To the students of Patrick Henry College:

When I heard your Faith & Reason Lecture was happening on Friday, I was taken back fondly to the first years of that tradition, when I earnestly struggled to follow the complex arguments of Dr. Bates and Dr. Mitchell, two of our great professors. Another year the lecture was given by the Catholic philosopher Robert George, whom I now disagree with on most things, but whose intellect and rigor I continue to respect. All of those lectures were at the limit of my comprehension at the time; they engaged the deepest questions of Western thought, and pushed me to read more closely and understand more fully.

What you heard this past Friday was something different. I hardly know what to say about it, except that, like a number of others, I was disturbed and saddened that PHC would endorse views like these in such a prominent forum. To say it was beneath the standards of charity, evidence, and logical rigor students at PHC should expect from their professors would be an understatement. But beyond its weaknesses as a piece of argumentation, it had darker moral undertones that should be emphasized and rebutted. Anyone committed to the Christian virtues of love, charity, forgiveness, and justice should be deeply suspicious of such a hostile condemnation of the voices of people who have been subjected to violence and discrimination in our society, and of those who have worked courageously and democratically to protect them.

I don’t know any of you personally, but I know you’re probably something like I was a few short years ago. I hope that’s enough of an opening through which I might address you and you might be able to hear.

(If you didn’t hear or read Dr. Baskerville’s lecture, I strongly encourage to do so before proceeding.)

+ + + +

The topic of the lecture was ideology, but it is immediately apparent that its intent is not to deal with any conception of ideology that could be defended in a serious academic environment. In fact, Dr. Baskerville never even gives a definition of ideology; he simply remarks that one particular feature “of the ideological mind is that it seeks to make everything ideological … and to portray all of public life as a clash of ideologies” (3, my emphasis). This is little more than a tautology. Similarly, his claim that ideology is a modern invention is wildly controversial to say the least. But the course of the lecture reveals that a solid definition and rigorous historical perspective isn’t important: Dr. Baskerville’s vague concept of “ideology” is only meant to stand for the destructive, illegitimate politics he wishes to condemn. Real politics are what happened in Ancient Greece and the American colonial period; ideology, on the other hand, encompasses the radical illusions of the 20th century that created all the evils PHC was founded to counteract.

Ideologies are portrayed in dark terms: “they always entail grievances, and they thrive on resentment—grievances that must be redressed by wielding government power” (5). But oddly, only political orientations that conservative Christians generally oppose can be ideologies. Those ideologies find “enemies” on which to “fixate”: “the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, Jews, the Christian West, or Dead White Males” (6-7). Christianity is magically exempt from ideology because it “offers a theology of forgiveness” (5). This is an astounding claim: if Christianity cannot be ideological, then how do we explain the ideology of right-wing evangelical Christianity, which happens to fit Dr. Baskerville’s specifications precisely? With its resentment for abstract enemies like secularists, liberal elites, feminists, the gay agenda, the liberal media, etc? With its vast network of organizations built to stoke resentment of those enemies? What does evangelical conservatism—the soul of Patrick Henry College—want if not to mobilize hostility against these enemies in order to take back political power?

Considering that the bulk of the lecture is devoted to alarmism about abstract enemies, the irony of its framing is impossible to overstate: an essay against ideology that is an ideological screed par excellence. It’s a pastiche of random facts (and a few brazen falsehoods) woven into a grand narrative designed to provoke you to political action. To untangle every single knot of its logic would require thousands of words; I have faith that, if PHC students are as sharp as I knew them to be, they will have no trouble identifying the contortions that take the lecture from its opening pages to a jeremiad against an impressive list of conservative Christianity’s perceived enemies.

Starting on about page 8, the lecture begins setting up a binary between “freedom” and “sexual license.” On the side of the first is supposed to be you (“freedom”), and on the second the “soft ideology” of sexual liberation. The way Dr. Baskerville will portray it, children, families, men, and heterosexuals are all being made pawns in this ideology’s quest for power (9). The ideology of sexual liberation has taken so much ground in this war that a dramatic confrontation is imminent—it is “on a direct collision course with the Christian faith” (11). The current stages of this confrontation are well known: military chaplains, religious business owners with conscience objections, etc.

For the sake of space, I will stop following the argument’s progression for several pages, and instead simply point out some of the outrageous claims made:

  • “We know that the feminists had intimate associations with the Bolsheviks and before them with the Jacobins. And homosexual activists have played an integral role in the rise of Fascist politics, including Nazism” (10). There were indeed female activists involved in the French Revolution, whose efforts to establish equality for women were mostly unsuccessful. But what exactly is being claimed here? That the involvement of female activists automatically discredits a historical movement? What are we to think, then, of the American prohibition and abolitionist movements, which were marked by strong participation from feminist activists? The second claim about Nazi homosexuals is a canard born out of 1930s anti-Nazi propaganda and discredited long ago by serious scholarship. It is still advocated by a few fringe right-wing propagandists, including the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer. But any half-serious scholar should know better, and its appearance in a prominent lecture at a serious institution of higher learning is a disgrace.

  • “The blending of sexual liberation with political ideology is starkly seen in open-ended sex ‘education’ programs. Many observe this has now reached the point of exposing children to government-authorized pornography” (12). Age-appropriate sex education is not explicit or pornographic by any standard. Who are these “many”? Why are they so difficult to locate? If there is even one example of a teacher using government-approved pornographic material for sex education, Dr. Baskerville is the first to hear about it.

  • “Virtually the entire domestic budget of every government from Italy to Missouri is justified by problems proceeding from single-parent homes and connected forms of family dissolution. This is why the Wall Street Journal and others have attributed the financial crisis entirely to the welfare state” (12, emphasis mine). It’s no secret that the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal doesn’t like the welfare state, but even they aren’t crazy enough blame it for the financial crisis. The financial crisis was caused by a subprime mortgage bubble, exacerbated by rampant Wall Street lawbreaking and deception. It simply has nothing to do with the welfare state, and I challenge Dr. Baskerville to produce even one article from a serious newspaper claiming that the welfare state was “entirely responsible” for the financial crisis.

  • “Sexualisation is also rapidly transforming our armed forces into a gargantuan welfare state whose generous benefits, intended for real families, act as a magnet for single mothers and homosexuals with sexually transmitted diseases” (14, emphasis mine). There is no evidence that the military is increasingly “sexualized” or that either single mothers or homosexuals with STDs are more interested in military service than before. Military health screenings are frequent and rigorous, and servicemembers rarely lose any duty time because of STDs. The claim about gays seems to be based on the baseless assertions of a retired military officer with no particular expertise on the subject. Also, what the hell is a “real” family? Do those in  your student body who have lost parents and now only have a single mother or father—are they not “real”? Those whose parents have been through divorce—are they, too, fake families? And what exactly is wrong with a single mother, perhaps who has few other economic prospects, putting her life on the line for her country in order to support her child?

Beginning on page 15 is the most serious and disturbing part of this lecture. Pay close attention to the language used in the next few pages; let the analogies sink in. The section focuses on “new gender crimes and new forms of criminality based on sexual relations.” It immediately opens with a comparison between “the women’s movement” and … the gulag. The estimated death toll for that Soviet system of forced labor camps is somewhere around 1.5 million; that is what your London School of Economics-educated professor of government just compared to a nonviolent movement for democratic political representation. (At the bottom of the same page, you’ll find another labeling of feminism as “home-grown Stalinism.” Democratic political activism = millions murdered.)

On the next page there’s a list. What is being claimed here is that entire new genres of crimes have been invented in order to repress “heterodox political beliefs” (i.e., yours). Dr. Baskerville makes a perfunctory wave of the hand toward “real sex crimes,” but believes those can all be blamed on the Sexual Revolution (16). The much more important matter is the categories of “new crimes” that were created and expanded to repress your political beliefs: “rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, child abuse, bullying, and stalking.” Notice that he has carefully defined each of these to presume the cynical dishonesty of the accuser and the wronged innocence of the accused. “Rape,” then, is not forced sexual intercouse, but only a woman’s false accusation of violation. These new crimes were created not to protect women, who are widely and indisputably victims of sexual violence, but so that sexual liberationists can control males with conservative views. Now, keep paying attention to the language as you read this summary of what’s just been argued:

Radical ideology has thus transformed our government into a matriarchal leviathan that operates like a massive, bureaucratic version of … Potiphar’s wife. We have not eliminated a “gender stereotype,” as we were promised; we have merely politicized it—in this case that of the temptress, the seductress who lures men into a “honeytrap” by offers of pleasure before springing a trap that today can mean decades in prison. (18, emphasis mine)

This is not simply a metaphorical description of an out-of-control federal government: it’s a deep, revealing expression of an underlying worldview. This worldview always presumes the innocence of the strong and powerful and the cynical corruption anyone who dares challenge their moral authority. You must ask yourself, deeply and seriously: what kind of worldview conceives women as nothing more than tools of the devil, seducing men at the behest of the oppressive powers that want to control them? That political and judicial protections our society has set up to combat sexual violence are also nothing more than weapons in this plot?

Let’s get real. Girls have been raped while attending Patrick Henry College: girls who I sat next to in class, by men who I sat next to in class. Other women I know were at different times mercilessly harassed, stalked and frightened—all on the campus of Patrick Henry College. Often it was the “nice boys” no one in a million years would imagine could do something like that until they saw it with their own eyes. You may not know it, but women and children you know—perhaps even in your own family—have experienced unspeakable things behind closed doors. Were all of them tempters and temptresses, working at the behest of the “matriarchal leviathan”? With no need whatsoever for judicial categories like “rape” and “sexual harassment” and “child abuse”? Just pawns in the ideology of sexual liberation, being used to attack the good, godly men who mistreated them? Dr. Baskerville may respond that he’s “not talking about real rape” or “not talking about real child abuse,” but his words reveal that he is much more concerned with protecting the accused than protecting the violated, thus casting a shadow of prejudicial doubt over all such accusations.

Throughout the final pages of his lecture, Dr. Baskerville fixates on imaginary manipulations of the justice system to dismiss legal protections for those who are raped, harassed and abused. The “innocent” (accused abusers) are “railroaded into prison” for “sex crimes” (his scare quotes) that couldn’t possibly exist (21). Dr. Baskerville’s worldview leaves no room for the possibility that abuse could be real or should be prosecuted, which is alarming enough. But these factual claims are also utterly and demonstrably false. It remains very difficult to get a rape conviction in American courts, even with strong evidence and witnesses. According to government statistics, sexual assault has declined by 60 percent in the past decade. Fewer people than ever are incarcerated for the categories of crimes he suggests are driving the mass imprisonment of innocent men. So who exactly are these innocent men? Has Dr. Baskerville simply invented them? What kind of hysterical suspicion of women would lead someone to claim such a thing?

+ + + +

The very first Faith and Reason lecture was in 2005, when I was a sophomore. It would become something many of us would always remember for an accidental reason: it was one of the catalysts for the departure of many of our favorite professors, an event that irrevocably changed the course of PHC.

The lecture was given by Dr. Todd Bates, who taught my freshman theology class, and focused mostly on Augustine’s theory of knowledge. (It was about an actual philosopher—imagine that.) But before it was even presented, it started a controversy: then-president Farris objected that it carried on for 24 pages about a philosopher who was “in hell” and never mentioned the Bible. (Not making this up: you can read all about it here.) Somehow Dr. Bates managed not to resign on the spot, and gave a modified version of the lecture that, if I recall, included more scripture references to pacify Farris.

I don’t know if the PHC leadership vetted Dr. Baskerville’s lecture this year, but it’s difficult to imagine that they didn’t. So consider what met with the censors’ approval this time: not a single reference to any major thinker in Western history, and only couple of marginal, throwaway nods to scripture. In their place were numerous factually dubious assertions, including arguments borrowed from discredited propagandists and fringe special interest groups. Even more assertions have no citation at all, but almost certainly came from marginal right-wing internet publications (the kind you’re warned about in your freshman Research and Writing class not to trust.)

It’s pretty clear, then, what the specifications for your central keynote address of the semester at PHC are. Celebrated Christian philosophers are suspect and must be “balanced” with Bible verses. But sketchy, unsourced and flat-out false declarations invite no censure, and require no such balance.

So you are left with some crucial questions. Is this the kind of school you want to attend? If not, what are you going to about it?

About The Author

David Sessions

David Sessions is the founding editor of Patrol, and is currently a doctoral student in modern European history at Boston College. His writing has appeared in The Daily Beast, Newsweek, Jacobin, Slate and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter here.

95 Responses to A Response to Stephen Baskerville’s Lecture at Patrick Henry College

  1. John says:

    The late tenured Professor Todd Bates of Bethune Cookman University, Daytona Beach, Florida.

  2. Jon says:

    Thanks for writing this, David. I appreciate your ability to write a thoughtful, measured response to such a hostile speech which, as you point out, does not hold up to any academic standard I’m familiar with (and I went to a Christian College myself, presumably unspoiled by ideological revolutionaries haha!). Thank you for the links and for inviting people to scrutinize these sorts of allegations, and challenging them to seek out the truth for themselves. Thanks for continuing to engage with this stuff. I’ve been guilty of looking the other way often. This is the kind of thing that needs to be written, but which I dread taking on myself. So thanks for stepping up.

  3. Whilst I certainly don’t want to gossip or speculate, it certainly sounds to me like he has an axe to grind against women. Sad.

  4. Lance G. says:

    Wow. What astonishes me is that you are surprised this lecture took place. From all I know about PHC, this is standard fare. Whenever I see a PHC lecture on C-Span I know I’m about to hear Jerry Falwell on steroids. And you say you attended this place and have only now noticed how nutso it is? Welcome to the Light Side of the Force, David.

