I have decided to post an e-mail I received anonymously. This is what we have received at the hands of other Christians for daring to disagree with certain ideas being taught. Note that never are examples given, or any gentle instruction offered. Instead our character, integrity, and intelligence is questioned. How sad for us all.
Well, well, well…….how very up-to-date you portray yourselves…how free, how hip, how enlightened. How delusional!
It seems that you have illegally used photos of Lydia Sherman’s blog, or am I delusional, hallucinating? That puts YOU in a precarious position, does it not?
It also seems you know not your accurate American history, but only the northern, fractured, federal indoctrination version of the bulk of it. My, my…so easily misled too.Too bad….you are so very limited in your scope of ever being capable of deliberating wisely on the subject. How very pathetic.
It seems too that you simply have no moral mechanism with which to appreciate the Godly advice,admonitions, and inspirations given those of us “who have ears to hear and eyes to see”, by Mrs. Sherman. Understandable, however, as a sickly condition such as you and yours who have who obviously long-ago abandoned the leading of the Holy Spirit for the leading of your own pride and self-aggrandizement.
You all have been well-indoctrinated by the forces of evil and your futures are set. God have the “amazing grace” to free you all from your strong delusions.
Hoping for your speedy recovery,
Scarlett…a white, black-loving, feminine, artistic, piano-playing, sewing, swimming, book-reading, liberty-loving Jeffersonian, Virginian Southern descendant with plantation ownership who wanted to free the slaves whom we treated as FAMILY, grandmother-of-four. Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it!
The e-mail came from “Scalett O’Hara”.
Now, if anyone knows where we’ve stolen something from Lydia Sherman, please bring it to my attention. I think we’ve quoted her (always with credit given, and links when possible), but I don’t think we have any photos. As for the History issue, I reject the e-mailer totally. My father is a retired American History teacher, and my childhood vacations were often spent at sites that helped me learn about our History.
Mostly, though, what disappoints me is the tone of the thing. No one can hope for real discourse, or to truly teach us anything with an e-mail like that. It was a cowardly, angry thing, sent without benefit of real identity. If that’s supposed to be my example of a real Christian “lady”, I think I’ll pass. I may not always be right, and I may not always be as nice as I should be. But at least I’ll have the courage to err as myself.
A grandmother of four should be embarrassed by that email, not proud of it.
That was my impression, Jennifer. She did sent me a second e-mail consisting of one incomplete sentence. I have no idea what it meant. *shrug* Sadly, these kinds of attacks have come from both sides of the Christian feminist argument. I don’t think they have any place in faithful discourse.
By the way, am I the only person who finds her description of herself as “black loving” and the idea that her family treated “like family” human beings whom her family kept as property, offensive? I don’t care how one treats a slave, it doesn’t excuse the despicable practice. And I don’t love “black” people. I love people.
I wonder if “Scarlett” knows her slave-owning relatives could have freed the human beings they owned but treated like “family” had they wanted to. Congratulations, Miss Scarlett. You love black people. At least you’ve evolved that much.
Wow – “Scarlett” sure has a lot of time on her hands. That was a lengthy email!
And it simply bums me out that some folks can carry such hostility.
Oh, and I am so with you. The ‘black loving’ slave-condoning family bit leaves me feeling sick. What a shame.
You’re not kidding when you said these kind of attacks have come from both sides against you. This is about as pathetic as what happened on my yahoo e-mail group against you, which was carried over from a blog by an individual.
Does that make you a moderate?
I’m convinced that what is needed is a good dose of the other moderator’s (the moderator on my group) humor right when you get something like this. I’d say something funny, but unfortunately nothing is coming to mind. I get kind of sick when I see this kind of thing happen online and in private.
Lynn from PA, we are always willing to engage folks who have legitimate criticisms about this website. The conversation was “fruitless” because you provided no evidence to support your accusations of theft and copyright violations from Lydia Sherman’s blog. We WANT people to give proof so that we can make the changes and necessary apologies. I won’t apologize for bringing attention to the numerous historical inaccuracies Mrs. Sherman has made on her blog nor the offensive statements she has made about Hurricane Katrina victims and the elderly in supermarkets. She put those statements out there for the public to see. Why shouldn’t she be held accountable for them?
