Steve at Triablogue continues to annoy me with his white guilt and his attempt to paint me as a racist.  I love all races, just as God made them.

I see that BJ, the Confederate wannabe, is fibbing about my position:

No!  I was telling the truth, though, not about you.

Did I ever say that? No. Can he quote me to that effect? No.

No need….. I was talking about you.

What I did do was to discuss how we should rate racial identity in relation to other forms of individual and social identity. It’s low on the priority list.

This is so odd to me, escpecially since I wasn’t referring to him.  Although I did site one post he did only to point out his use of the term “Black” as a designation for certain christians. Maybe he is talking about that. Hays must be a glutton for attention.

No “irony,” since BJ is burning a straw man.

Yes, it is ironic.  It’s ironc that Bridges would say I was UnChristian, yet, have no problem supporting a blog that classifies christians in racial terms.  For instance this link on Triblogue.  Why not send them an email stating they are unchristian for calling themselves Reformed Blacks?

One thing you can say for BJ: when he’s wrong, he’s consistently wrong.

Again, I was on talking about Bridges comment towards me.  Sorry you misunderstood that.  Its interesting to note, however, that your response to me hinges on your misreading of my blog.  Thus, your post is a strawman.  What can I say: when your wrong, your consistently wrong!

The right to be white? In what sense are racial characteristics a “right”?

Another misreading/comprehension problem of Hays.  However, he is right.  Racial characteristics are not a right.  I said racial identity, and all that implies.  For instance, Mexicans should not be ashamed for wanting to eat “cow tounge”, or drive low riders. Blacks should revel in their track & field superiority in the Olympics, NBA, and NFL.  And whites should be able to bask in the knowledge of having explored and settled an entire civilization, The West.  If the other groups enjoy their accomplishments in culture, so will I.  If that makes me rascist then so is everybody else.

Thats what I meant, Steve.

Reading BJ is like reading about a Star Trek convention where the fans wear Andorian make up or speak in conversational Klingon. If you have to try that hard, then you’re play-acting.

Reading Steve is like……well its damn funny.  I hate that Steve sat in his Western Civilization college class and let some liberal “white” historian pound him into his white guilt.  Now Steve hates it that God ordained his skin color and legacy.  He hates that others enjoy theirs, that being every race on earth!

How, exactly, does BJ define “white”? Must you be an Aryan/Nordic racial type? Is Sophia Loren white? Is Maureen O’Hara white?

If you bubble in the “white” circle on a job application under the “affirmative action section” than you are white.

I keep hearing the same ‘ol arguments about how I (and others who are pissed off about our 2 party system) should vote for the lesser of two evils.  Being that most people I associate with consider themselves to be Republicans (although they aren’t really excited about their candidate) the lesser of the two evils of course is John McCain.  However, this begs the question. Perhaps Obamanation is the lesser!

I would like to have this explained to me. Why is McCain the lesser of two evils, exactly?  In my view, to get the country where I want it, voting for Obamanation might be the route I take!

Recently, I have been talking to Christians who think it is UnChrsitian to identify yourself as anything other than In Christ, and I must admit I am at a loss as to what it means to be In Christ (as these people use the phrase) this side of eternity.  I thought perhaps they meant on Sunday, The Lord’s Day, when Christians gather together with other Believers, perhaps then they are In Christ, in some collective way.  This seems like a plausible interpretation of the term.  I suppose it could have some Judgement Day connotations as well.

I thought that until one individual said I was “caught up in racial and geocultural identity”.  It was at this point I knew exactly what was being advocated, and it wasn’t the examples I mentioned above.  That said, and in light of this kind of jackassery I have come up with a litmus test to determine whether or not you might be UnChristian in terms of Identity and in terms of how these individuals seem to use the phrase.

1.  If you consider yourself to be white you are UnChristian. Note: Appearently you can be a Black Christian and dodge the UnChrsitian label.   Ironically this link comes via the same men who claim Identity is only to be found In Christ, not race. Also, notice this post and the authors use of the term Black Pastor. Why distinguish between “colors” of Christain pastors? I know this man doesn’t agree with the distinction! I guess these men think that only “White” people can’t identify with any category other than Christ.  I happend to think strong Black identity is important, and that every race has this right to racial Identity.  Most races in the world already think this way except for white guys with white guilt!

2. If you consider yourself Southern, or any culture you are UnChristian.

3.  If you belong to a political party you are UnChristian.

4.  If you are a fan of a particular sports team you are UnChristian.

5.  If you fall in the economic category of upper, middle, or lower class you are UnChristian.

6.  If you answer to the name your parents gave you at birth you are UnChristian.

7.  If you think you are the same person you were 5 minutes ago you are UnChrisitan.

8.  If you consider yourself a member of a family, say your mother, father, and siblings, you are UnChristian.

9.  If you identify yourself with your occupation, say as a lawyer, doctor, mechanic, etc. you are UnChristian.

10.  If you consider yourself as male or female you are UnChristian.

This list focuses on the concept of Identity, and categories we all use everday to distinguish one from another.  To say a person cannot be a Christian and Identify with some of these examples is absurd.  It simply isn’t helpful to Identify with Christ as these people suggest.  Perhaps these individuals have simpy mispoke.

However, atheist everywhere will be happy to know that this “melting-pot mentality” has rid the world of Christians, being that Christians all over the world have identified with one of these categories, and in doing so have become UnChristian. Well, except for the Few Good Men I have been talking to that have their Identity “In Christ”, and nothing else.

Here is a wonderful description of the current scam promulgated to the ”Sheepeople” of the United States.

This post is in response to a response of a post on Triablogue.  Now I dont want to get into a long drawn out affair with Mr. Hays, who originally caught my attention with this post, being that I am fully committed to more important things right now.  It’s just that despite all the good that comes from Triablogue in defense of the Christian faith, Hays completely fumbles the ball when it comes to Southern things, namely Dabney.

You can read my comments at the bottom of the page.  Hays then posted a blog entry dealing with said comment.

Hays comments are in black:
In relation to whom? To contemporary white Americans? No.

Whoever you were referring to when you said “we need to own up to that.” I am assuming you don’t mean Blacks when you refer to “we”.

But some white Southerners like Thornwell and Dabney were guilty of defending an unjust system.

What exactly was unjust? Was better medical treatment than poor white Sotherners, like my family, unjust? Was a typical 4,000 calorie daily diet unjust? Or were you talking about the movie “Roots” and the portrayal of slavery promulgated by the NAACP?  Furthermore, what type of slavery is just in your view?

Why did you always think that? In his Defense of Virginia he also deploys ethical (chap. 7) and economic arguments (chap. 8).

Your right he does deploy those. However, most important for this discussion are chapters 4 & 5 where he presents his Biblical arguments from the Old & New Testamants, which is what you should be focusing on as a Christian that thinks he is wrong.

He was self-deluded.

A self-deluded theologian that deployed many ingenious arguments to defend their position.

Which is it Steve? Is he deluded or an ingenious defender of his beliefs?

I’m discussing his motives.

Yes, we are. You say he was a self-deluded genius that was racist, and I say he could have argued his points if he were Black with white slaves. That was the genius you see in this self-deluded man.

I mean, how many Korean Nazis are there?

Granted, If ethnicity was his “only” motivation. However, I don’t see it that way.

And unless you believe that Dabney’s exegetical defense of Southern slavery was sound, you yourself have to explain why a brilliant man like Dabney would use fallacious arguments to defend his position. Why did he fail recognize his the fallacious nature of his reasoning?

I am still trying to wrap my mind around you calling him brilliant, and out the other side of your mouth calling his arguments fallacious. I suppose you are referring to his Discussions, and you would be right.

For the record I don’t recall thinking his arguments were to far off base. Thats your claim.

Disproving his position is not one of my priorities. For purposes of my post, I took for granted that Thornwell and Dabney were wrong. I’m quite capable of demonstrating that point, but why should I?
 Are you defending Southern slavery?

Yes, I do support slavery, where and when it was practiced. To me, slavery is slavery. Whether its in the South, North, China, or the Bible.  I side with Dabney and the Bible on this one. Also, it would stregthen your case if you quit begging the question on whether they were wrong, and demonstrate it.  I have to admit I am interestd in seeing you do it. Dabney was also interested in an attempt from the Christian abolitionist of his day. Dabney states, “Now, we are entilted to claim, that this silence of the later and final revelation leaves the lawfulness of slaveholding in full force, as expressly established in the earlier.  On that allowance we plant ourselves, and defy our accusers to bring the evidence of its repeal.  On them lies the burden of proof.  And we have indicated by the circumstances detailed above, how crushing that burden will be to them.”  R.Dabney, 151
Speaking of fallacies, your argument from analogy is a textbook fallacy. Calvinism doesn’t say that one race is superior to another.

