Dabney:
"The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity."
"The offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjugation, which they desire to fix on the South."
Here are Joe Friday's thoughts on why those who live in glass houses should not throw stones:
Chancey needs to rethink his strategy because people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. By Chancey's own criteria, which so far has been conspiracy theories and guilt by association, Doug Phillips may be as much of a racist as the people that Chancey accuses of being racists. From what I can tell there's no evidence that the Epsteins are racists, or that Frank Vance or anyone else that he's named are racists, but there's a lot of evidence that Doug Phillips is probably a racist.
Doug Phillips may be one of the most carefully closeted racists in America. How do I know that Phillips is probably a racist? Not by having to resort to Matt Chancey-style conspiracy theories and guilt by association. I can prove that Doug Phillips is a racist by the men that he admits are his "heroes." Doug Phillips' biggest personal heroes are all racists.
For example, Doug Phillips has often called his father, Howard Phillips, his "hero." Unlike the lack of evidence that there's a "connection" between the Epsteins and Little Geneva, Howard Phillips is obviously very closely connected to Doug Phillips. Howard Phillips is the founder of the Constitution Party, a political party that many, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, have accused of being a racist organization that's dominated by racists:
"Among the party's current roster of local candidates is a Salt Lake City man, Jack Gray, who has no qualms about presenting himself as a member of David Duke's white supremacist hate group, the European American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO).
The party's official key race for 2003 is a gubernatorial bid by Mississippi's most virulent Confederate flag defender, John Thomas Cripps, a long-time member of the white-supremacist hate group, League of the South (see profile 'Of the Weasel Kind')."
Christian Reconstructionist and holocaust revisionist R.J. Rushdoony is another one of Doug Phillips' heroes (like Rushdoony, Phillips is a Christian Reconstructionist, but that's a different story for a different day). Phillips has often mentioned Rushdoony as being one of the most significant influences in his life, probably second only to his father.
"The influence of [R.J. Rushdoony] on twentieth century thought was vast and extended to many who drew heavily from his writings though they were unwilling to formally associate with him because of his vigorous advocacy of biblical law."
Posted by Doug Phillips on November 2, 2003 | Permalink
"Vigorous advocacy of biblical law" among other things meant that Rushdoony had a very favorable opinion of old Southern "institutions" like slavery. In Rushdoony's view slavery is not only biblical and permissible, but he often wrote of American slavery as "benevolent" and preferable to living in Africa. Does it get any more racist than that? Rushdoony also condemned interracial marriage.
"The burden of the law is against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish."
Yet this is the man that Doug Phillips praises by name in over 50 of his blog articles. Vision Forum also sells Rushdoony's tapes.
In talking about Rushdoony, Phillips isn't exaggerating when he says that "many who drew heavily from his writings." The Southern Poverty Law Center has written several times about the influence of Rushdoony. In a Southern Poverty Law Center book review of Southern Slavery, As It Was, written by Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins (founder of the racist League of the South), the SPLC states about Rushdoony:
"During the 1960s, as part of a backlash against the civil rights movement, a theologian named Gregg Singer rediscovered the work of Robert L. Dabney, the chaplain to Civil War Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. Soon, he was joined by another far-right theologian, Rousas John Rushdoony, who also came across Dabney, a man who had spent the 30 years after the Civil War popularizing the idea that the "godly" South had been victimized by godless Yankees.
Both Singer and Rushdoony admired Dabney's ideas, which included a view of the South as a religiously ordered society, an "orthodox" Christian remnant in a nation increasingly overtaken by rationalist and anti-religious thought.
Dabney's virulent racism — he saw blacks as a "morally inferior race," a "sordid, alien taint" marked by "lying, theft, drunkenness, laziness, waste" — also supported Rushdoony's dislike for the civil rights movement and ongoing desegregation. Dabney explicitly defended slavery as godly, a theme Wilson and Wilkins would later repeat."
Not only has Doug Phillips many times sung the praises of the racist and holocaust revisionist R.J. Rushdoony, Phillips has also lauded the praises of the African American-hating R.L. Dabney. Phillips mentions Dabney in over 50 different places on his blog. Vision Forum sells a book about Dabney and refers to Dabney as "the greatest southern theologian of the 19th century."
"Hail Dabney, prophet of the South, our great apologist... And so with joy we doff our hats and shout from every mouth: Hail Dabney, wise apologist, defender of the South!"
Posted by Doug Phillips on July 13, 2004 | Permalink
Another one of Doug Phillips heroes is Otto Scott, a man that Phillips calls "one of the great octogenarian heroes of the faith." Scott condemned abolitionism and referred to the emancipator John Brown as a "terrorist." Doug Phillips agrees.
From Doug's Bookshelf:
"The Secret Six by Otto Scott is the best book on the evil movement known as abolitionism which funded America's first terrorist, John Brown, and did so in the name of anti-Christian Unitarianism. Christians should be aware that being anti-slavery and being anti-abolitionist were not incompatable sentiments for both Southerners and Northerners in the years leading up to the Civil War."
Posted by Doug Phillips on May 31, 2003 | Permalink
Matt Chancey isn't without his own racist connections, including right within his own family. Matt Chancey's father in law, Ovid Need, has condemned as "unwise" interracial marriage, or what he calls "race mixing."
Race Mixing
"Though socially, practically and Scripturally unwise to intermarry between races, the Scriptures only forbid marriage of incest (e.g., brother/sister, stepmother/son, and close relatives), of the offending party in divorce and between believers and unbelievers, 2 Cor 6:14."
I don't like racism. But one thing I especially don't like is racists who pretend that they're not racists while they accuse others of being racists. Like I said before, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Joe
[The following is being added March 23, 2007. This conversation took place on Ministry Watchman between Joe and myself.]
Here is part of a conversation between Joe Friday and myself on Ministry Watchman. I am posting these comments here, even though they took place some time ago, because people are still reading this article, and I want to ensure clarity:
Me:
Joe, I have reflected on the article you sent to me, and have looked up the men you reference. I think what you have proven is not that Doug is probably a racist, but that he is extremely hypocritical. Reasoning as follows:
Doug endorses Chancey’s (pause while I gag) “independent investigation.” By Chancey’s words, and Doug’s endorsement, Doug and Matt repudiate dealings with kinsists and racists as a means of accomplishing a goal. You can’t read mrsbinoculars and not come away with that idea. Now, I am NOT speaking of Rushdoony here, but I am thinking of all the Constitution Party’s ties to blatant racists that you gave me. And Doug HAS endorsed the Constitution Party. So DOUG aligns with racists to accomplish political goals.
You have nailed the hypocrisy big time, as I stated in my blog. And I am taking that article as a means of showing Doug and Matt how their reasoning works when applied to themselves. And to be honest, that is the reason I posted it. But in order to say “probably a racist,” you need more proof. I just want to make that clear, both on my blog, and here.
Because Doug’s endorsement of a party that has notable racists might not be an alignment for the purpose of spreading racism, but of limiting the intrusion of the Federal Government, and issues like those. And there are other considerations.
