live Godly lives, rather than living enslaved in immorality and despair. These teens want to be freed from the bondage of sin. That is "the action". Did you look up what R.I.O.T. stood for - or just assume it meant something bad?
The sad fact is most youth groups now are pretty boring - averaging 12 members and a leader or two, sitting in a circle singing "Kumbaya" or something. Todays teens want something a little more loud and interesting - something that can "compete" with MTV, the Internet, and other audio visual media. The Battle Cry goal is to establish 100,000 networked youth groups, with 300+ members each, for 30+ million teens committed to living Godly lives. That is a lot of work to do, and that is what Battle Cry is working to achieve. Even though Battle Cry itself is a relatively new manifestation of an old principle, the Teen Mania Acquire the Fire ministry activities and medium-large venue youth rallys have been around for some 20 years, and have been hosting similar large venue Christian youth rallys (such as the 1999 national "Day One" giant youth rally held in Detroit at the Pontiac Silverdome shortly after the Columbine high school massacre). It is understandably difficult to imagine (unless you have personally seen it) how dynamic and inspirational a room full of 300+ screaming teenagers can be, much less a stadium full of 30,000+, when they are "getting crazy" for God. Anyway it is a lot of work to do, and it is what Battle Cry is working to achieve.
It would seem to be rather shallow and paranoid to assume concern that, because there's no verified track record of violence, and no public advocacy of violence, then there might or must be some kind of covert, surreptitious, underground hidden agenda or "weapon" being "forged" by Luce in preparation for "militant" youth violence or some other dreadful thing. Posting curious little conditionally toned phrases like "...does not publicly condone violence" and "There's no verified track record of violence" clearly implies (and readers are supposed to infer) that something must be going on covertly on the inside that we on the outside are not allowed to know about. That is an old yellow journalism trick, quietly planting a seed of doubt, in order to make a subliminal point in the minds of the readers. And although there will certainly be some disagreement as to the Luce's methods and his Christian message, it is still permissible (and encouraged) in the context of freedom of speech and religion. In any case, thank you very much for creating the Ron Luce -related articles, I enjoyed contributing my personal knowlege on these subjects, and providing clarifications and reference links, and now defending the man and the organization - which is easy: there is simply nothing going on that needs to be defended, that's why there is no "evidence" of anything going on. Again, Battle Cry is simply the latest "banner" youth rally manifestation of the 20-year ongoing message of the Teen Mania / Acquire The Fire youth ministry program, re-tailored and repackaged for the current generation of teens. Oh and by the way - Acquire The Fire does NOT mean set fire to things either. It means "get on fire for God", but I am too tired to have to explain that right now. --T-dot 04:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Too early to say where this movement is going. The combination of certainty of rightousness, organization for group action, and the trappings of fanaticism is troubling. Historically, that's a bad combination. --John Nagle 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple of brief notes. First, on terminology. Calling Battle Cry an 'organization' is inaccurate; it's just the extension of Teen Mania's ongoing activities. Their terminology, more accurate I think, is that of "project" or "initiative," or "coalition" if referring to the involvement of other high-profile personalities and organizations.

Second, regarding T-dot's defense of "spiritual warfare" and its relevance to Teen Mania's current activities. It would be one thing if what Ron Luce was saying could be exclusively viewed in that context; that is no longer possible. He has now gone on record during the stadium events (San Francisco and Detroit) as advocating that young people get involved in the so-called "culture war" and at that point the effects are far beyond the "spiritual." Teen Mania advocates both the spiritual and the social-political conflict, but to my ear most of what's being said by Luce right now ultimately has little to do with the spiritual aspect.

Likewise with regard to the advocacy of violence, or not. There is a torrent of symbiology and language in Teen Mania's events - perhaps most notably, the entire staged firefight scene at the finale of the '04-'05 season ATF - that in that case, is followed by the observation by the central character that the confict he's been dreaming about is somehow "real." It isn't "yellow journalism" to observe and report that a call to action in the political and social sphere is being made with this torrent of images of actual war, with images of what are in real-life actual weapons and hardware, and a deliberate blurring between the real and these images of violence is being made. There is a reason why people are calling Teen Mania 'fascist' in some way, and it's the imagery, the flags, the attitude, and not to mention, the fact that in San Francisco Ron Luce made his pronouncement from the scene of a previous act of violence that was part of the same "culture war" he's advocating participating in - the assassination of Harvey Milk.