  5. Keith R. says:

    I am both appalled and disgusted. I too remember the first Faith and Reason lecture. It was that particular debacle that caused me to withdraw my admission request from the school. I can’t say I’m surprised that thing have deteriorated since that time, but it makes me shudder to think how far.

  6. I’m currently a transfer student at PHC, so I was there during Dr. Baskervilles rant.

    My first reaction to it was similar to what you expressed here David. Actually friends remarked that I was so angry I was visibly shaking. People who are very dear to me have been raped, abused and sexually harassed. To trivialize their suffering made me furious. The fact that he didn’t even back up his sweeping claims made me even more so.

    And had I only attended the lecture, I would probably still be rather upset.

    However the Q and A throw some light on the subject. Several of the professors did not endorse his views, and challenged them at many points, as did the student body. The atmosphere was rather tense, the professors, staff and students all seemed to disagree among themselves. Baskervilles made some concessions, especially on the rape topic which did offended people including myself. In a way, this is a good thing. I didn’t find the atmosphere stifling, like I would if everyone had wholeheartedly supported Baskervilles.

    Did I approve of the speech? No, I did not. But neither did a lot of people. I can honestly say, that even though I’m a freethinker, I’m pretty happy as a PHC student. I don’t find either my teachers or my fellow students stifling. Are there ways this campus could improve? Heck yeah. But the people here are human. They’re going to have problems. But all and all, I find this an environment where I am free to learn and grow as a Christian without having to swallow too much Right wing propaganda.

    • PCLEMSC says:

      How much LEFT wing propaganda are you swallowing?

      • Tim Raveling says:

        Brendan: you really think so? I hope you’re right, but there’s been no public response from the admin, and they’ve taken down any reference to the talk from their public site. I was curious though, because I highly respected Drs. Spinney and Mitchell during my time there, and I wondered how they’d respond to it.

        But this isn’t really a reasonable discourse situation. This is straight-up tin-foil-hat, misogynist, homophobic bullshit, a close step behind the “politicians are alien lizard people theory” in terms of factual support, and ten steps ahead of it in terms of public harm.

        To me, giving this talk is a firing offense. It’s bigotry, not commentary. What are your thoughts?

        P-Clem: You’re an idiot.

        • Hey there Tim!

          Yes I do think so, and over the past few days I’m pretty sure of it. Spinney and Mitchell and most of the Professors seemed skeptical but trying to hear Baskervilles our.

          I’ll admit, when I first heard the lecture, I thought it sounded a close step behind the reptilian humanoid theory myself. After a few sessions and a chance to speak to Dr. Baskervilles myself, I think his opinions came across as a lot weirder then they actually were. He clarified to me (and to others) that he had the utmost respect for victims of rape and sex trafficking, and did not in any way think that they were part of some sort of some conspiracy or should be . Given that some of my best friends are victims. He also clarified to me that he did not think there was some sort of matriarchal conspiracy against men, but rather a neo-conservative ‘law and order’ alliance with feminists. In a way a lot of his views waxed a little libertarian. Do I agree? Probably not. But after talking it over did I think it they were views a sane an rational person could hold? Yes.

          As for the talk itself, yeah. It sounded like bigotry. But my personal conclusion is that the man himself is not a bigot.

          PCLEM – I try and make an effort to swallow the truth, regardless of whether it’s left or right.

        • PCLEMSC says:

          Mr. Raveling, your comment shows that you have learned nothing from your education, if any. You have no idea of what Dr. Baskerville was discussing and teaching you. Your reliance on childish name calling shows your learning ended at the fifth grade level. Because YOU cannot understand a lecture, you call for the speaker’s firing. Apparently, you never got as far as the First Amendment in your study of the Constitution. Could be that Dr. Baskervilles’ lecture didn’t agree with the idiotic ideology of your previous professors, and you are too devoid of the ability to think for yourself to realize that they lied to you, or taught you nothing at all. Or, perhaps, you weren’t smart enough to walk out if you didn’t like it. I’ll bet you haven’t even read his book, but you criticize it and him in spite of that. I’ll also bet that you are one of the idiots who put Obumma in the White House, and are cheering along his destruction of America.

  7. Tony says:


    You are right that much has changed at PHC. (Mitchell and Hake are the only two professors still here who you would know.) The administration remains imperfect, but an almost complete turnoff of staff has occurred since 2007 as well–and I think admin behavior is somewhat different, particularly in regards to Faith & Reason lectures.

    We’d need to ask Dr. Baskerville or Dr. Walker themselves to know for certain, but my confident bet is that the college president isn’t line-by-line censoring F&R lectures or dictating their content anymore. We’ve had a wide range of F&R lectures, and my experience is that these lectures receive rigorous debate on campus and that students and faculty are free to dissent in part or in whole–and almost always do.

    David, your response is because 1) you are outraged PHC would endorse this lecture content, and 2) you object to the lecture content?

    If so, on the first point, this Lecture doesn’t represent the official position of the College. When you were a student and F&R was extremely vetted, you can say the College corporately endorsed–today is different. In fact, all three members of the faculty response panel voiced objections/opposition. Secondly, rape/harassment/child abuse are not issues the student body or the College as a whole are bigoted about. Those are terrible actions that are rightly criminal. The College recently had a staff member speak in morning chapel to share her story. She was a victim of rape and domestic violence who escaped her situation and now counsels women as they bring themselves and children out of many horrible situations. College faculty & staff encouraged students to get help if they are in an abusive situation or need to deal with past abuse. PHC as a whole is compassionate and caring, not callous on this issue.

    I hope that helps clarify–F&R lectures don’t represent the endorsement of the College community anymore.

    To the second part of your objection, the content itself. There are parts that should be objected to, especially the universal characterization of rape from page 16.

    From page 3: “My argument is not that we must win the ideological wars but that we should be endeavouring to put the ideological genie back into the bottle.” In Q&A this was specifically questioned, and the speaker responded he didn’t know how to do this. So rest assured that students pick up assumptions and reasoning and know how to critique and disagree.

    Thanks for writing, David. Reading the just lecture itself, without the benefit of the faculty panel and student Q&A, gives a bit different picture from what is happening on campus.

  8. Erin says:

    Hi Tony (and everyone else),

    Based on your name, I don’t believe we’ve met, but I’m both a PHC alumna (2010) and former staff member. I still know and care about many of the people involved with the school. I cannot speak for David, but I wanted to address your comments and the lecture as a whole as someone who has slightly more recent experience with the school.

    I was outraged by what I read for several reasons. [Please pardon any typos or missing words – it’s about 1am atm]

    1) As someone who considers myself a Christian feminist, and just as a woman, I found it highly offensive at just about every point. It makes feminists and women in general(or those Dr. Baskerville presumes to be feminists simply because they attempt to help victims of domestic violence and sexual assault) out to be evil creates intent on destroying men. On page 17 he outright said that because a woman makes “demands for access to workplaces, [and] universities” (implying that somehow we don’t have the right to attend college or work), they’ve become a dangerous place for men because the very presence of a woman “invites” sexual harassment allegations. Dr. Baskerville, at least as of a couple of years ago, already had a reputation among the students as having a clear chip on his shoulder against women, and feminists in particular, and that is blatantly obvious in his lecture.

