Hmmmm. It will be interesting to hear you excuse this form of gossip. Your inquiry is in good faith, I'm sure, just like the "I have been blessed not to reside in South Carolina" comment implies.

You're above this kind of stuff.

Or are you?

I take it you have nothing of substance to offer, Observer.

As to whether I am “above this kind of stuff”, I suspect you and I are working with a different, perhaps inverted, scale of values.

If the fact is in error, you are welcome to show how; that is implicit in my post. If you think this alleged act is a clear violation of New Testament teaching but is beyond my concern, you are welcome to show that as well.

But intimidation will get you nowhere.

In what department was Richard Hand instructing, Observer? and is he still with the University?

It's curious that you would bring this up, because it was on this blog that you made a similar accusation (of sexual immorality and marital infidelity) against Robert Sheffey, the 19th Century evangelist.

Like Hand, when pressed you could not provide any evidence to back your claim. Like Hand's e-mail, your accusations were public. Like Hand, at least one of your defenders brought out the "you can't prove a universal negative" line. Unlike Hand's, your un-retracted accusations are still available to anyone with Internet access.

So can we use this incident to make disparaging comments about Texas? If you are employed, does this reflect poorly on your employer and profession?

Or does it not count when the person accused is dead and politically irrelevant?

At the link below you can find the answers to two of your questions; it's a link, by the way, easily provided by Google:
http://www.bju.edu/academics/sr/undergrad/faculty/

I've never been able to find the email itself online anywhere -- just snippets quoted in articles. Surely someone out there has it?

He's still at BJU.

Oops! That'll teach me to refresh before posting. Sorry for the redundant information...

Richard Hand ought to sue these news sources for libel:

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13548

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/mccain-faces-ghosts-of-south-carolina/20071019194109990001

BJU needs to challenge this Wikipedia article for the lie about Richard Hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University

They also need to challenge this Answers.com article about BJU (see under heading, 2000 Election):

http://www.answers.com/topic/bob-jones-university-1

These vicious rumors about Richard Hand are all over the internet, left unchallenged. Where is the justice?

Austin!

It’s so good to hear from you again. It’s been a while.

Let’s try to keep things just a little sorted, shall we? Just for picturesqueness.

First with respect to Sheffey, I did offer evidence for my conclusion. I also said that the nature of that evidence was such that even I did not consider it conclusive, that what I knew did not meet the test of three independent witnesses. I said very clearly that I did not consider this “historical proof” and that my personal conclusions were based on the credibility of the people I talked with. The bone of contention between me and certain of your family members was not whether it was true, but whether lack of evidence is proof of innocence.

I’m sorry you missed that distinction.

As to why I bring this up, I said very clearly why I brought it up: last night on C-Span I caught a speech by Karl Rove. (I suppose you could check C-Span’s schedule to verify that.) He entertained some questions at the end. One questioner was under the impression that Rove had something to do with an accusation made of McCain. He didn’t name Richard Hand, he called him a “nutty professor at Bob Jones University”; I found Hand’s name only by investigating the political fallout.

That is why I asked a) if there was a copy of the e-mail available—from which quotations were extracted, and b) what department Hand was in and if he was still on the staff. That was so I could pursue the matter with Hand himself.

I didn’t find Hand’s name after a cursory search of the BJ website, so before I spent an inordinate amount of time searching there, I asked what I did about the department and field of study.

So thanks for the link; I shall contact Mr. Hand forthwith.


Regulative:

I think your suspicions may be valid, and the story most certainly is all over the internet, which is why I wanted to pursue the matter personally.

I guess I'm wondering, Dissidens, if these multitude of reports actually aren't true, why BJU and Hand haven't stepped up with a defense. I think it's pretty mainstream when it gets into your Wikipedia reference. If it is true that he spread a nasty lie about McCain, whether someone is a McCain supporter or not, why there hasn't been an apology and retraction. I understand the possible political ramifications of apology and retraction, but BJU isn't political, are they?

According to the news articles, Hand's defense was that it would be impossible to prove that McCain had NEVER fathered an illegitimate child, so no one can prove his accusation false.

Dissidens,

This reminds me of a thread that went on over at Sharper Iron (or, by some around here, The Cock Roach Motel) a while back. Jason Janz thought it necessary to provide your name and ask any and all for information about you. This was presented as an honest attempt to learn something about someone else who had chosen anonymity in the blogosphere. Quickly, people read through the lines, surmising that it wasn't so much an honest question as it was a chance to somehow take a jab at you. It was stupid. And while Janz claimed innocence time and time again, nobody was actually persuaded.

