[Vision2020] Douglas Wilson's Rationale: Logos School {Rationalization in
this case, not rationale}
Ted Moffett
ted_moffett@hotmail.com
Sun, 11 May 2003 07:37:51 +0000
Wayne Fox and All:
My vision2020 post on this subject was intended merely to point out, with
quotes from Douglas Wilson and my own likely erroneous attempt at
paraphrasing what these quotes expressed, that Wilson had offered a
"rationale" to have an all male school board at Logos School. Several times
it has been stated during this controversy that no rationale was given. I
was merely offering to outline what I thought the rationale was that Wilson
offered, fairly and completely.
I clearly stated I was not expressing my personal views on this matter. And
my post was not "on behalf of" Douglas Wilson.
I also pointed out that if you are going to argue against deeply held
religious convictions logically, starting at the fundamental assumptions for
the religious convictions makes logical sense. It may not make emotional
sense, and may not convince many people, because most people believe what
they do based on very emotional influences, not reason.
Good luck, Wayne, in your crusade to save us from religious superstition!
People want superstition, it satisfies great emotional needs, as does
religion. To not address this aspect of human reality dooms your effort
from the start. What will you offer to replace religion to satisfy this
dimension of human existence? Art? Sports? Nature worship? What
foundation will you use to establish an ethical system that is not up for
grabs to be interpreted in any manner any one wishes based on their personal
interpretation of reality, without the "ultimate" foundation religion
offers. It's easy to just dump religious "superstition" and suggest
everything will be grand.
Given certain assumptions of monotheism, or the more complex and subtle
"Trinitarianism," and a divinely revealed Bible, there follows certain
ethical rules that followers of this interpretation of life and the universe
feel compelled to follow. You can present arguments endlessly to challenge
the details of an ethical system based on these assumptions, but if the
original assumptions are strongly believed, as they say, God's wisdom is
beyond the human mind to comprehend.
I have debated in great detail with many Christian's the veracity of the
claim the Bible is divinely revealed by a God. If you cannot challenge this
foundation for a certain type of religious faith, other sorts of logical
argument often get you nowhere. Unless you go for the solar plexus, make
emotional appeals, and so forth. It works, just look at politics and
religion! Emotion is the main proselytizer, not logic.
I will not comment on any other details of your post, since they do not
address any issue I was addressing, from my point of view, in my post on
Douglas Wilson's rationale.
I suggest you direct your arguments to Douglas Wilson or others at Logos
School or Christ Church.
However, it seems Wilson is more aware of how you think and feel on this
issue than you appear to understand. Consider his comment that I quoted:
"I am aware of the fact that all this is perfectly appalling in our
egalitarian era..." Douglas Wilson, Tuesday April 8, 2003 vision2020.
As a quick comment on this quote, I would like to suggest that our era is
far from "egalitarian." If it was, how can you explain that in the US House
of Representatives, only 59 of 535 seats are held by women, while in the US
Senate, there are only 14 out of 100? It seems male rule of the USA is
alive and well at the highest reaches of power.
I think Wilson has an inflated image of how far egalitarianism rules our
culture, and exagerates how marginalized his point of view really is. His
views are more mainstream than I think many Americans realize.
Perhaps he is just more honest about what he believes, while many males play
the gender equality image for all the political correctness it is worth, an
image they mock in private.
Ted
>From: "Art Deco" <deco@moscow.com>
>To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
>CC: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Douglas Wilson's Rationale: Logos School
>{Rationalization in this case, not rationale}
>Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 19:47:31 -0700
>
>Re: Try to explain so-called Pastor Wilson's sophistry.
>
>The explanation offered by Ted Moffett on behalf of Douglas Wilson for
>discriminating against women is simply a long winded sophistry which says
>that there are some things that men can do better by nature than women and
>running a cult school appears to be one of them.
>
>Do the leaders and members of the cult think that every man is better
>equipped to run their cult school than any women or to do any other task?
>Is
>even the smartest woman less qualified than the dumbest man? Just
>understanding this last two statement makes a mockery of their arguments
>and
>empirically false claim that women lack reason and prudence.
>
>Here's another of their sleight of hand arguments: so-called Pastor Wilson
>quotes scripture to the effect that his alleged god thinks than that women
>should not be in positions of authority. In the next sentence says he is
>not relying on that. Why quote it in the first place? The intended
>audience for the scriptural quote are the sheep in the cult who will accept
>that as the reason knowing that Wilson is just saying otherwise to disarm
>us
>heathens despite the awfulness of the arguments used to support his
>apparent
>secular position.
>
>Here's another of their sleight of hand arguments: The cult claims they
>are
>more at legal risk for having de facto discrimination on their board than
>for discrimination by rule. What a silly-assed, ignorance based argument!
>It is always easier to legally attack discrimination by rule than de facto
>discrimination. With de facto discrimination the plaintiffs must
>demonstrate by clear and cogent evidence that such discrimination exists.
>No such proof is required for discrimination by rule. The rest of the
>legal
>case is the same for both positions. I don't know who the cult is getting
>their legal advice from (if anyone) but that person(s) is certainly inept
>and/or possibly god struck.
>
>An interesting study was publicized just in the last two weeks in the
>business news in the Spokesman and on the internet: Businesses started and
>managed by women have half the failure rate than those started and managed
>by men. Suggestions that cult leaders and members have castration
>complexes
>gain even more credibility in the light of this study. Perhaps they would
>allow women on their board if the men could wear armor proof protective
>cups.
>
>Perhaps the cult is worried that women do not appear to be as susceptible
>as
>men to being god struck, a phenomenon studied and reported by many
>therapists. Besides the more serious pathology associated with being god
>struck (think Jim Jones, David Koresh, perhaps Douglas Wilson) than that of
>being stage struck, those who are god struck inflict much more pain,
>anxiety, guilt, and do much more harm to others than themselves.
>
>My personal ethic is that It is contrary to the basic ideals of freedom to
>restrain and limit men or women from reaching their full non-criminal
>potential and function in an open, free society. My arguments for this
>position are heuristic, not religious.
>
>It is clear that the Christ Church cult only believes in freedom so far as
>it advances their religious ideals. I do not share these ideals; I think
>they are based on pathology and delusion rather than evidence and good
>will.
>I would guess that many on the Palouse who are familiar the cult's true
>beliefs are repulsed rather than attracted by them. This ongoing
>discussion, despite smoke screening by the cult, has opened many eyes.
>Even
>some cult members are starting to question their adulation and
>unquestioning
>belief of the cult leaders. Stay tuned!
>
>For now let's work for a society where every person can work towards their
>full potential unlimited by artificial and delusional barriers erected by
>fear and superstition.
>
>
>Wayne Fox
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail