Monday, January 7, 2008

Doug Wilson on "Guilt By Association"

[Late entry/addendum]I'm looking for a new photo. I had a slavery related photo posted, but it offends me, even when used just to make a point.

This comment left under "Webshot of the Tip of the Iceberg" was so great, I thought that it deserved to be it's own blog post.

Corrie said...

I came across this comment made by Doug Wilson about "guilt by association" and I thought it was very good at making the distinction. The Bible teaches that bad company corrupts good character and that light does not have fellowship with darkness, etc. There is a huge difference between going to the lost tax collectors and whores in order to bring them the good news and having a friendship with those who hold to very bad doctrines and claim to be a Christian. "

If I am hanging out with someone who is not of the highest caliber, and then he, unbeknownst to me, goes out and robs some convenience stories, it would be wrong to convict me of robbing the convenience stores. That would be "guilt by association."
But if I am hanging out with open wickedness, then that is something different. That is the "guilt of association." The man who does not sit in the seat of mockers is blessed.
Douglas Wilson - 2/13/2006 11:23:38 AM".

I agree with Doug.

When I first stumbled upon the Little Geneva blog run by Harry Seabrook it was back when I was investigating Jen's story. I read an article that was actually very good and I was going to comment. Now, I had NO idea what site I was at and what they believed. But, before I left a comment, I thought it would be best for me to look around. Something just did not sit well with me. So, when I looked around (it took me all of 5 minutes to see that this is a site full of corruption and hatred towards those with different skin color or the Jews) I was shocked. I did not leave my comment.
If I hung around with Gloria Steinem, Hillary Clinton and Betty Friedan and exchanged recipes and Christmas cards with them, I wouldn't blame anyone for lumping me in with them. It would be my responsibility to explain my position. That is what I see in all of this. There are a lot of angles to this situation. The first thing is the hypocrisy that Lynn has exposed on her blog.
Matt Chancey exposed Jen's relationship with kinists but, in order to be consistent, he must also come to the same conclusion about his own friends who have known friendships with kinists. Then there is all this cover-up and secrecy and blogs going down and being password protected and posts disappearing.
It looks bad.
It makes people look guilty.
[Late entry/addendum 23Jan08: The anonymous comment refers to Joe Taylor, a creationist field paleontologist who was manipulated into a legal mediation and arbitration concerning the rightful ownership of a an allosaur, the details of which can be read at Vision Forum (sponsoring a group of homeschoolers) wrongfully claimed that they discovered the dinosaur and attempted to take possession of the bones that Joe Taylor held part of an interest in as a result of overseeing the dig. The comment that follows refers to part of the case that Vision Forum made against Joe Taylor, making claims that he was a racist and participated with a kinist website while commenting there about this situation. According to Joe Taylor's defenders, this example was greatly exaggerated to give the impression that Taylor was racist and a collaborator with these kinists. I have also read but cannot give a reference of a comment stating that Taylor was in a partnership of some sort with one of these individuals, someone whom Joe did not know. (Because the comment refers to the specifics of legal documentation, it is my opinion that the comment was made by someone closely affiliated with legal proceedings in a passive-aggressive attempt to taint the perceptions of the interested readers here.)
Even if Mr. Taylor was actually at fault in these matters, Vision Forum while proporting to be a Christian organization, has continued legal pursuit of this matter, and attempted in January '08 to seize the entire contents of Taylor's business, the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum. This comment reflects the nature of the spirit that Vision Forum extends to Joe Taylor, in very close proximety to a court proceeding wherein Vision Forum orchestrated a change of venue so as to gain legal advantage. Please visit Mr. Taylor has recently obtained reliable legal counsel and it pursuing vindication.
I have allowed the comment to remain because it demonstrates the typical passive-aggressive and back-handed behavior demonstrated by many of those within the patriarchy movement. Many of these ministries employ individuals who do nothing but comb the internet for references to them and their ministries in order for the purposes of "damage control." This whole issue demonstrates how cruel, ruthless and unchristian many of these patriarchal organizations and affiliated individuals behave in response to criticism or resistance.]

Anonymous said...
I'm confused. You're all upset with Jen for her kinist relations, but you still support Joe Taylor, who wrote extensively on Little Geneva in the summer of 2006. I heard that Ken Ham was not at all pleased with Joe linking his name to a racist site. Why is no one questioning Joe for the same connections as Jen? Of course, Little Geneva was taken down not long after this whole mess started in the blogosphere, but there is a copy of the articles at: can see the evidence for yourself.
January 8, 2008 7:00 PM
Anonymous said...
For more information on Joe's writings on Little Geneva, you need only look at page 7 of the Arbitration Decision pdf on to see the findings of the arbitrator. It reads as follows: "On or about July 15, 2006, Joe Taylor posted an extensive comment on the Badlands section of the “Little Geneva” website, disparaging Claimants and criticizing the Video, thus containing one violation."So what about that "guilt by association"?
January 8, 2008 7:08 PM