This feels similar. As Austin pointed out, a quick Google search of "Richard Hand at Bob Jones University" answers your two questions rather quickly. Funny you overlooked that.

"I take it you have nothing of substance to offer, Observer."

And, well, I take it you had nothing of substance to offer when you made your original post, yet you did so anyway. And like Janz (I'm sure that's the first time you've heard that!) you'll claim you were simply blogging about a speech by Karl Rove that mentioned Bob Jones University. But your readers are smarter than that.

"Intimidation will get you nowhere." Agreed.

Regulative:

You know, it’s kinda funny. The post I intended for this morning had to do with Tony Jones, the emergent church and open source theology. He has repeatedly used Wikipedia as an analogy for doing theology. I have a very low opinion of Wikipedia for the very reason he celebrates it.

All of which is to say I don’t trust Wikipedia for anything but to verify undisputed dates and name spellings, that kind of thing. It’s a quick-and-dirty fact-checker, in my opinion. What’s in Wikipedia may be mainstream but that doesn’t make it true.

I was at first intrigued last night to hear that this charge emanated from BJ, and I was intrigued for the obvious reasons and, as danofsteel points out, the reports of using the old “universal negative” defense sounds like someone trying to throw his bicycle in reverse. That’s what brought the issue up to the level of my interest. I wanted to see that e-mail.

But beyond catching the eye, the subsequent denials don’t particularly interest me; that someone should make such an accusation strikes me as well over any line the NT draws for truthfulness.


Observer:

Actually what I did was reflexively hit bju.edu and ran their search engine for Richard Hand. That led me to a long list of links, and since this event took place years ago, I had no assurance that he was still with the university. I know from experience that the quickest way to find faculty members on that site is to go to the correct department. That’s why I asked what I did.

I guess some people could think that’s funny. I suppose we all have different ideas of what is humorous.

When I say "mainstream," I definitely don't mean true. However, this is how you are being defined generally. If the Hand episode is what the world knows you for, it would seem you would want to answer that.

I didn't vote for McCain and I don't particularly like his politics. However, in 2000 McCain won NH. He had momentum. He came to SC and the content and the timing of the Hand email is given credit for doing just enough damage to McCain short-term for him to lose that primary. This shot his momentum and resulted in a Bush presidency. In other words, it could be a major historical event and it is what BJU has become known for, that is, promoting a lie so their guy could win. One BJU professor affecting who is president is history making.

Am I wrong on this? I don't mind being wrong. I think I'm right though.

Well, I agree with your first point. When an institution has the sort of history and reputation that BJ does, one would suppose there is ample reason to set the record straight.

And I wouldn’t say you are wrong about the consequences. I really don’t know.

I really, really hate politics. I enjoy hearing people like Rove and Nofziger talk about it, but even then it tends to be only at the height of a political season. I am fascinated by people who do it well, especially with my experience of people who do it poorly (which includes family members, by the way), but I don’t like those people.

As to how pivotal this event was, I couldn’t say. You may well be right.

What concerns me more than speculating about the impact is the undisputed discrediting of religious beliefs. Aside from the racial component, to turn an act of generosity into a moral slur is just intolerable.

Someone begins to poke around and ask questions because CNN piqued his interest in a story, and that someone's intentions are immediately questioned because of seeming parallels which went against this someone. There was no gossip here. It is a story well published.

We seem appalled that dissidens would call into question the M.O. of BJU. Remember, dissidens, more than likely, does not seem to keep these issues silent as an "in house" affair because he does not view the fortress of faith as holding the faith once delivered. Just as fundamentalists have made good mileage on the memoirs of Paul Tillich's wife, dissidens will make mileage on Hand's improprieties (if, indeed, they actually happened according to rumor).

What fair minded minions of BJU need to do is not slay the investigator, but assail BJU with "Say it ain't so, Jones."

The parallels seem less than fitting. I thought the point of the outrage for the SI stupidity was that people didn't or couldn't deal with the argument made here, instead they sought to find the source of the attack - for whatever purpose. I may be totally wrong, but, if memory serves me correctly, it was the "minions" of dissidens who were more outraged than dissidens himself. He seemed to merely defend the practice of anonymity as legit. Then again, I may be wrong, I don't have time to go back and read everything again.

