On 6/9/06, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:nickgier@adelphia.net">nickgier@adelphia.net</a></b> <<a href="mailto:nickgier@adelphia.net">nickgier@adelphia.net</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I joined the Vision just as Wilson was on his way out. I would like to share with you part of one of the last exchanges that we had until Wilson and Atwood put me on their Bozo filter. This is #6 of "12 Articles for Repudiation" that I presented to Wilson in December, 2003.
<br><br>Article 6. George Grant and Steve Wilkins are regular guest speakers at<br>annual meetings of your Association of Classical and Christian Schools<br>and Colleges.<br><br>Do your unscholarly views of the Civil War appear in the
<br>curriculum? Yes or No?<br>NOT ONE OF MY UNSCHOLARLY VIEWS APPEARS IN THE<br>CURRICULUM. (full caps in the original)</blockquote><div><br>Good thing you caught him with that /loaded question/. You should've asked him if he had stopped beating his wife.
<br><br>The "12 Articles" is one of my favorite V2020 memories. Here is the whole thing, for your reading enjoyment:<br><br style="font-family: georgia;">
<pre style="font-family: verdana;">><i>Dear visionaries,<br></i>><i><br></i>><i>Before answering Nick's questions, allow me to invite you all to a town <br></i>><i>hall meeting we are having at the Kenworthy, Thursday night at 7. We would
<br></i>><i>love to see you there. We will genuinely attempt to answer all the serious <br></i>><i>questions seriously. For more on frivolous questions, see below.<br></i>><i><br></i>><i>And as a preface to answering these questions, allow me to commend Nick
<br></i>><i>for this great new development in Socratic dialog. One party contributes <br></i>><i>the monosyllables while the other front loads all the questions. "Simple <br></i>><i>yes or no, Mr. Wilson. Do you repudiate your knavish behavior?" *Yes*
<br></i>><i>means that I acknowledge my knavish behavior in the past and *no* means <br></i>><i>that I intend to continue it. Easy peasy, and philosophy looks around for <br></i>><i>new ways to obscure the truth.
<br></i>><i><br></i>><i>But in keeping with the spirit of the thing, I will try to keep my answers <br></i>><i>as brief as possible. After all, *yikes* is a monosyllable. My answers are <br></i>><i>in ALL CAPS for ease of identification. I am not shouting. Some might
<br></i>><i>think I have a right to be SHOUTING BY THIS POINT, but they would wrong. I <br></i>><i>am viewing the current events in a philosophical spirit, much as Boethius <br></i>><i>might have amused himself by counting his toes.
<br></i>><i><br></i>><i><br></i>><i><br></i>>><i>TWELVE ARTICLES FOR REPUDIATION<br></i>>><i>Article 1. Christ Church member Roy Atwood now states that "Southern <br></i>>><i>Slavery, As it Was" is not a scholarly work. This concession implies
<br></i>>><i>that it is not as credible as a scholarly work. When any press publishes <br></i>>><i>a Monograph Series, it usually means that this is the best specialized <br></i>>><i>work that it can find. What is the status of this essay? What is the
<br></i>>><i>status of other works published by Canon Press?<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>a. Scholarly or unscholarly, are you responsible for the work? Yes or <br></i>>><i>No? YES, YES! I CONFESS IT1
<br></i>>><i>b. Do you repudiate this work and your support for Southern Slavery? Yes <br></i>>><i>or No? NOT THE FIERY TONGS AGAIN! YES, I REPUDIATE IT ALL!<br></i>>><i>c. Are other works published by Canon Press credible? Yes or No? CANON
<br></i>>><i>PRESS? VILE STUFF, ALL OF IT.<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Article 2. R. L. Dabney is cited favorably in the slavery booklet and <br></i>>><i>its co-author Steve Wilkins is an instructor at the Dabney Center for
<br></i>>><i>Theological Studies in Monroe, Louisana. Dabney was a racist and <br></i>>><i>condemned interracial marriage, something the Bible celebrates. Dabney <br></i>>><i>also condemned the education of African Americans, something the New
<br></i>>><i>Testament advocated. But your neo-Confederate friends have proudly <br></i>>><i>republished Dabney's works, which have blatantly unscriptural positions?<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Do you repudiate Dabney and all that he stands for? Yes or No? NO . . .