Cindy said...
I was asked about the Mrs. Binoculars comment, so I forwarded this information to friends of the Taylors. They spoke with Joe who stated that he had no idea who these people were.Joe Taylor's reputation, aside from Vision Forum related folks including Pete DeRosa, has an excellent testimony and no history of avoiding accountability. I cannot say the same for others mentioned here, and I draw from my own personal experience as well. So at this point, I am highly inclined to believe Joe Taylor and his statement that he does not know who these kinists.So the only word against Joe Taylor comes from the Vision Forum camp, so far as I know. The information concerning Jennifer Epstein comes from multiple sources. So if you can produce evidence regarding Joe Taylor from at least two more sources that are not connected with Vision Forum, I might be inclined to believe these accusations. Until that time, I will continue to support Joe.
January 8, 2008 7:44 PM

Cindy said...
Another thought...The posts that I've seen and the posts that others have observed and remember from the Epsteins concerned race and ethnic issues. According to that documentation, Joe posted about only one issue -- that of the Allosaur. So if in doing so, he violated the mediation agreement, however, he was not discussing issues of race or ethnicity. His only comment concerned the Allosaur.
January 8, 2008 9:05 PM

Anonymous said...
He didn't speak specifically about race, but what was he doing using the Little Geneva platform? Why was he even on that site in the first place? I thought this thread was about guilt by association?
January 9, 2008 6:08 AM

Cindy said...
You apparently read only what you wanted to read into this thread!I assume that you are the same anonymous who posted earlier. Can you produce two or three witnesses not associated with Vision Forum who can demonstrate that Joe Taylor has any other contact or friendships with kinists other than a post about the allosaur? If that's the case, than everyone would really like to know. Can you provide evidence proving that Joe Taylor interracts with kinists or knows them personally and counts them as friends and confidants.The information presented here about the Friedrichs demonstrates a personal relationship between them and the Seabrooks. Joe has no such documented connection with these kinists, save for one comment about the allosaur. He doesn't exchange Christmas cards with them, he doesn't follow their careers
(07Jan08 comment), he doesn't collaborate with them for help in writing content for his website and he doesn't appear online arguing that kinism is a legitimate Christian belief.
Again, I ask if you can present any evidence that did not originate from Vision Forum (as does the info in the document that you cited earlier) that corrorborates your premise, then please present it. And try using your true identity next time you post here!That's the funny thing about a coherentist epistemology -- truth presents and vinidcates itself eventually. If Joe Taylor has relationships with kinists that extends beyond this comment made here, then that should be easy enough to prove outside of evidence and testimony originating from Vision Forum. It was easy enough to do with the Epstiens based on the testimony of her own friends and confidants, so the same should be just as simple with Joe if there is any validity to your claim.January 9, 2008 6:32 AM

Lin said...
Anonymous. You are engaging in gossip. Perhaps Joe was like me and totally ignorant that LG was Kinist until mrsbinoculars came out with their site accusing Jen of Kinism because of her posting on LG. Only then did I hear the word Kinist. And I never went back there. Nor would I have gone to Jen's blog ever again if she had not denied Kinist connections like she did. Which we now know are not true.So, I would be guilty, too, of association. But Jen, on the other hand, has very close associations to this day with Kinists and has been defending them on the TW board. Why bring Joe into this? You are not only engaging in gossip but are kicking a man when he is down so low he cannot see bottom. This is very cruel. Personally, I think you are Jen being anonymous. Just like I think Jen was 'two sides' on TW. Another post trying to hurt Joe Taylor.What on earth has that man done to you, Jen?Use your real name anon and face Joe with this accusation.
January 9, 2008 7:26 PM

Corrie said...
Hi Anonymous,"So what about that "guilt by association"?"It seems that you might be misunderstanding the meaning of "guilt by association"?There are many people who have accidentally posted on LIttle Geneva (when it was up and running) without knowing it was a kinist site. In fact, there are many of us who did not even hear of such a thing until Jen started writing her story. I was very shocked, personally speaking, to learn that there were people who called themselves bible-believing Christians and believe the things that were on that site. I know one person who is VERY against racism who posted on this site and she was contacted by another person who told her that she probably shouldn't be posting over there and then told her why. Maybe this is what Joe did? In the Mrs. Binoculars report it says that Joe was "partners" with Greg McDivitt or "Badonicus". I believe that Joe denies Matt Chancey's accusation. "There is a huge difference between going to the lost tax collectors and whores in order to bring them the good news and having a friendship with those who hold to very bad doctrines and claim to be a Christian. "This is what I originally stated. I also think that there is a huge difference between being loving and kind and thinking that our kinist friends are free to not only hold these false beliefs as true but also teach them as true and then use the Bible to shore up their false teachings.I see very clearly where scripture holds up the example as to how we are to handle each situation. The basic unsaved tax collector or prostitute is not treated in the same manner as the false teacher who is in the church wearing the clothing of a sheep when underneath they are actually a wolf. I believe the kinist "gospel" to be one of wolves who have snuck in unawares into our churches and are teaching things contrary to the Gospel and are subverting the truth of scripture and taking people captive. We cannot pussyfoot around with such nonsense. We do no favors to either the wolf in sheep's clothing or the people of God when we hem and haw and prevaricate about such contemptible teachings. I really think that the whole issue is that of hypocrisy. We have Matt Chancey writing many articles concerning a "kinist cabal" when many of his own, close and personal friends are guilty of the same. I wonder if he will retract Mrs. Binoculars and issue an apology or call his friends on the carpet for the same behavior? How many of his friends have stood behind Mrs. Binoculars all the while knowing that they are guilty of the same? That seems to be the question that needs to be answered.
January 10, 2008 8:20 PM