And neither does a Biblical argument for slavery, which is what Dabney offered. If you could somehow take off your “Dabney only argued Biblically for slavery because he was White” lenses, you should be able to understand that he could have Black and owned every race on earth and his arguments(chapter 4 & 5) would stand because they were straight form the Bible.

 Therefore, there is no incentive for any particular race to believe in Calvinism on racial grounds.

Yeah, I know. That was the point of my textbook fallacy. Glad you picked up on that.

 Where Southern slavery is concerned, racial motivations are central. One race enslaving another. One race enslaving another on the putative ground that one race is superior to another.

   Well, its kind of easy to see their point. Dabney is helpful here, “If it appear that the Africans in these States were by recent descent pagans and barbarians, men in bodily strength and appetite, wit the reason and morals of children, constitutionally prone to improvidence, so that their possession of all the franchises of a free white citizen would make them a nuisance to society and early victims to their own degradation…His inferior character, ignorance, and moral irresponsibility, have extinguished his right to do them,” R. Dabney, A Defense of Virginia, 258,260. It’s not as though they were Christianized.

If the tables were turned and Southern blacks were enslaving Southern whites like you, I suspect that you would experience a sudden epiphany on the issue.

If I were a slave to Black Christians, I would have no other choice (if I were a Christian slave), but to live my life in obeidience to my master. However, if I were a slave to a Black Christian, yet I was a pagan, then my master as well as his ingenious theologian, lets call him T.O. Napney, would have every right to consider me inferior and savage.  That is if their view of the world is right.

Assuming they had biblical grounds to do so. Is that your position?

Yes.

If not, then we have to explain why brilliant men like Thornwell and Dabney were using fallacious arguments to justify their position. What was the impediment that disabled their critical judgment at this juncture?

Still begging the question? Who, besides you, says Dabney suspeneded his critical judgement. This is an unargued for assertion.

As for my sources,” let Thornwell and Dabney speak for themselves:

“We are not alarmists, but Slavery is implicated in every fibre of Southern society; it is with us a vital question…” The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, 4:396.

Is that a “biblical” argument?

“If it appear that the Africans in these States were by recent descent pagans and barbarians, men in bodily strength and appetite, wit the reason and morals of children, constitutionally prone to improvidence, so that their possession of all the franchises of a free white citizen would make them a nuisance to society and early victims to their own degradation…His inferior character, ignorance, and moral irresponsibility, have extinguished his right to do them,” R. Dabney, A Defense of Virginia, 258,260.

Is that a “biblical” argument?

No. Neither passages are biblical arguments.  However, I can qoute Dabney as well, “The mere absence of a condemnation of slaveholding in the New Testament is proof that it is not unlawful.  In showing that there is no such condemnation, we are doing more than we could be held bound to do by any logical obligation:  we might very properly throw the burden of proof here upon our accusers, and claim to be held innocent until we can be proved to be guilty by some positive testimony of holy writ.  But our cause is so strong, that we can afford to argue ex abunantia; to assert more than we are bound to show.  We claim then the significant fact, that there is nowhere any rebuke of slaveholding, in express terms, in the New Testament.  Of the truth of this assertion it is sufficent proof, that Abolitionists, with all their malignant zeal, have been unable to find a single instance, and are compelled to assail us only with inferences.  The express permission to hold slaves given by Moses to God’s people, is nowhere repealed by the ‘greater than Moses,’ the Divine Prophet of the new dispensation. ”  R. Dabney, A Defense of Virginia, 150.

Or do you classify Thornwell and Dabney as “Yankee mythmakers”?

No! I classify you as a myth maker of history and of Dabney. 

Below is a link to The Philosopher’s Stone Newsletter.  This is an article I recently wrote for our Philosophy departmants debate group.

Here

A lot of interesting things have happend lately, which is why I have returned from my sabbatical.  Here is a black man with an ax to grind!

I will be busy this summer with school, so my blog is temporarily out of commission. See y’all later!