[Vision2020] Arrogant, Insincere Con Artisty Answers
Art Deco
deco@moscow.com
Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:52:11 -0800
If the arrogant, insincere, con artistry answers below by cult leader Wilson
to Nick Gier's questions are a sample of what's going to be served up as
answers at the Town Sermon on Thursday, why would anyone outside of a cult
member want to attend unless they are masochists who wish to be abased,
belittled, and insulted?
Wayne A. Fox
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas" <dougwils@moscow.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 9:20 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Fwd: Re: Articles for Repudiation
>
> >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.
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>