    2) He was utterly dismissive of real rape/assault/abuse victims, who outnumber falsely accused perpetrators by 1000 to 1, and of the people who try to help them. Where is the Christian spirit of helping the helpless and defending the weak? I’m glad to hear about the chapel message you referenced, but that doesn’t excuse Dr. Baskerville’s appalling behavior nor the admin for allowing him to present the lecture (more on that below).
    I am currently in training to become a volunteer with the Fairfax County office for domestic violence and sexual assault (DVSA). In fact, I spent 8 hours TODAY in that training, which included a 2 hour presentation by a county prosecutor and a domestic violence detective, who explained the entire criminal justice process from 911 call to conviction. It is a long and complicated one. And a lot of offenders, even IF they can be convicted (often very difficult), never see a jail cell. About 85% of those victims are women. Very few rape cases even go to trial, let alone conviction. 50% of female homicides in Fairfax County are the result of domestic violence (usually when the woman is trying to leave). That number is 5% for men.

    The attitudes that Dr. Baskerville spouted affect real people, and for him to claim that feminists are in come kind of secret conspiracy against men using modern domestic violence statues is ludicrous and is directly contradicted by just about every statistic out there.

    3) The level of scholarship was so low, I’m pretty sure any student who had written that paper for most PHC professors would have received an F. There are ZERO citations, even for the quotes he used. There were huge jumps in logic. He made wild claim after wild claim with ZERO evidence to back it up. And even many of his plain old facts were blatantly wrong. For example, homosexuals had nothing to do with the rise of Nazism. Anyone with the barest knowledge of WWII history knows that homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazis – thrown in mental hospitals, prisons, and even concentration camps.

    PHC’s admin may not line-by-line censure F&R lectures anymore (and that’s a good thing), but I would lay significant money on the fact this was read and approved by at least one or two of them beforehand. F&R may not represent the “official” position of the school, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t responsible, to some degree at least, for it’s content, particularity when it’s been approved. Moveover, I would make the argument that because Dr. Baskerville is a faculty member of PHC, that he does absolutely represent the school, especially when it’s in a context where students are compelled BY THE ADMIN to attend.

    I don’t think anyone is saying that academic freedom should be limited. PHC has been down that road before and it didn’t work out well. But this isn’t an issue of academic freedom (I’d hardly even call the lecture academic, for the reasons outlined in point 3. This is about using a public platform, in a context where students are compelled to attend, responsibly, and remembering that, especially on a topic as personal and sensitive as DVSA, PHC doesn’t exist in a ivory tower vacuum. There are millions of people in our country alone who don’t get out of abusive situations, who won’t report to the police exactly because of the attitude that Dr. B showed: they’re scared that they won’t be believed.

    Finally, I’m glad that Dr. B was challenged during the Q&A. I would expect nothing less of PHC students, but that “context” doesn’t excuse the lecture.

    And with that, I will step off my soapbox. Sorry that turned into such a long thing. This is a issue that I feel very strongly about, and it absolutely crushes me that a place, which I know as generally loving and safe, would give a podium to such vitriol. I really hope that the school will issue a public apology for it, but I’m not holding my breath.

    • PCLEMSC says:

      You wrote:
      “real rape/assault/abuse victims, who outnumber falsely accused perpetrators by 1000 to 1”
      As a matter of fact, a number of studies, most of which were done by female researchers, show that approx. 60% of rape accusations were false. You’ll have to change your number to 1000 to 600. And most of those “false” determinations were made by the accuser recanting her accusation. So we can expect the number to be higher, for those who falsely accused, but didn’t recant or get proved of perjury. Because of the high number of false accusations, the Air Force did a study on WHY women lie.
      Here are the results: A U.S. Air Force study, “The False Rape Allegation in the Military Community.(Forensic Science Digest.Vol II, No.4, Dec. 1985) investigated 556 cases of alleged rape, and found a 60% rate of false accusations. As part of the study, women who were found to have made false accusations were asked “WHY?”

      Motivations given by the women who acknowledged they had made false accusations:


      Spite or revenge 20
      To compensate for feelings of guilt or shame 20
      Thought she might be pregnant 13
      To conceal an affair 12
      To test husbands’ love 9
      Mental/emotional disorder 9
      To avoid personal responsibility 4
      Failure to pay, or extortion 4
      Thought she might have caught VD 3
      Other 6

      TOTAL 100%

      The study found that most false accusations are “instrumental” – they served a purpose. If the purpose isn’t avoiding guilt, or getting revenge, it might serve a more focused purpose, for example, telling her parents; “I didn’t just go out and get pregnant, I was raped.” Or, telling her husband, “I didn’t have an affair, it wasn’t my fault, I was raped.”

      An unrelated Washington Post article, “Unfounded Rape Reports Baffle Investigators” (6/27/1992) also found a wide range of motivations to falsely accuse men of rape. Anger toward boyfriends was common. One woman had her boyfriend spend 13 months in jail before she acknowledged that she had lied. One woman accused her newspaper delivery man of raping her at gunpoint because she needed an excuse to be late to work.
      Neither woman was prosecuted or even reprimanded for lying to the police and attempting to have a man frivolously imprisoned. In another case, police say the young woman who admitted to falsifying two rape reports only wanted a day off from work.

      • Interesting that you cite studies from 1985 and 1992 when there are very recent military statistics indicating that there is a huge spike and reporting issues.

        From the Atlantic

        “The Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network estimates that 54 percent of rapes are not reported to police, and of those that are reported, only 12 percent lead to an arrest. The Justice Department says only 35 percent of sexual assaults were reported in 2010. In 2010, the Pentagon estimated that 71 percent of female victims, and 85 percent of male victims, did not report sexual assaults.”

  9. Thank you David,

    I watched both the lecture and the panel discussion, and I’m still in a state of shock. While it’s true that there was no answer to the question of “putting the genie back in the bottle”, nor the the question of “addressing legitimate concerns,” I heard pretty much wholesale endorsement of the lecture from the panel.

    Regarding the question of the genie, the Today Show just ran a segment where Jenna Wolfe and her wife, Stephanie Gosk showed up on the street with their three-week-old daughter. Their family was treated as “normal,” because they are normal. Baskerville’s argument that we – same-sex headed families – are conspiring to take away the freedoms of “Christians” is nothing short of blood libel, and I’m not happy that a small portion of my property tax dollars are used to fund this propaganda.

    I’d like to see Loudoun’s taxpayers take a stand too. I think the PHC administration owes the student body and alternative voice.

    p.s. – I think the so-called feminist issues are more important than the GLBT issues, and that the two are linked, however, if Baskerville really were a scholar, he might have noticed that the linking is simply the demand for equal liberty/equal security.