This Hand situation is a legitimate investigation. We may, in wide eyed wonder, actually witness dissidens argue against the media and for BJU on this one. Why Google all your information when people in the know may be visiting your blog? As every librarian knows, the information on the Internet lacks a similar degree of credibility as CNN. Institutional websites are notorious for being out of date.

And in this political season, don't break your jaw with your knee-jerk reactions. I suspect dissidens got just what he wanted out of Austin and Observer: evidence that the movement is unwilling to be self-critical.

I hope that I have not spoken too much for dissidens, but a couple here played right into his hand. Assuming nothing wrong happened does not make the news stories go away. Fundamentalism's parochialism will not save its hind end from getting kicked while its head is in the sand. Dissidens is providing a valuable service here, Fundamentalism should make the most of it.

exlibris:

I may be totally wrong, but, if memory serves me correctly, it was the "minions" of dissidens who were more outraged than dissidens himself. He seemed to merely defend the practice of anonymity as legit.

I think even more, it offended many on SI who saw the stunt for what it was. At the time, I didn't think it would bother dissidens a whole lot to be identified. The lesson learned in fundie indecency may have even been worth the "outing."

Personally, I found McCrorie's unrepentant hateful attitude towards the anonymous more offensive than the stunt itself.

I’m sorry you missed that distinction.

It's great how on a blog dedicated to sweeping generalizations about fundamentalists, evangelicals, and various individual bloggers, you expect your readers to make casuistic distinctions when parsing your own words.

But in this case it doesn't work. Do you expect anyone to believe that had Hand responded to the CNN reporter with your kind of "evidence," that what he did would have been justified?

Reporter: How do you know McCain sired an illegitimate child?
Hand: Some guy who never met him, now dead, told me so years ago. Take my word on it.
Reporter: Sounds good enough to publish, so carry on!

What you and Hand did are morally equivalent. You both made public claims about a man's character, claims for which you could produce no evidence outside of your own head. I'm beginning to think the conversation thirty years ago wasn't even about Sheffey; after all, you couldn't even place the Hand scandal in the right presidential election, just a few hours after excitedly learning of it.

Regulative and exlibris,

I don't understand what's gotten you so exercised. Nobody on this thread is denying what Hand did; he admitted on camera for CNN that he did it, so that would be really tough. And no one that I've seen anywhere has suggested that we just cover it up or excuse it away. Maybe I'm not lurking in the right corners of the Internet.

I suspect dissidens got just what he wanted out of Austin and Observer: evidence that the movement is unwilling to be self-critical.

This comment is nonsensical. What I, Observer, or even Hand say or do cannot be taken to represent fundamentalism at large. If you worked with pharmaceuticals instead of books, you would kill people with that kind of reasoning.

And it's mind-boggling that you think my comments attempt to shield anybody from criticism. I've criticized Hand, a fundamentalist, and dissidens, a non-fundamentalist, by linking their actions.

The only response that shows an unwillingness to be self-critical is dissidens'. His anger is greatly kindled against Hand, and he's demanding a four-fold repayment, but he'll never take the next step.

I hope we can still get a squint at the email. It would be great see the wording. It would be great to see the wording of the alleged retraction too, if that's available. What was the guy thinking anyway?

Austin:

I can appreciate your frustration, but if I can offer some small advice: frustration doesn’t always produce clear argument. Not only is your argument weak, I believe you are willfully misrepresenting the truth.

I never said anything remotely like “Some guy who never met him, now dead, told me so years ago. Take my word on it.” I was asked why I believed as I did and I gave the names of two men (as I now recall it), one a history professor and the other was a well-known major player in the movement. I offered their testimony as evidence for why I believe as I do. Nor did I ever say “Take my word on it.” I said of my own accord that I did not consider this historically provable by my own standards. I gave reasons for my belief, I never told anyone to take my word on anything.

So,

- I never said “some guy”.
- Whether or not a witness ever “met” the accused is spectacularly irrelevant to his innocence or guilt.
- The death of my contacts, while lamentable, has no bearing on the truth of their testimony or their credibility.
- The passage of time has no bearing on the substance of the conversation.
- I never said, suggested, hinted, or even expected that anyone should “take my word on it”.

But beyond all this, your comparison is embarrassingly labored. The disgrace that has been attributed to Richard Hand has nothing of the character of my beliefs about Sheffey. What Mr. Hand said was a) known, b) exposed, c) absolutely disgraceful, and d) a clear violation of the New Testament which dishonored a whole class of believer.

Finally, if you will reread my post, what I asked was whether anyone had a copy of that original e-mail. You have no clue as to why I want it or what I intend to make of it, so spare yourself some humiliation and don’t make self-serving assumptions.

To our less hysterical readers, I know what can be found on the internet: I have found more than I need for my purposes. I have seen the videos and read the news stories and the interview transcripts. I have some sense of the political fallout, at least insofar as the principals judged it. None of this meets the need of the hour. What I ‘m looking for is a copy of the original e-mail. (And as I type this paragraph, Unk’s comment has just come in to that effect.) It has been alleged to be a four-page document—which I suspect, given that it was an e-mail, is subject to obvious variables—which will afford a context not offered in the newsbabble.

That will be dispositive of the questions I have.

I will add, though, since my request has generated this kind of response, that we are dealing very much with a gang which refuses to take responsibility for misbehavior. No doubt this also is something I should get over.

Now, I’m wondering if I should attribute this attitude to the idea of fundamentalism or the movement?

Pace

You have no clue as to why I want it or what I intend to make of it, so spare yourself some humiliation and don’t make self-serving assumptions.

What are the false assumptions? I don't care what you intend to make of it; the fact is that the parallel to yourself is notable and the way you deny the obvious, telling.

And for the sake of self-consistency, you shouldn't talk about "self-serving assumptions" paired with ignorance of intentions, when in the same comment you speak of my "frustration," being "hysterical," and my "willfully misrepresenting" the truth. Unless you are a prophet, you know only what I've written and exactly as much about my emotional state or volition as I know of yours. Besides, nothing I've said depends on either my or your feelings or will. The fact that you resort to such irrelevant ad hominem attacks puts your manner of discussion in the camp of those who try to distract from the issue at hand by saying, for example, that one should "get over it."

I said of my own accord that I did not consider this historically provable by my own standards.

Whether it's "historically provable" by your own standards doesn't matter. What matters is that according to your own standards it was worth propagating. Here the parallel with Hand holds: he also didn't claim to meet "historically provable" standards.

- I never said “some guy”.

The point was not that you didn't name the fellow, but that there was nothing particularly relevant about his name, i.e. in your case, not a published expert on Sheffey, or the like.

- Whether or not a witness ever “met” the accused is spectacularly irrelevant to his innocence or guilt.

First of all, the main question is not one of actual guilt or innocence. As Hand says, you can't prove a universal negative, so there will always be the possibility that your accusation is right. What matters is whether you were justified in propagating the accusation.
Second, whether the "witness" knew the accused is relevant, when there is apparently no documentation about this event. If we exclude the witness's being a primary source, and there is no documentation, what remains is shaky grounds for a serious accusation.

- The death of my contacts, while lamentable, has no bearing on the truth of their testimony or their credibility.

No, but it bears on your credibility, as there is no way to verify your claims: the deceased apparently took the evidence with them to their graves.

- The passage of time has no bearing on the substance of the conversation.

Obviously the substance of the conversation--what was said decades ago--hasn't changed. What might have, and what is likely, considering your apparently loose grip on remembered facts, is what you recall being said.

- I never said, suggested, hinted, or even expected that anyone should “take my word on it”.

What else is there? You've made a serious accusation, and all we have is your word: your sources are dead, and there is no known documentation. We are forced to take your word for it.

But beyond all this, your comparison is embarrassingly labored. The disgrace that has been attributed to Richard Hand has nothing of the character of my beliefs about Sheffey. What Mr. Hand said was a) known, b) exposed, c) absolutely disgraceful, and d) a clear violation of the New Testament which dishonored a whole class of believer.

a) "known" means what? That a lot of people know about Hand's claim, as opposed to the few who know about yours? That's not relevant in a moral sense. b) exposed: In what sense is his "exposure" different from yours? I don't know that he ever admitted he was wrong, and it's impossible to prove he was. Same with you. c) absolutely disgraceful: as is any such public claim, when one can't produce the evidence to support it.

I will add, though, since my request has generated this kind of response, that we are dealing very much with a gang which refuses to take responsibility for misbehavior.

My attempting to hold you to your own standards makes me part of a gang which refuses to take responsibility for misbehavior? You might be able to say that if I had tried to defend Hand, but I haven't. This claim is an obvious non sequitur and a cheap, baseless attack on my character. Unfortunately, I can't say I find it surprising.

