Kirk Cameron to Produce Pro-slavery Audio Drama

[CyborgKin]

On selling of daughters (Exodus 21):

Quote

7 “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her.

Well that's... 'generous'.

[Leftitinmysnood]

So sorry, this thread took off while I had to work. I am here now to beat the dead horse.

I got the email about this audio project last summer, I think it was a last vestige of trying to extricate my email from HSLDA's list. I immediately started hunting to find out if DPIAT had a new gig. I found Bill Potter's leg-humping Robert E. Lee blog for Heirloom, based on Steve Wilkins' biography. (I love the objective, primary source.) http://www.livetheadventureletter.com/parents-resources/education-history/the-real-robert-e-lee-part-1/

Bill Potter, who appears to be the "historian" for Heirloom Audio Productions also has a lovely collection of "sermons" on Sermon Audio that all seem to have to do with the Lost Cause end of the Civil War and providential history. He extolls The Valiant, The Wonderful, The Most Esteemed Robert Louis Dabney: "The Cassandra of the Yankees" and castigates the abomination to god that was John Dewey. All of these lovely "sermons" have been preached in Georgia and Alabama. When he isn't preaching sermons, he is leading tours for Landmark Events.

Just generally, I am pretty appalled at the amount of pro-Confederate, Lost Cause, Providential history crap that turns up in homeschool circles. Going through the boxes of stuff my mom gave me after they moved meant I had to keep a tight seal on my gag reflex. I don't remember reading "Two Little Confederates" or Robert Louis Dabney's "A Defense of Virginia" in my homeschool studies, but there they were next to the Character Sketches  and "The Glory and The Dream". Something that could belong to either side of the country, "The Little Christian Book of Manners," was peppered with Dabney quotes. I nearly lit it on fire. I did suffer through Abeka history, which I remember mocking in junior high, which lead to my being turned loose in the library for history instead.

I read Uncle Tom's Cabin when I was 11. I read every book on the Underground Railroad I could get my hands on. I don't remember learning that the slaves shouldn't have been freed, or that Lincoln was wrong, but the books were there. Perhaps they came later, after I had already taken off for the world of William Manchester and Paul Johnson. I remember a slight undercurrent of "States rights should have been preserved by the Civil War" but not a justification of the horrific institution of slavery.

 

[EmiGirl]

1 hour ago, CyborgKin said:

On selling of daughters (Exodus 21):

Well that's... 'generous'.

I never said it wasn't horrible. But the circumstances between what they support and what is in the Bible (that they use to justify) are two totally different things and they shouldn't use it to defend something that it's not talking about.

[SilverBeach]

3 hours ago, RosyDaisy said:

Gov. George Wallace renounced his racist views in order to gain sympathy and to get the black vote. He gave a non-apology that basically said get over it.

I thought he was out of politics when he "changed" because getting shot and paralyzed was his come to Jesus moment. Wasn't he hugging Black people and stuff? Wallace was quite virulent in his racism, so I took it with a grain of salt.

[SilverBeach]

3 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

It's my impression that George Wallace was always a political chameleon, even more so than most politicians. Early in his career, he was considered a political moderate, who seldom mentioned race, and wanted to focus on modernizing Alabama. However, he soon realized that no one cared about pragmatic issues in civil rights-era Alabama, and his popularity skyrocketed when he began aggressively pushing a segregationist agenda. Then when that stance no longer worked, he went back to his former quasi-moderate position, claiming he had an "epiphany" about race relations. Wallace is a good example of why seeing racism as a "personal sin" is ineffective. It does not appear like Wallace was bigoted in his everyday relations with blacks and even used his authority to open doors for some of his black friends. However, he used his public persona to advocate for policies that disadvantaged and disenfranchised blacks as a group, especially those who didn't have the good fortune to have a white patron to help them out. Wallace may have been "personally opposed" to racism, but had no problem with structual racism if it could get him in office.

Good information, thanks for posting. I was very young when Wallace was active, interesting to see that  his politically motivated racism may have been pragmatic. 

