[Vision2020] Atwood Letter Rewritten

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Sun Apr 2 17:17:51 PDT 2006


One issue that might not have any technical legal standing in the "NSA in
the CBD" discussion, but that seems relevant to the overall "spirit" of this
discussion is that, unless I have it wrong, NSA engages in religious
discrimination in enrollment.  Of course they legally have the right to do
so, being a private college.

But when cries of discrimination and bias against NSA are aimed at critics
of NSA's presence in the CBD, with claims that the NSA critics are
discriminating against NSA's form of religious faith, using legal
"technicalities" to attack them based on a separate secret "agenda," what
are we to make of this statement, from the NSA website:


"All students who attend New Saint Andrews must pledge in writing to
maintain sound Christian doctrine, to regularly attend an orthodox church,

Let's say I am an Islamic youth and want a good higher education.  I want to
learn about Christianity, I like some of the faculty at NSA, whom I have
met, and I enjoy the relatively safe, small town atmosphere in Moscow.  I
find the "immorality" expressed in the common conduct of many
youth attending many universities and colleges a climate I wish to avoid, so
I appreciate the firm moral stand NSA takes on some moral issues.  I am
firmly Islamic, thus I recognize Jesus as a great teacher and prophet, but
not as the Son of God.

Just as those of any faith can attend Gonzaga in Spokane, a Jesuit Catholic
Christian institution, I expect that if I qualify based on my academic
skills, I should be seriously considered for enrollment at NSA as a student.

Unless I have misunderstood NSA's policies, this prospective student would
be denied admission based on their religious faith.

What other institution or business in the CBD denies the public access to
their services based on their religious belief?

Why are some of the critics of the critics of NSA not trying to encourage
NSA to offer its services to all the public, regardless of religious faith?
They seem very concerned about bias or discrimination against NSA based on
religious beliefs, but not concerned about NSA's discrimination against
other religions in their admissions policy.

Too bad Gonzaga didn't make the Final Four...

And yes, Gonzaga does have a Moslem student, according to the Fall 2005
freshman enrollment data offering the religious affiliation of students.
Quite a range of faiths are represented:


