[Vision2020] Tearing Down of The Lies

Thu Feb 1 18:36:54 PST 2007

First, thanks Tom for providing the link to this trash...em, I mean booklet. 
  Secondly, I thought it might be interesting to go through it, bit by bit 
and see if there is ANY one out there that takes this the way Wilson is NOW 
putting it out there as being.  I will be adding my comments.  Read them - 
don't, I don't care.  But at least there will be one person taking an active 
role in tearing this crap apart.

First up, page one:

The South has long carried the stigma of racism and bigotry The fact that 
slavery ended
abruptly because the South lost the War serves to reinforce this common 
stereotype. For this
reason, most Southerners take little pride in their nation's role in the War 
Between the States.
The only thing they can boast about is how well they fought — but they are 
not allowed to
defend the cause itself. They have been told that they cannot talk of 
principle or speak of
righteousness. The institution of slavery has so blackened the Southern 
position that nothing
about the South can be viewed as good or right. Slavery is considered to be 
such a wicked
practice that it alone is sufficient to answer the question of which side 
was right in that
unfortunate war. The fact that the South practiced slavery is enough to 
cause many moderns
to feel they do not even have to listen to the various biblical and 
constitutional arguments
that swirled around that controversy. Consequently, to have a closed mind on 
this issue is to
be cloaked in virtue.

Wilson says that the Southern folks "take little pride in their nation's 
role in the War Between the States."  Ok - so WHAT nation would that be, 
Wilson - the South or the UNITED STATES?  And if the Southerners were 
supposed to be proud - of WHAT should they be proud?  The fact that they 
held slave ownership as a right, the fact that so many/most of them abused 
those slaves, that they decided to susceed over the slave/state's rights 
issue?  WHAT?

"How could men have supported slavery? The question is especially difficult 
when we
consider that these were men who lived in a pervasively Christian culture. 
We have all heard
of the heartlessness — the brutalitites, immoralities, and cruelties — that 
were supposedly
inherent in the system of slavery. We have heard how slave families were 
broken up, of the
forcible rape of slave women, of the brutal beatings that were a 
commonplace, about the
horrible living conditions, and of the unrelenting work schedule and 
back-breaking routine
— all of which go together to form our impression of the crushing oppression 
which was
slavery in the South. The truthfulness of this description has seldom been 
challenged."

"supposedly inherent in the system of slavery....The truthfulness of this 
description has seldom been challenged."???  What, like it never really 
happened?  So the stories of the slaves themselves as well as the slave 
OWNERS is not good enough for you?  You, who was born YEARS after the fact, 
have the authority and audacity to claim the rapes/killings/maimings did NOT 
occur?  And yet last night's diatribe you specifically stated you'd advocate 
excommunication of a church member you found out did this type of thing.  A 
bit of a confusion there.  Did it/didn't it happen?  Or does it depend on 
your audiance as to whether or not you accept the facts?

"The point of this small booklet is to establish that this impression is 
largely false. It is
important to note, however, that the impression is not entirely false. The 
truth is, Southern
slavery is open to criticism because it did not follow the biblical pattern 
at every point. Some
of the state laws regulating slavery could not be defended biblically (the 
laws forbidding the
teaching of reading and writing, for example). One cannot defend the abuse 
some slaves had
to endure. None can excuse the immorality some masters and overseers 
indulged in with
some slave women. The separation of families that sometimes occurred was 
deplorable.
These were sad realities in the Southern system."

Ok - HERE's my favorate part:  "The point of this small booklet is to 
establish that this impression is largely false."  WHERE in all that is 
holy, green and alive, does it say "The point of this booklet is to refute 
Paul Hill and his anti-abortion movement?"  Huh?  WHERE!!!?

And you notice, almost right away, Wilson back-tracks just a mite by stating 
"One cannot defend the abuse (of) some slaves...These were sad realities in 
the Southern system."  So, again, did it occur or didn't it?  Seems to me, 
not even in your "wisdom" can you make up your mind on this issue.

"Our purpose here is not to defend any such practices — where and when they 
occurred. We
have no interest in defending the racism (in both the North and the South) 
which was often
seen as the basic justification for the system, and we do in fact condemn it 
most heartily.1
But the question still needs to be asked, "How widespread were these 
instances of unbiblical
and ungodly treatment on the part of Southern slave holders?" We have 
condemned such
abuses, but were they commonplace or exceptional?"

