You know who's to blame for Rachel Dolezal? THOSE ****ING CHRISTIANS!!!

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Finally! The Proglodytes have an alibi that allows them to move past their ideological contradictions and focus on what is really important:

Hating Christians

lame54 (15,865 posts)

Rachel Dolezal Is An Abuse Victim
 
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/06/rest-rachel-dolezars-story

We are covering Rachel Dolezal’s situation because she is a homeschool alumna. Rachel was homeschooled through Christian Liberty Academy. Her father, Larry Dolezal, worked for Creation Ministries International and was charged in 1999 with felony theft though the charges were later dismissed.

We have also heard testimonies from numerous homeschool alumni who grew up knowing the Dolezal family that frequent and significant child abuse occurred in the family. The parents allegedly forced both Rachel and her older, biological brother Joshua to beat their younger, adopted siblings with plumbing supply line and two foot long glue sticks, a practice inspired by Michael and Debi Pearl’s book, To Train Up a Child. (Forced sibling-to-sibling corporal punishment is sadly not uncommon in some homeschooling circles.) Such a practice conjures up troubling images of Larry and Carri Williams, another homeschooling family that abused to death their adopted child, Hana...

...Rachel is an abuse victim. She cut off her parents years ago, and she received guardianship of one of her adopted brothers. Her biological brother currently faces charges for sexual assault, and Rachel has, apparently, been aiding the victim of that crime, prompting her parents–after years of not having any relationship with Rachel–to retaliate by outing her.

Every time we go after Rachel, we are doing exactly what her abusive parents want. Read their quotes. Their tone, their word choice–it’s what I’ve seen again and again from abusive parents, hiding behind their own self-righteousness. They want you to hate Rachel. They want you to believe that she is lying about them. They want you to hurt her.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026851777

[Ralph Wiggum]

Lame numbers is an appropriate moniker.  That was just a horrid alibi.

[Duke Nukum]

So Rachel has Christian Abuse Victim White Woman Privilege?

What do liberals want us to do when they abuse the language?

[SVPete]

Consider the source ...

I recommend taking every fact-claim with a block of salt, except for the statement that another child, Hana Williams, was killed by child abuse. But, contrary to C & L's claim, the Williams werenot following the Pearl's teachings in committing the abuse that killed Hana.

I'm not defending the Pearl's teachings, nor condemning their teachings. I've not read their book, and don't know enough of them to comment on their teachings more generally. I'm just pointing out that C & L's piece has at least one fatal flaw their guilt-by-association argument.

As for, "We have also heard testimonies from numerous homeschool alumni ...", really? Who? Did C & L really verify that each person they spoke to - assuming they talked to any at all - had actually known the Dolezals?

I've heard enough false accusation @#$% from Christian-haters to be reflexively cautious, and when I see false fact-claims, guilt-by-association arguments, and annoymorous "sources", very skeptical.

But, seriously. For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate all C & L's claims of abuse and etc.. How does that change the simple fact that Rachel Dolezal lied (and committed fraud?) and lives a grand lie? I find the, "She shouldn't have gotten caught!" argument particularly unconvincing. This is just a pathetic attempt to divert attention from Rachel's lies.

[SVPete]

Another C & L fact claim that looks dubious at best. Rachel is 37. She was born in 1977. Per Wikipedia, Michael & Debi Pearl published their book in 1994. When Rachel was 17. Oopsie! And FWIW, her brother who was, in 2013, accused of some sort of sexual abuse is her older brother. IOW, neither were raised according to the Pearl's book, because it had not yet been published.

An interesting tidbit from Wikipedia's artical on Rachel ... she obtained guardianship of one of her adopted brothers, as C & L stated. The two things C & L omitted are that he was 16, and that it was with his/her parents' consent. There's other "interesting" things in Wikipedia's article, but C & L's hit piece demonstrates that they are what they claim to expose.

[Carl]

She is a liar and nothing more.

[Chris_]

Another C & L fact claim that looks dubious at best. Rachel is 37. She was born in 1977. Per Wikipedia, Michael & Debi Pearl published their book in 1994. When Rachel was 17. Oopsie! And FWIW, her brother who was, in 2013, accused of some sort of sexual abuse is her older brother. IOW, neither were raised according to the Pearl's book, because it had not yet been published.

An interesting tidbit from Wikipedia's artical on Rachel ... she obtained guardianship of one of her adopted brothers, as C & L stated. The two things C & L omitted are that he was 16, and that it was with his/her parents' consent. There's other "interesting" things in Wikipedia's article, but C & L's hit piece demonstrates that they are what they claim to expose.

You don't expect a blog named "Crooks and Liars" to be honest, do you?

Kudos for doing the research.  I'm just gonna stand back and laugh.

[SVPete]

You don't expect a blog named "Crooks and Liars" to be honest, do you?

Kudos for doing the research.  I'm just gonna stand back and laugh.

Checking two Wikipedia articles hardly qualifies as "nadining", let alone research. But don't let that stop or lessen your amusement.

C & L is a partisan-Prog outlet along the same lines as ThinkProgress and MMfA. Many many of their Gotcha hit pieces cannot stand up to even slight fact-checking. As my slight fact-checking showed. The two over-arching flaw in such groups are: their Our Daily Hit-Piece way of doing their business; they hold those they hate in such contempt that they don't bother to understand those they hate, or listen/read with minimal care.

[Chris_]

C&L is a DU staple next to that Rude Pundit idiot.

Most of us don't have time to dig into Wikipedia.  I know I don't.

[98ZJUSMC]

Consider the source ...

I recommend taking every fact-claim with a block of salt, except for the statement that another child, Hana Williams, was killed by child abuse. But, contrary to C & L's claim, the Williams werenot following the Pearl's teachings in committing the abuse that killed Hana.

I'm not defending the Pearl's teachings, nor condemning their teachings. I've not read their book, and don't know enough of them to comment on their teachings more generally. I'm just pointing out that C & L's piece has at least one fatal flaw their guilt-by-association argument.

As for, "We have also heard testimonies from numerous homeschool alumni ...", really? Who? Did C & L really verify that each person they spoke to - assuming they talked to any at all - had actually known the Dolezals?

I've heard enough false accusation @#$% from Christian-haters to be reflexively cautious, and when I see false fact-claims, guilt-by-association arguments, and annoymorous "sources", very skeptical.

But, seriously. For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate all C & L's claims of abuse and etc.. How does that change the simple fact that Rachel Dolezal lied (and committed fraud?) and lives a grand lie? I find the, "She shouldn't have gotten caught!" argument particularly unconvincing. This is just a pathetic attempt to divert attention from Rachel's lies.

   Beat me to it.   

[98ZJUSMC]

C&L is a DU staple next to that Rude Pundit idiot.  RawStory      pOliTiCsuSa!!!!!!

Most of us don't have time to dig into Wikipedia.  I know I don't.

Not for anything political.

[BlueStateSaint]

On a tangentially related topic, the church shooting last night will be blamed on all Caucasian people.  Maybe this Dolezal individual was trying to avoid blame . . . 

[SVPete]

When one keeps in mind the sort of biases one is likely to find on W'pedia it can be a useful source for historical info and extremely basic level fact-checking. An example of the latter would be comparing Rachel Doleval's age to the pub date of the Pearls' book C & L cited. I've seen enough stupid anachronisms and other carelessness/deceptiveness wrt dates in Libs'/Progs' claims to look for anachronisms like C & L's. Finding selective omissions of facts also sometimes happens.