[Vision2020] Re: another question for Doug Wilson
bill london
london@moscow.com
Sun, 07 Mar 2004 11:23:09 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070505040202070403040306
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
D-
I do appreciate your continuing response to my questions...and will
begin by responding to your latest question to me:
You ask (in the message reprinted below): "And remind me again, Bill,
why is this your business?"
I believe that seeking the truth about this casino episode is my
business for several reasons:
1. You are a public figure, and you direct a large organization that has
a political agenda that you and others have described in detail in
books, magazine articles and in various speeches and websites.
2. We both live in Moscow, and both have concerns and interests in the
future of this community.
3. On your own website, about one year ago, I read about this casino for
the first time (as I recall, the information was included in the
"bizarre charges" page). One of those documents included this exchange
(first a charge, and then your response):
BEGIN DOCUMENT QUOTE-----
Preliminary Reply to the Accusation that Doug Wilson took $1000.00 to
Pay Off a Casino House.
<mailbox:///C%7C/DOCUMENTS%20AND%20SETTINGS/TECHLAB1/APPLICATION%20DATA/Mozilla/Profiles/default/7mdlze0q.slt/Mail/mail.moscow.com/Inbox?number=69276079#_ftn1>
In 2002, officers' children from the 1999 NSA drug ring resurfaced in
the Morton Street Casino scandal. Once again, rather than "sort this
out" and apply biblical discipline, Doug [Wilson] circumvented Holy
Scripture, invented "inactive status," and took $1000.00 from the church
to pay off the casino "house."
As before, this accusation is also ripe with falsehoods. First, Doug
Wilson did not act alone, the issue of the $1000.00 was brought before
the whole elder board and voted on as a body. Second, Doug Wilson did
not invent "inactive status;" for good or ill, it is a common category
in most presbyterian books of church order.
The rationale behind the elders' decision to pay Brett Bauer $1000.00 is
the following. When the elders learned that the betting between church
members had resulted in some of them incurring an indebtedness that they
could not afford (in the thousands), we made the following decision. The
elders determined that all the money should go back the way it was
before the ungodly betting started, back to the status quo ante. In our
decision, we decided that those who owed Brett Bauer money that had been
created out of "credit," did not owe the money, and that all actual
money that had been paid out by Brett should be returned to him. We did
this because the betting was against the law of Christ in its manifest
lack of love, and because the betting was against the laws of the state
of Idaho.
<mailbox:///C%7C/DOCUMENTS%20AND%20SETTINGS/TECHLAB1/APPLICATION%20DATA/Mozilla/Profiles/default/7mdlze0q.slt/Mail/mail.moscow.com/Inbox?number=69276079#_ftn2>
Our determination was that all money should go back to the owners who
possessed it before the sinning started.
END DOCUMENT QUOTE---
As you can read in the second to last sentence, you clearly described a
casino, organized by members of your church, that you acknowledged had
violated the laws of Idaho. I was surprised to learn that your church
had paid $1000 to the casino "banker" and had not turned the case over
to the legal authorities.
Those three reasons summarize why I think asking questions about the
casino is appropriately "my business" and the business of our community.
And to return to the questions I had posed to you:
Thank you for your direct response to my questions about allegation #3.
As you explain: No church officer OK'ed the casino and Ethan did not
claim that the casino had been OK'ed by a church officer. With that in
mind, I have a further question: Since Ethan organized the casino, and
did not evade that responsibility by claiming a church official had
OK'ed the casino, did the church enforce any punishment for Ethan?
Also, as I understand your church rules that assign ultimate
responsibility for a child's activities to the parents, did your church
enforce any punishment to Ethan's parents for their lack of discipline
and control of their child?
Also, thank you for your response to my question about allegation #4.
As you explain: the casino players who won money did not refuse to pay
back to the banker Brett as you ordered. That brings up a further
question: if the casino players did not refuse to pay Brett the banker
the $1000, why did the church pay Brett $1000 from general church funds?
Thanks BL
----------------------------------------------
Douglas wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> You understood me correctly. Ethan did not tell us that a church
> officer okayed the casino, which is good, because a church officer
> never did. And the casino players who won the money from the house did
> not refuse when we told them to pay it back. I would suggest that
> those who make these accusations review again what constitutes proof,
> and reflect further on the fact that they bear the burden of it.