I've been observing Teen Mania for some years now, attended, for research purposes, a number of the "Acquire the Fire" and stadium events (including the one in Pontiac mentioned above) and am the co-creator of acquiretheevidence.com and, previously, barf.org. --Mike Doughney 02:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, well if Ron Luce and his various ministry outreach programs have such a horrifying and frightening PR image among outsiders, observers, and skeptics, apparently appearing to be militant neo-con neo-nazi militia types bent on conducting assassinations, and the destruction of freedom, liberty and justice in America, then that is another very serious problem that will have to be addressed at the ministry headquarters. T-dot has also been very closely connected and involved with Luce's and other similar Christian youth ministry outreach programs for 25+ years, and has not yet detected that particularly subtle and evil-within vibe. Admittedly the Programs tend to contain a lot of hype and bluster in conveying the message of personal holiness, just have not picked up on the plans for violent confrontations and overthrow yet. Must be a serious lack of the gift of discernment on my part. So - please feel free to Post Away! with slander, rumor, and gossip as you wish. Oh - here's another lead to chase down: we heard some of these "christians" say they actually drink the blood of a lamb that was sacrificed to pay for for all their evil deeds! They celebrate this during "Easter" of all things - instead of chasing bunnies and coloring eggs! Better dig into that one, real deep. --T-dot 22:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
A little harsh on Mike there, aren't we? I think the main point here is that the symbolism employed by Battle Cry, combined with their goals tend to blur critical lines between a metaphorical army and an actual army in ways that are disturbing for the general public. Rile people up to think of themselves as soldiers enough and you may be surprised at the events that follow, ala Zimbardo. ^_~
- Mewtwo_X
How funny. Does anyone have a hymn book handy? I believe hymnals are full of violence and literal armies that are ready to fight till the death. Why not protest hymnals and songs that have been written decades and even centuries ago? What I see with the biased, left-wing media is fear from students and the young people in America. I asked my good pal Google about the San Francisco protest and the first page listed was titled: Battle Cry Christian Extremists... NBC's Today Show and CNN had nothing bad to say about the demonstrators and (yes this is a bit biased but) the Bill O'Reilly bashed the counterdemonstrators for being so hypocritical. But why worry when only "4% of America's teens are followers of Christ"? When I saw this, I couldn't help but feel sad for the country. How are we going to be tolerant to all people when even the most extremely "tolerant" activists bash minors because of their religion. Pathetic for the adults who did nothing in the 70's and 80's and pathetic for such tolerant groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nissi Kim (talkcontribs)
A lot of the points you bring up seem to be strawmen of the actual argument going on, Nissi. People find Battle Cry disturbing today because they are currently active and working under heavy military symbolism, which could encourage militant stances on issues involving Christianity. Hymns are depictions of battles which don't necessarily encourage people to be violent, nor are they an actual threat to societies. Now Hymns that encourage people to start wars against people for theology would be a different issue and could be construed as inciting hatred.
Also, the "bashing" against Battle Cry is not for being Christian, but for mixing militant symbolism with Evangelical Christian doctrine, which in itself can have unnerving consequences. As I said before, its an echo of what we learned from the experiments of Zimbardo: Get people riled up enough to think of themselves as armies and they'll actually act like an army, think like an army, become an army.
We don't need a small-scale repeat of the Crusades, now do we?
- Mewtwo_X
If you're scared because a ideological group rides on military metaphors, then what happened to W.E.B. Dubois, the Black Panthers, and Malcolm X? Terrorism never wins. History blatantly shows us that.
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/s/t/standufj.htm for the music and history.
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/n/onwardcs.htm for the music and history.
I took the courtesy of finding some lyrics. Tell me if that is not directed at certain people/ideas.
Why waste your energy fighting something harmless like this. They're not out to kill you or destroy you. I'd say military metaphors used in sports is more scarier than someone attacking the "evils and Satans" in the world. The way I see it is the better teens act in my generation, the less problems they'll be in the future. Like someone said, the First Amendment rights are given to everyone, not just the minority and the liberals. --Nissi Kim 20:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, alot of the backlash against Battle Cry has to do with what the future of the movement, and its motives therein. Yes, they are allowed freedom of speech, but the way Luce talks seems dedicated to the opression of free speech, because, if they do gain enough power, what is to stop them rallying against outlets such as MTV or the pornographic industry? Granted, it will take alot for them to actually get this far, but keep an eye on them, they are dedicated and the Honor Academy does put a focus on situating interns in governing positions (Rolling Stone April 9th, 2007). An immediate outcry would be a bit much, but who knows down the road. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.49.31 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC).