[CyborgKin]

7 hours ago, EmiGirl said:

I never said it wasn't horrible. But the circumstances between what they support and what is in the Bible (that they use to justify) are two totally different things and they shouldn't use it to defend something that it's not talking about.

Yeah, I was just adding a bit of context in case anyone was curious.

[Elegant Mess]

On February 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, DomWackTroll said:

Of course Kirk Cameron adopted black children! He learned well from The Master(bator) of Exploiting Little Brown Ones to fend off charges of racism... while actively promoting racism. 

 this dude even looks like a tool when hugging a child.  I honestly didn't think it was possible.

Yes, Doug Phillips is a tool, through and through.

[Toothfairy]

When did he go this crazy?

[Cleopatra7]

25 minutes ago, Toothfairy said:

When did he go this crazy?

This is what I don't understand. A lot of people get "saved" but relatively few people go full on Christian Reconstructionist, especially in the pre-Internet age. 

[Jana814]

Spoiler

 

I think he went crazy at the height of his fame on Growing Pains. The stuff he was willing to do as Mike Seaver in one season he refused to do the following season.  He had been an actor for years before the show & people said he was a pleasure to work with but once religion became the biggest part of his life that changed he became a big jerk if someone didn't agree with him.  

I also think he was trying to find himself in someway. Having fame at such a young age has to be hard and he wanted to control something. 

[Toothfairy]

56 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

This is what I don't understand. A lot of people get "saved" but relatively few people go full on Christian Reconstructionist, especially in the pre-Internet age. 

His sister is so different. Still annoying but different 

[doggie]

55 minutes ago, Toothfairy said:

His sister is so different. Still annoying but different 

better to spread out the crazy so it can affect more people.

[DomWackTroll]

1 hour ago, Toothfairy said:

His sister is so different. Still annoying but different 

I get the feeling Candace doesn't quite get all the stuff Kirk is into. Her Jesus is warm and cuddly with a smidge of homophobia-because-I-wuv-you-and-want-you-to-go-to-heaven thrown in, and let's face it, she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I can just see Kirk endlessly emailing her right-wing articles about states rights and constitutional whatever and her rolling her eyes and immediately deleting. Candace probably thinks "Reconstructionism" is, like, building a romantic rural getaway with recycled barn wood. 
 

[Gimme a Free RV]

On 2/8/2016 at 2:04 PM, SilverBeach said:

I recall the civil rights struggles of the 60's. I thought there would have been more progress, but even the POTUS is called n@#$%r.

I have my own opinions about our president, but his color/heritage don't figure into the equation.  I may be totally alone in this sentiment, but I grew tired, a long time ago, of people being proud of him or racially slurring him for being the first "black" president.  He is, in fact, our first bi-racial president.

I also grew disgusted with the whole "Show us your birth certificate, Obama!" uprising because, no matter where on earth (or outer space) he was born, if one of his biological parents was an American citizen, he automatically is considered an American citizen.

(I happen to know this for a fact.  DD and DS were born out of the US and their dad was not a US citizen at the time.)

[Cleopatra7]

15 minutes ago, Gimme a Free RV said:

I have my own opinions about our president, but his color/heritage don't figure into the equation.  I may be totally alone in this sentiment, but I grew tired, a long time ago, of people being proud of him or racially slurring him for being the first "black" president.  He is, in fact, our first bi-racial president.

I also grew disgusted with the whole "Show us your birth certificate, Obama!" uprising because, no matter where on earth (or outer space) he was born, if one of his biological parents was an American citizen, he automatically is considered an American citizen.

(I happen to know this for a fact.  DD and DS were born out of the US and their dad was not a US citizen at the time.)