Let’s keep repeating that mrsbinoculars is a big diversion from the main topic, which has now gone off the internet. I only write about mrsbino because the principals can’t defend themselves, and to show what I can of the faulty reasoning.
Joe:
Hi Lynn.
I respect your opinion about all this. But I still think that Doug Phillips is probably a racist, and the more that I look into it the more I’m convinced about it. I think a lot of other people will be convinced too. They just need to see all the evidence, and unlike Matt Chancey it won’t take me anywhere near 10,000 words to try and convince anyone. The evidence is a whole lot stronger that Phillips is a racist than the Epsteins and Frank Vance and Ministry Watchman are racists.
My belief about Phillips came by applying the same Chancey “independent investigation” standards that he’s applied to Jen Epstein and Frank Vance and Ministry Watchman. If those standards are fair, biblical, and logical then we should all be able to use those same standards and apply them to Doug Phillips. I believe that we SHOULD do that and we shouldn’t be afraid to scrutinize Phillips in the same way that he wants to scrutinize others.
If the Chancey standards of “independent investigation” are unfair, unbiblical, and logical fallacies then Doug Phillip has an obligation to step forward immediately and publicly condemn Matt Chancey’s “independent investigation.” But he hasn’t done that. By linking to Mrs. Binoculars from the Vision Forum web site Phillips gave Chancey an endorsement, and he even called it an “independent investigation” himself. Which means that Doug Phillips is also a deceiver and a liar.
If Phillips doesn’t condemn Chancey’s “independent investigation” for the fraud that it is then he’s begging to be publicly examined himself by the same standards, and I’m more than happy to do my part.
I don’t personally think Chancey’s standards are fair, biblical or logical, but Phillips obviously does. He started this battle and he set the rules for the battle, so unless he wants to now admit the rules are dirty and sleazy then I plan to join the war games and play by the same rules.
I’m grateful Lynn that you posted my email. I didn’t want to have to start my own blog to do this. You’ve already got the audience and the influence, and from what I can see your audience is seriously interested. That’s why I came to you Lynn. I also came to you because it’s obvious that most of your audience are women, and most of Vision Forum’s customers are probably women. It’s important that the women know that when they buy something from Vision Forum that they’re supporting racist beliefs and historical revisionism that most Christian women would probably be appalled at.
I’m still trying to interest Ministry Watchman in posting some articles too. I think they should and they need to. I think they need to put back up all the articles they took down. All this talk about reconciliation with Phillips. It’s a waste of time. Phillips is just out for his pound of flesh. The only hope of ever bringing a guy like that to repentance is to give him as much public exposure as possible. Even then if he does “repent” we’ll all have doubts about his sincerity, but at least the public exposure will make him accountable. Isn’t that the purpose of Ministry Watchman?
Watchman, it’s not for me to tell you how to run your blog but I think it wasn’t all that wise for you to take those Phillips articles down. A guy like Phillips doesn’t see what you did as an act of charity. He just sees that as weakness and vulnerability. You’ve made yourself vulnerable so now he thinks he can move in for the kill. I understand that the Epsteins probably had to take their articles down, but you didn’t.
When you deal with politicians you’ve got to come at them from a position of strength. The only thing politicians respect is power and influence. It’s like what Reagan did with Gorbachev. Before disarming Reagan dramatically ramped up our strategic nuclear weapons. He also came up with an idea that sounded insane at the time, “Mutual Assured Destruction.” That’s how you’ve got to deal with a politician like Doug Phillips. He launched the “racist nuke” for only one reason, to destroy you. He needs to know that you’re willing to launch a counterstrike, and you need to know that he’s got a whole lot more to lose than you do.
I’ve never met any of the Phillips and I hope I never do. But I’ve read enough about them to know that they’re a bunch of politicians. Howard Phillips is a politician, trained in one of the sleaziest political settings, the Nixon administration. He raised his sons to think and act like politicians.
Lynn, all that discussion going on at your blog now about Rahab and “righteous lying” fits the Phillips clan to a T.
I really hope I’m proven wrong about reconciliation ever happening between the Epsteins and Doug Phillips. I’m not rejecting the idea that God is capable of making that happen. I know he can. God can do whatever it pleases him to do. But I also think that Phillips has a heart of stone and enough pride to fill the State of Texas. I came to that conclusion after reading the Epsteins’ extraordinarily well documented story on their blogs and then reading Phillips pathetic “response” on the BCA web site. I just can’t see reconciliation ever happening.
Again Watchman, I’m not trying to tell you what to do, but I’ll just say that if it were me I’d put a deadline on it. That’s not to try and force Phillips into reconciliation. That wouldn’t be sincere reconciliation. But a realistic deadline that says “We waited as long as reasonable. Phillips obviously isn’t interested in reconciling with the Epsteins. So we’re putting our articles back up. We’re also going to run some stories about Doug Phillips being a racist. He’s accused us of being racists, and conspiring with racists. So it’s only fair that his own racial views and friendships with racists be scrutinized too, and we’re going to use the same standards that he used to judge us.”
Me:
Joe:
“But I still think that Doug Phillips is probably a racist, and the more that I look into it the more I’m convinced about it. I think a lot of other people will be convinced too. They just need to see all the evidence, and unlike Matt Chancey it won’t take me anywhere near 10,000 words to try and convince anyone. The evidence is a whole lot stronger that Phillips is a racist than the Epsteins and Frank Vance and Ministry Watchman are racists.”
Then . . .
“My belief about Phillips came by applying the same Chancey “independent investigation” standards that he’s applied to Jen Epstein and Frank Vance and Ministry Watchman.”
You are saying two things here, Joe. The top thing is you have more evidence that convinces you Doug is a racist. The next thing you say is your belief came by applying Chancey’s standards to your investigation. But you acknowledge Chancey’s site is full of smear and lacking evidence.
Joe, if you acknowledge that your belief came about by means of engaging in political logical fallacies, then you know it is a very tenuous belief to have.
What I would like the “homeschool mamas” to walk away with from that article I posted on my site is not that it proves Doug is probably a racist, but that by Matt Chancey’s standards it certainly does, and far more so than Chancey convinced us of anything about the Epsteins. That . . . and that they are hypocrites (you who pass judgment do the same things).
And there’s a world of difference there.
I think to jump shift right into talking like Matt Chancey without explaining why you are doing this is to help spread confusion. There are already people commenting to my blog who state Doug is a racist. All I can say is I don’t think what you did proved it, but it does show the hypocrisy. And by Matt Chancey’s standards, yes, Doug is far more implicated than the Epsteins. That is what people need to know who are looking into this.
Joe:
Hi Lynn.
I tend to agree with you. My statement that “Doug Phillips is probably a racist” was intended to be in sharp contrast with Matt Chancey’s “is” accusations, but now that I look at it again I can see that there’s not nearly enough of a contrast. “Probably” is just too strong a word.
