[Vision2020] Fwd: Re: Articles for Repudiation
Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:20:35 -0800
>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
>>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
>>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
>>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
>>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
>>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.