>
> And remind me again, Bill, why is this your business?
>
> Cordially,
>
> Douglas, the Casino Shutter Downer
>
>
>
> At 02:57 PM 3/6/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> D-
>> Regarding allegations #3 and #4 from the dougsplotch list (see
>> below), let's take this one at a time....
>>
>> This is #3.-- Ethan said the casino was OK'ed by another Christ
>> Church officer. You say that the statement, as it stands, is false.
>> Does that mean that Ethan never said the casino was OK'ed by a Christ
>> Church officer?
>> This is #4 -- Casino players who won the $1000 refuse to return the
>> money. This also you say, as it stands, is false. Does that mean
>> that the casino players who won the $1000 did not refuse to return
>> the money?
>>
>> Please explain. BL
>> ---------------------- Douglas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear Bill,
>>>
>>> My question about whether you all were without shame did not
>>> presuppose that you put up the web site. I, for one, certainly
>>> believe that you did not. My point is simply that if anyone, however
>>> unreliable and untrustworthy, puts up a web site that offers to dish
>>> the dirt on Christ Church, that person is currently operating in a
>>> seller's market. There are quite a few of you who are desperate to
>>> buy. There are many people in our community who want to get some
>>> dirt on us for whatever reason, reasons that are completely
>>> unrelated to fat head young men gambling when they shouldn't.
>>> Consequently, this means that anyone who is hostile to us for any
>>> reason can put up a web site that you all (having no sense of shame
>>> about pastoral and counseling matters) would pour over, in order to
>>> present your so-called objective questions to us. The whole thing is
>>> obnoxious. So a word to the fevered brow set here -- on the Morton
>>> street business, my conscience is so clean it squeaks when I walk.
>>>
>>> Let me invent a scenario that illustrates why what you are doing is
>>> so obnoxious. This is imaginary, but I have dealt with issues very
>>> much like this. Suppose we discover that a member of our church is
>>> beating his wife. Suppose further that we confront him about it, and
>>> he won't repent. The elders give the wife our blessing to move out,
>>> taking the children with her. We begin the process of church
>>> discipline with him, but he gets angry and sets up a web site in
>>> which he accuses the elders of ecclesiastical tyranny, posts private
>>> (and selectively edited) correspondence between his wife and the
>>> elders, between him and his wife, etc. The local intoleristas, who
>>> are still on their jag, are on this web site like a duck on June
>>> bug. They want to adjudicate. They want to know if she committed
>>> adultery ten years ago. They have concerns, deep concerns, about all
>>> this. Nothing to do with the worldview differences between
>>> Christians and secularists, nothing at all. Nothing to do with
>>> religious bigotry against Christ Church. They are just concerned
>>> that Mr. Smith is getting a raw deal (because the enemy of my enemy
>>> is my friend), and this leads to all the feminists on 20/20
>>> demanding that Mrs. Smith get back there right now and take her
>>> licks. What questions will I answer after you all invade Mrs.
>>> Smith's privacy? As few as I can, and I may even follow it up with a
>>> general exhortation to get a life.
>>>
>>> For the reasons outlined above, with regard to your remaining
>>> questions, I will just say that #3 & #4, as they stand, are false.
>>> There is no need to go into it further, is there?
>>>
>>> Cordially,
>>>
>>> Douglas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 09:32 AM 3/4/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> D-
>>>> Thanks for continuing to respond, as I continue to seek answers.
>>>>
>>>> First, I would like to reply to your question posed in the final
>>>> paragraph (in the message reprinted below): "Bill, do your people
>>>> have no shame?" Doug, the authors of the dougsplotch website are
>>>> not my people. I do not know who created that website, and first
>>>> learned of it when I read about it on V2020. And as to whether or
>>>> not they have any shame, I can not answer, but I do presume they
>>>> are interested in learning the truth about this casino incident, as
>>>> I am. Which brings me to these questions....
>>>>
>>>> As I read your last posting, you agreed that the 8 contentions
>>>> below, which I listed in my previous email as the core message of
>>>> the dougsplotch website, are accurate--with the exception of #3 and
>>>> #4.