We went through all this last time. Your dithering was unpersuasive then and it doesn't justify an encore.

I have a request in to Mr. Hand for a copy of the original e-mail.

Are you as excited as I am?

It's like Christmas here at Schloss Dissidens.

Austin, I see my error and retract, at the very least, the argument.

If I believed everything I was told, I would begin to think that nothing fundamentalists say or do, no matter how many times or few, says anything about Fundamentalists as a group. Last I checked, inductive reasoning was still something of value. It is the argument Dissidens has been offering with his many examples. The more Fundamentalists that continue to act like this, the stronger his case becomes.

At least, that is what my logic text is telling me right now.

If dissidens dealt with pharmaceuticals, he would probably save lives. This is a very long and detailed study he is performing. It is very much like that. He took a large sampling and came up with a theory. And this is like the lab tests. He is getting the expected results every time.

First, let me be clear that there is no excusing Dr. Hand's actions or lame defense of it.

That said, I wonder, lil rabbi, whether what's happening here isn't more similar to the way psychological theories are developed (vs. lab tests on drugs). The key difference is that behavior cannot be tested in the same way that chemicals can, and there is always a serious problem with cause-effect and predictability. Worst of all, the theories are all based off of deviant behavior since those are the people that psychologists analyze.

I am afraid that the same is happening here--the deviants become the template and the case for cause-effect is tenuous. And like many psych theories there is a built in defense--to object to the applicability of its theory is to evidence a state of denial. And how does one argue with that?

We went through all this last time. Your dithering was unpersuasive then and it doesn't justify an encore.

Actually, I think you backed out about the same place then, too. It's hard to respond to point-by-point refutations when your only MO is to pontificate or sling insults. Stick with vacuous pronouncements about how it's all part of the decline of fundamentalism, as that seems to play better with the peanut gallery.

lilrabbi, find "anecdotal evidence" in your logic textbook's index, and read that section.

And if I am a data point in some great inductive study of fundamentalism, what conclusions can you draw from me? Fundamentalists dislike hypocrisy? I think you'll find that's true for most people, outside of groupies.

First of all, Austin wasn't doing logic from the start. He was using a logical fallacy to take attention away from Dissidens' point. Tu quoque, from Wikipedia:

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.

That, for what it is worth...

Uncultured - Could be. I was borrowing Austin's image. But the fact remains, as I stated at the beginning of my post, Fundamentalists would have us believe no matter how many of them do these things, nor how many times they are done, nor the span of time over which all of these things have been done, that they are not representative of the whole movement.

The example in my logic textbook is of a person who buys 6 peaches from a certain grocery store. Each one is mushy. This person can rightly assume that there is something about the current batch of peaches as a whole which make them all a bit mushy. This is fairly strong reasoning. The more mushy peaches he buys from this batch, the stronger his conclusion is.

Mr. Hand is just another mushy peach from the same batch.

Woops, copy/pasted the wrong one.

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, A has no right to criticize P, or the criticism is confusing because it does not reflect A's actual values or beliefs.

Austin, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm talking past you at the beginning of my last post - I was typing at the same time you were typing yours.

One conclusion is that Fundamentalists, even the better ones, will resort to logical fallacies (tu quoque and straw man, in this thread at least) in order to avoid criticism of their own.

lilrabbi,

You're a funny guy. Did you notice that your second example was copied from the "Legitimate Uses" section of the Wikipedia page? It starts out like so:

Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge.

And for the record, I never made any claim like "Therefore, P is dismissed" or "Therefore, A has no right to criticize P, or the criticism is confusing because it does not reflect A's actual values or beliefs." If dissidens wants to criticize Hand, he has my blessing. But to be consistent, he should also criticize himself. Stop saying that I'm trying to "avoid criticism of [my] own," as it's completely false, and I've repeatedly made it clear here that I too criticize Hand.

Next time you're trying to show I'm committed a fallacy, please quote me instead attributing to me what you think my "kind" would say.

In order for the comparison to stand, it would need to be demonstrated that dissidens has NO evidence to support his belief, just as Hand had no evidence.

Hand was trying to damage McCain with statements he knew had no supporting evidence, while dissidens was making a point about how "the club" protects its own above any allegiance to what's right, something most of knew a long time ago.

That's not a defense, just an observation that the situations are not the same.

As for Sheffey, I have my own reasons to be satisfied on that matter.

lol, I knew that would happen...