Chancey has repeatedly used the unqualified and conclusive “is.” “Jen Epstein is Mrs. Binoculars.” “Jennifer Epstein is a key ringleader of what may be one of the largest, most far-reaching and best-organized conspiracies to defame Christian leaders ever to hit the blogosphere.” “Jennifer’s high level involvement in the Ministry Watchman scam is now a matter of public record.” “Now, however, her pragmatic collaboration with white separatist bigots is clearly revealed.” “The man hiding behind the name ‘Frank Vance’ is a closet Kinist who carefully minimizes this fact in order to protect the credibility of Ministry Watchmen.” etc.
I see now though that my use of the word “probably” isn’t nearly enough of a qualifier, and it’s not nearly enough in contrast to Chancey’s “is” accusations. Rather than “probably” what I should have said is “may be” or “very well could be.” In the future I’ll make a point of being more careful about that.
I also admit that this sentence was poorly worded, “My belief about Phillips came by applying the same Chancey ‘independent investigation’ standards that he’s applied to Jen Epstein and Frank Vance and Ministry Watchman.” What I should have said is, “My thesis about Phillips and racism will come by…” I agree that such a thesis, based on Matt Chancey’s own system of logical fallacies may not conclusively prove that Phillips is a racist. But I will say once again that the evidence that I’ve been gathering is much more compelling than any so-called evidence that Chancey has put out.
Lynn, whether or not it can be proven conclusively that Doug Phillips is a racist, I do agree with what you and Watchman have said. It’s really not even necessary to prove that Phillips is a racist (although given enough research I think I may be able to come very close to that). Exposing the hypocrisy and maliciousness of Doug Phillips’ actions in all this should be more than adequate to cause many people to wonder if they can continue supporting him and his Vision Forum.
56 comments:
Wow! I've suspected Doug Phillips was a racist for a long time. The Vision Forum catalog never has anything but white people in it, and he lives in San Antonio which is something like 50% Hispanic. This article really nails it.
That's a very dangerous game that Matt Chancey started. Racists should be the last people in the world to point the finger and call anyone else "racist!"
POT -> KETTLE -> BLACK
Mr. Chancey, "If you live by the sword you die by the sword."
Hmmm. I like that Joe Friday doesn't lead us on to only wait for some forhtcoming evidence. No silly conspiracy theories, either. I can't imagine hailing Dabney as the greatest southern theologian and then waging a war against the kinists? It seems that Dabney would be a kinist hero. I already know that the kinists revere Rushdooney. These are two men that both the kinists and Phillips lifts up as men of high standing.
After speaking with JF and coming to agreement about a particular point, I am going to revise the article a bit the way Joe asked me to. It will be edited in a few minutes.
Ovid Need:
"Though socially, practically and Scripturally unwise to intermarry between races, the Scriptures only forbid marriage of incest (e.g., brother/sister, stepmother/son, and close relatives), of the offending party in divorce and between believers and unbelievers, 2 Cor 6:14."
How can someone say something is "Scripturally unwise" and in the next breath say that the Scriptures don't forbid it? The only way I can think of is you are using the Bible to prove an idea of your own making.
And, what happened to Miriam when she blasted Moses for marrying a Cushite woman? God did something to her, didn't He?
Corrie, Phillips' "Hail to Dabney" poem is very troubling, especially considering that it is Phillips that, through his close personal friend Matt Chancey, who is eager to libel the Epsteins, Ministry Watchman, and Frank Vance as kinists. When Phillips cries out "Hail to Dabney!" all kinists respond "Amen!" Phillips has a great deal more in common politically, theologically and historically with kinists than probably any of the people that Chancey is now trying to libel as kinists.
Kinists themselves acknowledge that Dabney was a racist, and they make no apologies for it. I haven't seen Phillips make any apologies for Dabney's racism either, but everyone should now keep a close eye on his blog because some new disclaimers are bound to start popping up now.
Kinism: [Kinists] consider themselves followers of Presbyterian theologian R. L. Dabney, who was a Confederate army chaplain and author of A Defence of Virginia.
Dabney defenders like Steve Wilkins have tried to argue that Dabney's racism was merely reflective of the times in which he lived. But from what I've seen, Dabney's racism was actually far more virulent than the vast majority of his southern contemporaries. The following is from a book review on Amazon on Robert Louis Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life.
2. Dabney's racism was not just typical of the South, it was worse than average. When his own PCUS denomination, at the peak of their pain in 1866, decided to move forward with ordaining black men, Dabney published a heated jeremiad against it. See pp. 145-6. He says that he finds it horrible that his collegues would extend love to blacks, as "I, for one, make no professions of special love for those who are, even now, attempting against me and mine the most loathsome outrages.......... to teach and rule over white ppeople, and make (a black man) a co-equal member with myself in West Hanover Presbytery, to sit in judgment on the affairs of white churches..I oppose........(blacks are) a subservient race..made to follow and not to lead..."
3. He argued in writing that a major reason the South was poorer than the North was because they spent all their money on taking care of their slaves!
Doug Phillips: "Hail Dabney!"
Howard Phillips has been the Chairman of the Conservative Caucus since 1974. One of his board members is Richard Shoff. Shoff is the former "Grand Kilgrapp" of the Indiana Ku Klux Klan.
"Another Conservative Caucus board member and funder is Richard Shoff, a North Carolina businessman whose questionable business practices have brought him the attention of local newspapers, trade associations, and the Better Business Bureau. Shoff has also been involved in a number of lawsuits while running sales operations in Indiana and selling log homes from his company, Lincoln Log Homes, in North Carolina. In the early 1970's, he was the Grand Kilgrapp (state secretary) of the Indiana Ku Klux Klan. Indianapolis police told a reporter that KKK cross burnings were held on Shoff's property during Klan rallies which were hosted by Shoff. According to the head of the Indiana KKK, Shoff was also a generous funder of Klan activities."
Joe,
Shocking. Truly shocking. I knew there would be an argument that this is how people used to think. BUT, there were many godly Christians in those days who were just as opposed to this ungodly thinking.
I am sure we could find plenty of Christians who wrote against such sentiments that Dabney expressed.
Surely Doug Phillips could find someone much better to "hail" if he tried? There must be a reason why he feels Dabney is one of the greatest Southern theologians? I find it hard to even get past his writings on race issues to even see if there is any meat in his writings. I will pass on that dish!
Joe, I think you've quieted things down here quite a bit. Where are all the people who would argue with your post?
I know they are reading it, or at least going to the page.
I went to the Wikipedia article that said kinists hold Dabney in high regard, and then I read that poem by Phillips, praising Dabney, and I am just shaking my head in almost disbelief at what Chancey attempted to pull off.
"I am just shaking my head in almost disbelief at what Chancey attempted to pull off."
Lynn, I've been shaking my head in disbelief from the very first "investigation" article that Chancey posted. As far as I'm concerned the man doesn't know the first thing about how to do an investigation. He set off with an agenda to ruin the Epsteins and ruin anyone who ever helped the Epsteins. To him it doesn't matter what the facts are.
BTW, I'm wondering what happened to Concerned About Ministry Watchman? Why isn't he back today posting as Concerned About Doug Phillips? I guess he wasn't really all that "concerned" about getting to the truth after all.
I kept hearing those names (Dabney, Rushdoony, Chalcedon) batted around on reformed blogs I frequented. I don't know how I missed this stuff. Very eye-opening, to say the least. Thanks for bringing this stuff out. It truly does seem to be "POT -> KETTLE -> BLACK". I'm doing lots of rethinking these days!