Blessings to you,
Cally
I had a response written out, but I chucked it. I’m just going to say that I am disgusted by anyone’s attempt to sugarcoat the evil practice of slavery. Some people mourned those who enslaved them? Some fought alongside those who owned them (probably unaware that they had a choice, or given none)? Some considered it a blessing because they wouldn’t have been Christian otherwise? (Another idea I reject since there were such things as missionaries, even then)
People were kidnapped, placed like sardines on slave ships and brought under unimaginable conditions to a new country where they were sold like cattle to the highest bidder and forced to work themselves to death in their service. They couldn’t marry, they had no rights to their own children, and they could be raped and abused at the hands of the one who owned them. This evil practice in our nation’s history denied the very personhood of God’s children, and I will not allow it to be defended on this blog, ever. I’m certain not every slave owner was evil, or committed abuses against their slaves. But that they owned slaves at all was a crime. Something even the slave owning founding fathers knew, and struggled with.
I’m deleting Lynn from PA’s comment, and her reference to the Northern Army as “invading hoards of the Marxist Federal Army of dictator Abraham Lincoln.” It amazes me that there are still people who think this way.
OK, my history knowledge is pathetic. My question is this. Why is it called “The War of Northern Aggression” by those who are still fighting this conflict in their minds, since the Confederate States left the Union, and they fired the first shots and routed the Union from Ft. Sumpter?
Was looking for the views of these women on slavery and found this:
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/ladylydia/manners902.htm
If she sends a note in her announcement that there is to be no immodest or outlandish styles worn to the ceremony, this is what it means: no mini-skirts, no slits in skirts, no tight tops with a view of the belly, no sandals, no sleeveless garments, no pants, no shorts, no spikey hair, no body piercing ( nose rings are historically a sign of slavery. Whose slaves are we, anyway?)
That’s by Lydia Sherman as it appears in the LAF site. I guess she thinks slavery is a such a bad thing, that for someone to dress in a way that reminds her of it would be considered immodest and not appropriate at a wedding.
http://visionarydaughters.com/2008/05/hannah-more-on-the-education-of-women
Here is a link to a paragraph about an educated woman who was an abolitionist who helped Wilberforce. The abolitionist aspect of it is only mentioned in passing, but it is mentioned favorably, as is the fact that these women led meetings that men attended.
Interesting. I know their slant is for women to get educated at home or else they are sinning. I wonder if they say anything about the South and its culture. I can only find things Doug Phillips has said.
I think this comment from Barbara Curtis is brilliant, for a couple reasons:
http://mommylife.net/archives/2008/08/memo_to_jennie.html#
Like many people who become involved in a legalistic subculture – or even a government system like socialism – she is one of the ones at the top who enjoy freedoms they would deny to others. Unfortunately, the world is full of followers and some leaders take advantage of that. In doing so they become hypocrites.
Barbara is speaking of Jennie Chancey, who uses her college education and work experience all the time in her writing and speaking against other women going to college and working jobs outside of the home.
But the hypocrisy goes both ways, if you can think of examples of people who would decry these kinds of teachings because they limit freedom, yet at the same time endorse governments that are all about control and more and more confiscatory taxation for social programs. This is also an encroachment on individual liberty.
Barbara is very right, I believe, in her assessment of Socialism and those in the Patriarchal movement who would seek to limit freedoms of others, when the leaders of both do not live under the same limitations they impose on others.
Oh, I forgot I had another point in my last comment. I read somewhere else that Cally said the theonomists called her a Marxist, on account of their views of Lincoln. They don’t appear to understand how dictatorial the system they defend, all the claims of how benevolent they were to the slaves, etc., is as controlling as Marxism, and that Lincoln freed the slaves.
So someone who points out how horribly enslaving and restricting the Old South was to the slaves is not to be compared to a Marxist. That’s ridiculous.
Rather, the Marxists and the Socialists are to be compared to the Theonomists who speak this way about slavery – that they viewed their property as “family,” even though they retained total control over their lives.
I am so sorry that you had to read such vitriol. I am sending lots of love, admiration, and respect to the ladies who run this blog. (((Cally))) (((Anne))) (((everyone else who read it)))
“Virginian Southern descendant with plantation ownership who wanted to free the slaves whom we treated as FAMILY…”
I realize that she is a grandmother but how old is she?
Scarlet wrote:
“How delusional!
My, my…so easily misled too.
you are so very limited in your scope
How very pathetic.
…you simply have no moral mechanism
…a sickly condition such as you and yours
You all have been well-indoctrinated by the forces of evil”
Such negativity! Scarlet O’Hara, like her counterpart, is of all women most miserable.
I loved your blog the first time I read it!
God bless you!
