HSLDA on Gothard and Phillips

[Tangerine]

http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/V30N2/V30N202.asp

[Seasider]

I saw this a few days ago and wondered about the timing. Farris had a response back when Gothard was outed. Now this. Feels like something new is about to burst open.

 

ETA just wanted to add that I am certainly not hoping for new scuttle! I just thought HSLDA had stated it's position months ago, and I wonder why this rehash is necessary.

[jewellsmommy]

It's nice to see that he spoke out and admitted that they were even wrong in allowing advertising on their site. I appreciated the well outlined points that demonstrated why the more extreme fringe teachings (such as patriarchy) are dangerous to all homeschoolers, but more importantly to the women and children in that movement.

[mommaduck]

I just feel that their statement is a bit late and a dollar short...more like a CYA move.

[kiana]

For once I completely agree with something put out by HSLDA.

[mommaduck]

http://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/patrick-henry-college-releases-statement-on-sexual-assault-cases/

 

http://patrickhenrycircle.tumblr.com/

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/02/patrick-henry-colleges-sexual-assault-scandal.html


Nope, I stand by my CYA statement until I see that things have changed completely.

[mommaduck]

They are hoping that people will be so focused on Gothard and Phillips, that if they make statements separating themselves from their now busted friends, then people won't go looking at them and what they have been attempting to hide. 

[mommaduck]

And that's the reaction Farris and HSLDA are hoping for. 

[umsami]

CYA, definitely.

 

Am I the only one who found this kind of…um….weird??

 

" If women should not vote, it means that Vickie Farris is to be in subjection to men like Bill Maher, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Clinton. Nothing in the Bible can possibly be twisted to expand the duties between a husband and wife in a loving marriage to reach the conclusion that Bill Maher can vote but Vickie Farris cannot."

 

 

Like are Bill Maher, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Clinton the most horrific men he could think of?? Points for variety, though.  LOL

[mommaduck]

CYA, definitely.

 

Am I the only one who found this kind of…um….weird??

 

" If women should not vote, it means that Vickie Farris is to be in subjection to men like Bill Maher, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Clinton. Nothing in the Bible can possibly be twisted to expand the duties between a husband and wife in a loving marriage to reach the conclusion that Bill Maher can vote but Vickie Farris cannot."

 

 

Like are Bill Maher, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Clinton the most horrific men he could think of?? Points for variety, though.  LOL

 

Many Dominionists/Reconstructionists are against women voting in their view of a perfect theocracy. However, until they are in control and have accomplished their hopes and dreams of such a theocracy, women are seen as an extension of their husbands and may vote, IN AGREEMENT WITH THEIR HUSBANDS, to help the cause of reaching such a theocracy.

[Jyhwkmama]

For those of you who feel this is a CYA, I am not a poster there, but I LOVE the discussion on Free Jinger right now about this. To the point and witty.

[cbollin]

I saw this a few days ago and wondered about the timing. Farris had a response back when Gothard was outed. Now this. Feels like something new is about to burst open.

 

ETA just wanted to add that I am certainly not hoping for new scuttle! I just thought HSLDA had stated it's position months ago, and I wonder why this rehash is necessary.

 

my guess on the rehash or timing to write it again is that the article is appearing in their quarterly journal/magazine which is about to be released.  it would be weird not to have it in there if it wasn't in the previous print edition???  just a guess and a side issue.

[FaithManor]

CYA, definitely.

 

Am I the only one who found this kind of…um….weird??

 

" If women should not vote, it means that Vickie Farris is to be in subjection to men like Bill Maher, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Clinton. Nothing in the Bible can possibly be twisted to expand the duties between a husband and wife in a loving marriage to reach the conclusion that Bill Maher can vote but Vickie Farris cannot."

 

 

Like are Bill Maher, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Clinton the most horrific men he could think of?? Points for variety, though.  LOL

Yes, that kind of cracked me up too! I mean, wow, that's hilarious if these are his "bad boys". I can think of FAR worse.

[Slartibartfast]

I still don't like them.

[umsami]

For those of you who feel this is a CYA, I am not a poster there, but I LOVE the discussion on Free Jinger right now about this. To the point and witty.

 

I didn't even know Free Jinger existed (but am glad to know it does).  LOL  

[Jyhwkmama]

I didn't even know Free Jinger existed (but am glad to know it does).  LOL  

 

HOURS of time wasting/forum reading entertainment.

[Word Nerd]

They are hoping that people will be so focused on Gothard and Phillips, that if they make statements separating themselves from their now busted friends, then people won't go looking at them and what they have been attempting to hide. 

 

 

And that's the reaction Farris and HSLDA are hoping for. 

 

I'm hardly an HSLDA apologist, but it seems rather presumptuous to imply that you know their motives.

[mommaduck]

How, when such people are connected with other similar scandals?

[PrincessMommy]

CYA, definitely.

 

Am I the only one who found this kind of…um….weird??

 

" If women should not vote, it means that Vickie Farris is to be in subjection to men like Bill Maher, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Clinton. Nothing in the Bible can possibly be twisted to expand the duties between a husband and wife in a loving marriage to reach the conclusion that Bill Maher can vote but Vickie Farris cannot."