As a woman in the process of adopting 2 black children, I have been saddened to find the connection between Vision Forum and racism.
As a Christian who came to Christianity as an adult because I felt the Creation story in Genesis best described what I observed about man, this story rocks the very foundation of my Christian faith. Luckily, I have been a Christian long enought to know that while men will sometimes let me down, God never will ~
You know, I agree with the above commenters. You cannot really see what is behind some of the nice graphics/presentations unless you take the time. I remember reading a great article by Rushdooney on elders I forwarded to someone. They e-mailed me back and said, you better check this guy out.
I did and was really shocked. While some teaching was very good, some was very bad.
The work simplegifts has done here is excellent. We have too many professing Christians following men. God is a jealous God and He wants us to follow Christ.
I heard a great itinerant preacher say that he really admires certain preachers but, if one came to where he was, he would leave immediately. Why? Kind of strange but he said, he would be in danger of elevating that mere man to a level above Christ. He knew his flesh would take over and dared not tempt it because he must depend on Christ only.
Celebrity pastors have become an epidemic problem in the American Churches. The itinerant pastor may have overstated the case, but I think he is on to something.
Julie, it's odd that any Christian would have anything against other races considering the creation story. We're all descended from the same two people! We're all related! I don't recall ever reading, "For God so loved the whites that He gave His only begotten Son..." He loves the whole world! All people are included in that, and anyone who says differently is a liar.
God bless you on your adoptions! How wonderful that those two children will have a loving home to grow up in, one where the love of God flows equally to all.
Celebrity pastors have become an epidemic problem in the American Churches. The itinerant pastor may have overstated the case, but I think he is on to something.
So true, Rena. We should know better.
"Julie, it's odd that any Christian would have anything against other races considering the creation story."
I didn't know this, but from some comments I have surmised that some kinists hold to an old earth creation model from where some derive their racist views. However, there are many racists who hold to a young earth model, and they justify their racism by attempting to prove that Noah's curse on Canaan meant that black people from Africa are Canaan's direct descendants and therefore were subject to slavery.
Both views I would disagree with, but they amount to the same thing in the end, here.
"The work simplegifts has done here is excellent."
Others, such as Cynthia Gee and Joe Friday have done the work. I am just reporting it. I also appreciate the levelheadedness that has for the most part characterized this discussion.
Aw shucks, I only got the ball rolling. Julie and Joe have done the most excellent work. Now it's up to everyone else to inform the homeschooling community of what's been going on.
On Ministry Watchman I just read a posting which said,
“I’m very confident of one thing — if what you’ve assembled were to be widely disseminated to the home school moms that are the very lifeblood of Vision Forum, it would probably be devastating to Vision Forum. So far what you’ve written hasn’t been very widely disseminated.”
I agreed, and I wrote:
That’s about to change. This story was getting pretty well circulated around the “blogosphere” before Joe wrote his excellent posts. With your permission, I’d like to disseminate Joe’s postings further, and I encourage Joe and everyone else here to do the same.
I’ve been observing the Patriarchy movement for some years now, and I had always suspected that Phillips, Lancaster, MacDonald, Chancey, et al were fishy; this whole thing has confirmed it. Before all this happened, the only people who suspected what was really going on were a handful of private observers, and groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center.
These folks have been making a fortune indoctrinating an entire generation of homeschooled kids with their theonomist/patriarchal doctrine, and if it weren’t for the Epstein incident, they might have gotten clean away with it.
Check out this blog, especially comment # 31, made by the blog owner’s husband. Even the parents have been indoctrinated into believing this stuff:
http://dominionfamily.com/blog.....l-jackson/
Most homeschooling moms are very well meaning, and many have been shocked to find out what Phillips really believes and what Rushdooney really taught. After being told, people are dropping links to Vision Forum right and left:
http://agracioushome.com/?p=842
http://www.homeschoolblogger.c.....ng%3F.html
Spread the word.
I said it on Watchman, and I'll say it again here -- spread the word.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CJ
http.//www.homeschoolblogger.com/cynthiagee
OOPS, those links didn't all come through. That should have read,
Check out this blog, especially comment # 31, made by the blog owner’s husband. Even the parents have been indoctrinated into believing this stuff:
http://dominionfamily.com/blog/2007/01/leaders-action-stonewall-jackson/
Most homeschooling moms are very well meaning, and many have been shocked to find out what Phillips really believes and what Rushdooney really taught. After being told, people are dropping links to Vision Forum right and left:
http://agracioushome.com/?p=842
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/AcceptanceWithJoy/270003/By+what+standard+is+slavery+wrong%3F.html
You might try reading around on that dominion family site. They aren't big fans of Philips, and they were one of the few bloggers who mentioned the Ligonier nonsense.
Yeah! I am so happy to see this expose! For years I have suspected that all of this was true but really didn't want to believe it. I have rubbed shoulders with those who also "hail dabney" and can tell you that many of them, too, are abusive in their actions as church leaders and their wives are the slaves in their homes. When one of them invited the whole church family out to his "plantation," that was the last time I visited in their home!
Keep up the great work, indelible grace!
Great posts on this subject.
What really boggles my mind is that Jesus was Jewish!!! Why is He exempt from the kinists' racists slams since He is of pure Jewish blood, a full-blooded Jew? How can they worship Jesus in Spirit and the Truth when they consider Jews with such contempt, suspicion and hatred?
I really liked Ken Ham's book on the races called "One Blood". I saw him speak on this issue about 5 years ago and I was moved to tears. It was a convicting and inspiring talk about about this issue.
I am still perplexed that Doug Phillips wrote a poem about Dabney hailing him a a wonderful man. How can one do that and ignore his racism? And, then, how can one go on to use the racist card as a smear tactic in your CAMPAIGN against others?
It seems that there is much more proof of Doug Phillip's kinist connections than t here are of the Epstein's and MW's and Vance's kinist connections.
And did you see on MW where they posted the complete response from Frank absolutely denying any connection to kinists and denying the allegations that any kinists were writing for MW.
Was that complete quote shown in Chancey's National Inquirer type expose or was only part of it shown? It seems that Matt is being quite choosy about what he uses for "proof". How about the WHOLE truth?
I just went and looked at the Mrs. Bino site and it seems Matt did include the whole quote where Frank denies being a kinist or any MW writers being kinists.
He also quotes from a piece in Frank's blog where Frank tells the blogger he is not going to get into a discussion about multiculturalism.
From there, Matt pretty much assumes that Frank is guilty of being a closet kinist.
I guess it is okay not to hear from Doug Phillips on this issue and it is okay for others not to respond to even reasonable, on-topic questions but when others refuse to get into rabbit trail discussions that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, then this is damning evidence of a smoking gun.
I notice that Frank talks about how he shares some theological interests with Rushdooney and Dabney and Van Til. Well, that means that this is evidence that Phillips and Chancey are kinists, too. They all share interests in these men and so does Harry Seabrook, so they are all kinists.