<br></i>>><i>WAIT! I MEANT YES!<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Article 3. Your position on slavery is equivocal. As a moral absolutist <br></i>>><i>you must say that it is always wrong, but your support for biblical
<br></i>>><i>slavery and Southern slavery implies that it depends on culture and <br></i>>><i>therefore is relative. Dabney's position is very interesting: the <br></i>>><i>righteous Anglo-Saxon Christian has a duty to enslave people that cannot
<br></i>>><i>govern themselves. The "evil is not slavery, but the ignorance and vice <br></i>>><i>in the laboring classes, of which slavery is the useful and righteous <br></i>>><i>remedy. . . . ("A Defense of Virginia," page 207).
<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>a. Do you repudiate this Dabney on this point? Yes or No? WHAT IS THE <br></i>>><i>RIGHT ANSWER HERE?<br></i>>><i>b. Do you believe that owning another person is always wrong? Yes or No?
<br></i>>><i>IT CAN'T BE ALWAYS WRONG BECAUSE YOU WON'T LET ME OUT OF HERE . . . NO, <br></i>>><i>WAIT! NOT THE RACK!<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Article 4. Steve Wilkins is the director of the League of the South. It
<br></i>>><i>stands for the repeal of the 14th Amendment (guaranteeing equal rights <br></i>>><i>for all Americans) and the secession of 15 Southern States to form a New <br></i>>><i>Confederate States of America. Some would call this treason.
<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Do you repudiate the League of the South? Yes or No? TREASON IS BAD, RIGHT?<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Article 5. George Grant and Steve Wilkins support the novel "Heiland,"
<br></i>>><i>which has been compared to the "Turner Diaries," the book that inspired <br></i>>><i>the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building. The book's hero leads a <br></i>>><i>violent overthrow of a "godless" federal government.
<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>a. Do you believe in the violent overthrow of the U. S. government? Yes <br></i>>><i>or No? NO!<br></i>>><i>b. Do you repudiate the ideas contained in the novel "Heiland"? Yes or
<br></i>>><i>No? YES! ESPECIALLY THE KOOKY PARTS ABOUT CHELATION THERAPY.<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Article 6. George Grant and Steve Wilkins are regular guest speakers at <br></i>>><i>annual meetings of your Association of Classical and Christian Schools
<br></i>>><i>and Colleges.<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>a. Do your unscholarly views of the Civil War appear in the <br></i>>><i>curriculum? Yes or No? NOT ONE OF MY UNSCHOLARLY VIEWS APPEARS IN THE <br>
</i>>><i>CURRICULUM.<br></i>>><i>b. Do your schools support neo-Confederate and Christian nationalist <br></i>>><i>views? Yes or No? MY SCHOOLS? I DON'T HAVE ANY SCHOO . . . . OKAY, OKAY. <br></i>>>
<i>WE REPUDIATE ALL ICKY VIEWS. NEVER HEARD OF 'EM.<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Article 7. Grant, Wilkins, and you are the principal speakers at the <br></i>>><i>February conference. The conference is called a "history" conference but
<br></i>>><i>no professional historians are speaking. The slavery booklet was one of <br></i>>><i>the publications of the first conference in 1994, but the fact that this <br></i>>><i>booklet is now declared "not scholarly" indicates that this conference
<br></i>>><i>and its predecessors may not be scholarly conferences. Furthermore, if <br></i>>><i>you reject the neo-Confederates, why are you inviting them to Moscow?<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>a. Is your meeting scholarly and credible? Yes or No? YES. WE WANT IT TO
<br></i>>><i>BE SCHOLARLY VERY MUCH. ANYTHING FOR RESPECTABILITY.<br></i>>><i>b. If No, would you consider moving it off campus so as to save <br></i>>><i>embarrassment to academic community and North Idaho? NO, WE WANT TO KEEP
