Happy Birthday to Me: Chancey, the PSC Runoff, and My New Name, LOL

I had a comment get stuck in moderation over on Flashpoint the other day, and I just reposted it there this morning. It was a little late to do that, since the election is over, but I just had to thank Rusty Boudreaux for my new moniker. I'm turning 50 today, and it's the best present I've received so far!

Anyhow, Rusty wrote,

“Your concerns might matter if Chancey becomes Supreme Leader or der Führer or was a SCOTUS nominee. It’s not pertinent to utility regulation."

AND:

"You didn’t lie when you said you felt it was your “duty” to inform voters that Chancey’s wife has a blog. You’ve spammed every blog on the net that even casually referenced Chancey. On how many was this your first (and only) post?"The term crusading (virtual) carpetbagger comes to mind.

LOl… no, it’s not, but everybody has to start somewhere, Rusty.

And really, it’s not such a laughing matter. Chancey is what you call a dominionist,and for the last thirty years, dominionists have been preaching that people should have as many kids as possible and homeschool them to believe the dominionist take on Christianity, in the hopes that they will outbreed the mainstream opposition, seek political office in some cases, and gradually make their beliefs the majority views in America.

Check out this article, by Doug Phillips, Chancey’s mentor:

“National Home School Convention Casts Vision”
“In addition, the disproportionately high fertility rate of home educators, coupled with a philosophical and spiritual commitment of many to pass on the principles of multi-generational living to the their children, means that home educators are on the verge of an explosion of socio-political influence. Bottom line: We are out-populating our cultural opponents.”………..from Doug's Blog,Friday,October 8, 2004

Chancey is a first-generation product of the dominionist homeschooling system, and predictibly, Chancey’s fellow dominionionists are quite excited by his cantidacy and are plugging it online, even if they don’t live in Alabama.

As for “spamming”, for the most part, I usually post multiple comments to a blog only when someone wishes to debate, as we are doing now. Posting once in hopes of sparking a debate (or twice or more in cases of trying to fit a 2000 word comment into a 500 word comment limit, or for purposes adding pertinent information) isn’t considered spamming, no matter how many blogs you comment on — it’s called TROLLING.

So, yes, call me a crusading carpetbagger — I’ll wear the label with pride - but do get your terms right — it’s crusading TROLLING carpetbagger, not crusading SPAMMING carpetbagger.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The Crusading Carpetbagger
(maybe I should go out and buy myself a cape? Hmmmm.......)

.

Matt Chancey's Unorthodoxy: There's Nothing Funny About It.

In response to a recent article in The Dothan Eagle, which describes the rather odd political and religious views of PSC cantidate Matt Chancey and his wife, Jennie, one reader wrote,

"The rest of the country is laughing at Jennie.”


And, that’s a shame.

This is America, and everybody should be able to believe as they choose without being laughed at. My only point was that if people happen to have views that are “out there”, they ought to be willing to let the voters know about them, should they choose to run for public office, BUT, such scrutiny (and even criticism or denouncement as being cultic) is not the same as ridicule.


That being said however, I’d like to point out that being a fundamentalist does not automatically equate to being an extremist nut or a cult follower. A fundamentalist, strictly speaking, is someone who believes the fundamental, historically orthodox doctrines and truths of his or her religion, without a lot of trendy, man-made innovations (such as the blessing of gay marriages or the idea that the Bible forbids female suffrage or mandates homeschooling), and it is ironic that the churches which are most often described as fundamentalist are usually those unorthodox churches and cults which have gained a reputation for being the nut-wards of Christianity.



The churches have brought this situation upon themselves, to a large extent, beginning in the 1980’s when the televangelists first started to gain a large following. Many people were converted to Christianity as a result of the televised altar calls (which was and is a very GOOD thing), and many “fundamentalist” churches were happy to ride on the coat-tails of the TV preachers, gaining new members (and bigger Sunday collection plate hauls), even though it meant that they began to adopt the ideas of the TV preachers, ideas which in some cases were NOT fundamental to historical Christianity; then in the 1990’s, Gary North and Phil Lancaster and the other bright young things in the Patriarchal/Agrarian/Dominionist movement got the Y2K disaster scare rolling, and many preachers and congregations bought into that, and when the televagelists fell to scandal and Y2K didn’t happen, the churches shared in the pop-preachers’ discreditation and as a consequence wore the resultant portion of egg facial.


But, it appears that the churches haven’t learned from the experience.


One look at the writings of Doug Phillips, Ovid Need (Jennie Chancey’s step-father, who calls Pope John Paul II an antichrist), Gary North, or Bruce Ware shows that they are certifiably outside the fold of mainstream, historical Christianity, with their talk of arranged marriages, stoning people to death, etc, and yet their books are selling like hotcakes in “fundamentalist" circles, especially throughout the South.....

...... and still we who are mainstream, orthodox, fundamental Christians wonder why people outside the church are calling all fundamentalists and even all Christians into question?



I’d say that it’s NO wonder, no wonder at all. If we in the churches do not police our own, and call a cult a cult when we see one, we shouldn’t blame non-Christians for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

Jennie Chancey Unsure of Whether She Has the Right to Vote for Her Husband!

From The Dothan Eagle:

"“PSC Candidate’s Wife Says She Chose ‘Homemaker’ Job”
By Debbie Ingram
Published: July 10, 2008

"Jennie Chancey supports her husband’s bid for public office, but from a biblical and historical perspective, she doesn’t think she necessarily has the right to vote for him………….."

Matt Chancey, Suffrage, Arranged Marriage, Jews, Catholics, Women, etc.