    • Jonathan, I really regret not addressing Baskerville’s outrageous remarks about LGBT people in more depth, but they happened to be more tangential to this lecture, and I was afraid getting too far into that subject would turn away too many people who would otherwise be willing to listen. However, I definitely want to be on the record saying that I noticed them, and was just as sickened by them as I was the comments about women, rape, etc, that I discussed in more detail.

    • PCLEMSC says:

      Mr. Weintraub,
      As a matter of fact, it was just announced that the state of Massachusetts would begin winnowing out conservatives from being allowed to be foster or adoptive parents. The official release said that the state would be looking at others, who would be more “receptive” of gay and lesbian children.
      Guess who those “others” will be? Perhaps Dr. Baskerville’s trepidation over homosexual privelege is warranted.

      • PCLEMSC,

        1-3% of the older children will be GLBT. If a foster parent applicant demonstrates anti-gay bias, there is a 1-3% chance that the applicant would be a bad fit for the foster child. That’s too great a risk don’t you think? If you went to the auto parts store and were told that there was a 1-3% chance that the reconditioned part would break, would you buy it?

        btw, what did the announcement say? Did it say “conservative” or “anti-gay bias?”

  10. Ward says:

    It’s encouraging to see some posts that indicate Dr. Baskerville was at least not wholly endorsed by the student body and panel. I am genuinely curious though, as to exactly how he was challenged in the Q&A. Did anyone ask him why his assertions were unsourced, or if he could provide any sources? Did anyone question the implications regarding domestic violence Erin mentioned above? Or how he could justify linking fascism/Nazism to modern homosexual rights activists? Questions like this are the ones that come to mind, at least for me.

    For those claiming the lecture doesn’t matter because the school never claimed to endorse it, I find this hard to defend. Others have already pointed out that the F&R lecture is mandatory for all students. Its purpose is to discuss the intersection of faith and reason, and what this means for students, which is essentially the whole point of PHC. If this were some extracurricular function Baskerville sponsored himself, inviting anyone to attend who wanted to, this might be an acceptable explanation, but that is clearly not the case here.

    If the school had rejected Baskerville’s speech, this would not have been censorship. It would have been quality control. He is free to talk about his grudge against the “divorce regime” as much as he wants (and it appears he frequently does). A rant devoid of any academic content, or basic fact-checking, is not suitable fare for an institution of higher learning. Regardless of whether or not any administration member specifically endorsed his speech, it was permitted at a major scholarly event on campus, and as such represents what the school deems scholarly.

    Free speech on a campus does not equal poor, or in this case, non-existent standards. You would not take a college or university seriously if they sponsored an event where the keynote speaker seriously advocated the world was flat, or controlled by lizard people.

  11. Eve Marie Barner Gleason says:

    Thank you for writing this response, Mr Sessions. I read the lecture tonight after others brought it to my attention. I am heartened to hear that the student body challenged at least some of the content of this diatribe. My experience @ PHC predates F&R lectures but it was largely positive and I hope others can have the benefit of a similarly strong education sans the sort of wild accusations and unsubstantiated claims made in this article. Someone in the position to influence and educate students might be expected to know better.

  12. Dan Allison says:

    Thanks, David, for making certain that anyone speaking actual truth — rare enough in these dark times — is quickly discredited. I hardly think the wedding photographers who’ve been dragged into court consider the plaintiffs in those cases “abstract,” and I doubt the City of San Antonio will only enforce it’s new Stalinist ordinance — a model for state and federal legislation — “abstractly.” Those persecuting Paula Deen for uttering the heretical word THIRTY YEARS AGO are not abstractions, either. They are as real as the cancer they resemble. While we’ve been told for years that “you can’t legislate morality,” it’s more than clear that the cultural Marxists intend to legislate THEIR morality with threats of unemployment, and soon enough, prison. When you finally shove me into a prison cell, David, keep telling me how “abstract” that cage is. Just remember this: you can outlaw me, silence me, murder me, but you will never, ever silence the voice of the law that God has written on every human heart.

  13. […] those public arenas for conservative evangelical Christianity.  Queer PHC and Patrol have already covered Baskerville’s lecture; I highly recommend both […]

  14. The “personal story” recounted by Baskerville (linked by Matthew above) explains a lot. The person completely absent from his narrative is Baskerville’s wife. He goes on and on about how his marriage and family was intruded upon and destroyed by the state, but where is the role played by the other person in the marriage? She might as well be an inanimate prop. This is how he sees women (and anyone else not a heterosexual male): Not really, completely human like he is, and not possessing a voice anyone is obligated to hear. This is the essential meaning of his lecture, and it’s accepted as “truth” with no evidence needed by those who share Baskerville’s sin.

    • PCLEMSC says:

      Ah, blessed are they who have no ears to hear and can’t see either. You would have us believe that your read his personal story, but you didn’t seem to read it with much understanding. The role played by his wife was that of aiding and abetting, and profiting from the state. She was the state’s excuse for denying Stephen his rights as a parent, and for the state’s imposition of a Communistic “TRANSFER OF WEALTH” program. If you wish to know what the state’s role was, read his book, “TAKEN INTO CUSTODY”.

  15. Tim Raveling says:

    Is it just me, or has this talk now been pulled from the PHC website? Too much kickback perhaps?

  16. […] failed to vet it properly, and surely the students have the necessary skills to reject it. PHC alum David Sessions reaches out to those students in an open […]

    • PCLEMSC says:

      Unfortunately, the students did NOT have the necessary skills to reject the ideologies of which Dr. Baskerville was speaking. Educated by Progressives to be useful idiots in the destruction of the republic, they rely on ideological mantras to defend against the truth. As has been predicted, good is now bad, and evil is now good. Top down, bottom up, and inside out. And a generation of students who don’t know the difference.

  17. Stephen Baskerville was merely pointing out the obvious attempts by globalists to exercise the age old gambit: “Make them, break them, divide them, conquer them”. Sociological warfare is evolving and thanks to Baskerville students of higher learning and faith have a chance to understand some sinister planks of family destruction and evolve to meet the challenge. Keep the chip on your shoulder and try to understand why it is there in the first place.

    For example: Feminism (women’s lib) was funded by the globalists to 1)Break up the family 2)Tax women. Hardly what most politically correct casual observers would surmise and understand.

    See what is before your eyes and what is hidden from you will be revealed to you – For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed and there is nothing buried that will not be uncovered.

    • Ward says:

      Your post is a mini-version of Baskerville’s lecture. Just asserting something as true, and then lambasting anyone who disagrees as “blind,” or “unwilling to learn” puts you in the same camp as every conspiracy theorist throughout history.

      • For example: Feminism (women’s lib) was funded by the globalists to 1)Break up the family 2)Tax women. Hardly what most politically correct casual observers would surmise and understand.