Ted Moffett

On 4/2/06, Saundra Lund <sslund at adelphia.net> wrote:
> Hi Again Mr. Crabtree,
> You wrote:
> "Ms. Lund, I'm not sure what the asterisks on either side of *you* implies
> but I would have been happy to have made your acquaintance. Perhaps next
> time. Look for a middle aged, blue collar Neanderthal who sits close to
> the
> door in case a hasty exit is required. (crowds make me a bit edgy)"
> Ah-HA!!!  So, you took one of my favorite seats!  Save me one by the door
> next time, if possible, because I'm not a huge fan of crowds, either.
> The asterisks meant nothing more than I would have appreciated meeting you
> to put a face with the name  :-)
> And, I honestly mean no offense, but have you looked around?  I think a
> pretty fair number of men would fit the description you provided, at least
> to my eyes  ;-)  Perhaps name tags would be a good idea  ;-)
> You wrote:
> "From the top. Yes you are right. I was making broad generalizations in my
> communication with Ms.Woolf . . . "
> Good, I'm glad we got that cleared up.  FWIW, I'm glad you're willing to
> accept my notes and the Trib article as accurate reflections of what was
> actually said at the meeting.
> You also wrote:
> "If you would like to make a less discriminatory argument for revoking tax
> exemptions for all schools and churches have at it."
> Sorry, I don't think there's anything at all discriminatory about
> expecting
> our laws to be followed -- quite the contrary:  it's discriminatory for
> our
> laws not to be fairly and equitably applied.  Simply put, when one church
> is
> rightly denied exemption because it's competing with commercial businesses
> and another is given a pass, that's discriminatory.
> You also wrote:
> "Zoning allows for educational institutions downtown with a CUP."
> Yes, that's what's allowed *now*, but that's *not* what was allowed in
> February, 2003 when NSA opened for classes on Main Street.
> You also wrote:
> "I'll worry about BSU hogging up Main St. with a satellite campus when the
> danger is a trifle more immanent. "
> What about the UI?  I'll admit I found the whole "we were never concerned
> about the UI expanding downtown" nonsense to be amusing . . . remember
> City
> staff and some (former) Council members blathering on & on about how they
> had searched & searched unsuccessfully for proof that had ever been an
> issue
> or concern, all the while ignoring the testimony of those with first-hand
> knowledge?  What a pathetic joke!  It took lil' ol' me no more than 5-10
> minutes of searching the Lewiston Tribune archives to find the articles,
> something the City in its "exhaustive" searches failed to find.  Why do
> you
> suppose that is???  Could it possibly be the City was practicing CYA for
> its
> role in the whole NSA mess?
> So, if Mr. Reed sells Basillio's to the UI, you'd have no objection to it
> being removed from the tax rolls and classes being held there, right?
> You also wrote:
> "I must admit I was shocked to hear Ms. Husky's seemingly contradictory
> turn
> about of opinion with regard to the school and it's students."
> Huh?  I think you must be confused.  I don't want to speak for Rose, but I
> think we have always been consistent in our position that while neither of
> us would ever send our kids to NSA, we absolutely don't have a problem
> with
> NSA in Moscow as long as it operates within the law and in an appropriate
> location, which we don't believe is in the CBD.
> You also wrote:
> "As to the parking, forgive me if I do this from memory. I don't have the
> stats or the meeting minutes available. My understanding is that with the
> collage at its current enrollment, it is using parking at the same level
> as
> any other commercial use. "
> Mr. Crabtree, in my last response to you I gave you the facts that show
> your
> understanding is flatly incorrect.  The facts I gave you (which I'm
> including again) came from my notes:
> "No, sorry, wrong again.  City staff made the point that NSA *alone*
> accounts for about 7% of all auto trips on Main Street:  the average daily
> trip count is 4806 with NSA accounting for 332.2 of those trips.  One
> educational institution *alone* accounts for 7%, which is clearly out of
> proportion and a higher use than other Main St. establishments.  Also,
> based
> on NSA's current enrollment and staffing, it requires 43 parking stalls
> with
> an additional 11 required for the retail space.  At NSA's maximum
> allowable
> enrollment and staffing, they will require 65 parking stalls (plus 11 for
> the retail space).  City staff stated that NSA requires 12-34 more parking
> stalls that other commercial uses of similar size."
> That is the information presented by City staff, and should you think
> perhaps my notes are wrong, the following comes from the Daily News'
> article:
> "A Community Development Department staff report shared at the meeting
> stated NSA creates a need for 43-65 parking stalls, which is 12-34 more
> stalls than other commercial uses of the same size in downtown. "
> My notes are more detailed than what appeared in the Daily News, but the
> facts are the same and contrary to your understanding.  Even at its
> current
> enrollment, NSA uses *more* parking that other commercial uses of the same
> size.
> Now, if you want to prove that City staff's numbers are wrong, knock
> yourself out -- I'd be interested.  Otherwise, your understanding just
> isn't
> supported by the available facts.
> Finally, you also wrote:
> "As I have said before, this really isn't about parking (much less the
> slippery slope of educational orgs.)"
> I would say the real issue is about the fair and equal application of the
> law.  I agree with Ted Moffett who wrote, "Selective enforcement of the
> law
> is a cornerstone of bigotry and intolerance, with favors and a "wink"
> handed
> out to those who conform to the values and ideology of those in
> power."  For
> whatever reason, the zoning laws where changed to prevent non-commercial
> schools & educational institutions from locating in the CBD.  Then, when
> steamrolls over the rules the rest of us have followed -- and mind you,
> they
> made NO ATTEMPT to change the law first -- they get the wink & a nod . . .
> and a blind eye turned to their lawbreaking not once, but twice.  When the
> illegality of that conduct is challenged, the rules are changed solely for
> NSA's benefit.  Talk about bigotry & intolerance . . .and it's not coming
> from those you apparently would like to blame.
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
> nothing.
> - Edmund Burke
> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2005, Saundra Lund.
> Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
> without the express written permission of the author.*****
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060402/97629c9a/attachment.htm

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list