I am not an expert in logical but doesn't this sort of "logic" strike anyone as irrational and bordering on hysterical?
Here is what Frank did say:
"Are we kinists? No. Is any Ministry Watchman writer a kinist? No."
So, unless MC has any real evidence besides speculations and "hunches" based on irrational logic and unless he has a name for Frank Vance (if that is not his real name) that proves he is linked to the kinists and unless he knows someone who knows Frank who can attest to Frank's tendencies to be a kinist, Matt Chancey really should stop it.
Frank says he is not a kinist and he said that no one who writes for MW is a kinist.
I have yet to see any proof that proves Frank's statement to be false.
Cynthia, you quoted from Doug concerning the abolitionist movement. Does he really think that the movement was "evil"? Is that really a quote from him? Do you kow why he thinks he is evil?
I don't want to get into people not supporting Vision Forum as much as I wish to point out that the Epsteins agreed to not speak for themselves, but Chancey still has that site up and has added to it.
My sole purpose here is to make a notation of that sorry fact, and to point out facts coming out that clearly show that the way *he* is arguing would implicate him and Doug as well.
What I would like to see happen is for Doug Phillips to meet with the elders of the church the Epsteins are joining and to deal with this matter privately.
I just want to go on record as saying there are many people who have similar concerns Doug Phillips does about the Federal Government's power over the lives of United States citizens, and this is a concern I would share with Phillips and others. And there are many good things Vision Forum sells.
As this goes around the blogosphere, which I think it will some more than it has because Ministry Watchman talked about me in their latest article, and many people are looking at their site, let's keep in mind that what we are desiring to see is peace and unity of believers. It is hard for me to understand how Phillips could want that, on account of Chancey's site still beling up, but still, that is the end we are praying toward.
Frank says he is not a kinist and he said that no one who writes for MW is a kinist.
I have yet to see any proof that proves Frank's statement to be false.
Exactly. And those things that Matt offers as 'proof,' unfortunately for his point, can be applied with equal logic to Matt Chancey and Doug Philips.
I also second the recommendation for One Blood- it was a fantastic book.
Yes, I've heard Ken Ham speak against the interpretation in Genesis about separation of the races from the curse on Canaan, and his views on racism, and have been greatly helped by some things I have learned from him.
Lynn, thanks for the reminder. Yes, I, too, want to see reconciliation and peace in this situation. That is what would truly glorify God.
Corrie,
"Doug's Bookshelf" is part of Doug's Blog and contains Doug Phillips' own reviews of the various books he has read. This is what Phillips says about Otto Scott's book:
From Doug’s Bookshelf: "The Secret Six by Otto Scott is the best book on the evil movement known as abolitionism which funded America’s first terrorist, John Brown, and did so in the name of anti-Christian Unitarianism. Christians should be aware that being anti-slavery and being anti-abolitionist were not incompatable sentiments for both Southerners and Northerners in the years leading up to the Civil War."
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2003/05/
Note the reference to "the evil movement known as abolitionism" -- Doug's own words.
Now, the Vision Forum Book Blog is different. It contains book reviews written by other people, often written by VF friends such as William Potter. Check out Mr. Potter's review of Dabney's "A Southern Presbyterian Life":
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/books/
justice prima said...
"You might try reading around on that dominion family site. They aren't big fans of Philips, and they were one of the few bloggers who mentioned the Ligonier nonsense."
That's true. I included the link to Dominion Family not to point out that the blog owner was specifically a Phillips follower, but to show just how greatly the revisionist's version of history has caught on in homeschooling circles, as demonstrated by various posts made there regarding Steve Wilkin's book and Southern history in general.
I made a BIG snafu last night by saying that poster #31, Tim, was the blog owner Cindy's husband. Cindy understandably was upset, and I apologised to her today over on Ministry Watchman.
I'd like to repeat that apology here, to all of you: I'm sorry for the misinformation. It was the result of sloppy research on my part--relying on my memory rather than checking EVERYTHING out, and there is no excuse for that.
As I said on Ministry Watchman,
"Cindy, if Tim is not your husband, I apologise. Profusely. I could have sworn that you had referred to your husand as Tim in a previous posting, and so I assumed…
Just goes to prove the truth of what they say about that word, “ass-umed.”"
The proud Southern tradition of revisionism and cleaning up the image a bit, romanticizing the past, has been around a long time. It's also a proud Northern tradition, where everybody wants to remember that northern churches started abolition, that northerners worked hard on the underground railroad, that northerners advocated freeing the slaves- and nobody wants to remember that some southerners did too, and those northerners were a distinct minority, that it is true they were for many years hated and reviled by men on both sides of the Mason Dixon line, and notherners were often intensely bigoted, and still can be.
It's also a proud eastern and western tradition. In short, it's a proud and very human tradition to brush up the good deeds of those we admire and blur the details of the bad, and nobody is more guilty of this than anybody else, IMO. We just have different areas in our lives and beliefs where this applies.
I don't think it was appropriate or fair to drag the Dominion Family blog into this. I don't think they deserve it. And I think it is silly to assume that there is only one person named Timothy who could ever comment on their blog. Cynthia, I think you do paint with a brush just as wide as Matt's, although you do it with far more graciousness and civility. You link organizations and people who have very little in common, and it has the same effect of redirecting attention from the issues that I think really matter (and yes, I know that sounds really arrogant of me) such as ecclesiatical abuse, lack of accountability, and deceitful words and actions from VF, DP et al.
I also think that these sorts of actions easily devolve into the sort of witch-hunts that until now have primarily
characterized Matt Chancey and his ilk.
And one good reason I dislike those witchhunts is because, as I have said, people are a very mixed bag. I read really ugly things here said about Harry Seabrook, Bad, and Iron Hare, and, yes, I disagree with their views on race and find their views on race repugnant. But their views on race do not define them as human beings, do not sum up the whole of their lives and influences and behavior, anymore than my sins and weaknesses are all the parts of me anybody need know anything about to be able to decide what sort of person I am.
I have said this before and I will repeat it here- it is our culture that has made this issue of bigotry *the* litmus test for today. I am glad we do not live in the past, I am glad these views are not acceptable and admirable (in most circles), but I completely disagree with demonizing the entire personhood of those who hold views on race that I find sinful.
They are humans, too, with good and admirable traits as well as sad and sinful ones. Here's a post that demonstrates that:
http://www.xanga.com/TheIronHare/537694409/life-and-death-on-the-net.html
People are a mixed bag. You just can't make cartoon characters out of them.
Justice Prima said,
"Cynthia, I think you do paint with a brush just as wide as Matt's, although you do it with far more graciousness and civility. You link organizations and people who have very little in common, and it has the same effect of redirecting attention from the issues that I think really matter (and yes, I know that sounds really arrogant of me) such as ecclesiatical abuse, lack of accountability, and deceitful words and actions from VF, DP et al."
Justice, I thank you for the "graciousness and civility" part; as for the rest, I stand rebuked, if I have been painting with a wide brush.
In my own defense, though, I must say that I do always try to paint the TRUTH, though sometimes, as in my reference to Tim as Cindy's husband I fail grievously. I don't do witchhunts.
