[Vision2020] RE: R.L. Dabney, yeah he's our man.

[Mike Lawyer]

Dear Tom,

I guess I've been tolerated. Cool.

Mike Lawyer

 

-----Original Message-----
From: thansen@moscow.com [mailto:thansen@moscow.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:25 AM
To: Mike Lawyer
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: R.L. Dabney, yeah he's our man.

I cannot believe the gall of this sicko.  Does he feel that we should
embrace 
the Dougster for what he (Mike Lawyer) perceives as benevolence?  This
sounds 
too much like "indoctrination".  ("If you have faith in some things I say,
then 
eventually you should blindly follow everything I say.")

Pleas, PLEASE, Rose.  Flush the toilet.  It is getting smelly in here.

Tom

> Dear Rose,
> 
>  
> 
> I'm happy that women can distinguish, but that must be a general statement
> since you are again showing us that you seem unable to do it.
> 
>  
> 
> Of course your rhetorical questions deserve 'no' for answers. On the other
> hand when I took a course on public speaking in college part of the
> curriculum was to listen to several of Hitler's speeches. Apparently,
though
> he was a terrible dictator, he was also a great speech maker. Back in the
> dark ages when I went to college, people could distinguish between things
(I
> also drove a VW bug for over 20 years).
> 
>  
> 
> I don't think listening to or enjoying the strengths of those speeches
meant
> the students were Nazis. If they didn't have the ability to distinguish
> things they may have become Nazis (if they could have understood the
> German). And that is precisely what often happens to college students.
They
> think the professor knows what he is talking about and they suck up
> everything she says. 
> 
>  
> 
> I think you write really well, but I don't think I like much of what you
> say. I wouldn't let my child take a class on writing that you might give
> because she is too young to make these distinctions, but I'm sure I could
> greatly benefit such a course. I am able, to some extent, to make these
> kinds of distinctions.
> 
>  
> 
> Perhaps your problems with Doug Wilson has more to do with your own
> inability to distinguish than Doug's. Maybe you think that since you can't
> enjoy a person's strong points without also embracing his weak ones that
> everyone is that way. That is hard to believe, but it seems to be what you
> are consistently saying.
> 
>  
> 
> If the only theologian that Mr. Wilson read and enjoyed was a racist, I
> would wonder about his own position on the subject. But since his reading
> and enjoyment covers a vast and wide area, I can see that he is probably
> able to glean the good and ignore the bad. RL Dabney was a racist. No one
is
> arguing with you on this point. But he also had a lot of good things to
say
> on other subjects.
> 
>  
> 
> Have a great day! 
> 
>  
> 
> Mike Lawyer
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DonaldH675@aol.com [mailto:DonaldH675@aol.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 4:18 PM
> To: mike_l@moscow.com
> Subject: R.L. Dabney, yeah he's our man.
> 
>  
> 
> Mike says:
> 
>  
> 
> "On the other hand a man can admire the theology of a racist without
> admiring
> his racism. And the good thing is that men can be smart enough to make
those
> kinds of distinctions."
> 
>  
> 
> And luckily, so can women.  Hitler was nice to his dog, do you think the
> Human Society should have a special award acknowledging that kindly aspect
> of his character?
> 
> Saddam Hussan took a paternalistic interest in his sons, shall we spring
him
> from jail to accept the Father of the Year award?  Jim Jones was a
> charismatic preacher.  Do you think he should be nominated for Pastor of
the
> Year?  
> 
>  
> 
> Come off it Mike. The notion that R.L. Dabney's racism had a firewall that
> prevented it from contaminating his theology is nonsense.  It is offensive
> to inflate moments of kindness in heinous people in order to excuse their
> horrific conduct.  Many of Dabney's racist remarks were published long
after
> the surrender at Appomattox.  We know he continued his racist rhetoric
until
> his death. Given that you may hold R.L. Dabney in high esteem, how do you
> imagine that his theological writings have any more validity than his
> secular scribblings?  I can't remember the last time I heard anyone say,
"X
> is a really great (fellow, woman, thinker, doctor, pastor, friend, fill in
> the blank) apart from his/her racism.  But, then I don't attend New Saint
> Andrews.
> 
>  
> 
> By the way, does the resignation of Steve Wilkins from his directorship in
> the "Lost Our Slaves" organization also mean he also resigned his
> membership?  
> 
>  
> 
> Rose Huskey
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.net/