>>>> 1. in the fall of 2001, Christ Church member Ethan opens a casino
>>>> in a garage in Moscow, offering illegal gambling and alcohol.
>>>> church member Brett serves as bank
>>>> 2. in Dec of 2001, you found out about the casino and took the
>>>> following action: cancelled all debts, including $4,500 owed to the
>>>> bank and tells those who had won approximately $1000 from the bank
>>>> to return it to the bank.
>>>> 3. Ethan said the casino was OK'ed by another Christ Church officer.
>>>> 4. Casino players who won the $1000 refuse to return the money.
>>>> 5. Brett contacts you to get his $1000
>>>> 6. Christ Church elders take $1000 from church general funds and
>>>> you give it to Brett in June 2002
>>>> 7. Brett wants to declare the $1000 as income in reporting federal
>>>> tax in 2003 (and wants IRS form 1099 from church to explain receipt).
>>>> 8. Christ Church refuses to supply IRS form 1099.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding #3: You did not specifically refer to this allegation.
>>>> Is it true that Ethan said that the casino was OK'ed by an officer
>>>> of your church? Was it? If so, by which officer?
>>>>
>>>> Regarding #4: You said Brett refused to accept money from one of
>>>> the several players who won money at the casino. That contradicts
>>>> the information presented on the dougsplotch website. That raises
>>>> another question: did Brett refuse money from all the players who
>>>> were supposed to repay their winnings?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks BL
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------- Douglas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Bill,
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you posted your question to v2020, I would appreciate it if
>>>>> you passed along my answer in its entirety. As I mentioned to you
>>>>> before, I have never before seen such a combination of malevolence
>>>>> and incompetence. And if it is not too late, you need to take
>>>>> great care because this deadly combination appears to be catching.
>>>>>
>>>>> An initial observation that I will repeat again at the close of
>>>>> this post is this. I strongly object to the necessity of having to
>>>>> answer charges manufactured out of private pastoral
>>>>> correspondence. As a pastor, counseling many people on many
>>>>> sensitive issues, you need to know that I now have to proceed on
>>>>> the supposition that at some point Bill London will be rifling
>>>>> through the exchanges, and posting questions about it on the
>>>>> Internet. I have to assume this because I know from direct
>>>>> experience that many of my adversaries in this town have no sense
>>>>> of propriety or proportion. And lest some anonymous poster take
>>>>> this as an invitation to lecture us on shame and shamelessness,
>>>>> let me point out that thus far he has been too craven and
>>>>> embarrassed to sign his own name. Shame, aye. Wisdom is identified
>>>>> by her children, and folly by her bastards.
>>>>>
>>>>> But since the wickedness is already done, my duty is to try to
>>>>> ameliorate the damage to those who are being wronged in this. So
>>>>> try this chronology on:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Brett Bauer begins to behave in such an atrocious, illegal,
>>>>> disrespectful, and unloving fashion that he ruins his credibility
>>>>> as a witness to everyone in the world except for James Nelson and
>>>>> Thomas Bartnick.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The elders of Christ Church find out about his gambling
>>>>> operation, shut it down, rebuke all the participants and culpable
>>>>> by-standers, negate all debts incurred, and require all parties to
>>>>> return the money they acquired. Are those the charges? Then we are
>>>>> as guilty as it gets. And you may confirm our "guilt" in this
>>>>> matter by referring to the documents posted by our
>>>>> judicially-blinded adversaries.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. In the aftermath, Brett Bauer refuses to take money from one of
>>>>> guys attempting to return his winnings, while complaining at the
>>>>> same time that the church was robbing him through our mediation.
>>>>> In order to be above all reproach, our elders appropriated the
>>>>> money to ensure the gambling restitution (not debts) was paid to
>>>>> him, entered that transaction in our minutes as part of our
>>>>> COVER-UP, I gave the money to Brett personally and warned him
>>>>> about the state of his soul, and Brett was so concerned about the
>>>>> morality of the whole business that he went and cashed the check.