Anyway, my book says the "legitimate" version is actually still a fallacy. "[Dissidens] claim is inconsistent with something else [Dissidens] has said or done; therefore, his claim (belief, opinion, theory, proposal, etc.) stands refuted."

That seems an awful lot like what you were doing.

And Dissidens already demonstrated that you were building a convenient straw-man, so I don't need to go into that.

lilrabbi,

A different logic book may be in order. Informal logic is never neat, and almost every informal fallacy is an argument that has legitimate applications.

I apologize for my comment above regarding Brian McCrorie. I was wrong, and should not have said what I did.

Informal logic is never neat, and almost every informal fallacy is an argument that has legitimate applications.

I guess that explains why so many modern theologians rely heavily on them in their arguments.

:)

I'm afraid "modern theologians" is so broad I don't grasp the meaning of your point. Modern as in Karl Barth, or Berkouwer, or Kuyper, or Balthasar, or Vanhoozer and Carson, or Doran and Bauder? As I said, a "modern" is a rather broad term.

Yes, but knowing where the words were coming from, I was a little surprised to see the fallacies used, and then defended. The fact is, Austin was taking attention off of the original issue by building a straw-man and implying that Dissidens has no room to talk since the straw-man did the morally equivalent thing which Hand did.

Samuel,

Sorry about the cryptic comment -- I was mostly just amusing myself. I've noticed a few of the more popular current preacher/author/whatever that are considered great theological minds use bad reasoning or rhetorical tricks to "prove" their positions. "Poisoning the well" is a favorite of two I can think of off the top of my head.

The things I see may not be strictly "informal fallacies", but also might include formal fallacies, or just underhanded rhetorical tactics. Anyway, I had already been thinking that when these guys study rhetoric and logic, they somehow got the idea that logical fallacies are the best forms of argumentation.

So, in my head those observations joined with your comment and I was amused by the connection.

I don't plan to mention any names, although your list had one of the names I was thinking of. :-)

Well, sadly, Dan, fallacious argumentation often is very effective, and good speakers know this. A friend of mine in college, whose father is a corportate lawyer told him to study fallacies and then "use them because they work."

Unfortunately, experience has taught me that this is Austin's style. It might be a game with him.

If he doesn't like what you are saying, he merely swoops in with a logical flourish and impugns your credibility. He is very effective with it. He rarely confronts the truth of your argument, assertion, or whatever. He merely disses some accident of your argument which usually is not essential to you overall point. Usually the truth of what you have to say would still stand, you just need to construct the argument better. Or, in my case, read what he said more closely.

Maybe he's a wannabe debate coach.

His M.O. is basically sophist, but I doubt he really is a sophist. Probably just another twisted fundy with the sort of angst that dissidens faces here, but uncertain what to do about it.

Austin,

If Dissidens had used only that one story as his basis for his generalization of Fundamentalism, then he would be guilty of the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. It is obvious that his sample size is much larger, much broader, and his other examples are mostly matters of public record. The case is not weak by any definition.

Dissidens, it would be nice to see a list of all the different pieces of evidence, those of us with ADD can have it all before us in one glance. How many different colleges? Pastors? Churches? Hymnals? Camps? Cds? And how many of these are considered mainstream and accepted within Fundamentalism? We're not talking about the KJVOnlies--no fringe group. By the time you weed out all the bad apples, there isn't much left for a "core" which would be representative of the group. Is it Austin only? SI isn't representative. Maranatha and Wilde and their ex-president aren't representative. This BJ professor isn't representative. Our hymnals and our fundy-pop superstars (or was it Big-League All-Stars?) aren't representative.

This is the defense. None of the bad examples are representative. It is intriguing how men who were once considered representative of all that is right in Fundamentalism fall, and then are removed from the category of "representative."

Impenetrable.

Sadly, no. It’s not Austin only; Austin is a bottom-runger. It goes right up the food chain.

It takes no great feat of the moral imagination to figure out that if Richard Hand spoke of “Dr. Bob” in the way he spoke of John McCain, the matter would have been handled rather more aggressively.

There is no mountain of evidence these people will consider. This is an inbred bunch which chooses allegiance over truth every time. If you criticize the movement you are ignorant of its history or are a trouble-maker.

Quite simple, really.

Like their imagination.

Samuel,

I would actually expect that of lawyers, since part of their job is to convince people of things they may know to be false.

It's nice to know the same methods are being used by our religious leaders.