According to the one-drop rule and by the social assent of society, Obama is black. In fact, many important black history type figures are technically biracial or multiracial, but are classified as black, because our society doesn't like racial ambiguity. Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington, two of the standard black history heroes, both had white fathers because of slavery, but are never classified as biracial. Other important figures such as Malcolm X, John Hope, Walter White (the former president of the NAACP, not the Breaking Bad guy), the Grimké family of civil rights activists, Robert Robinson Taylor, and Lena Horne clearly had extensive European ancestry, but are also simply regarded as black as well. You can have blond hair and blue eyes and still be considered black in the United States. The one-drop rule "defines blackness down" to the point of absurdity, but that's the system we have.

[Whoosh]

Obama also self-identifies as black.  I know the topic is complex and their is some disagreement on what is the best or most appropriate language to use when it comes to race or how we label people.  I don't think I will ever truly understand all of it as I had 4 white grandparents of European descent and am therefore pretty much just that and there aren't really options for how we talk about that or label it.  I am a white and that is pretty much that as far as I know.  So I can't really ever understand on a personal level.  I might hear someone make a well reasoned argument for why they feel differently about things, but for me based on everything I know, Obama doesn't self-identify as our first bi-racial American President. He refers to himself and self-identifies as the President, who is also African-American and black - and that is a big first.  So those are the terms I personally choose to use if I think there is some reason to call him anything other than Obama or Mr. President or whatever.  

[CyborgKin]

I find the whole skin tone based discrimination thing - and the labels we use - to be rather weird.  (And of course very wrong.  It can be hard to truly understand how bad it really is, thanks to my 'pale privilege'.)  Especially when the internet is talking about the 'black' racial status of someone who to me looks like they just have a nice deep tan.  It feels like unnecessary pigeonholing to me, but I easily forget that many people put a lot of value in their racial/ethnic identity.  As a mixed-European Australian, my personal cultural identity is tied only to the place where I live, not to the history and ways of 'my people'.  It's sorta interesting when my grandma talks about property her grandparents owned in England in the 19th century, but that's just a factoid that has nothing to do with me and who I am.

American racial politics is pretty strange to me, since we have a rather different ethnic mix, but Australia does have its own share of shameful past (and present) treatment of various groups (unsurprisingly, it's the non-white people who copped it here too.  Thanks, England and other Europeans!  )

Australian Aboriginal people didn't get Australian citizenship until 1967  Well at least legally.  Practically they still don't enjoy the full benefits of citizenship due to problems in accessing birth certificates.  And without that they can't get a driver's license or passport, and have difficulty opening a bank account, obtaining social security, a tax file number, and school enrollment without it.  (Sounds familiar?)

And then there's the 'White Australia Policy' regarding immigration.  Racially based immigration selection criteria was made unlawful in 1975.  Not everyone is happy about that though.

[RosyDaisy]

Gov. George Wallace renounced his racist views in order to gain sympathy and to get the black vote. He gave a non-apology that basically said get over it.

I thought he was out of politics when he "changed" because getting shot and paralyzed was his come to Jesus moment. Wasn't he hugging Black people and stuff? Wallace was quite virulent in his racism, so I took it with a grain of salt.

No, he didn't leave politics. He went on to serve 4 terms as Governor of Alabama. His terms were 1963-1967, 1971-1979, and 1983-1987. He was in office and running for President when an assassination attempt left him paralyzed in 1972. Wallace was a power hungry bigot.

[Imagine20]

I think Candace is to the Bates as Kirk is to the Duggars. He is crazy and let's it all out there. We know what he's about. Candace, I think, is just as crazy but she packages herself better. She has to, especially now, since she's got the hosting gig and the Full House reboot starting. When women on The View make offensive comments, it seems to really make the rounds in the media. 

[Gimme a Free RV]

Thanks for the input on Obama and how he self-identifies.

My first roommate in college identified as Cherokee.  She was 1/16th and had red hair, pale and freckled skin, and blue eyes.  Of course, if I had any Native American blood, I'd be very proud of it!

[Whoosh]

40 minutes ago, Gimme a Free RV said:

Thanks for the input on Obama and how he self-identifies.

My first roommate in college identified as Cherokee.  She was 1/16th and had red hair, pale and freckled skin, and blue eyes.  Of course, if I had any Native American blood, I'd be very proud of it!

