[Vision2020] Pastor Behaving Badly
Nicholas Gier
ngier@uidaho.edu
Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:35:24 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_aupJmCY+Epk06TQcXY+WZQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
The TV Flip Wilson was an entertainer and we all laughed because we knew that he was not serious. Moscow's Flip Wilson is a pastor and senior fellow of theology at New St. Andrews College and we assume that we are supposed to take him seriously.
His flipness made him a charming student and it still is one of his most distinguishing characteristics, but it certainly doesn't serve him well now that the people of Moscow want to know what he really believes.
I will take his answers to my questions as straight answers and I hope those at the forum (I can well understand those who choose not to attend)will make him stand by his words. If he says that "oh, I really didn't mean it," then he is the one who will be the fool not I.
By the way, I ask Doug to correct any factual errors in my Articles and he apparently found none.
Here is Doug's position as I interpret his answers:
1. He has repudiated the slavery booklet and by implication its coauthor and neo-Conferate Steve Wilkins.
2. He has repudiated R. L. Dabney, the theologian must quoted and admired by the neo-Confederates. In the LMT article, which Wilson says is accurate, he does not condemn Dabney, who is prominently displayed in the conference's billing.
3. In his slavery booklet he condemns slave owners who had sex with their slaves, but somehow won't condemn Abraham for doing the same thing.
4. He does not repudiate genocide, biblical or otherwise. Very interesting.
5. He does not repudiate the owning of another person, and still has not answered the question about his absolute or relative support for slavery.
6. He refuses to answer the question about the League of the South, a neo-Conferate outfit. But Wilkins and Grant are directly involved in the movement. In answer to Article 6, Wilson writes that he "never hear of them" refers either to neo-Confederates or Wilkins and Grant, but of course that can't be true. In the LMT article he acknowledges them and says that he has beliefs in common with them.
7. He says that he rejects the neo-Confederates, but inviting them to his conference does indeed give them respectability and credibility.
Once again, Doug, I ask you to move the conference off campus.
--Boundary_(ID_aupJmCY+Epk06TQcXY+WZQ)
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Return-path: <vision2020-admin@moscow.com>
Received: from conversion-daemon.mailA.its.uidaho.edu by mailA.its.uidaho.edu
(Go Vandals!) id <0HPN00F01D7BDR@mailA.its.uidaho.edu>; Tue,
09 Dec 2003 13:44:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from snow (mailB [129.101.155.251])
by mailA.its.uidaho.edu (Go Vandals!)
with ESMTP id <0HPN00LL4DPO48@mailA.its.uidaho.edu>; Tue,
09 Dec 2003 13:44:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from conversion-daemon.mailB.its.uidaho.edu by mailB.its.uidaho.edu
(Go Vandals!) id <0HPN00J01CPQPX@mailB.its.uidaho.edu>; Tue,
09 Dec 2003 13:44:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from whale2.fsr.net (whale2.fsr.net [207.141.26.23])
by mailB.its.uidaho.edu (Go Vandals!)
with ESMTP id <0HPN00AYLDPIFY@mailB.its.uidaho.edu>; Tue,
09 Dec 2003 13:44:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from whale2.fsr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by whale2.fsr.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id hB9Li28a076202; Tue,
09 Dec 2003 13:44:02 -0800
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:43:01 -0800
From: vision2020-request@moscow.com
Subject: Vision2020 digest, Vol 1 #1051 - 5 msgs
Sender: vision2020-admin@moscow.com
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Errors-to: vision2020-admin@moscow.com
Reply-to: vision2020@moscow.com
Message-id: <20031209214301.73558.31758.Mailman@whale2.fsr.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.10
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk
X-BeenThere: vision2020@moscow.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.10
List-Post: <mailto:vision2020@moscow.com>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists2.fsr.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/vision2020>,
<mailto:vision2020-request@moscow.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists2.fsr.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/vision2020>,
<mailto:vision2020-request@moscow.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists2.fsr.net/pipermail/vision2020/>
List-Help: <mailto:vision2020-request@moscow.com?subject=help>
List-Id: Moscow/Latah county community discussion list <vision2020.moscow.com>
Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to
vision2020@moscow.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists2.fsr.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/vision2020
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
vision2020-request@moscow.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
vision2020-admin@moscow.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Not Bill London's questions (DonaldH675@aol.com)
2. Re: Arrogant, Insincere Con Artisty Answers (Douglas)
3. Re: Town Hall Meeting (Douglas)
4. Re: Arrogant, Insincere Con Artisty Answers (Melynda Huskey)
5. Re: Arrogant, Insincere Con Artistry Answers (Art Deco)
--__--__--
Message: 1
From: DonaldH675@aol.com
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:06:05 EST
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Not Bill London's questions
-------------------------------1071000365
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
My right hand woman - Auntie Establishment - just reminded me that the recent
list of on Vision 20/20 questions came from Dr. Nick Gier, not Bill London.