As for the Dominion Family blog, I was using Tim's comments as an example of how people have come to believe the Southern revisionist's histories.
Revisionist histories are BAD, no matter who's writing them, but right now, the biggest offenders are the secular humanist revisionists on the Left, who write for the public schools, and the Southern revisionists on the Right, whose books are being sold through Christian homeschooling publishers.
Revisionist histories are LIES, whoever writes them.
And for Christians to package lies as HISTORY, and market them to parents to be taught to CHILDREN, is "ecclesiatical abuse, lack of accountability", and deceit of the worst sort.
And if that's painting with a wide brush, then I'm Grandma Moses. :)
I think we're just going to continue to disagree on the significance of the latest fashionable slant to history in the homeschooling movement (I agree it's unfortunate and not right, but it's not any worse to me than many other problems I see in different hsing movements that I won't go into because then I'll be redirecting our attention).
I just wanted to reiterate/stress/emphasize that I'm not being ingratiatingly disingeneous here. I really do disagree with you very much, but that disagreement is more than tempered by my admiration for your ability to maintain a friendly, civil, gracious tone even on an issue you obviously feel passionately about.
I wish I did that as consistently as you have done.
Revisionist histories are LIES, whoever writes them.
Can I ask an honest question? Where do we find history told truthfully without bias? I can't seem to find it. Is anyone truly honest when recording history? How do we tell the difference? I really want to know! Is it possible to know what really happened?
I won’t pretend to understand the curse of Canaan. But it doesn’t justify African slavery. The curse was directed at Canaan, not all the sons of Ham. Canaan and his descendents settled in the Middle East (Genesis 10:19). Sodom and Gomorrah were inhabited by Canaanites. After the Exodus, the Jewish people conquered the Canaanites.
[Why is He exempt from the kinists' racists slams since He is of pure Jewish blood, a full-blooded Jew?]
Jesus was not of pure Jewish blood. He actually is descended from Shem and Ham.
The tribe of Judah, the ancestral tribe of both King David and Jesus is not a pure-blooded Jewish Tribe. Judah left the family for a time and married a Canaanite woman. He was living among the Canaanites when he selected a wife for his oldest son, Tamar. Most Bible scholars believe Tamar was a Canaanite also. The tribe originated from the union of Judah with Tamar. (Genesis 38)
Rahab, a former Canaanite prostitute, also appears in Jesus’ family tree. Rahab married a Jewish man, Salmon and is the mother of Boaz. (Joshua 2)
Ruth was a Moabite (a descendent of an incestuous relationship between Lot and his eldest daughter). So while Ruth was descended from Shem, she was not descended from Abraham and was not a Jew.
"Can I ask an honest question? Where do we find history told truthfully without bias? I can't seem to find it. Is anyone truly honest when recording history?"
Well, all histories are written by fallible human beings, and every human being alive has a viewpoint. That doesn't matter so much in mathematics, in languages, and in the sciences, though individual ego rears its head in those fields as well. But individual viewpoints count for a great deal in the field of history. Here, the onus is upon the historian to relate the facts as they happened, with as little editorializing as possible. An honest historian will try to do this, regardless of his personal opinions. Those who are less gifted when it comes to objectivity will sometimes allow their own opinions to color their work without meaning to do so, but the result will still be fairly reliable.
There are also writers who admittedly sympathize with one side or another or lionize one person or another in the histories which they relate. If they do this while trying scrupulously present the events as they actually happened, AND if they are UPFRONT and tell the reader that the history which they are about to read favors one viewpoint over another, and contains opinions as well as hard facts, all is well: the reader, forewarned, can read such material with a grain of salt and gain valuable insights.
It is those histories written by writers who have an HIDDEN agenda that are truly suspect. Writers with such an agenda will present their own opinions as hard data, will **play on the emotions of the reader**, and will twist, downplay, or misrepresent the actual hard data so as to match their own version of what took place. This is what revisionists do. They try to fool people.
In short, it's all about honesty.
"I think we're just going to continue to disagree on the significance of the latest fashionable slant to history in the homeschooling movement."
As the young people say, I'm good with that (or is it, I'm cool with that?)...
But I would like to return your compliment, Justice, and say that it has been a pleasure disagreeing with you. Your comments are well thought out, well written, and a pleasure to read.
And you are right in your assessment that revisionism - all revisionism -- is an issue about which I am quite passionate. However, this has led into a line of discourse which has strayed far the original topic. Perhaps it's time to rein it in.
Hi Y'all,
I only recently started going back to church because of Francis Schaeffer and then Rushdoony. I have read 2 volumes of Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law and have begun one of Dabney's books regarding Virginia and Slavery.
I am NOT seeing what you are seeing insofar as racism is concerned. Dabney called the African Slave trade an iniquity. Rushdoony does not exude racism in my estimation.
In fact, my reading of Rushdoony has convinced me that the treatment of the Epsteins by BCA was wholly unBiblical.
I'm not quite sure why I am not seeing what you are seeing. I can only surmise that Phillips and Chancey are misreading Rushdoony.
Of course, I will concede the possibility that you all, as more experienced Christians than me, are seeing something beyond my present abilities.
JW
Lynn, another Doug Phillips lackey in all of this has been Michael Metzler. He use to be very critical of Phillips, but now he talks like they're the best of friends.
Metzler has been extremely critical of kinism too so it all seems so weird that he's taken up with a racist like Phillips.
Michael Metzler: What Are You Thinking?
Coffee and a muffin,
There was a time when the word story and history had identical meanings. History is simply a story. There are interesting characters, a storyline and a setting that inspires wonder. The best way to learn history is by reading the stories the people that lived during the time left for us. Historical documents, letters and original works that were created as near the time you are studying as possible provide the best and most accurate story.
A Defense of Virginia and the South is available on-line. In it you can read in his own word Dabney's view of Southern slavery:
"It is enough for us to say (what is capable of overwhelming demonstration) that for the African race, such as Providence has made it, and where He has placed it in America, slavery was the righteous, the best, yea, the only tolerable relation."
Rushdoony's words are just as condemning, "The private ownership of slave labor in the American South has been the subject of extensive distortion. The Negroes were slaves to their tribal heads in Africa, or prisoner-slaves of other tribes. The monetary unit in black Africa was man, the slave. The Negro moved from an especially harsh slavery, which included cannibalism, to a milder form."
"Lynn, another Doug Phillips lackey in all of this has been Michael Metzler. He use to be very critical of Phillips, but now he talks like they're the best of friends."
I know. Here is a recent quote from Metzler:
"In Paul’s day, women that were “scandal mongers” (e.g. Jen Epstein) . . ."
One more case of the pot calling the kettle black, with all Metzler has written on Wilson, wouldn't you think? I mean, if Jen is a "scandal monger," (which I don't believe she is), then Michael is far more of one.
Or perhaps Michael thinks it is OK for males to be scandal mongers, but not women?
I don't know. But the hypocrisy is there, and it's pretty glaring.