      • PCLEMSC says:

        It stands to reason that Baskerville’s commentary on ideology would be proven by the outburst of venom from the ideologists. Apparently, none of these demagogues have a clue as to what Baskerville and so many millions of men have experienced first hand. Instead of learning with an open mind,like demagogues everywhere, they cling to their beliefs like a life buoy, and attack truth as if it were heresy. Too bad they’re not intelligent enough to know the difference. In attacking Baskerville, they expose their own intellectual shortcomings. Sometimes Ph.D means “PILED HIGHER AND DEEPER”.

    • PCLEMSC says:

      Well spoken. Thank you for this breath of truth.

  18. […] Others have posted a variety of objections to much of the lecture’s content. I’d like to take a slightly different, though related, approach. The content is problematic enough, but I am also gravely worried about the effectiveness of an institution of higher learning at which this lecture masquerades as genuine scholarly discourse. It is fraught with logical fallacies and inconsistencies that are not worthy of a PHC student, much less a PHC Professor – and I say this as a professional writer who has had the pleasure of observing, editing and critiquing the writing of several PHC students and alumni both during and since my time there. Below are some of the most egregious examples of the lecture’s numerous lapses in logic: […]

  19. John Harrington says:

    ‘Six years ago I took wedding vows in a church within the Diocese of Washington. I dutifully recited “till death do us part,” and the minister declared, “What God hath joined together…” and so forth. On my wedding ring are inscribed the words, “pour toujours.” Five years later, and after the birth of my first child, I found myself summoned to court in Fairfax County (where I did not live) on 36 hours notice. Though I was accused of no wrongdoing and had given no grounds for divorce,
    I was interrogated by a lawyer and forced to answer a series of humiliating questions about intimate aspects of my relationship with my daughter, conversations with my wife, and a variety of private family matters.

    ‘Without a lawyer of my own and with very little opportunity to speak on my own behalf, I was then legally stripped of custody of my child and told to stay away from her all but two days a week. A restraining order was placed on me preventing me from taking her outside the jurisdiction of the court (a jurisdiction thousands of miles from my home), and I was ordered to surrender all her documents in my possession, including her British passport.’

    — Stephen Baskerville

    And now we understand the depth of his depravity and the source of his anger.

    • Ward says:

      Actually, we don’t. Mr. Weintraub already pointed this out above, but where is his wife in this story? She is a faceless villain who “out of the blue” just divorces him. This summary makes it sound like everything in Baskerville’s life was just fine, and then poof! Divorce! Magical restraining order from nowhere! This is not how the law works, as quite a few critics of this lecture have pointed out. Obviously, something happened in those “five years” Baskerville just skips over. Mr. Weintraub is also correct in how Baskerville refers to his ex-wife like property that was stolen from him: “I was ordered to surrender all her documents in my possession, including her British passport.” So? They were her documents. Even if they weren’t getting divorced, they were already legally hers, but Baskerville treats this like some kind of sneaky, legal coup de grace.

      • Alex says:

        I believe the “her” referred to in the “surrender all her documents” bit is Baskerville’s daughter, not his wife. It’s still not an especially reasonable objection, though. It seems obvious that a noncustodial parent should not have possession of his or her child’s passport, as that would facilitate removing the child to another country in violation of the order of custody.

    • PCLEMSC says:

      Baskerville speaks of a situation which is common to tens of thousands of fathers every year. In some cases, it also involves false allegations of child molestation and domestic violence. Many fathers have spent years in jail because of false allegations and judicial/prosecutorial bias against them. In the US, child custody is awarded to the mother in 90 – 97% of all cases. The abrogation of a father’s rights is a given. And you call Baskerville’s exposure of his personal tragedy and persecution “depravity”???
      Will Heatherington spent 16+ years in prison because his wife falsely accused him of rape. She recanted, but the courts refused to negate his sentence. Is his story “depravity”?
      Gary Dotson spent six years in prison, of a sentence of 50, because of a false rape accusation. Is HIS story depravity.
      The ex-president of the MA bar assoc. writing in the bar assoc. newsletter, admitted that false accusations are common, and used as a weapon in many divorce/custody cases. Is she also depraved?
      You should be ashamed of slandering a loving father like Stephen Baskerville with words like that.

    • PCLEMSC says:

      The man describes a situation which tens of thousands of fathers, across the nation and around the world, are forced to endure, along with the loss of their children based on false accusations so that his reputation was besmirched.
      And this feminazi dupe calls his persecution, “DEPRAVITY”???
      Anger, yes, righteous anger. Should we be happy to be falsely accused and have our children taken three thousand miles away from us? What’s depraved is an idiot who thinks that all women deserve all that the courts so willingly give them, and men who want to be fathers to their children deserve humiliation, persecution, false accusations, impoverishment, and jail time.

  20. Richard Zimdars says:

    This poor Baskerville person seems like he has been damaged in the past, and is now pouring forth his revenge from the platform of his professorship. Does PHC have health insurance benefits for their faculty that cover mental health issues? Very sad situation at PHC.

    • PCLEMSC says:

      Mr. Zimdars,
      You’re right. Prof. Baskerville WAS damaged in the past. As have been MILLIONS of other fathers in the US alone. And gratuitous personal attacks from soul-less people like you don’t help cure the problem. In your attack on Stephen, you demonstrate an acceptance of the bias and discrimination that those millions of fathers must endure. You show no insight into the detriment to children and society which single mother custody produces, and we therefore have to conclude that you don’t care about society or the children. I suggest that you walk a mile in the shoes of a divorced father before casting aspersions on one. Does YOUR health insurance cover mental health issues?

  21. Ayelt says:

    Who doesn’t know that once just closeted homosexuals vehemently criticize others for being gay, (especially in very conservative societies).
    The ones that do not know that or do not accept it should illustrate themselves a bit by reading “Pink Swastika”!

  22. He went all Muslim-extremist at the end there.

    Between unlawful gov, complicit media, religious hypocrisy, armed supremacies, depraved humanity and Islamic barbarism
    – we’re royally screwed! This country, this world….

    God Willing, I can spread some FHL before as per sincere Gospel offer to sinners before we self-destruct economically, morally, ethically, socially, emotionally & physically.

  23. GPiskor says:

    I applaud PHC for having the intellectual courage to allow Prof. Baskerville’s undoubtedly contentious Faith & Reason Lecture. If the purpose of Faith & Reason Lecture series is to encourage critical thinking through consideration of alternate worldviews, then this lecture must be judged an outstanding success regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees.

    My only regret is that Prof. Baskerville tried to cram the contents of what I hope will be a book into a lecture thereby knowingly exposing himself to attacks of generalization and misinterpretation. I can only assume he put himself out on a limb in order to give PHC students the benefits of his most current thinking.

    Those familiar with his academic work will recall he initially started examining the impact of radical feminism on divorce and family law, and then broadened his focus to consider how the family as a core institution of any state was being methodically undermined through radical feminist ideology. To say one is against radical feminism is not to say one is anti-feminist or a misogynist, but his detractors often blur this important distinction- not unlike the early 1950’s when to be anti-McCarthyism and its demagoguery was interpreted as a confession of Communist leanings.

