[Vision2020] Arrogant, Insincere Con Artisty Answers
Douglas
dougwils@moscow.com
Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:55:20 -0800
Visionaries,
I would like to take this opportunity to invite everyone to a town hall
meeting that we are having. We are meeting at the Kenworthy on Thursday
night at 7 pm. Hope to see you all there.
If you come to ask questions, you will not be greeted with a welcoming
raspberry. We want to answer honest questions, not create them. While Wayne
Fox and Amy Smoucha want to represent my answers to Nick Gier as a sample
of what will happen at our town meeting, it will not be that way at all.
Nick taught philosophy at UI for many years, and he really ought to be
ashamed of himself for typing out a list of "Have you stopped beating your
wife yet?" questions. "Yes or no" to serve the cause of straightforward
answers, indeed!
To use the language of praise and blame that he appears to care most about,
it is unscholarly. More than that, it is the utter, frozen limit. But most
importantly, it is dishonest. We will be providing *genuine* answers at the
town hall meeting, and, as a philosophy professor ought to know, this
requires a vocabulary of more than two words.
We are delighted with honest questions -- and honest questions are *not*
defined as those coming from "our side." Adam Wilson of the Trib has done a
very good job of asking real questions, and writing down the answers
accurately and fairly.
On a related front, here is some good news for everyone. I want to do my
part in putting this controversy to bed, but not by refusing to answer
honest questions. We will answer them all on Thursday night -- or at least
we will have done everything we could reasonably do to get every honest
question there. After that, my plan is to stop participating in this
controversy. I will be unsubscribing from Vision 20/20 on Friday morning.
And I will be quoting the Grateful Dead as I do -- "what a long, strange
trip its been."
Cordially,
Douglas
At 09:52 AM 12/9/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>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
> >
>
>_____________________________________________________
> 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