 

 

Like are Bill Maher, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Clinton the most horrific men he could think of?? Points for variety, though.  LOL

 

yum...yeah, that is just a weird statement... and so insulting.  I may not agree with a lot of people but I certainly don't think some people have better voting power (Christian women in his view).  He's saying that women can vote only as long as men he disagrees with are allowed to vote.   And then what???  Sheesh.  Weird and creepy. 

[idnib]

Many Dominionists/Reconstructionists are against women voting in their view of a perfect theocracy. However, until they are in control and have accomplished their hopes and dreams of such a theocracy, women are seen as an extension of their husbands and may vote, IN AGREEMENT WITH THEIR HUSBANDS, to help the cause of reaching such a theocracy.

 

Yeah, but nobody can go into the voting booth with them. I wonder how many go along and how many put down different opinions than what is expected?

[momacacia]

Like are Bill Maher, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Clinton the most horrific men he could think of??

None of them are exactly paragons of virtue.

[Mrs Mungo]

Many Dominionists/Reconstructionists are against women voting in their view of a perfect theocracy. However, until they are in control and have accomplished their hopes and dreams of such a theocracy, women are seen as an extension of their husbands and may vote, IN AGREEMENT WITH THEIR HUSBANDS, to help the cause of reaching such a theocracy.

 

 

yum...yeah, that is just a weird statement... and so insulting.  I may not agree with a lot of people but I certainly don't think some people have better voting power (Christian women in his view).  He's saying that women can vote only as long as men he disagrees with are allowed to vote.   And then what???  Sheesh.  Weird and creepy.

I agree that this is how that part of the article comes across.

[Guest]

I have no great love for HSLDA, but I think it's great that Ferris said this. Seriously, this is exactly what I would like to see the Duggars do, except they won't, because they agree with Phillips and Gothard. In the recent thread regarding whom the Duggars endorse on their website, these are exactly the caveats I would want to see if they did not agree with some of what ATI or SM Davis teaches.

[Farrar]

I feel cynical about it, but also, like, okay, at least they have a line. It's way, way too far out of a line, but hey, at least they've got one. I don't have a huge amount of respect for HSLDA or Farris, but I do think there's an element of "oh, gosh, this is really getting away from us," in this piece. Like, you know there are corners of the homeschooling movement that have gone too far when HS-freaking-LDA is looking at it all going, oh no, too much!

[kiana]

Like, you know there are corners of the homeschooling movement that have gone too far when HS-freaking-LDA is looking at it all going, oh no, too much!

 

Haha, yes, that thought also went through my head.

 

[FaithManor]

The sad thing is it took a sex abuse scandal for him to say he doesn't agree with the patriarchial extremes of VF and ATI. These things have been around for decades and truthfully, the dangers were well known before this. These guys and their followers have been dominating homeschool conventions in certain areas for a LONG time. One doesn't have to have victims before concluding that a philosophy is dangerous or inherently flawed, or at least to write some carefully crafted articles or lectures on the failed logic which leads to spiritual abuse and worse. I find it pathetic and sad that it takes victims, scandal, and the threat of "looking really bad" to make a lot of people in leadership finally have something to say. It's not just Mike Farris's problem. It is pandemic these days amongst Christian leadership, federal government (Bob Packwood - that went on for YEARS before he finally was forced out of office, many others just like him).

 

As for the voting booth thing, that just always cracked me up...another "ends justifies the means". Their worldview is that it is wrong for women to have voting privileges, but we'll let them vote as long as they vote our way and further the agenda. So keep doing "wrong" in order to further the cause. NICE! :ack2:

[umsami]

None of them are exactly paragons of virtue.

 

Maybe I don't get out much….but of the three, the only one who really relates to these scandals is Clinton.  He had "sexual relations" with an intern, while a married man.  Abuse of power. Abuse of his position.  Tacky.  And faced an impeachment trial for it.

 

Bill Maher is a comedian.  I think he's quite open about his umm…like of escorts….but I don't think he's married, and I can't really think of anything else regarding him having sex or an affair or anything with an underaged person, or married person.  He's an atheist, so maybe that's why he was chosen?

 

Dennis Rodman…used to be known for cross dressing….and lately is known for his "friendship" with the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un.  But once again, sex abuse….married man having an affair…abuse of power….not something that comes to mind with him.

 

If he wanted to use men who had affairs while in positions of power, there were lots of other choices out there.  

[Mimm]

I feel cynical about it, but also, like, okay, at least they have a line. It's way, way too far out of a line, but hey, at least they've got one. I don't have a huge amount of respect for HSLDA or Farris, but I do think there's an element of "oh, gosh, this is really getting away from us," in this piece. Like, you know there are corners of the homeschooling movement that have gone too far when HS-freaking-LDA is looking at it all going, oh no, too much!

This made me laugh. And yeah, I agree. :)

[justasque]

CYA, definitely.

 

Am I the only one who found this kind of…um….weird??