    This is a ground breaking lecture as it is the first (to my knowledge) to make the thesis that radical feminist ideology has permeated our institutional structures via Orwellian doublethink so deeply as to threaten fundamental democratic freedoms and actions. Prof. Baskerville has challenged PHC students to examine politics through a different and perhaps uncomfortable lens, for to accept his thesis is to accept that citizens and plutocrats have collectively dropped the ball on a slo-mo takeover of democratic society. As Pogo stated in his now famous comic strip caption, “We have seen the enemy, and they are us”.

  24. John says:

    A very good response to this lecture. The key point to criticize Dr. Baskervile is not, however, his political opinions (what is clearly his ideology)but his complete lack of academic standards in argumentation. The lecture reads like a political diatribe not any sort of intellectual argument. The arguments made lack any coherence, any theoretical significance, and any factual basis. Urban legends are cited as facts. The only people cited are some obscure scholars who he uses only because they happen to ave said a few things he can twist to his advantage. Mr Sessions already makes an excellent summary of these issues, so I will not belabor them. The point I would make is that, if this is supposed to be a “major intellectual lecture” at PHC it is indeed a very poor reflection of the institution. Such poor academic work does not encourage “critical thinking” but only further polarizes our political debate in purile fashion.

  25. This christian college pep talk sparked much hatred and dissension amongst some students. I’m sure Dr. Baskerville would love to debate the points he covered and the message he intended to convey. I can’t wait.

  26. AdVader says:

    ‘being’ gay doesn’t exist, we ARE all hetero (xx/xy), femini$$m-samesexuality-antitheism are never to be accepted/tolerated pseudological LIES, never collaborate with&for liars&cheaters.

    stop the filthy dirty gender-sex-war on children&fathers, hetero’s and normal families NOW!

  27. Liberty60 says:

    Even speaking as a divorced father, who is paying alimony for life-
    I wish the men like Steven Baskerville and others could hear themselves the way other men do.

    At first they start out with grand abstract theories brimming with buzzwords and platitudes, then move on to angry denunciations of feminists and homosexuals, then eventually just let drop that yeah, they got screwed on a divorce settlement and man that bitch had a good lawyer.

    Behind all the proud posturing about masculinity, they sound like sulking adolescents whining about how unfair their mom is.

    Yes, family courts, on their very best days, can give only a very rough approximation of justice.

    Sack up, get over it and don’t bring your thumbsucking petulance to a political argument.

    • Mary says:

      I agree. That is even more profound coming from a divorced father. I can’t believe some of the clowns on this site who are basically cry-babies.

    • John Murtari says:

      I’ve known Stephen quite a while and some of the personal struggles he has been through because he loves his kids dearly … I had commented (below) on his lecture, but am surprised by some of the personal assaults I have read here?

      Isn’t this just plain prejudice? Painting a group with broad brush strokes? Hardly the Christian approach. I look at the last line above, don’t these all go together, haven’t they been heard before?

      <> Sack up, get over it…
      <> Sack up, get over it….
      <> Sack up, get over it….
      <> Sack up, get over it…
      <> Sack up, get over it…
      <> Sack up, get over it…

      I try to remember Christ, the ideals he was willing to die for. Yes, I’v made similar broad brush strokes myself in the past, but I try to remember, “There, but for the Grace of God, go I.”

      • John Murtari says:

        Folks, sorry, the system did a little extra editing in my posting above, shouldn’t have used special characters. Meant to say:
        Divorced parents — Sack up….
        Blacks — Sack up….
        Women — Sack up….
        Gays — Sack up …
        Liberals — Sack up …
        Etc, etc.. — Sack up…

  28. I think David made some lucid points-

    I’m sure many have heard of hip-hop Christian Lecrae & his stellar track ‘Church Clothes’ in which he points out the hypocrisies on both side of the debate – on my side is the self-righteous hypocrites & on David’s side are those who point to the self righteous hypocrites as reasons why they do not take their faith seriously but underneath it is a reluctance to face Biblical scrutiny.

    I’ve come to the real understanding that both sides don’t get it – we are all better off removing ourselves from a side (& that means get out of the debate all together) and embrace our own spiritual needs & our dependency on a loving savior – only then can we be of an use to ourselves & our brothers/sister. We gotta get off the offensive/defensive if we are ever truly going to fulfill our Biblical mandates as humble, faithful, living Christians.

  29. John Murtari says:

    Folks, I’ve known Dr. Baskerville for a long time. I took the time to read his entire essay and while I may disagree with portions, his overall message certainly seems in accord with the Christian principles of PHC. People seem greatly disturbed by some of the analogies he drew to Stalin & Hitler.

    Recently, I read a scholarly work that followed the lives of young Germans who later took both foot soldier and leadership roles in the ‘death squads.’ Their ideology overwhelmed any personal sense of Christian morality in their actions. Stephen’s main point was that modern ideologies can be destructive, and the new ‘sexual freedom’ — may not be freedom at all.

    His most excellent point is on ‘forgiveness’ and how that contrasts with the current fad for ‘zero tolerance’ — if you don’t toe-the-line we can immediately suspend, fire, or jail you. Pope John Paul II said something that really brings this info focus: when a society loses it sense of God & Faith — the ‘state’ takes over as the arbiter and enforcer of morality. Who of us does not see that in our society now?

    From the PHC web site: “Patrick Henry College believes that God is the source of all truth, be it spiritual, moral, philosophical, or scientific…. our Christian faith precedes and informs all that we at Patrick Henry College study, teach, and learn”

    • John Mutari – I think you should have been the presenter – well said

    • Liberty60 says:

      Pope JP II’s comments are to be applauded, but need to be enlarged and examined.
      Only modern ideologies? Is ours the only age in which ideological zealots are willing to sacrifice moral reason to theoretical purity? A cursory examination of history, or the word “zealot” itself gives the answer.

      And is ours the only age in which sexual consumerism is indulged? Obviously not.

      Which is why the current Pope has spoken of the need for the Church to find eternal truth not in the imagined heroic past, but in the modern times, in surprise and new discovery.

      • AdVader says:

        nowadays ‘leaders’ are manipulators, asif loving&tolerant, even the pope..

      • AdVader says:

        so many ‘progressive’ comments based on wrong mindsets and twisted feelings&thoughts, an insane reality, in fact void ab initio, ungrounded, what a depraved idiots, meanwhile divorce reamins child abuse and alienation to begin with, stop the filthy dirty gender-sex-war on childerens&fathers, hetero”s and normal framilies NOW!

  30. […] other writers — at first former PHC students like QueerPHC and David Sessions, then others — have already picked out the outrageous highlights of Baskerville’s […]

  31. […] The white knights and manginas had to get in and do their bit of screeching as well. A Response to Stephen Baskerville’s Lecture at Patrick Henry College | Patrol – A review of re… […]

  32. […] David Sessions, Libby Anne and Doug Muder all have perceptive things to say about the immensely creepy Stephen […]

  33. reynard61 says:

    “Throughout the final pages of his lecture, Dr. Baskerville fixates on imaginary manipulations of the justice system to dismiss legal protections for those who are raped, harassed and abused. The ‘innocent’ (accused abusers) are ‘railroaded into prison’ for ‘sex crimes’ (his scare quotes) that couldn’t possibly exist (21). Dr. Baskerville’s worldview leaves no room for the possibility that abuse could be real or should be prosecuted, which is alarming enough. But these factual claims are also utterly and demonstrably false. It remains very difficult to get a rape conviction in American courts, even with strong evidence and witnesses. According to government statistics, sexual assault has declined by 60 percent in the past decade. Fewer people than ever are incarcerated for the categories of crimes he suggests are driving the mass imprisonment of innocent men. So who exactly are these innocent men? Has Dr. Baskerville simply invented them? What kind of hysterical suspicion of women would lead someone to claim such a thing?”

    I’d be interested in hearing “Doctor” (*insert Tommy Lee Jones/Inspector Gerard-ish sarcasm here*) Baskerville’s thoughts on the late, unlamented Ariel Castro. Was Castro merely a “victim” of those three women who “seduced” him, forcing him to “rape” and “beat” them — several times to the point that they gave birth prematurely?

    PHC needs to stop and reconsider why they put this guy on the teaching staff or they’re going to end up with a reputation similar to that of Bob Jones University. (Or maybe that’s what they’re aiming for?)

  34. A Non-PHC observer says:

    “Let’s get real. Girls have been raped while attending Patrick Henry College: girls who I sat next to in class, by men who I sat next to in class. Other women I know were at different times mercilessly harassed, stalked and frightened—all on the campus of Patrick Henry College. Often it was the “nice boys” no one in a million years would imagine could do something like that until they saw it with their own eyes.”

    Accusing your classmates of rape is a serious charge to raise, David — especially in such a small student body. Do you think that years later this is the appropriate context to make that accusation? Is this public record or hearsay?

  35. Bob Hurt says:

    Take note of some self-serving balderdash from page 5 in the 26-page screed by Stephen Baskerville.

    One obvious reason why Christian faith is not an ideology is because of its unique and highly qualified relationship with the state; Christianity does not augment state power but limits it. Yet equally plausible is that Christianity is not an ideology because it has a unique theology of resentment. All true ideologies channel grievances into government power, with the ultimate aim of settling scores against politically defined criminals. Christianity alone offers a theology of forgiveness that neutralizes resentment and channels its sources into service for others and for God.

    The author has forgotten about the ideologies that drove the fake gospel of the so-called apostle Paul, the crusades, the inquisition, the witch hunts of Salem, and the scaring the living begeezis out of innocent, truth-hungry children by telling them they will burn in hell forever if they don’t accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior through the efficacy of his paganistic human sacrifice on the cross allegedly ordered by the Lord God himself, a being a bit more powerful than his perfect, only-begotten son Jesus. Christianity has been every bit as evil as Islam throughout its bloody history, most recently the blood-letting in the Balkans as Christians did their best to murder every Muslim they could find. Christians resent the holy hell out of Muslims, possibly because Islam has become the world’s fastest-growing religion. The moral majority and now the Christianity inspired Tea Party CRAVES government power. Judaism and Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism preach forgiveness. Christianity has no license on forgiveness.

    Christianity’s second biggest problem lies in the bigoted, irrational, supercilious insistence of its adherents on the efficacy of embrace of the atonement doctrine as the path to salvation, which I summarized above, and its near abject ignorance of the real Gospel that Jesus taught and lived, the remnants of which nevertheless live on in New Testament scriptures that Christians almost NEVER quote.

    Its biggest problem lies in the mindless insistence of most of its adherents in the inerrancy and infallibilty of the Holy Bible, in spite of broad disagreement between Coptics, Catholics, and Protestants as to what anonymous mishmash of secular and sacred history, prurient literature, prophesies, slogans, and anecdotes comprise the Holy Bible, and in spite of its many inconsistencies, incongruences, contradictions, and outright falsehoods. Baskervill should take a walk down memory lane in Thomas Paine’s painful Age of Reason for a little concept adjustment.

    Judaism, Islam and Christianity extol the majesty and might of a single God of everything. But, Judaism and Islam sees people as the SUBJECTS of God. ONLY Christianity sees God as the HEAVENLY FATHER, the spiritual and physical ancestor of his CHILDREN (all people) on earth.

    Jesus propounded a specific religious philosophy known as the “Gospel of the Kingdom of God (or, variously, of Heaven)” as follows:

    Acceptance of the fact of the sovereignty of God;
    Belief in the truth of the brotherhood of man;
    Faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to become like God – to do his will.

    He taught that God is our father, we are his children, we are one another’s brothers and sisters, and we should love him, love one another, and serve one another unselfishly and lovingly. He taught that sincerity is the key to the Kingdom of Heaven, and that one must live the gospel as he did, in devotion to the Father’s will so as ultimately to become indistinguishable from the Father.

    If Christianity restored loyalty to the foregoing three Gospel tenets, it would revolutionize all the religions on the planet and draw people of other religions to it with a powerful spiritual magnetism. This would mean churches would have to change dramatically. But it would result in beneficial transformations of family, culture, and consequentially to government.

    Frankly, I have seen the earmarks of such change in churches the past 62 years of my life, since I turned 8. I don’t see it embodied in Baskerville’s oratory as much as I see pitiful confusion about religion.

  36. AJ Castellitto says:

    Mr. Hunt, your analysis is wrought with certain prejudices, presuppositions & mischaracterizations- but you seem intelligent enough to know this, at least I hope so

  37. AJ Castellitto says:

    “If Christianity restored loyalty to the foregoing three Gospel tenets, it would revolutionize all the religions on the planet and draw people of other religions to it with a powerful spiritual magnetism. This would mean churches would have to change dramatically. But it would result in beneficial transformations of family, culture, and consequentially to government.”

    This would never happen – cause man is sinful – If Jesus were on the earth He could lead his church in such a way but imperfect & spiritually bankrupt mankind will neither form the perfect church here on earth nor will the masses willfully follow no matter how faithful the presentation. I would love if this were so, but it’s not reality

  38. […] that acceptance, makes his audience culpable. Objecting to it at a later time such as this, Mr. Sessions, is commendable but it in no way removes the stain of Mr. Baskerville’s actions, or of his […]

  39. Ihatecorruption says:

    Thank you David for sharing your courageous perspective of what this monster’s intentions really are. No wonder homeschooling and online college educations are getting more popular. I wouldn’t want my daughter going to a school like this!

  40. MD says:

    Thank you for taking the time to debunk a few of the false claims Baskerville made.

  41. Dale Chan says:

    A well written response to a spurious little lecture.

Leave a Reply

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.