[Vision2020] Re: another question for Doug Wilson
bill london
london@moscow.com
Tue, 09 Mar 2004 10:46:08 -0800
D-
your sarcasm quotient is rising to the top of the chart.
Perhaps that indicates you are no longer responding to my questions.
Maybe if I try a different question.
According to your website ("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"), you recognized the casino was illegal. Given
the issues raised in the last few years, do you think you should have
alerted the police to this violation?
BL
Douglas wrote:
> Dear Bill,
>
> With regard to your variant question on #4, I have already answered
> you. Go ahead and review our exchanges if you would like the answer to
> the question. But if the goal of your questioning is simply to keep
> your negative campaign bus driving up and down Main St., you could
> just pretend I am being evasive.
>
> And since I am confident your goal is the latter one, here is my
> answer about Ethan's punishment. We sentenced him to read V2020 posts
> for a year, but because he cried and begged and pleaded, we pulled out
> his fingernails instead.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Douglas
>
> "A perverse man sows strife, and a whisperer separates the best of
> friends" (Prov. 16:28)
>
>
>
> At 11:23 AM 3/7/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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. 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
>>>>>>>> <<http://www.dougsplotch.net>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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>
>
>
> .
>