Lynn, I’m not publishing your comments. I find your sources to be highly biased and inaccurate. War is always tough, and the reasons are usually complex. Most of us know that the war was not to end slavery (though it was an excellent outcome) and that it was mostly due to economic disagreements (some of which did have to do with slavery and were far more complex than simply “taxation without representation” which is something the South had in the the form of Senators and Congressmen). And neither side is ever saintly. The same types of stories you hear about Yankee troops, you also hear about Confederate troops. War is brutal, it’s ugly, and it’s painful. No one will argue that. But that Lincoln was only in it for the money is ludicrous. He wouldn’t have gotten it. Tax money doesn’t belong to the President, nor does he get to choose how it’s spent. Congress holds the purse strings in our government. And Hitler got his ideas from many places. To compare the two is ridiculous. So is the assertion that he had genocidal techniques.
Just want to clarify I am NOT the Lynn Anne is referring to.
Maybe she means the picture of the dictionary.
Girls…if you don’t want to post my comments anymore, why are THESE comments of mine still posted here? You have my permission to delete them at any time of your choosing.
Thanks, Scarlett. We didn’t need your permission, but it was nice of you to offer it. Right now your comments aren’t banned, I just haven’t felt the need to post your heavily biased, totally inaccurate History lessons. And I don’t think it’s us that’s in Never-Never land, Mrs. “O’Hara”.
Why is my email address published constantly here? Isn’t that a violation of your site? I do not appreciate it either.
Fare well, now. forever.
L.M.
“If she sends a note in her announcement that there is to be no immodest or outlandish styles worn to the ceremony, this is what it means: no mini-skirts, no slits in skirts, no tight tops with a view of the belly, no sandals, no sleeveless garments, no pants, no shorts, no spikey hair, no body piercing ( nose rings are historically a sign of slavery. Whose slaves are we, anyway?)”
Nose rings are historically a sign of slavery? Where is she getting this? It’s very likely that many women in the Bible had nose rings as decoration; I believe it’s mentioned favorably in the Old Testament, where God compares Israel to a beautiful virgin and says that he gave her a nose ring.
I met some Pakistani women in the fabrics department of a store many years ago, and guess what, they were all wearing beautiful, tiny diamond nose-studs. They looked lovely and I complimented them on their jewelry.
Also… no sandals? Are sandals immodest?
This isn’t the fruits of Biblical Christianity, it’s the Taliban under a different name.
Scarlett, why don’t you tell us all why your family didn’t free the slaves it so *wanted* to. . . they could have done so at any time of their choosing.
So what was the hold up?
Sounds like your typical Internet Troll Snark to me, trying to denounce you as damned to Hell without actually saying it. Haven’t a clue as to what she’s carrying on about and being so smug, she’s holding it so close to her chest with an unspoken “You SHOULD know”. Sounds way too much like the crazy ladies in my family.
Anne said:
I may not always be right, and I may not always be as nice as I should be. But at least I’ll have the courage to err as myself.>>>>
Anne, no offense, but there are many reasons why people do not use their real names. One BIG reason is the danger of identity theft. One of my friends doesn’t even use her husband’s first name on her blog, and she never uses her own last name. She doesn’t write anything controversial, either. You shouldn’t use your full name, either, if you want to keep safe online.
What you think is courage may really be foolishness. FWIW, you are not always very nice.
I’m not sure what reactions you expect when you are so unkind to those on the other side. You allow a lot of unkindness in the comment section, too – just FYI.
You are not clueless to that, though, are you? If you sling mud, you will get mud back at you. Like some say “karma works.”
PS
Another reason that someone might want to use a pseudonym is because of other security concerns. For example, people might take one’s personal information and make phone calls and send emails with the intention of destroying one’s reputation or career. Yes, it happens.
There may be other reasons.
I suppose that someone has already pointed out that one of the bloggers here used a pseudonmy because of security reasons. She was pretty mean to those who dared to post here in disagreement with her ideas.
So, I just don’t get the complaints, the seeming confusion and hurt that someone would “attack” you like this, and the just general pettiness of this blog.
No offense, but maybe you don’t know what your purpose is here?
One more thing…and then I’ll leave you alone for good. I promise. Have you ever looked into the racist history of feminism?
Have you never heard of eugenics? Have you never studied the history of even Christian feminists’ involvement in that movement?
The racist accusations go both ways. I don’t really think that you are a feminist, Anne, but why in the world would you want to have any identification with them?
Is this the Lynn I know? Asking questions about the character of the Confederacy?
It’s called the War of Northern Aggresion because the Yankees were violating their contract with the various states long before the first shots were fired. Fort Sumter was not the beginning of that war – it was just the beginning of the open hostilities.