>>>>> We also instructed the young men concerned that they could donate
>>>>> money back to our deacons' fund instead of paying restitution to
>>>>> Brett. And that money was donated to the deacons' fund by the
>>>>> Atwoods.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Brett suddenly acquires scruples about the tax status of his
>>>>> money that had been returned to him. But if I left my wallet on a
>>>>> restaurant table, and the waiter chased me down and gave it to me,
>>>>> he would not also owe me a W-2.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. Years later, anti-gambling crusaders (e.g. anti-Christ Church,
>>>>> any stick is good enough to throw) show up, find that Brett Bauer
>>>>> has apparent credibility, and want answers now.
>>>>>
>>>>> And here I return to my first point. Bill, do your people have no
>>>>> shame? No sense of decency? "An ungodly man digs up evil, and it
>>>>> is on his lips like a burning fire" (Prov. 16:27).
>>>>>
>>>>> Douglas Wilson
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. My wife and I count as one of the great privileges of our
>>>>> life our friendship with Roy and Bev Atwood, a godly and gracious
>>>>> Christian couple. And I am pleased that their son Ethan appears to
>>>>> be past the difficulties that beset him a few years ago. He
>>>>> certainly has been far more teachable and receptive of correction
>>>>> than all his critics put together.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At 04:02 PM 2/29/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> D-
>>>>>> Thanks for your response to my question about the accuracy of the
>>>>>> information on the <www.dougsplotch.net> website.
>>>>>> You suggested that I carefully read the documentation that is
>>>>>> provided on that site and then find the proof there that the
>>>>>> charges are false.
>>>>>> I did carefully read the documentation and did not find the proof
>>>>>> that the charges are false. Maybe, if you were specific
>>>>>> regarding the points raised, we could get this sorted out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, please specifically comment on the accuracy of the following
>>>>>> points made on the website:
>>>>>> 1. in the fall of 2001, Christ Church member Ethan opens a casino
>>>>>> in a garage in Moscow, offering illegal gambling and alcohol.
>>>>>> church member Brett serves as bank
>>>>>> 2. in Dec of 2001, you found out about the casino and took the
>>>>>> following action: cancelled all debts, including $4,500 owed to
>>>>>> the bank and tells those who had won approximately $1000 from the
>>>>>> bank to return it to the bank.
>>>>>> 3. Ethan said the casino was OK'ed by another Christ Church officer.
>>>>>> 4. Casino players who won the $1000 refuse to return the money.
>>>>>> 5. Brett contacts you to get his $1000
>>>>>> 6. Christ Church elders take $1000 from church general funds and
>>>>>> you give it to Brett in June 2002
>>>>>> 7. Brett wants to declare the $1000 as income in reporting
>>>>>> federal tax in 2003 (and wants IRS form 1099 from church to
>>>>>> explain receipt).
>>>>>> 8. Christ Church refuses to supply IRS form 1099.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please address the accuracy of these 8 points. The documentation
>>>>>> on that website (emails and letters reproduced) indicates these 8
>>>>>> points are accurate.
>>>>>> BL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Bill,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you need to do is look at what the web site claims about
>>>>>>> us, and then carefully read the documentation they provide for
>>>>>>> it. They basically provide ample proof that their charges are
>>>>>>> false, so you really need nothing further from me. I have never
>>>>>>> before in my life seen such a combination of malevolence and
>>>>>>> incompetence. But thanks for checking with me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cordially,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Douglas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At 09:39 AM 2/27/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> D-
>>>>>>>> I have visited the website <http://www.dougsplotch.net>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This website focuses on a series of incidents about an alleged
>>>>>>>> casino operation involving a number of members of your church.
>>>>>>>> According to the website documents, the casino story began in
>>>>>>>> the fall of 2001, when the son of the dean of New St. Andrews
>>>>>>>> College opened a blackjack casino in his garage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The website explains that the casino was a fully operational
>>>>>>>> gaming facility equipped with books, chips, wet bar, free
>>>>>>>> alcohol, a secret doorbell, casino trappings, credited money
>>>>>>>> from the house, and a $100 betting-limit per hand. In addition
>>>>>>>> to violating state laws, such as dispensing alcohol to minors,
>>>>>>>> the casino violated federal statutes, including a handful of
>>>>>>>> racketeering laws. The casino s patrons were all members in
>>>>>>>> good standing at Christ Church; many were students at New St.