Quick answer: Battle Cry are domestic terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.186.69 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle Cry and Xianz - connection?[edit]

Something is going on with Battle Cry and Xianz. Until the recent rallies, Battle Cry had their own forums. Then they relaunched their web site, linking to Xianz. Now they don't seem to be connected to Xianz. Meanwhile, Xianz now says they're "in beta". So I added a note that the link between Xianz and Battle Cry now seems unclear. --John Nagle 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no mention of xianz at the two Battle Cry events thus far, nor have I seen any mention of it in any other Teen Mania materials in the past, included printed materials such as the event program/"manual" - if it was there, I certainly missed it - and there is none now. The only thing being promoted as an online service by Teen Mania now is battlecry.com, including a full-blown live demo of the site on stage during the finale of the stadium events. Edited the entry to delete reference to Xianz and repoint the link. --Mike Doughney 03:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense. Xianz, the site, has very little information about who's behind it. Even their "terms" page doesn't say. But the domain is registered to the CEO of Praize, Inc, which runs Praize.com, a search/IM/blog/forum site with a Christian orientation run out of Canada. If you have a Praize account, you can get an Xianz account. So they're probably connected. Xianz itself is back in "beta" until late May, limiting new accounts until the system is ready. --John Nagle 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a reference to Xianz in one of Battle Cry's forums [3]but that's a member posting, not an official statement.
Xianz, incidentally, has a multi-level-marketing aspect. You have to be "invited", and who invited you is a piece of public information. So members have a "downline", the subtree of all the people they've recruited. Unclear what this info is for. Xianz also runs banner ads for something called Maximum Success, which is some kind of Christian make-money-fast scheme. --John Nagle 03:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Lobbying[edit]

Noted that Battle Cry has a legislative agenda.[4]. If any information on bills introduced or specific lobbying activity is available, it should be added to the article. --John Nagle 03:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Teen Mania is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, so they can't do much lobbying. --John Nagle 03:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

WorldChanger edits[edit]

Reverted to version before WorldChanger (talk · contribs) edits. A bit too much point of view there. Note that WorldChanger is a new account and has only edited articles associated with Battle Cry and its parent organization.