<br></i>>><i>IT ON CAMPUS SO THAT THE CREDIBILITY WILL RUB OFF THE OTHER WAY. PERHAPS <br></i>>><i>WE CAN LEARN TO ASK YES OR NO QUESTIONS TOO.<br></i>>><i>c. Doesn't this conference give credibility to a movement you
<br></i>>><i>reject? Yes or No? NO!<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Article 8. In your slavery booklet you condemn slave owners who had sex <br></i>>><i>with their slaves as "ungodly." But Abraham had sex with his servant
<br></i>>><i>Hagar and was convinced by his wife Sarah to abandon Hagar and his son in <br></i>>><i>the desert.<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Do you repudiate Abraham and Sarah as ungodly? Yes or No? IS IT ALL
<br></i>>><i>RIGHT TO SAY NO? OKAY, NO.<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Article 9. You have said that your main goal is to defend the Bible in <br></i>>><i>all that it says. Yahweh declared genocide against all the inhabitants
<br></i>>><i>of Canaan and he made sure that it was carried out by the Israelite <br></i>>><i>armies. Most people believe that slaughter of any group of people, <br></i>>><i>regardless of their reputed sins, is always wrong.
<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>a. Do you repudiate Yahweh for commanding genocide? Yes or No? NO, BUT I <br></i>>><i>ADVISED HIM AGAINST IT.<br></i>>><i>b. Do you support the international conventions against genocide? Yes or
<br></i>>><i>No? THIS ISN'T A PRO-LIFE TRICK QUESTION, IS IT? IT IS? THEN NO.<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Article 10. In your slavery booklet you claim that since the Bible <br></i>>><i>condones slavery but condemns kidnapping, it was not sinful for people to
<br></i>>><i>own Africans that they themselves did not ship from Africa. I believe <br></i>>><i>that is as absurd as Buddhists who rationalize meat eating because they <br></i>>><i>claim they were not involved in the slaughter of the animal itself.
<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>a. Do you agree with me? Yes or No? ALWAYS!<br></i>>><i>b. Do you repudiate the owning of another person, any time, any <br></i>>><i>place? Yes or No? CAN I GO NOW? NO? THEN NO.
<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Article 11. In 1995 the Southern Baptist Convention passed a Racial <br></i>>><i>Reconciliation Resolution requesting that members repent for the evils of <br></i>>><i>racism and Southern Slavery. My understanding is that these are
<br></i>>><i>conservative evangelical Christians, are they not?<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Would you have voted for this resolution. Yes or No? CAN I READ IT <br></i>>><i>FIRST? NO? WAIT, NOT THE BOOT! YES, I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR IT. TWICE!
<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Article 12. When the League of the South was founded in 1994, it <br></i>>><i>recognized, as a way of honoring both Confederate soldiers and Scottish <br></i>>><i>rebels, the Confederate flag as a Christian symbol, specifically as the
<br></i>>><i>Cross of St. Andrews. In 1994 you founded your college and called it New <br></i>>><i>St. Andrews.<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Is New St. Andrews a neo-Confederate and Christian nationalist
<br></i>>><i>college? Yes or No? NO! THAT WOULD BE BAD AND EVIL. DO YOU WANT ME TO <br></i>>><i>SIGN ANYTHING?<br></i>>><i><br></i>>><i>Note: my information on the League of the South comes principally from
<br></i>>><i>Edward H. Sebesta and Euan Hague, "The US Civil War as a Theological War: <br></i>>><i>Confederate Christian Nationalism and the League of the South," Canadian <br></i>>><i>Review of American Studies 32:3 (2002), pp. 253-284.
</i></pre>
</div></div>