I hear ya about your roommate.  It does get complex.  Obviously others can do better speaking on this topic far better than I can, but I will try to express my thoughts.  The huge difference I see between someone like your roommate and Obama is hard for me to express without using antiquated language.  Since the systematic oppression of various groups is rooted in this antiquated thinking, I am going to go for it and use that language.  Some biracial people "can pass" and some can't.  As long as we label and identify and oppress groups of people based on belonging to a specific race, there will be a genetic reality and then there will be what they "can pass" as (if they so choose) in order to avoid systematic oppression and discrimination.  Obama and your old roommate can be said to be biracial yet would be labeled by society and the government as black and NA respectively under the one drop rule that was prevalent in the discriminatory laws of the USA and that is still the rule some use today.  However, it sounds like you are saying your roommate "can pass" as white.  I think just about everyone would agree with me that Obama "can not pass".  He never had the choice to "pass" as white and others never saw him and thought "there's a white guy".

Sometimes some kids from a set of genetic parents "can pass" and others with those same genes "can not pass".  Then there is the issue of how they were raised and how that impacts the way they self-identify.  Then there are the issues of how the person has experienced the world.  What race has society in general forced upon a person since birth?  Historically, some young adults who "could pass" have chosen to hide or cut ties with their past and live life "passing" as white.  The need to do so stemmed from the fact that it didn't matter if someone "could pass" or not - if society knew that they were black under the one drop rule, they were black.  Period.  There are just lots of factors to consider and it is complex.

If a large portion of our country currently chooses to refer to the POTUS with disdain as "that black man" or worse, I don't see where anyone else can really decide for him or for others that he is not black.  Again, just my opinion.

[PennySycamore]

1 hour ago, Gimme a Free RV said:

Thanks for the input on Obama and how he self-identifies.

My first roommate in college identified as Cherokee.  She was 1/16th and had red hair, pale and freckled skin, and blue eyes.  Of course, if I had any Native American blood, I'd be very proud of it!

I doubt that the Cherokee would identify her as Cherokee, though, unless she has had grown up on the reservation and had embraced Indian culture, in addition to her ancestry.  There is no federal standard about who is Native American/Indian though.  That is up to the individual tribe. 

I apparently have some Native ancestry and I'd really like to know more about it.  My dad's sister has a picture of my ancestor and, IIRC, some of her beads as well.  I don't even know what tribe she belonged to.  Shawnee, perhaps?

[nellautumngirl]

On 8.2.2016 at 2:27 AM, PennySycamore said:

This really is unlike Sean and doesn't agree with his politics, from what I can tell.  Sean can't be that hard up for money that he has to do this shit.  Somebody needs to enlighten him about this.   He's been pretty careless about what the films and other projects he makes lately.

I'm really upset by this, I have always liked Sean Astin. After he was in a few religious films, I wanted to confirm he is not an asshole and read a lot of interviews with him; he seems like a genuinely nice, laid-back and tolerant guy, I don't know why he surrounds himself with all these horrible people

[PennySycamore]

24 minutes ago, nellautumngirl said:

I'm really upset by this, I have always liked Sean Astin. After he was in a few religious films, I wanted to confirm he is not an asshole and read a lot of interviews with him; he seems like a genuinely nice, laid-back and tolerant guy, I don't know why he surrounds himself with all these horrible people

I think that Sean's "got religion" and he comes into contact with these assholish ideas through his church.  Somebody needs to point out to Sean that this shit is evil!  It's not at all Christian, at least not that taught by Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount.

[CTRLZero]

12 minutes ago, PennySycamore said:

I think that Sean's "got religion"

Ah, I wondered if that was the case.  He was being interviewed on the Dan Patrick Show (sports talk show) about a recent movie he was in about football, I think.  Sean finished the sports part of his spiel, then suddenly started going on and on about the more important aspect of the movie, religion.  They went to commercial break pretty quick.  It was rather awkward, and I suspected he was about to start preaching.