Until now, the article seemed to have converged on a reasonably neutral position between the pro- and anti-Battle Cry positions, as expressed on the talk page. We should try to stay close to that. Thanks. --John Nagle 07:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of WorldChanger (talk · contribs) edits may have seemed non-NPOV to you, but what speaks much louder is your total disregard for that User's edits, and your and blanket reversion of everything "he" had to say, justifying that by saying - well it "is a new account". Please review the Wikipedia's guidelines on not biting the newcomers. On the other hand, the User may not be as new as you think: WorldChanger may well be a sockpuppet of another user, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Many users use sockpuppets to compartmentalize their edits. That is completely acceptable, and certainly encouraged by the Wikipedia to help protect the privacy of the User. Anyway it seems you may have become a little too close to "owning" the article, refusing to allow other "new" editors a chance to contribute their thoughts and views. You probably should go back and review the NPOV guidelines yourself, and tone down your own approach, and reconsider some of your own edits, which still have the tone of a "hostile" reporter going after "exposing" a secret paramilitary cult in order to sell a story, rather than simply stating what the Organization is all about. There is nothing wrong with stating the Battle Cry's views, directly and unfiltered through your dark glasses of suspicion, even if those tenents offend your personal sensibilities. Sometimes when older editors have been "around" for a while, we get a little cranky about "these young whippersnappers" coming in and ruining everything. When you have to resort to blanket reversions, without really trying hard to pick out some "good" from the "bad", then you have crossed the line. Thanks. --T-dot 09:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
True, a total reversion may have been overdoing it. But the article doesn't reflect the "anti-Battle Cry position". For that, see acquiretheevidence.com (with which I have no connection), which is much more critical than anything currently in the article. Since I did overdo it, I've put back some of WorldChanger's changes. --John Nagle 16:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I've reworded and cited things so it hopefully doesn't sound so one-sided to you this time. In the future, try to avoid blanket revisions, even if the person in question is new. Thanks. --WorldChanger 00:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. Made a few changes starting from there, mainly because Battle Cry's activities seem focused on growing Battle Cry, not general evangelism. It's more about "Come to Battle Cry", than "Come to Jesus", or so their literature indicates. By the way, where did that "double the size of every group every year" line come from? I haven't seen that one. --John Nagle 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, John, I think you're misinterpreting the systemic role of what "BattleCry" and Ron Luce have been doing for a long time. The promotional materials are written based on certain assumptions about church growth and the role of parachurch ministries like this one that are taken as givens in the evangelical community. This is about, at its root, growing and perpetuating churches, which is symbiotic with a political agenda, and then, since churches look for means to continue, support methods, events, etc., church leaders support and pipe participants into Teen Mania/"BattleCry" and back out. I would actually put it back to the way WorldChanger had it, but dejargonify the evangelism terminology. The "double the size of every youth group every year" - I recall three more words, "for five years" - is in "BattleCry" promotional and other materials, including recent books, and it's certainly a big part of the events, but I don't have a cite at hand right this second. Mike Doughney 04:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point. For Wikipedia's purposes, it seems appropriate to describe verifiable statements and actions in plain language whenever possible. I tend to do that to Wikipedia articles, independent of topic. (Usually, it's the business articles that need major point of view work.) Really, though, probably all that can be usefully said about Battle Cry has been said for now, until they do something more. They're a very new organization. I'd encourage WorldChanger (talk · contribs) to work on some other articles outside this area for a while, to get some sense of the flavor of Wikipedia articles. --John Nagle 04:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think perhaps the best course of action here is to let those Users who have direct familiarity, and a positive insider-perspective with the positions and statements of Battle Cry organization, to freely and clearly represent and state those positions, and to do so unmolested by outsiders and critics. There should be "proof" links back to the Battle Cry and Teen Mania Ministries web sites, directly quoting excerpts from the PR information, exactly as stated and posted by Battle Cry. It should be presented as Official Battle Cry Positions - not the POV of the User posting it. If there are additional materials in pamphlets, then those should be quoted as such with published source information, like any published book would be quoted. Presumably others can get such materials from Battle Cry on request, or from participants in the meetings, or at the rallies from Press Kits, for verification. These "official positions" (which cannot be disputed as POV because they are direct quotes) can then be "balanced" by a separate "Criticisms" section, posted by those critics and outsiders who wish to point out any discrepancies or disputes or concerns with the official Battle Cry positions. I think it is outrageous and patently unfair for the "anti-Battle Cry" users to come in and manipulate and regulate both sides of the "argument", and make false claims and spread gossip, rumors, and speculation about what they feel Battle Cry stands for, when Battle Cry clearly and publically states what it stands for. It would be as if a staunch Christian were to come in and regulate and twist and make claims in the main article on what Buddhists believe, when there are plenty knowledgeable Buddhists experts who are much better able to present that information correctly. The Christians can then come in and state what THEY think about what Buddhists believe, in a separate "Criticisms of..." section, if they wish. Other non-christian religious wiki-articles have the religious jargon posted directly and freely, I do not see why Battle Cry and Christian Ministries in general cannot have the same courtesy. --T-dot 16:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to represent a neutral point of view, difficult though that is. The "presenting both sides separately" approach tends to break down when many people can edit the article. It's not a religious issue; Peak Oil is currently suffering from this problem. Also, here we're writing about a real-world organization, not a philosophical concept, so a who/what/when/where/why style works. It can be tough to write in specialized fields without jargon, but it's worth the trouble. I just got through editing Tooling University, which, in its original form, never mentioned what they actually taught: metalworking with machine tools. --John Nagle 16:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with T-dot. And being that I'm on staff with Teen Mania, I happen to know what our organization is about and what our goals are extremely well... and ought to be able to state what they are without being so harshly scrutinized by people who aren't a part of the organization. Certainly things need to be presented from an unbiased perspective, and I understand that, but when it comes down to the goals and intents of the Battle Cry campaign, I think I know very well what they are. Thanks. --WorldChanger 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Paramilitary training?[edit]

I saw a reference to "paintball" in the article, and looked for more info.