>>>>>>>> Andrews.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to the documents provided on that website, when you
>>>>>>>> discovered the casino, you paid $1,000 from church funds to
>>>>>>>> settle the debts and protect the casino operators.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is the information provided on this website accurate?
>>>>>>>> BL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>
>
>
> .
>
--------------070505040202070403040306
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
D-<br>
I do appreciate your continuing response to my questions...and will
begin by responding to your latest question to me:<br>
You ask (in the message reprinted below): "And remind me again, Bill,
why is this your business?"<br>
<br>
I believe that seeking the truth about this casino episode is my
business for several reasons:<br>
1. You are a public figure, and you direct a large organization that
has a political agenda that you and others have described in detail in
books, magazine articles and in various speeches and websites.<br>
2. We both live in Moscow, and both have concerns and interests in the
future of this community.<br>
3. On your own website, about one year ago, I read about this casino
for the first time (as I recall, the information was included in the
"bizarre charges" page). One of those documents included this exchange
(first a charge, and then your response):<br>
<br>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">BEGIN DOCUMENT QUOTE-----<br>
Preliminary Reply to the Accusation that Doug
Wilson
took $1000.00 to Pay Off a Casino House</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">.<a style=""
href="mailbox:///C%7C/DOCUMENTS%20AND%20SETTINGS/TECHLAB1/APPLICATION%20DATA/Mozilla/Profiles/default/7mdlze0q.slt/Mail/mail.moscow.com/Inbox?number=69276079#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span
style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent"><span style="">In 2002,
officers’ children from the 1999 NSA drug ring resurfaced in the Morton
Street
Casino scandal. Once again, rather than “sort this out” and apply
biblical
discipline, Doug [</span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="">Wilson</span></st1:place></st1:city><span
style="">] circumvented Holy Scripture, invented “inactive status,”
and took $1000.00
from the church to pay off the casino “house.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p><br>
As before, this accusation is also ripe with
falsehoods. First, Doug Wilson did not act alone, the issue of the
$1000.00 was
brought before the whole elder board and voted on as a body. Second,
Doug Wilson
did not invent “inactive status;” for good or ill, it is a common
category in
most presbyterian books of church order.<br>
</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">The rationale behind the elders’
decision to
pay
Brett Bauer $1000.00 is the following. When the elders learned that the
betting
between church members had resulted in some of them incurring an
indebtedness
that they could not afford (in the thousands), we made the following
decision.
The elders determined that all the money should go back the way it was
before
the ungodly betting started, back to the status quo ante. In our
decision, we
decided that those who owed Brett Bauer money that had been created out
of
“credit,” did not owe the money, and that all actual money that had
been paid
out by Brett should be returned to him. We did this because the betting
was
against the law of Christ in its manifest lack of love, and because the
betting
was against the laws of the state of </span><st1:state><st1:place><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">Idaho</span></st1:place></st1:state><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">.<a style=""
href="mailbox:///C%7C/DOCUMENTS%20AND%20SETTINGS/TECHLAB1/APPLICATION%20DATA/Mozilla/Profiles/default/7mdlze0q.slt/Mail/mail.moscow.com/Inbox?number=69276079#_ftn2"
name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span
style=""><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
Our determination was that all money should go back to the owners who
possessed
it before the sinning started.<br>
END DOCUMENT QUOTE---<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">As you can read in
the second to last sentence, you clearly described a casino, organized
by members of your church, that you acknowledged had violated the laws
of Idaho. I was surprised to learn that your church had paid $1000 to
the casino "banker" and had not turned the case over to the legal
authorities. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Those three reasons
summarize why I think asking questions about the casino is
appropriately "my business" and the business of our community.<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And to return to the
questions I had posed to you:<br>
Thank you for your direct response to my questions about allegation
#3. As you explain: No church officer OK'ed the casino and Ethan did
not claim that the casino had been OK'ed by a church officer. With
that in mind, I have a further question: Since Ethan organized the
casino, and did not evade that responsibility by claiming a church
official had OK'ed the casino, did the church enforce any punishment
for Ethan? Also, as I understand your church rules that assign
ultimate responsibility for a child's activities to the parents, did
your church enforce any punishment to Ethan's parents for their lack of
discipline and control of their child?<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Also, thank you for
your response to my question about allegation #4. As you explain: the
casino players who won money did not refuse to pay back to the banker
Brett as you ordered. That brings up a further question: if the casino
players did not refuse to pay Brett the banker the $1000, why did the
church pay Brett $1000 from general church funds? <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Thanks BL<br>
</p>
---------------------------------------------- <br>
Douglas wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid5.1.0.14.0.20040306165713.01d8bf50@mail.moscow.com"><br>
Bill,
<br>
<br>
You understood me correctly. Ethan did not tell us that a church
officer okayed the casino, which is good, because a church officer
never did. And the casino players who won the money from the house did
not refuse when we told them to pay it back. I would suggest that those
who make these accusations review again what constitutes proof, and
reflect further on the fact that they bear the burden of it.