My apologies to both, and contrary to Auntie's last remark to me, I am not
loosing my mind.
Rose Huskey
-------------------------------1071000365
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUTF-8 http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charse=
t=3Dutf-8">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2734.1600" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">
<DIV>My right hand woman - Auntie Establishment - just reminded me that the=20=
recent list of on Vision 20/20 questions came from Dr. Nick Gier, not Bill L=
ondon. My apologies to both, and contrary to Auntie's last remark to m=
e, I am not loosing my mind. </DIV>
<DIV>Rose Huskey</DIV></BODY></HTML>
-------------------------------1071000365--
--__--__--
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:55:20 -0800
To: vision2020@moscow.com
From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Arrogant, Insincere Con Artisty Answers
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
--__--__--
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:17:37 -0800
To: vision2020@moscow.com
From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Town Hall Meeting
Visionaries,
Warren asks:
>Just a quick question, sir:
>
>Hasn't the term "town hall meeting" been specifically used for
>governmental purposes,
>agendas, etc? Accordingly, I remain uncertain of such usages outside of
>such concerns.
>
>Warren Hayman
>
> > Visionaries,
> >
> > Just a reminder -- we have a town hall meeting this Thursday night at the
> > Kenworthy. 7:00 pm. I would love to see any of you there.
I think that is a fair summary of its original meaning, but it has grown
since then to cover meetings with candidates, etc. I take it as a public
meeting on any issue of concern to the public.
Cordially,
Douglas Wilson
--__--__--
Message: 4
From: "Melynda Huskey" <mghuskey@msn.com>
To: Vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Arrogant, Insincere Con Artisty Answers
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:09:38 -0800
In an earlier post, Doug wrote:
"I have had a number of people (from outside our church community) stop me
on the street to say something like this, "You know, I don't agree with all
your stuff -- but what is being done to you all is despicable." The insular
family of local radical lefties have way overplayed their hand -- this is
always a danger when you demonize the opposition."
He goes on to add that there is a plan to rid Moscow of conservative
Presbyterians.
At the risk of getting a "funny" answer, I want to ask, what *is* being done
to conservative Presbyterians? Of course, I've read the ongoing debate on
Vision 2020, and seen some of the newspaper coverage--advertising and
editorial content. But is there more that I've missed?
I think what I'm asking is, what actions other than public disagreement with
Doug Wilson or Christ Church's ideas as expressed in interviews or
publications have occurred? How are Presbyterians affected? And in what
ways have they been targeted?
Melynda Huskey
_________________________________________________________________
Winterize your home with tips from MSN House & Home.
http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
--__--__--
Message: 5
From: "Art Deco" <deco@moscow.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Arrogant, Insincere Con Artistry Answers
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:42:21 -0800
So after the so-called town meeting cult*** leader Wilson is quitting Vision
2020. How cowardly!
If his performance at the town sermon on Thursday follows his past general
trend of his evasive, arrogantly dishonest (he assumes that none of can read
can read or reason) responses to be hyped at a forum at which he completely
controls the flow of the so-called discussion, it is easily understandable
why he will cravenly retreat from the resulting community outrage.-- And
from the community outrage and disgust that has arisen over his and his
cult's anti-egalitarian, sexist, homophobic, racism tainted neo-confederate,
crackpot theological rantings.
Out of the several thousand Christian sects/cults in the world, how
stupendously egotistical and megalomaniacal it is for Wilson and his cult
with a few hundred members (whose critical but not rhetorical skills are
greatly diminished) to apodictically maintain they have THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH;
that the rest of us are all wrong about everything spiritual, and that they
alone are some alleged god's sole arbiter of all things religious.
If Wilson were not so cowardly in the first place, he would have suggested a
debate like forum whose subjects and give and take were controlled by an
experienced, neutral moderator -- a forum at which both pre-published and
spontaneous questions could be entertained and the forum moderator would
insist upon non-evasive answers from all.
***cult:: a group, which in actual practice, focuses upon, bonds with, and
worships their worldly leader as much or more than the god(s) and godly
beliefs they profess to worship.
Wayne A. Fox
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas" <dougwils@moscow.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Arrogant, Insincere Con Artisty Answers
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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
End of Vision2020 Digest
--Boundary_(ID_aupJmCY+Epk06TQcXY+WZQ)--