Teen Mania's "Extreme Camps" have facilities and training similar to basic military training:

"3 Paintball Fields, 3 300+ ft. Zip Lines, 50 ft. Climbing Tower". [5]

The paintball course is situated in an area with various surrounding environments that allow the participant to have an exciting paintball experience. The dense woodland provides great cover, heightening the action and providing a way for only the most concentrated team to overcome. The rugged terrain provides excellent surroundings to work as a team and strategically use your resources to outwit and conquer your opponent’s territory.[6]

I hadn't realized they were quite that militant. --John Nagle 17:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Paintball is a game, not paramilitary training. Physical warfare is not the point of the organization - spiritual warfare is.
Oh... and next time, please sign your name. Thanks. --WorldChanger 07:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Paintball training was a major element in the terrorism case against the Virginia Jihad, an Islamic "spiritual warfare" group. "The group used paintball games played in the woods near Fredericksburg in 2000 and 2001 as military training in preparation for holy war around the globe." See Masoud Khan. Note that no one in this group actually committed a violent act against anyone. They just trained, and visited Pakistan. This led to convictions for "conspiracy to levy war against the United States". --John Nagle 17:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
OK then you definitely need to look into another similar secret "paramilitary" organization then. They even wear military styled uniforms, and sing militant songs about going Onward Christian Soldiers! It is called the Salvation Army. Very dangerous times indeed. I simply cannot believe you would actually compare christian teenagers, rallying themselves for the cause of personal salvation and "being good", to Islamic Jihad and other 911-style terrorists, who decapitate westerners as an entertaining diversion. Shame on you! You really need to re-evaluate yourself from the perspective Neutral Point of View, and determine whether you can fairly represent a NPOV on organizations such as Teen Mania Ministries, Ron Luce, and Battle Cry, which you clearly do not happen to agree with politically. You clearly have a personal agenda here - not to present the neutral facts, but to twist and slur and slander a religious christian organization, inventing hidden malevolent agenda, and then attributing it to the Organization, (and that is a violation of the No Original Research policy guideline, not to mention the avoiding Weasel Words guidelines); and furthermore, to supress and modify any truthful information posted by others, re-biasing the article your biased personal slant. That is not consensus, and is certainly not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. --T-dot 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The Salvation Army does have a military structure, with officers, ranks, and uniforms, but they don't seem to go in for small-unit tactical training. Nor do they recruit teenagers.
Teen Mania's training is more militaristic than that of the Boy Scouts or Outward Bound. The only major kids organization that goes further is the Devil Pups, and that's run by the US Marine Corps. There are descriptions of Honor Academy training in member's blogs. The first week is called the "Gauntlet". As participants describe it, "I didn't get sick. We got chewed up by fire ants. I have never seen my feet look so nasty before. We have scratches and bruises all over our bodies. Every exposed patch of skin is stained red like a fake tan. It was pretty nice on Friday night. It was freezing cold during the hurricane on Saturday. It was blazing hot on Sunday. I slept on concrete a lot. We ate chili out of a diaper. I ate half of a raw fish. We ran through mud. We climbed cargo nets. We low crawled far too much. We waded through waist deep muddy water. We did all manner of physical exercises in ankle deep mud and water. We marched everywhere. We carried our flag attached to a log. We carried our crosses. We ate baby food. We watched a movie. We wrote an essay. We rolled down a hill too many times. We slept for and indeterminate amount of time. I never changed clothes. I never took my clothes off. I slept in a trash bag. I ran with a tire. We did a lot more than that. I found joy in the Lord. I rang the bell. I finished ESOAL." ....
"It's going to be more than 40 hours long this year. In the past participants have had very little if any food. In the past participants have had to run many many miles. In the past participants have had as little as 30 minutes of sleep. In addition to all that, they have told us that this will be the hardest ESOAL ever. " [7]
Low crawling, wading through muddy water, marching, living outside in tough conditions, and small unit tactics are standard elements of Recruit training, familiar to anyone who's been in the military. They're not usually associated with religious training, worship, evangelism, or "personal salvation". Teen Mania/Battle Cry is quite unusual in this. Even Battle Focused Ministries doesn't suggest going as far as Teen Mania does. --John Nagle 17:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