<br>
<br>
And remind me again, Bill, why is this your business?
<br>
<br>
Cordially,
<br>
<br>
Douglas, the Casino Shutter Downer
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 02:57 PM 3/6/2004 -0800, you wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">D-
<br>
Regarding allegations #3 and #4 from the dougsplotch list (see below),
let's take this one at a time....
<br>
<br>
This is #3.-- Ethan said the casino was OK'ed by another Christ Church
officer. You say that the statement, as it stands, is false. Does
that mean that Ethan never said the casino was OK'ed by a Christ Church
officer?
<br>
This is #4 -- Casino players who won the $1000 refuse to return the
money. This also you say, as it stands, is false. Does that mean that
the casino players who won the $1000 did not refuse to return the
money?
<br>
<br>
Please explain. BL
<br>
---------------------- Douglas wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
Dear Bill,
<br>
<br>
My question about whether you all were without shame did not presuppose
that you put up the web site. I, for one, certainly believe that you
did not. My point is simply that if anyone, however unreliable and
untrustworthy, puts up a web site that offers to dish the dirt on
Christ Church, that person is currently operating in a seller's market.
There are quite a few of you who are desperate to buy. There are many
people in our community who want to get some dirt on us for whatever
reason, reasons that are completely unrelated to fat head young men
gambling when they shouldn't. Consequently, this means that anyone who
is hostile to us for any reason can put up a web site that you all
(having no sense of shame about pastoral and counseling matters) would
pour over, in order to present your so-called objective questions to
us. The whole thing is obnoxious. So a word to the fevered brow set
here -- on the Morton street business, my conscience is so clean it
squeaks when I walk.
<br>
<br>
Let me invent a scenario that illustrates why what you are doing is so
obnoxious. This is imaginary, but I have dealt with issues very much
like this. Suppose we discover that a member of our church is beating
his wife. Suppose further that we confront him about it, and he won't
repent. The elders give the wife our blessing to move out, taking the
children with her. We begin the process of church discipline with him,
but he gets angry and sets up a web site in which he accuses the elders
of ecclesiastical tyranny, posts private (and selectively edited)
correspondence between his wife and the elders, between him and his
wife, etc. The local intoleristas, who are still on their jag, are on
this web site like a duck on June bug. They want to adjudicate. They
want to know if she committed adultery ten years ago. They have
concerns, deep concerns, about all this. Nothing to do with the
worldview differences between Christians and secularists, nothing at
all. Nothing to do with religious bigotry against Christ Church. They
are just concerned that Mr. Smith is getting a raw deal (because the
enemy of my enemy is my friend), and this leads to all the feminists on
20/20 demanding that Mrs. Smith get back there right now and take her
licks. What questions will I answer after you all invade Mrs. Smith's
privacy? As few as I can, and I may even follow it up with a general
exhortation to get a life.
<br>
<br>
For the reasons outlined above, with regard to your remaining
questions, I will just say that #3 & #4, as they stand, are false.
There is no need to go into it further, is there?
<br>
<br>
Cordially,
<br>
<br>
Douglas
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 09:32 AM 3/4/2004 -0800, you wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">D-
<br>
Thanks for continuing to respond, as I continue to seek answers.