Again, he is not --- that's ***N O T*** --- stating that the purpose of this 
book is to refute Paul Hill, et al.  Absolutely NOT.

"Our concern is first to lay out certain biblical principles, and then turn 
to facts which are
seldom addressed in public, though they are not altogether unknown. An 
accurate
representation of the nature of Southern slavery has yet to be widely 
disseminated. And as a
consequence, there has been a great deal of falsehood paraded about in the 
pretense of truth.
The South has been stigmatized and slandered, and generations have been 
misled over the
true nature of the "peculiar institution" and, as a consequence, they have 
not understood the
true nature of the South in general. We must know the truth about slavery. 
We have no
concern to whitewash the sins of the South — or the North, for that matter. 
Where there issin, let us freely confess and forsake it. But because we have 
resolved to abandon sin, this
must include the sin of believing a lie."

He specifically states here that his purpose is to lay out an "accurate 
representation of the nature of Southern slavery has yet to be widely 
disseminated."  Again, I BEG YOU TO SHOW ME WHERE ABORTION IS INVOLVED IN 
THE WRITING OF THIS TRASH?!!!!

Well, that's the end of page one...the page Wilson specifically stated 
covered the reason for his little black book of lies.  Anyone - ANY one - 
see abortion or Paul Hill even mentioned?

Didn't think so.

Now, to be fair and to shut the mouths of his dogs, on page two through four 
1/2, Doug does go into a bit of a history and JERRY FALWELL (NOT Paul Hill!) 
and "lack of historical understanding (and how it) was harmful in two ways — 
and in both ways the integrity of God's Word was attacked. The first was the 
result of the attempt by evangelicals to portray the pro-life movement as a 
modern form of abolitionism."

He goes on to present "But we mentioned that the harm was two-fold. The 
embarrassment of evangelicals over the plain teaching of the Bible can be 
put to an adept use by those in rebellion against God. Dr. Jerry Falwell was 
once in a television debate with a liberal Episcopalian bishop. Sad to say, 
the liberal bishop mauled Dr. Falwell badly. They were debating an issue 
like abortion or sodomy, and Falwell was maintaining the biblical position, 
and the bishop responded by saying yes, but the Bible allows for slavery."

Now HERE he suddenly equates the two topics; however - notice how he says 
"an issue like abortion or sodomy"....like he's not sure just which was 
being discussed.  THEN, he goes on to talk about a dance that involved 
homosexual issues and...well here -

"One time a man was handing out tracts at a gay and lesbian dance. Those 
attending the dance
did not appear to be pleased, and someone apparently called a liberal 
Methodist pastor to
come and deal with him. He came down, and in the course of the discussion, 
the Christian
said that Leviticus condemns homosexuality as an abomination. The liberal 
pastor responded
by saying yes, but the Old Testament allowed for slavery. The Christian 
responded by saying
yes, it certainly did. "So what's your point?"

Notice that ABORTION is not even remotely mentioned in this portion.  It is 
about HOMOSEXUAL issues, NOT abortion or Paul Hill.

He goes on:

"If those who hate the Word of God can succeed in getting Christians to be 
embarrassed by
any portion of the Word of God, then that portion/will continually be 
employed as a
battering ram against the/godly principles that are currently under attack. 
In our day, three of
the principle issues are abortion, feminism, and sodomy. If we respond to 
the "embarrassing
parts" of Scripture by saying, "That was then, this is now," we will quickly 
discover that
liberals can play that game even more effectively than embarrassed 
conservatives. Paul
prohibited eldership to women? That was then, this is now. Moses condemned 
sodomy? That
was then, this is now."

Again, abortion is used as a perfunctory secondary issue, the main one being 
HOMOSEXUALITY.  If anything, he should have said last night that the issue 
really revolved around the homosexual and sodomy issues, NOT abortion and 
THAT is what prompted the writing of this funky stuff.  Why he picked up on 
that one (abortion) and then tried to defend himself by using Paul Hill when 
the guy is NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE BLOODY BOOK! is beyond me.

TBC.................

Comments?  Yeah, bet there will be.

J  :]

_________________________________________________________________
Check out all that glitters with the MSN Entertainment Guide to the Academy 
Awards®   http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline2