[Vision2020] Fwd: Re: Articles for Repudiation

[Douglas]

>Dear visionaries,
>
>Before answering Nick's questions, allow me to invite you all to a town 
>hall meeting we are having at the Kenworthy, Thursday night at 7. We would 
>love to see you there. We will genuinely attempt to answer all the serious 
>questions seriously. For more on frivolous questions, see below.
>
>And as a preface to answering these questions, allow me to commend Nick 
>for this great new development in Socratic dialog. One party contributes 
>the monosyllables while the other front loads all the questions. "Simple 
>yes or no, Mr. Wilson. Do you repudiate your knavish behavior?" *Yes* 
>means that I acknowledge my knavish behavior in the past and *no* means 
>that I intend to continue it. Easy peasy, and philosophy looks around for 
>new ways to obscure the truth.
>
>But in keeping with the spirit of the thing, I will try to keep my answers 
>as brief as possible. After all, *yikes* is a monosyllable. My answers are 
>in ALL CAPS for ease of identification. I am not shouting. Some might 
>think I have a right to be SHOUTING BY THIS POINT, but they would wrong. I 
>am viewing the current events in a philosophical spirit, much as Boethius 
>might have amused himself by counting his toes.
>
>
>
>>TWELVE ARTICLES FOR REPUDIATION
>>Article 1.  Christ Church member Roy Atwood now states that "Southern 
>>Slavery, As it Was" is not a scholarly work.  This concession implies 
>>that it is not as credible as a scholarly work.  When any press publishes 
>>a Monograph Series, it usually means that this is the best specialized 
>>work that it can find.  What is the status of this essay? What is the 
>>status of other works published by Canon Press?
>>
>>a. Scholarly or unscholarly, are you responsible for the work?  Yes or 
>>No? YES, YES! I CONFESS IT1
>>b. Do you repudiate this work and your support for Southern Slavery? Yes 
>>or No? NOT THE FIERY TONGS AGAIN! YES, I REPUDIATE IT ALL!
>>c. Are other works published by Canon Press credible?   Yes or No? CANON 
>>PRESS? VILE STUFF, ALL OF IT.
>>
>>Article 2.  R. L. Dabney is cited favorably in the slavery booklet and 
>>its co-author Steve Wilkins is an instructor at the Dabney Center for 
>>Theological Studies in Monroe, Louisana.  Dabney was a racist and 
>>condemned interracial marriage, something the Bible celebrates. Dabney 
>>also condemned the education of African Americans, something the New 
>>Testament advocated. But your neo-Confederate friends have proudly 
>>republished Dabney's works, which have blatantly unscriptural positions?
>>
>>Do you repudiate Dabney and all that he stands for?  Yes or No? NO . . . 
>>WAIT! I MEANT YES!
>>
>>Article 3.  Your position on slavery is equivocal.  As a moral absolutist 
>>you must say that it is always wrong, but your support for biblical 
>>slavery and Southern slavery implies that it depends on culture and 
>>therefore is relative.  Dabney's position is very interesting:  the 
>>righteous Anglo-Saxon Christian has a duty to enslave people that cannot 
>>govern themselves.  The "evil is not slavery, but the ignorance and vice 
>>in the laboring classes, of which slavery is the useful and righteous 
>>remedy. . . . ("A Defense of Virginia," page  207).
>>
>>a. Do you repudiate this Dabney on this point?   Yes or No? WHAT IS THE 
>>RIGHT ANSWER HERE?
>>b. Do you believe that owning another person is always wrong?  Yes or No? 
>>IT CAN'T BE ALWAYS WRONG BECAUSE YOU WON'T LET ME OUT OF HERE . . . NO, 
>>WAIT! NOT THE RACK!
>>
>>Article 4. Steve Wilkins is the director of the League of the South.  It 
>>stands for the repeal of the 14th Amendment (guaranteeing equal rights 
>>for all Americans) and the secession of 15 Southern States to form a New 
>>Confederate States of America.  Some would call this treason.
>>
>>Do you repudiate the League of the South?   Yes or No? TREASON IS BAD, RIGHT?
>>
>>Article 5. George Grant and Steve Wilkins support the novel "Heiland," 
>>which has been compared to the "Turner Diaries," the book that inspired 
>>the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building. The book's hero leads a 
>>violent overthrow of a "godless" federal government.
>>
>>a. Do you believe in the violent overthrow of the U. S. government? Yes 
>>or No? NO!
>>b. Do you repudiate the ideas contained in the novel "Heiland"?   Yes or 
>>No? YES! ESPECIALLY THE KOOKY PARTS ABOUT CHELATION THERAPY.