<br>
<br>
First, I would like to reply to your question posed in the final
paragraph (in the message reprinted below): "Bill, do your people have
no shame?" Doug, the authors of the dougsplotch website are not my
people. I do not know who created that website, and first learned of
it when I read about it on V2020. And as to whether or not they have
any shame, I can not answer, but I do presume they are interested in
learning the truth about this casino incident, as I am. Which brings
me to these questions....
<br>
<br>
As I read your last posting, you agreed that the 8 contentions below,
which I listed in my previous email as the core message of the
dougsplotch website, are accurate--with the exception of #3 and #4.
<br>
1. in the fall of 2001, Christ Church member Ethan opens a casino in a
garage in Moscow, offering illegal gambling and alcohol. church member
Brett serves as bank
<br>
2. in Dec of 2001, you found out about the casino and took the
following action: cancelled all debts, including $4,500 owed to the
bank and tells those who had won approximately $1000 from the bank to
return it to the bank.
<br>
3. Ethan said the casino was OK'ed by another Christ Church officer.
<br>
4. Casino players who won the $1000 refuse to return the money.
<br>
5. Brett contacts you to get his $1000
<br>
6. Christ Church elders take $1000 from church general funds and you
give it to Brett in June 2002
<br>
7. Brett wants to declare the $1000 as income in reporting federal tax
in 2003 (and wants IRS form 1099 from church to explain receipt).
<br>
8. Christ Church refuses to supply IRS form 1099.
<br>
<br>
Regarding #3: You did not specifically refer to this allegation. Is
it true that Ethan said that the casino was OK'ed by an officer of your
church? Was it? If so, by which officer?
<br>
<br>
Regarding #4: You said Brett refused to accept money from one of the
several players who won money at the casino. That contradicts the
information presented on the dougsplotch website. That raises another
question: did Brett refuse money from all the players who were supposed
to repay their winnings?
<br>
<br>
Thanks BL
<br>
<br>
----------------------------- Douglas wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
Dear Bill,
<br>
<br>
Since you posted your question to v2020, I would appreciate it if you
passed along my answer in its entirety. As I mentioned to you before, I
have never before seen such a combination of malevolence and
incompetence. And if it is not too late, you need to take great care
because this deadly combination appears to be catching.
<br>
<br>
An initial observation that I will repeat again at the close of this
post is this. I strongly object to the necessity of having to answer
charges manufactured out of private pastoral correspondence. As a
pastor, counseling many people on many sensitive issues, you need to
know that I now have to proceed on the supposition that at some point
Bill London will be rifling through the exchanges, and posting
questions about it on the Internet. I have to assume this because I
know from direct experience that many of my adversaries in this town
have no sense of propriety or proportion. And lest some anonymous
poster take this as an invitation to lecture us on shame and
shamelessness, let me point out that thus far he has been too craven
and embarrassed to sign his own name. Shame, aye. Wisdom is identified
by her children, and folly by her bastards.
<br>
<br>
But since the wickedness is already done, my duty is to try to
ameliorate the damage to those who are being wronged in this. So try
this chronology on:
<br>
<br>
1. Brett Bauer begins to behave in such an atrocious, illegal,
disrespectful, and unloving fashion that he ruins his credibility as a
witness to everyone in the world except for James Nelson and Thomas
Bartnick.
<br>
<br>
2. The elders of Christ Church find out about his gambling operation,
shut it down, rebuke all the participants and culpable by-standers,
negate all debts incurred, and require all parties to return the money
they acquired. Are those the charges? Then we are as guilty as it gets.
And you may confirm our "guilt" in this matter by referring to the
documents posted by our judicially-blinded adversaries.
<br>
<br>
3. In the aftermath, Brett Bauer refuses to take money from one of guys
attempting to return his winnings, while complaining at the same time
that the church was robbing him through our mediation. In order to be
above all reproach, our elders appropriated the money to ensure the
gambling restitution (not debts) was paid to him, entered that
transaction in our minutes as part of our COVER-UP, I gave the money to
Brett personally and warned him about the state of his soul, and Brett
was so concerned about the morality of the whole business that he went
and cashed the check. We also instructed the young men concerned that
they could donate money back to our deacons' fund instead of paying
restitution to Brett. And that money was donated to the deacons' fund
by the Atwoods.