Thanks to Cynthia and Julie for giving such great responses to my questions. You were so helpful to me. :)
About Michael Metzler, I was thinking the same thing. He was so critical. And now? What turned his thinking, I wonder? Why would ANYONE think MC had ANY credibility after Mrs. Bino? Life is strange sometimes.
Met here:
<< Revisionist histories are LIES, whoever writes them. >>
Again with the broad brush. As a genyoowine historian, that's a real kick in the gut!
Not all revisionist histories are lies. If they correct false history with the truth, they are not lies -- right. Plenty of history has been wrong, and has been in need of correcting.
For example, I have been fighting the long, futile fight over Christopher Columbus and that ridiculous myth that everyone thought the earth was flat, and that he thought it was round, etc., etc., etc.
I even corrected Little Bear Wheeler on that one several years ago, but he continued telling the same old tale. I am often tempted to give up, and I don't go on crusades, but when the subject comes up -- and if it is misreported, as it almost always is -- I do speak up.
The story of Galileo is another one of those "histories" that has gotten all garbled up and misreported, and sincere religious homeschoolers, who have a strong tendency to "Christianize" everything to the extreme, perpetuate the myths. Some even create new myths to cover over the old ones.
I could mention many more -- the "gospel in the stars," the "noble savage," the "red-man-living-in--perfect-harmony -with-the-environment-and-with-each -other-till-the-Eurotrash-showed-up," etc. [That last one IS revisionist, and it IS a lie!]
When I do speak up and correct the myths, I am doing "revisionist history," and it is not a lie. People get upset with me for bursting their bubbles, often because they have wrapped their Christianity around the stories so tightly -- but truth doesn't care about people's feelings about it, and truth does not conform to preferences.
It is what it is. It is our job to seek to know it -- and what we prefer to believe has nothing to do with it. To get this back to the topic -- it seems the "revisionist southern history" guys among the patriarchalists have done exactly that -- revised history to fit what they prefer.
But just remember -- just because they do it -- and just because so many others do it -- that does not mean that all revisionist history is a lie.
"But just remember -- just because they do it -- and just because so many others do it -- that does not mean that all revisionist history is a lie."
In the sense in which you use the word-- the revision of incorrect histories to reflect the facts of what actually happened-- no, it doesn't.
But 99% of the time, when people use the term, "revisionist", they mean the revision of the actual facts to fit a preconcieved notion of what happened. And that's lying. No two ways about it. Sorry about the broad brush. Us blind pigs tend to use 'em, doncha know -- makes the brush strokes large and easy to read. :D
Met, you have some interesting observations about history there. How do you know that your version is the truth? I am not trying to argue with you, but I am truly trying to figure out how to know which history books are the true history books.
Little Bear, for example, has done extensive research on each of his subjects before he speaks and if he doesn't agree with you, then why do you think you have the truth, while he clearly believes he has the truth? (I'm not taking sides here, because I obviously don't know the truth.)
All I want to know, then, is how do you know which truth is the true truth? If you tell me you use original sources (which is what you should tell me), I will tell you that Little Bear does also.
Extremely curious.
Met here:
<< But 99% of the time, when people use the term, "revisionist", they mean the revision of the actual facts to fit a preconcieved notion of what happened. >>
No, they don't. They mean a revision from the story THEY believe to be true -- changing it to another story that they do not believe to be true. Often, it is to another story they do not WANT to be true.
<< And that's lying. No two ways about it. Sorry about the broad brush. >>
If you change what you believe to be true to something you know to be false, and then present that to be true -- yes, that's lying. But that is not what "revisionist history" much of the time. I won't put a percentage on it, as you did, but 99% is an outrageous exaggeration.
Much of the time -- even when it IS false -- it is believed to be true by the revisionist. If the revisionist knows it to be false, he is lying. If he believes it to be true, and it is false, he is NOT lying. He is merely mistaken about the facts. EITHER WAY -- it's "revisionist."
<< Us blind pigs tend to use 'em, doncha know -- makes the brush strokes large and easy to read. :D >>
Are you not aware of the meaning of that "blind pig" proverb I referenced? If you are, it should be easy to see that I was referring to the patriarchalists, and not to you, as I pointed out already.
The proverb means that anyone can accidently stumble onto something good, or, that everyone, however inept, gets something right once in a while.
So I thought you meant that I had at last gotten something right, when I pointed out the fact that some Patriarchalists believe that women should not vote.
I didn't see where that statement showed that the Patriarchalists had stumbled onto anything, or had gotten anything right, unless you agree with them when they say that women shouldn't be voting.
Met here:
<< How do you know that your version is the truth? >>
No one does, in an absolute sense, but there are plenty of facts and issues about which we can have such a high level of confidence that it is ludicrous to dispute them.
Other things are in dispute, and in such cases, the best course is to seek to find the best facts available and to interpret them as objectively as possible. Objectivity is often difficult to achieve, but if one is able to at least recognize his biases, and seek help in overcoming his biases [such as getting a more unbiased expert to check one's work], he can still present accurate history.
<< I am not trying to argue with you, but I am truly trying to figure out how to know which history books are the true history books. >>
The best ones are the ones that, upon close inspection, have no axe to grind, so to speak. When a general history states something, and a revisionist with a strong bias tries to correct that statement -- one should exercise extreme caution. This does not mean the revisionist is lying 99% of the time, however.
He could be the one person who has found a more accurate presentation and interpretation of the facts, and if so, his "revision" may become the default interpretation, with time. Many such historical issues have gone through exactly such a process -- and still go through it. It's pretty much never-ending.
<< Little Bear, for example, has done extensive research on each of his subjects before he speaks and if he doesn't agree with you, then why do you think you have the truth, while he clearly believes he has the truth? (I'm not taking sides here, because I obviously don't know the truth.) >>
My mention of Wheeler was in connection with the Columbus myth. In that case, it's not a question of "disagreement." It's a question of ignoring the primary sources in favor of flowered-up legends written long after the facts, and of taking Columbus's "Christian" words literally, while ignoring other things he said and did.
When you take the word of a priest writing a hundred years after the facts, over the actual records of the Council of Salamanca, at which Columbus presented his ideas, that is not just "disagreeing." And it is not just Wheeler I am castigating here. The myth of the "flat-earth belief" has been taught in most schools for so long that it has gained ascendancy.
Just last year I disabused a few teens of the notion. The group was a mixture of homeschoolers and public-schooled kids. ALL of them had been taught the myth. It is that ingrained.
However -- the documentary evidence is pretty overwhelming, and the evidence is even there to trace the origin and development of the myth. Even the Librarian of Congress -- an eminent historian -- passed it on in his own book on Columbus.
But it's not the number of sources that matters as much as the quality of the sources. And the documentary evidence against the myth is, as I said, overwhelming. I am continually amazed that it still continues at all.
To get back to my point -- I was just using that one issue to illustrate the problem with calling revisionist history "always lies." Sometimes it's lies. Sometimes it's sincere mistakes. And sometimes it's true, and the history it is revising is false.
<< All I want to know, then, is how do you know which truth is the true truth? If you tell me you use original sources (which is what you should tell me), I will tell you that Little Bear does also. >>
If Wheeler studied the Council of Salamanca -- where the shape of the earth WAS NOT BROUGHT UP ONCE -- he would have seen what the issues were in the discussion concerning whether or not to send Columbus west. The shape of the earth had nothing to do with that decision.