At the Demopolis Times, "JoshC" wrote:

There's nothing wrong with someone believing that they should vote for their household. Even if the male happens to be the head of the household. If a woman lives by her self with her children, she is the head of her household. If she lives by herself, she is a representation of her household. Some people have different convictions than others.
I think there's more to the story, otherwise you wouldn't be so fired up. You're obviously trying to find some dirt on Matt and you can't think of anything but this? If this is all you can find on Matt than he's a saint.
Why don't you talk about how Matt spends 3 months out of the year working on building water wells and taking blood over to the Sudan? Why don't you talk about how he is a Godly man who takes care of his wife and children?
You focus on what you think is a negative thing that you do not agree with. Well I'm sure I can find some things that I don't agree with about your personal convictions. "

Chancey's bizarre ideas pertaining to suffrage are quite enough... no need to "dig up dirt" on him, though I hear that the Sudan can be a mighty dusty place, LOL.

The voting standard in the United States is "one man, one vote", it has been "one man, one vote" for a long time now, and that applies whether the voter is male or female, head of household or not.

Apparently, in the Chancey household's ideal world, fathers would vote for the household, and all daughters would live at home "serving their fathers" (google "Ladies against Feminism" and "Being Your Father's Daughter") until the time of their arranged courtship and marriage, at which time they would pass from their father's ownership into their husband's possession, thus assuring that they would never have the chance to vote; theoretically, any adult sons living at home would be similarly disenfranchised.

Certainly women COULD vote under such a system if they were the heads of their own household, but the only time that this would happen would be when a woman was widowed, and then only until such time as she remarried or moved in with an adult male relative; in Chancey's world, to ensure that widows remarried promptly, they might even be encouraged to avail themselves of Christian matchmaking/arranged-marriage services, such as this one, run by Jennie Chancey's parents. (Jenny Chancey's father is the Reverend Ovid Need; he is a prolific writer, for some samples of his work and his rather amazing views concerning Jews, Catholics, and women, go here and here and here.)

Head-of-household voting, arranged courtship and marriages, bride-prices.... that's NOT the American way, Josh -- in fact, it's SO unAmerican that most folks would never dream that ANYONE in this day and age (other than fundamentalist Moslems) could hold such views, much less an educated man who is running for political office in the United States of America!

But, Matt Chancey and those close to him DO appear to hold such views, and the voters of Alabama need to know about it.

More on Matt Chancey, Cantidate for President of the Alabama Public Service Commission

Alabama voters should be made aware that Matt Chancey opposes women's suffrage on religious grounds.

Matt Chancey and his wife Jennie believe that it is a sin (or at the very least, is highly inadvisable) for women to vote, hold political office, attend college, or work outside the home. These views are expounded upon at great length on Jennie Chancey's website,Ladies Against Feminism.

Matt Chancey is also on very intimate terms with Doug Phillips, the president and founder of VisionForum Ministries, a major homeschooling curriculum company. Phillips also teaches that God doesn't allow women to vote or hold office.
Doug Phillips is described by Matt Chancey as being his dear friend and mentor, while Phillips in turn praises as his own intellectual hero one of the most virulent racists of the 19th century, Robert L. Dabney, and has authored a book , Robert Louis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks.

...and Matt is not above a bit of internet sleight of hand, either, when it will aid his political ends, as shown by this article, from the Washington Post.

One writer, Joshua C---, has pointed out on several forums that "Jennie's point was that gender should have nothing to do with voting if you have a system where a vote represents a family. In a sense, her position is actually very "progressive" since it would give representation to children, whereas they are completely left out of the suffrage question today."

Josh writes, "Keep in mind that people do have personal convictions......People used to vote as a family and also people who owned land used to vote, because their vote affected their land. I wonder if Cynthia Gee knew this? And if so, then she is ashamed of her founding fathers because that's how they voted!"

Our Constitution guarantees that no American who has reached the age of 18 shall be denied the the right to vote without due process, regardless of race, sex, or creed, or income level.

Our founding fathers weren't perfect --it is true that when they founded this country, they designed our laws in such a way so that "people used to vote as a family" -- or, more properly put, only heads of household could vote -- and those same laws allowed ONLY people who owned land -- IE, those people who were relatively WEALTHY -- to vote as well; those same founding fathers also wrote the laws of our land so as to allow some people to keep other people as slaves.

Am I ashamed of those things? You bet I am, but is Matt Chancey? Or, in his heart of hearts, would he like to see a return to a time in our history when only rich white landowners like himself could exercise the right to vote?

The voters of Alabama deserve to know the answer to that question, BEFORE they go to the polls. Certainly people have a right to their personal convictions, but the voters have the right to know that Matt Chancey's convictions concerning suffrage and a good many other things are very much at odds with what is considered right and decent in America today.

Just as you wouldn't want a man who holds a strong personal conviction that it is acceptable to embezzle money to serve as your banker or stockbroker, most Americans would not want a man who holds a personal conviction that voting should be restricted to male landowning heads of household to serve them in a position of governmental authority, and the voters of Alabama have a right to know about Matt Chancey's unConstitutional, unAmerican convictions BEFORE they head to the polls.

Preaching, Teaching, and Skirting the Issue

Concerning certain Patriocentric mailing lists, someone recently wrote,

“….they ban women from posting on doctrinal issues as they believe that if a woman posted on doctrinal issues they might “accidentally” teach a man something.”

One thing I’d love to ask the people who believe this sort of thing (of course they’d never actually answer) is that if it is wrong for a man to learn something from a woman, why did Jesus send the women to tell the men that He had risen, and then upbraid the men for not believing the women’s testimony?

I guess Jesus must have been sinning whan He did that, but then, He really couldn’t help it - He didn’t have the HyperPs around to tell Him how His Father intended His creation to operate…