<br>
<br>
4. Brett suddenly acquires scruples about the tax status of his money
that had been returned to him. But if I left my wallet on a restaurant
table, and the waiter chased me down and gave it to me, he would not
also owe me a W-2.
<br>
<br>
5. Years later, anti-gambling crusaders (e.g. anti-Christ Church, any
stick is good enough to throw) show up, find that Brett Bauer has
apparent credibility, and want answers now.
<br>
<br>
And here I return to my first point. Bill, do your people have no
shame? No sense of decency? "An ungodly man digs up evil, and it is on
his lips like a burning fire" (Prov. 16:27).
<br>
<br>
Douglas Wilson
<br>
<br>
P.S. My wife and I count as one of the great privileges of our life our
friendship with Roy and Bev Atwood, a godly and gracious Christian
couple. And I am pleased that their son Ethan appears to be past the
difficulties that beset him a few years ago. He certainly has been far
more teachable and receptive of correction than all his critics put
together.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 04:02 PM 2/29/2004 -0800, you wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">D-
<br>
Thanks for your response to my question about the accuracy of the
information on the <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.dougsplotch.net">www.dougsplotch.net</a>> website.
<br>
You suggested that I carefully read the documentation that is provided
on that site and then find the proof there that the charges are false.
<br>
I did carefully read the documentation and did not find the proof that
the charges are false. Maybe, if you were specific regarding the
points raised, we could get this sorted out.
<br>
<br>
So, please specifically comment on the accuracy of the following points
made on the website:
<br>
1. in the fall of 2001, Christ Church member Ethan opens a casino in a
garage in Moscow, offering illegal gambling and alcohol. church member
Brett serves as bank
<br>
2. in Dec of 2001, you found out about the casino and took the
following action: cancelled all debts, including $4,500 owed to the
bank and tells those who had won approximately $1000 from the bank to
return it to the bank.
<br>
3. Ethan said the casino was OK'ed by another Christ Church officer.
<br>
4. Casino players who won the $1000 refuse to return the money.
<br>
5. Brett contacts you to get his $1000
<br>
6. Christ Church elders take $1000 from church general funds and you
give it to Brett in June 2002
<br>
7. Brett wants to declare the $1000 as income in reporting federal tax
in 2003 (and wants IRS form 1099 from church to explain receipt).
<br>
8. Christ Church refuses to supply IRS form 1099.
<br>
<br>
Please address the accuracy of these 8 points. The documentation on
that website (emails and letters reproduced) indicates these 8 points
are accurate.
<br>
BL
<br>
<br>
<br>
Douglas wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
Dear Bill,
<br>
<br>
What you need to do is look at what the web site claims about us, and
then carefully read the documentation they provide for it. They
basically provide ample proof that their charges are false, so you
really need nothing further from me. I have never before in my life
seen such a combination of malevolence and incompetence. But thanks for
checking with me.
<br>
<br>
Cordially,
<br>
<br>
Douglas
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 09:39 AM 2/27/2004 -0800, you wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">D-
<br>
I have visited the website <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.dougsplotch.net"><http://www.dougsplotch.net></a>.
<br>
<br>
This website focuses on a series of incidents about an alleged casino
operation involving a number of members of your church.
<br>
According to the website documents, the casino story began in the fall
of 2001, when the son of the dean of New St. Andrews College opened a
blackjack casino in his garage.
<br>
<br>
The website explains that the casino was a fully operational gaming
facility equipped with books, chips, wet bar, free alcohol, a secret
doorbell, casino trappings, credited money from the house, and a $100
betting-limit per hand. In addition to violating state laws, such as
dispensing alcohol to minors, the casino violated federal statutes,
including a handful of racketeering laws. The casino s patrons were all
members in good standing at Christ Church; many were students at New
St. Andrews.
<br>
<br>
According to the documents provided on that website, when you
discovered the casino, you paid $1,000 from church funds to settle the
debts and protect the casino operators.
<br>
<br>
Is the information provided on this website accurate?
<br>
BL
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
.
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
.
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
.
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------070505040202070403040306--