Sorry – I know it’s off topic – but we’re not still fighting this war “in our minds.” The current arguments between the big government crowd and the Constitutional original intent crowd are strikingly similar to the issues fought in the War Between the States. This war is still being fought by both sides. Just not over the exact same issues.
Anne and Jennifer – Feel free to delete my comment above if it is detrimental to the ongoing discussion. My views on the Confederacy have nothing to do with the current conversation and my response was meant as a tongue-in-cheek response to a comment by someone I assume is my friend Lynn Dell.
I noticed that it had not been approved for publication and am not offended if you choose to delete it. I haven’t been here in quite some time and came to take a peak around after receiving a comment on my blog regarding one of my posts from a year and a half ago regarding Vision Forum. The person who left that comment had apparently found my blog through WWF.
I came across this just now, so please excuse my untimely reply…
In my opinion, “Scarlett” comes off sounding like the typical Southern Belle — all Bless-Your-Heart and Mercy-Me, with sweet molasses running out of her mouth and a knife in either hand, ready to cut you to pieces, preferably while your back is turned.
She hasn’t even the integrity and the moral fiber to sign her real name to her letter …. but then, in old-school Southern circles, forthrightness and honesty are considered masculine virtues, not suited to “ladies”.
~~~~~~~~~~~ Cynthia Gee
The worst part of the disagreements of the Fundies is the shame they try to invoke.
Hi, I’ve been lurking here for a while, and I must say that I love…love…LOVE this blog!
I’m what you might consider a complegalitarian, one who believes in the full equality of men and women in value AND status, as well as their difference in nature. I believe that men and women are to complement each other, the way that they were created to do, and I also believe that romantic relationships are meant to be exclusive, so both homosexuality and polyamourous relationships are out the window for me.
I also fully and truly believe what Paul said about the three greatest virtues, faith, hope, and love – and that the greatest of the these is love.
Mrs. Webfoot, you may be 100% right about your reasons. But I still don’t put as much weight behind the faceless criticism of someone who doesn’t sign their name to their post. As for the feminist question, I would encourage you to find the post here that discusses the different kinds of feminism. I am not a radical modern feminist, but one who believes in fairness. I’m totally comfortable with that.
Mrs. Webfoot, I’m no feminist myself (at least not according to the feminists, and they oughta know), but I can’t help but point out the illogic of your position that “the racist accusations go both ways.”
It is true Planned Parenthood was FOUNDED by Sanger, a particularly nasty racist who espoused the philosophy of eugenics. It is also true that most secular feminists are in favor of Planned Parenthood, but neither the majority of feminists nor the Planned Parenthood movement today espouse racism — they almost universally abhor it.
On the other hand, Lady Lydia’s internet comments over the years show that she IS a racist, and a fair number of the people in Lady Lydia’s internet clique have direct ties to NeoConfederate/Secessionist groups, and some of them have ties to worse things than that.
My point is, there’s a considerable difference between having racists in one’s organizational lineage, as the Planned Parenthood Movement does, and espousing racism and fraternizing with pro-active racists in the here-and-now, as Lady Lydia does.
Anne, actually I am pretty familiar with the different kinds of feminism, but thank you for the suggestion. I think that you are wise to distance yourself from these kinds of discussions.
Congratulations on your baby, Anne! That is a wonderful gift.
Then, Cynthia, I have been trying to think of a response to what you say, but I just can’t do it. I am totally blown away by your logic! It may do you some good to back away from this topic a bit and get some perspective?
Hey, take care everyone, okay? Have a blessed Holy Week. Look at John Piper’s book 50 Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die. You can read it free online.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/OnlineBooks/ByTitle/2289_Fifty_Reasons_Why_Jesus_Came_to_Die/
I’m wise to distance myself? Seriously, what a condescending response. I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but I think it’s wise that you’re backing off from commenting too much here. (See what I mean? Sounds condescending, doesn’t it?)
Cynthia is pretty bright, too. Disagreeing with the way you see things does not make one mentally inept. I promise.
Lynn M,
Your e-mail address is only visible to you. I can’t see it on the site and neither can anyone else.
I just stumbled across this website while looking for some information on a ministry I was concerned about. I did want to clarify one historical point some have made who said Scarlett’s ancestors could have freed their slaves at anytime they wanted. I’m afraid that’s not exactly accurate. Especially following the Nat Turner revolt in Virginia in the 1830s (sorry, I forget the exact year), Southern states passed laws making the grip of slavery even tighter and making it nearly impossible for slaveowners to free their slaves. I can’t remember in which state, but I do remember reading that in one Southern state, it would take an act of the legislature to allow a slaveowner to free his slaves.