[Vision2020] Aritcles for Repudiation (part deux)

[ben merkle]

95 Thesis for Repudiation,
Nailed to the door of the Food Coop (pronounced
in such a way as to rhyme)

Preamble
Dr. Gier has a PhD in Philosophy and is a Professor Emeritus at the U of I.
I believe that as someone who once read some of Plato, I have a
responsibility to remind him of the standards of intellectual integrity that
all good universities attempt to uphold.  It is in this spirit that I ask
him the following questions.  I have made them simple Yes or No questions to
facilitate straight forward answers. Because, after all, this approach is so
obviously intended to facilitate calm, even handed discussion that anyone
who would balk at answering them in a straight forward, rule abiding manner
is obviously just plain cranky. Dialogue, dialogue, dialogue, that's what
I'm after
here. If Dr. Gier is not willing to answer these questions with a simple yes
or no, then we can all infer that dialogue must not be what he is after. Any
invitations that he makes to us regarding further dialogue can be read in
light of how he answers these questions. Because if he doesn't wish to
answer these in a straight forward manner, how could we ever hope to have an
honest conversation with him?
These questions are regarding his editorial on John Calvin which appeared in
the Daily News on Sept. 24 of this eventful year.


1. Dr Gier, do you consider this column to be a scholarly and well
researched work, written in an even handed fashion and intended to build
bridges not walls? Yes or No?

2. Or do you consider this column to be a hack job of research penned after
reading one pop book on the subject and full of the sorts of factual errors
that would make any PhD blush, written with the intent to whip the good
people of Moscow into a religious frenzy? Yes or No?

3. Dr. Gier, did you carefully weigh all of the facts and check the primary
sources for all of your factual assertions in a manner befitting to your
diploma and with the diligence of an autumn squirrel gathering his nuts? Yes
or No?

4. Dr. Gier, did you assert that Servetus was the first to debate the
Christian reading of Isaiah 7:14? Yes or No?

5. Dr. Gier, did you know that if you had done more than thirty or forty
seconds of research you would have discovered that this debate is as old as
the hills and goes all the way back through the rabbinic traditions of the
great Kimhis all the way to Trypho, of "Justin Martyr's dialogue with" fame
and to credit Servetus with its introduction makes some of us get teary eyed
with snickering? Yes or No?

5. Dr. Gier, did you assert that Calvin had "absolute authority in Geneva"?
Yes or No?

6. Dr. Gier, did you know that even a casual reading of some of the research
done in this field would reveal to you that the man didn't even have the
right to vote until a couple of years before his death and that he never had
the right to hold any civic office? Did you know that when I tell people who
actually study Calvin about your assertion, I have to make sure that they
aren't in the middle of taking a drink of milk, because I don't want it to
come out their nose? Yes or No?

7. Dr. Gier, did you already have to correct the fact that you invented the
assertion about Calvin going out to pick the greenest wood in order to make
the burning of Servetus really long and painful, because it turned out that
Calvin didn't want him burned (which kinda ruins the whole theme of your
column)? Yes or No?

8. Dr. Gier, did you think the previous seven questions were really, really,
really, fair and unbiased and that they were written in such a way as to
give you a chance to fully explain your position and to clear up any
ambiguities in this debate? Did you think that this would be a great venue
for you to explain yourself to an audience that was obviously willing to
hear your answers and to consider your answers in an open-minded way? Yes or
No?

Thanks
Ben Merkle
Auntieglobulin