[Vision2020] Theocratic Park III

[Joan Opyr]

On 20 Feb 2006, at 08:47, joekc at adelphia.net wrote:

> Donovan,
>
> Why is this post not filled with the same kind of prejudicial 
> generalizations and name-calling that you accuse Joan of? At the very 
> least, supposing that your accusations about Joan and I and others are 
> correct, it is an example of 'two wrongs make a right.'
>
> Let's all try to tone down the rhetoric. I'm going to try and I ask 
> you to do the same. But when I read comments like this my natural 
> self-defense mechanisms kick in.
>
> Best,
> Joe Campbell

Not to worry, Joe.  I never let Donovan bother me.  A Catholic who 
doesn't understand that very heart of Catholic doctrine requires 
placing a priest between the layman and God?  Who is the Pope if not 
God's representative on earth?  Catholic laymen are not free to make 
their own decisions about what to read, what to watch, and what to 
believe.  That's the job of the Pope, the College of Cardinals, the 
Bishops and the Priests.  Any Catholic who doesn't know (or believe) 
that is, well . . . a Protestant.

So Donovan thinks I'm a leftist authoritarian?  As usual, he's 
half-right.  At last, I must reveal my scores on the Political Compass. 
  I am Economic Left/Right: -7.00, and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 
-6.21.  Economically, I'm one point to the right of Mahatma Gandhi, and 
I'm well to the left of Emma Goldman and Noam Chomsky.  I am not in the 
least authoritarian.  In fact, I'm more libertarian than Nelson Mandela 
and Thomas Paine.  I can live with that.  I'm not a total anarchist, 
but I am, by nature, live-and-let-live.  I want to leave folks to their 
own devices; I really do.  But if they will break the law, if they will 
behave in cruel and inhumane fashion, if they will hurt others 
personally, socially, and economically, then I'm going to whack them 
upside the head.  Repeatedly.

My challenge to Donovan is that he take the test.  No doubt he'll find 
it biased -- biases are everywhere in Donovan's world.  The sofa is out 
to get him.  But it would be interesting to see how he scores.  I 
suspect that if he took the test, he'd find himself lurking in the 
upper right quadrant, sitting on a used tissue in Margaret Thatcher's 
pocketbook.  Then again, if Donovan's understanding of politics is 
anything like his understanding of Catholic doctrine, he might find 
himself on the Authoritarian Left, perched on the bill of Fidel 
Castro's cap.  (Don't be a chicken, Donovan.  Go on.  Go on, go on, go 
on, go on!  Take the test: www.politicalcompass.org.  And tell us your 
scores.  Otherwise, I shall taunt you a second time.  Buck, buck, buck, 
buck, buck . . . )

Okay, on to serious business.  There is one charge in Donovan's rant 
that I will answer -- Michael Hayes does not deserve Donovan's false 
accusations nor yet his misplaced wrath.  As Michael Metzler has 
pointed out, Doug Wilson granted "My Town" his personal seal of 
approval; in fact, New St. Andrews asked to be listed as a sponsor at 
the film's second Moscow showing.  Doug believes that he was fairly 
represented.  On what (since he apparently hasn't watched the film) is 
Donovan basing his negative assessment?  The fact that 
lefty-LIBERTARIANS like me also like it?  That we think it fairly 
represents us as well?  Imagine that.  Michael Hayes did a good job of 
letting us all speak for ourselves.  Kind of like Vision 2020 . . .

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
www.joanopyr.com

PS: I can't imagine anything more unseemly or unChristian than laughing 
at the genuine trials and travails of others.  You don't know bupkes 
about the pains of shunning, Donovan.  You clearly know nothing about 
the fear of losing income, about life in a "total institution," or 
about the spiritual and economic power of a covenantal church gone bad. 
  Sometimes, I think you wake up in the morning, roll the dungeons and 
dragons dice, and decide who you're going to hypocritically offend 
today.