>>
>>Article 6.  George Grant and Steve Wilkins are regular guest speakers at 
>>annual meetings of your Association of Classical and Christian Schools 
>>and Colleges.
>>
>>a. Do your unscholarly views of the Civil War appear in the 
>>curriculum?  Yes or No? NOT ONE OF MY UNSCHOLARLY VIEWS APPEARS IN THE 
>>CURRICULUM.
>>b. Do your schools support neo-Confederate and Christian nationalist 
>>views?  Yes or No? MY SCHOOLS? I DON'T HAVE ANY SCHOO . . . . OKAY, OKAY. 
>>WE REPUDIATE ALL ICKY VIEWS. NEVER HEARD OF 'EM.
>>
>>Article 7.  Grant, Wilkins, and you are the principal speakers at the 
>>February conference. The conference is called a "history" conference but 
>>no professional historians are speaking.  The slavery booklet was one of 
>>the publications of the first conference in 1994, but the fact that this 
>>booklet is now declared "not scholarly" indicates that this conference 
>>and its predecessors may not be scholarly conferences.  Furthermore, if 
>>you reject the neo-Confederates, why are you inviting them to Moscow?
>>
>>a. Is your meeting scholarly and credible?  Yes or No? YES. WE WANT IT TO 
>>BE SCHOLARLY VERY MUCH. ANYTHING FOR RESPECTABILITY.
>>b. If No, would you consider moving it off campus so as to save 
>>embarrassment to academic community and North Idaho? NO, WE WANT TO KEEP 
>>IT ON CAMPUS SO THAT THE CREDIBILITY WILL RUB OFF THE OTHER WAY. PERHAPS 
>>WE CAN LEARN TO ASK YES OR NO QUESTIONS TOO.
>>c. Doesn't this conference give credibility to a movement you 
>>reject?  Yes or No? NO!
>>
>>Article 8.  In your slavery booklet you condemn slave owners who had sex 
>>with their slaves as "ungodly."  But Abraham had sex with his servant 
>>Hagar and was convinced by his wife Sarah to abandon Hagar and his son in 
>>the desert.
>>
>>Do you repudiate Abraham and Sarah as ungodly?  Yes or No? IS IT ALL 
>>RIGHT TO SAY NO? OKAY, NO.
>>
>>Article 9.  You have said that your main goal is to defend the Bible in 
>>all that it says.  Yahweh declared genocide against all the inhabitants 
>>of Canaan and he made sure that it was carried out by the Israelite 
>>armies.  Most people believe that slaughter of any group of people, 
>>regardless of their reputed sins, is always wrong.
>>
>>a. Do you repudiate Yahweh for commanding genocide?  Yes or No? NO, BUT I 
>>ADVISED HIM AGAINST IT.
>>b. Do you support the international conventions against genocide?  Yes or 
>>No? THIS ISN'T A PRO-LIFE TRICK QUESTION, IS IT? IT IS?  THEN NO.
>>
>>Article 10.  In your slavery booklet you claim that since the Bible 
>>condones slavery but condemns kidnapping, it was not sinful for people to 
>>own Africans that they themselves did not ship from Africa.  I believe 
>>that is as absurd as Buddhists who rationalize meat eating because they 
>>claim they were not involved in the slaughter of the animal itself.
>>
>>a. Do you agree with me?  Yes or No? ALWAYS!
>>b. Do you repudiate the owning of another person, any time, any 
>>place?  Yes or No? CAN I GO NOW? NO? THEN NO.
>>
>>Article 11.  In 1995 the Southern Baptist Convention passed a Racial 
>>Reconciliation Resolution requesting that members repent for the evils of 
>>racism and Southern Slavery. My understanding is that these are 
>>conservative evangelical Christians, are they not?
>>
>>Would you have voted for this resolution.  Yes or No? CAN I READ IT 
>>FIRST? NO? WAIT, NOT THE BOOT! YES, I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR IT. TWICE!
>>
>>Article 12.  When the League of the South was founded in 1994, it 
>>recognized, as a way of honoring both Confederate soldiers and Scottish 
>>rebels, the Confederate flag as a Christian symbol, specifically as the 
>>Cross of St. Andrews.  In 1994 you founded your college and called it New 
>>St. Andrews.
>>
>>Is New St. Andrews a neo-Confederate and Christian nationalist 
>>college?  Yes or No? NO! THAT WOULD BE BAD AND EVIL. DO YOU WANT ME TO 
>>SIGN ANYTHING?
>>
>>Note: my information on the League of the South comes principally from 
>>Edward H. Sebesta and Euan Hague, "The US Civil War as a Theological War: 
>>Confederate Christian Nationalism and the League of the South," Canadian 
>>Review of American Studies 32:3 (2002), pp. 253-284.