The ancient Greeks knew that the earth was a sphere; one of them had measured it circumference 1500 years before Columbus's time! Columbus rejected that number, because it did not fit his ideas.
Almost all medieval scholars who took up the subject of the shape of the earth understood that it was round. By the time of Columbus, it was an accepted fact. And they had a pretty good idea how big around it was, too.
We can see in Columbus's own books, in notes written in the margins by his own hand, how he "fudged" some of the numbers to make his idea more palatable. He needed a smaller earth to make his idea seem more likely to succeed.
The issue was not the shape of the earth -- but its SIZE. And Columbus's opponents in the debate were much closer in their estimates than Columbus was. They said it was too far, and he said it was not. He placfed Cipangu only about as far away from Europe as Florida is!
What neither Columbus nor his opponents knew was that there was something in the way! And if it had not been there, Columbus and his crews WOULD have perished at sea, just as his opponents had claimed!
All of this is available in the primary evidence. If you are interested in following up on this, you can start with a small book called *The Myth of the Flat Earth,* by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
I have met Russell, and I see him as a historian of impeccable integrity. It pains me to see him called a "liar" without even a cursory glance at his thesis, merely because he "revises" history.
If Wheeler would look into this, he would find much more interesting fare for his Columbus story. Russell traces the origin and development of the flat earth myth back to anti-church bigotry.
As I tried to say before: Truth does not care what we wish to be true. Truth does not bend to our wishes. Only the presentation and interpretation can be bent. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. If the facts do not bear out the "standard" history -- it's wrong, and needs to be revised. If the facts DO bear it out, then revisionism should be resisted.
But to flat-out call revisionism "all lies" and "99% lies" is just as ludicrous as calling all standard history "lies." BOTH must be examined for truth.
This is my plea -- that arguments from BOTH sides be examined very carefully.
Met here:
<< I didn't see where that statement showed that the Patriarchalists had stumbled onto anything, or had gotten anything right, unless you agree with them when they say that women shouldn't be voting. >>
That was the gist of it. I was only joking. That is why I added the belly-laugh at the end. Lynn got the joke; she knew I really didn't believe that. You don't know me, so I could not expect you to get it. I wrote it more to get a laugh out of Lynn and Corrie.
If you think carefully about it, you will see that it also says a lot about what I think of the patriarchalists.
Met here:
To Lynn:
Sorry to get things off-topic. Someone just hit my hot-button, and as a historian, I tend to growl while bleeding.
M
Hey Met... sorry for jumping to conclusions, I see what you meant now.
I guess I was feeling a little touchy on account of that mistake I made yesterday regarding the Dominion Family blog, where I ass-umed that the commenter, Tim, was the blog owner's husband (also named Tim). :P
Met and CJ, don't worry about getting "off-topic." If I feel like it, I will write a post about the subject you are discussing where y'all may comment to your heart's content. But I think this one will peter out shortly. I like having this sort of talk on my blog, because I can refer back to it.
To all - Corrie and I have learned lots from Met. He is so nice that every once in a blue moon I get to point something out to him as well. ;-) Met is the teacher on the logic class list (see my links of interest).
If you are interested, that list is quiet, but is like a class on logic, for either upper class high school, or an "intro to" college class. Most of the lessons are on files, and Met has pared the archives away until the list archives are pretty similar to the files. It is more of a class than a discussion list. If any of you are interested in studying logic on your own, Met's lessons are quite incremental and easy to read. We stopped after dealing with the square of opposition and figuring out the number of traditional valid syllogisms vs the modern list of valid ones, so that is how far we have gotten in the subject.
The list is much more for self-study than it is for discussion, but if you are interested, you are welcome to join and look at it.
All this Doug Phillips "Hail Dabney" talk and imagery of the godly and Christ honoring Antebellum South (with all their slavery) standing against the Unitarian Yankees is scary. There was plenty of sin on both sides of the Mason Dixon line and neither one has anything to be proud of.
I'm really enjoying the discussion here. Very thought provoking. Historical revisionism can sometimes be for honest reasons, but I think a lot of it is very dishonest. Doug Phillips historical revisionism is very dishonest. A dishonest man attracts other dishonest men. I didn't know that Matt Chancey was so dishonest, but I do now. I'm starting to look at his wide Jennie in a whole new light. I'm also real bothered by Doug Phillips intern program at Vision Forum. Just look at that Still Fed Up site and tell me that Doug Phillips trains his interns how to be honest. Just like Matt Chancey they tell one lie after another and they don't allow anyone to respond.
Well guess what I just found? Still Fed Up with comments. Whoever set it up hasn't updated it in awhile, but maybe if we start posting comments there the person will notice that it's being read and he'll get it up to date.
What I'd really like to see is a mirror of Chancey's site where people can freely comment (hint).
"What I'd really like to see is a mirror of Chancey's site where people can freely comment (hint)."
I'm not the one to do that kind of thing. I told someone recently I shouldn't be operating anything more technologically advanced than a toaster!
All this site mirroring for the express purpose of being able to comment on someone's posts who doesn't want to allow them on their own site doesn't seem right to me. I sure wouldn't want anyone doing that to me.
Now I think it's perfectly fine if someone wants to quote someone else's post on their own blog so it can be discussed. But this anonymous site mirroring business is no better than what Matt Chancey's done.
I wish there wasn't so much anonymity in all of this. It just makes everything seem so seedy and back alley.
Shame on the Christians who are charging their brother(s) with hatred of a whole race by association and innuendo. Either confront them, and their elders, directly, or shut your mouth and read your Bible.
This makes about as much sense as calling someone a racist because he admiringly quotes the Declaration of Independence or Jefferson. (He did own slaves, by the way.) Shame on all those racists?
Absolutely right Anonymous. I agree with the truth contained in your statement. That's why it could just as easily read, "Shame on the Doug Phillips/Matt Chancey/Vision Forum 'former interns' cabal who are charging their brother(s) with hatred by association and innuendo. They should either confront them, and their elders, directly, or shut their mouths and read their Bibles."
Anyone who's been following this story knows where the Epsteins go to church. Did Phillips-Chancey contact the Epsteins' elders to ask them, "Why have Mark and Jennifer Epstein been running with the Kinists at LittleGeneva.com—white separatists who are among the worst racial bigots on the Internet?" Or did they only want to slander the Epsteins publicly with dozens of accusations like that and not really care at all about getting elders involved? If not why not? Could it be that Phillips-Chancey already know that they don't have a biblical case at all to make against the Epsteins? Is this why Phillips-Chancey is acting like an internet assassin?
I really agree with you Anonymous. Phillips-Chancey just needs to "shut his mouth and read his Bible." But that's not what he's doing. Every day that goes by that Doug Phillips keeps his ridiculous Mrs. Binoculars and Still Fed Up sites on the internet just proves what a self-righteous Pharisee and hypocrite that he really is.
Like I said in the first place, POT -> KETTLE -> BLACK
Post a Comment