Stop hand.svg

Please do not attack people, places, organizations, or communities, as you did in your recent edits. This is considered to be an act of vandalism, and further inappropriate editing will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by B.joseph17 (talkcontribs)

Excuse me?? Small unit tactics? I'm sorry, but using language that suggests or implies that Teen Mania or the Honor Academy teach some sort of combat tactics goes beyond just stretching the truth - that's outright ludicrous. It's one thing to play a paintball game; or to work together in a small team of people; or to choose to go through an event like ESOAL and have yourself pushed to your absolute limits physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. But paramilitary training is quite another thing. They aren't practicing their submachine gun skills in the back forty. No one's teaching them how to build bombs or blow up bridges or how to evade capture by an enemy. The purpose of events like ESOAL is to provide a voluntary opportunity for participants to stretch themselves and challenge their physical, mental, emotional and spiritual stamina... not to train them for physical warfare. You've far overstepped your bounds in what you suggest, and your malice for the organization is quite evident.
To echo T-dot, you clearly need to re-evaluate yourself from the perspective of a Neutral Point of View, and determine whether you can fairly represent a NPOV on organizations such as Teen Mania Ministries, Ron Luce, and Battle Cry, which you clearly do not happen to agree with politically.
WorldChanger 21:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't help but laugh. You do realize you're a bit too old to understand Generation X and whatever generation is after that. May I ask how old you are? Yes, I know it's a little rude to ask someone their age but you're statements about paintball was quite fascinating. So I guess all the paintball arenas and businesses are run by anarchists that are training teens to wage war against whatever needs to be waged against?
Paintball is a sport whose participants use markers to shoot paintballs (roughly marble-sized, .68 caliber, gelatin capsules filled with colored polyethylene glycol "paint") at other players. Compared to other sports, paintball has only become popular in the last few decades. The game emerged in the 1980s and quickly became popular. The game has drawn a wide array of players worldwide and is found in most major countries in the world.
Yeah, paintballing is totally not-for-fun and all organizations that have paintball fields are not used for entertainment but for training.
I'm not sure about the whole Teen Mania camps but I believe its a metaphorical "training" that symbolizes the mental, spiritual training Christians must undergo. I'm sure people can wage war in minds of others. What is this? The Matrix? --Nissi Kim 19:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Didn't hear about the paintballing, but I did hear that they have these 50-90 hour training sessions in which the Honor Academy students go without sleep and do straight physical training. This is a practice that Luce doesn't like to talk about. GreatRedShark 4/10/2007 7:48 PM EST

Possible Name Change[edit]

should the name be changed to BattleCry? this seems to be the proper spelling as of recent.

--Jammin.all.night 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be left as is for now. Most news reports on the campaign are using two words; even the battlecry.com website uses two words in many if not most places and certainly in page titles - a Google search confirms this. I've edited the "battlecry" (one word) redirect to point to the disambiguation page to hopefully limit any confusion. Mike Doughney 13:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The web site itself seems to use "BattleCry.com" and "Battle Cry Campaign". When they simply write "BattleCry", they're usually talking about their web site. --John Nagle 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Partial revert of latest edits[edit]

I've made a partial revert of the edits by Btl as follows:

  • Reference to specific bible passages is necessary to clarify how militaristic bible references are used by Teen Mania and the campaign. Removing the links to biblegateway.com removes the references to specific bible passages, particularly those for which there are citations as to their use in the campaign. If this edit was somehow meant to suggest that linking to a bible reference is somehow not supportive of a neutral POV, I doubt that there would be agreement on that, considering the content of these particular passages. Thus I've restored the links to biblegateway.com. If there is some other Wikipedia convention that recommends how the specific verses of the bible are to be referenced in articles perhaps the article should be changed to match that convention, while preserving the specific chapter/verse citations.
  • The item on the so-called "Christian alternative to MySpace" makes no sense without a reference to what that "alternative" is. I restored battlecry.com, but not as a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Doughney (talkcontribs)

2007 update[edit]

Battle Cry is having rallies again this year. The San Francisco event just finished. They tried a demonstration at City Hall again, but it was something of an anticlimax.[8] I happened to be driving by City Hall during this, and some guy was yelling "George Bush loves you". Unclear what faction he represented.