 

" If women should not vote, it means that Vickie Farris is to be in subjection to men like Bill Maher, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Clinton. Nothing in the Bible can possibly be twisted to expand the duties between a husband and wife in a loving marriage to reach the conclusion that Bill Maher can vote but Vickie Farris cannot."

 

 

Like are Bill Maher, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Clinton the most horrific men he could think of?? Points for variety, though.  LOL

 

Ohhhhh that explains it!  I read Beall's FB post to Farris yesterday, but hadn't read the whole HSLDA piece, so the bolded below didn't make any sense:

 

 

Well, Mike, your article about Doug was, at the very least, in bad taste, and your representation of what Doug and I believe and what we have taught through Vision Forum was rife with gross error.

 

I have known you for 23 years. I have seen you in many circumstances, some admirable, some not admirable. For about the last 6 years, you and I have sat around the same table for board meetings. Yes, you and I (a woman) were on the same board. You came to Doug’s dad’s funeral in April 2013 with some kind words. Somehow I missed the letter of compassion and concern for my family this year. You have my email address and phone number.

 

I know, it’s so much faster and easier and cleaner to publish an article and put it on the Internet for how many thousands of people?

 

How much courage does it take to kick a man who is out of business, out of ministry, and publicly humiliated?

 

Your caricature of our views would be humorous if it were not so grossly offensive.

 

Let me help you with a couple of things. I have voted as my conscience dictated since I was 18. So do my sons and so will my daughters. I’m glad for Vickie that she is not under Dennis Rodman’s authority. And I am glad that I am not under your authority. I would choose my husband again any day.

 

Maybe we can discuss all the other concoctions in your article over coffee sometime. My daughters might want to join us to speak for themselves. If you will sit and listen to them.

 

Until then, please take my family off your membership list immediately. I do not think you are qualified to represent my children or me in any capacity.

 

Doug has chosen not to respond, but I will not sit idly by while you use your bully pulpit to malign and misrepresent my husband, my company (yes, I, a woman, was an employee of Vision Forum) my family, and myself.

 

Please note, this is part one of my response as well.

 

I could NOT figure out why on earth Vickie Farris might be (or have been) under Dennis Rodman's authority! How would Vicki even know Rodman?  I just couldn't picture them hanging out together (what would he wear?), let alone having some kind of "authority" relationship!  (Someone needs to write that fanfic...)

 

[FaithManor]

Beall really needs counseling. Her husband's actions are indefensible. Her actions in threatening Lordes Torre are indefensible and that letter ended up as evidence in the suit. I read the entire document filed by David Gibbs Jr. In Texas courts. GACK. Beall did not help herself or her family. This is not going to help either. Her husband attempting breaking and entering into the Torres home and ending up on the wrong end of a shotgun did not help. Seriously, I am shocked that as the wife of an attorney, she pulled the bonehead stunt of speaking on the subject in a way that can be readily documented.

 

While no fan of Farris, the guy is an adept lawyer. He didn't say anything that is not already a matter of public record, he did not slander Phillips since DP already confessed to the relationship, he did not misrepresent what DP teaches because the documentation of it exists in a mile deep plethora of recorded conferences, videos, books, blogposts that his detractors kept screen shots of, and sermons preached at his church. My gosh??? How stupid is she? This is crazy. If anything, all this does is possibly demonstrate how unbalanced and desperate she has become.

 

Beall, if you are lurking here seething at this thread, word of advice. You have been spiritually, emotionally, financially, and possibly even physically abused. Your husband is a perv who told another woman you would be dead soon! Defending him is crazy,and staying is only putting you and your children at risk of further abuse. Divorce is not the end of the world. Do it for your kids.

 

Whatever you do, your hyserical rants are not helping your family.

[Storygirl]

yum...yeah, that is just a weird statement... and so insulting.  I may not agree with a lot of people but I certainly don't think some people have better voting power (Christian women in his view).  He's saying that women can vote only as long as men he disagrees with are allowed to vote.   And then what???  Sheesh.  Weird and creepy. 

 

I didn't read his comments this way at all. He is not saying that women should be able to vote only in order to counteract the votes of men he personally disagrees with politically.

 

He is trying to point out that Christian women (or anyone, but here he is specifically talking about Christian women) who do not vote are allowing everyone else to make their political decisions for them.  By not voting, you give the votes of your opponents more power. I think he probably chose examples of people who would be the extreme opposite of Vickie Farris in order to make the point that it would be ridiculous for her to let their votes speak for her. She needs to vote for herself, just as all women do.

 

I agree that the way that he put it is awkward. But his point is about the importance of exercising the freedom to vote and how ridiculous it is for patriarchal people to think that limiting female voting is a good idea.

[LucyStoner]

Uh, too little, too late much?

[RanchGirl]

I think everything he wrote was spot on, Biblically and logically. I hope that his words will reach the families that are following patriarchy and/or legalism, erroneously believing these tools of evil are actually Biblical values. And I am particularly glad that he addressed the fact that adopted children need to feel loved and discipline formulas don't work.

 

I didn't get a CYA vibe at all, it sounded genuine to me and makes me respect Farris and HSLDA more. I may even sign up for a membership if this continues to be their position.