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

[Saundra Lund]

Dear Mr. Lawyer,

Isn't it funny how different-but-intelligent people reading the exact same
words can come to dramatically different interpretations?

To me, it doesn't seem that Ms. Huskey has any trouble at all making
distinctions.  Personally, I find it disingenuous to go around quoting
wicked & evil people to lend any air of credibility to my views.  In fact,
it's a practice I avoid like the plague -- when looking for external
validation of my thoughts, beliefs, and ideas, I prefer to quote those whom
aren't morally abhorrent.

For instance, having done a bit of research on Jim Jones and the People's
Temple, I can tell you that as a charismatic preacher, he said some really
good and quotable things.  However, you won't find me using those quotes . .
. unless I'm trying to show how even a depraved person can say all the right
things . . . for (at least) two important reasons.  First, assuming a
commitment to my ideas & beliefs, I don't want to have them discounted by
using immoral "authorities" to buttress my case.  Right or wrong, I think
the majority of people knowing who Jim Jones was and the horrors for which
he was responsible would think I lack credibility if I attempted to use
Jones to make any meaningful points.  The world is full of fascinating
people who aren't wicked and evil yet say quotable things, so why quote
someone morally repugnant to those I'm trying to reach?

Second, should anyone take me seriously, I *certainly* don't want to lend
any credibility to those who are wicked and evil by using their words even
to remotely support my ideas.  Let's use Dabney as an example  :-)  I'd be
willing to bet that many people have no idea who he was and what he stood
for (for the sake of argument, I'll let you think there was good as well as
bad).  So, I find some really cleaver quotes and use them.  For some reason,
people like what I have to say and become familiar with Dabney's name
through my limited use of his words . . . without also knowing that he was
an evil and wicked man in too many ways to count.  What opinion do you think
they are going to have of Dabney???

Let's take it a step further . . . by the grace of God, my followers
subsequently find out what kind of person Dabney *truly* was.  What, then,
do you think will be their opinion of me and my thoughts, ideas, and
beliefs???

You admit that R. L. Dabney was racist (although AFAIK, your employer
admitted only that Dabney had "racist assumptions" and then went on to make
a culturally relativistic defense of Dabney's views).  What, then, is the
purpose of extensively relying on such a degenerate?  Surely you and your
buddies can find others without the racist baggage to draw from, so why keep
going back to Dabney and his ilk?

Unless, of course, that saying about birds of a feather & all holds true . .
. 

For those of you out there into these things, please note that my argument
against using the words of those morally repugnant souls who may have a gift
for words it NOT an argumentum ad hominem.  What I'm trying to point out,
and undoubtedly not as well as some with the gift of gab, is that using the
likes of Dabney to support one's beliefs/views/opinions ***to others*** is
not a very wise course for any involved . . . and smacks vaguely of
relativism <gasp>.  I don't see reasonable/rational/moral people using
Hitler to prop up their ideas.

Quite simply, it seems to me some evils are big & bad enough not to be
played with by the good among us (uh-oh,  that smacks of absolutism), and it
seems to me that Dabney falls into that category, no matter how much you &
your buddies try to dress him up (much like your revisionism on Southern
slavery).

Ah, but what do I know?  I'm just one of those women who, according to
Dabney:
"Casting away that dependence and femininity which are her true strength,
the "strong-minded woman" persists in thrusting her-self into competition
with man as his equal. But for contest she is not his equal; the male is the
stronger animal. As man's rival, she is a pitiful inferior, a sorry
she-mannikin. . . All this vantage-ground the "Women's Rights women" madly
throw away, and provoke that collision for which nature itself has
disqualified them." 

You also wrote:
"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."

Now, that *is* a hoot . . . the second-best laugh I've had recently!  I
think you must be terribly confused . . . or assuming those gullible NSA
students are typical of  regular college students.


Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
-Edmund Burke 
-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com] On
Behalf Of Mike Lawyer
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 10:20 AM
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] RE: R.L. Dabney, yeah he's our man.


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