Battle Cry is now reselling Tivo, with some censorware attached.[9] "And if you purchase TiVo through Battlecry.com you’ll actually be supporting the work of Teen Mania! A portion of every sale will be returned to the ministry to further our work with teens. How’s that for a WIN-WIN?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nagle (talkcontribs) 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Hey John, you shoulda stopped by and said hi. There's not much I can add about the City Hall scene, but there was a Vice President of TIVO on stage at the stadium Saturday night, wedged in between members of a Phoenix church youth group that hassled Spencer's Gifts for carrying the so-called "Pornaments" Christmas novelties, and the producers of the upcoming movie "Bella," which is being touted as some kind of anti-abortion/evangelism tool. They spent an enormous amount of time complaining about relative trivialities: clay figures from China and the images on screens. There are now plenty more interesting details to add to this article, eventually. Mike Doughney 07:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to sign that above. Sorry. BattleCry has a whole line of merchandise now. [10]. DVDs of all the rallies. Chuck Colson videos. [11] . Ron Luce's books. Clothing "Branded by God". --John Nagle 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternative points of view[edit]

According to Wikipedia's quality guidelines, articles are supposed to be neutral. This article is blatantly anti-BattleCry. It has a large list of Criticisms and virtually no defense or support for the movement. This movement is about freeing the youth of this generation from the bonds of corporations such as MTV that say they own this generation. None of the teens are being controlled. They are having another point of view laid out in front of them and are invited to explore it. Also, Teen Mania makes sure it is a fun atmosphere.

The above unsigned comment simply repeats the claims of the organization that created this campaign, and provides no justification for the assertion that the article is "anti-BattleCry." This claim seems to be based on the fact that a substantial section of criticism merely exists as part of the article. In fact, in contrast to this claim, everything up until the 'criticism section' is quite clear about the purposes of the campaign, its alleged benefits, and their defenses thereof, as published by Teen Mania's leaders themselves - including the specific claims made by this commenter, in fact - and balances that information against the substantial criticism and commentary published elsewhere. Articles should not be drastically edited (over 11k was removed at one time) based on specious claims made in a single anonymous unsigned comment, thus I have restored the criticism section of the article. Discuss. (Shall we discuss Tenet 5?) Mike Doughney 02:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. There is a controversy and criticism section that is anti-BattleCry, but offers no support for the organization. I believe that this section should be included, but revised so as to eliminate all bias, either one way or the other. (Sethc87 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Claim that Luce is an atheist? - by 79.75.246.185 (talk · contribs)[edit]

79.75.246.185 (talk · contribs) inserted On August 24, 2007, during secret filming by a CNN film crew as part of the three-part documentary God's Warriors, founder Ron Luce admitted that he was in fact an atheist, and that the Battle Cry Campaign was “a great way to make a whole heap of money out of the dumb and ignorant masses”.[2] There's a reference to 6 hours of CNN video on "God's Warriors" (a survey of militant religion) but nothing more specific. Press coverage of the CNN special doesn't mention anything about such a surprising claim. I thus reverted this, twice, as vandalism. --John Nagle 19:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The same peculiar insert was made multiple times to the Ron Luce and Teen Mania Ministries articles along with a "general discussion" kind of comment on the Ron Luce talk page. I note that this IP user has received a final warning. Mike Doughney 07:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism reported as follows: '79.75.246.185‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and sockpuppets 79.67.131.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 79.75.184.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) repeated vandalism with the same nonsensical statement across Ron Luce, Teen Mania Ministries and Battle Cry Campaign. ' Mike Doughney 17:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Battlecrylogo.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Battlecrylogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved with the addition of a fair use rationale to the image description page. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Optruth flyer back.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Optruth flyer back.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved with the addition of a fair use rationale to the image description page. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Battle Cry Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle Cry Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)