[Vision2020] A Sunday afternoon stroll through Theocratic ParkIII or Oh that Dougie he's so mean

Mon Feb 20 16:48:52 PST 2006

Mr. Fox, If you were as careful in your reading of my post as you were in leaving no stone unturned in your character assassination of Donovan you might have noted a couple of things.

One. I said *A* world view. Not the only world view. Not anyone else's world view. Not necessarily my world view or at least not all of it. To imagine that anyone's world view will be spelled out in 130 hastily chosen words is ridicules. ( par for the course though in your case)

Two. The phrase "mind ones (sic) own business" was in reference to me and me only. What you do is your own affair. Continue to bark at the moon and obsess over Doug, Dale, Dick, & Donovan. It appears that you have plenty of time on your hands, knock yourself out. In the case of Donovan however you might want to dial it back a bit. It's moving you from the upper level kook stage to the major lunatic category.

In closing I would like to point out that I am flattered that you spent some of your copious time and energy to generate such a thorough and lengthy critique. The use of Bold, the screaming red and blue crayon, The reading recommendations, the pedantic tone all combine to make me feel really special. Now if you don't mind, go make someone else feel special.

G. Crabtree

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Art Deco 
  To: Vision 2020 
  Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 11:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Sunday afternoon stroll through Theocratic ParkIII or Oh that Dougie he's so mean

        Joan, Gary, Sally, et al,

        Gary Crabtree has given us a clear explanation of why he thinks the way he does:  I think it worth a thoughtful examination:

        I have no defense for Mr. Wilson.  I don't think he wants or (sic) needs it. The point I have been trying to make is that he has the same right to exist in our fair town as any other business man.  If you don't care for his merchandise, shop elsewhere.  Those who do elect to partake I assume do so with their eyes wide open.  Along the way there will inevitably be dissatisfied customers.  This is unfortunate but I suspect unavoidable especially in his line of work.  If he is peddling shoddy product or providing poor customer service the market will weed him out.  I don't think that this is a defense of a man.  It is a defense of a world view.  Mind ones (sic) own business.

        Perhaps a place to start is with the statements:

        I don't think that this is a defense of a man [Wilson].  It is a defense of a world view.

        Taking Crabtree at his exact words, let's assume he actually believes this.  Now we can look at his world view as he has expressed it (emphasis added):

        A.     The point I have been trying to make is that he [Wilson] has the same right to exist in our fair town as any other business man.

        B.     If you don't care for his merchandise, shop elsewhere.  

        C.     Those who do elect to partake I assume do so with their eyes wide open.

        D.     Along the way there will inevitably be dissatisfied customers.  

        E.     This is unfortunate but I suspect unavoidable especially in his line of work.  

        F.     If he is peddling shoddy product or providing poor customer service the market will weed him out.

        G.    Mind ones (sic) own business.

        There are a very large number of world views.  As expressed above, Crabtree's can be described above as:

        1.    We ought to look at human enterprises as business operations.  (The point I have been trying to make is that he [Wilson] has the same right to exist in our fair town as any other business man.)

        2.    Business operations are to be judged by their success in the market place.  (If he is peddling shoddy product or providing poor customer service the market will weed him out.)

        3.    Buyer beware.  (Those who do elect to partake I assume do so with their eyes wide open.)

        4.    If you don't like a product, don't buy it.  (If you don't care for his merchandise, shop elsewhere.)

        5.    If you don't like a product from a particular business, don't whine about in public.  (Mind ones (sic) own business.)

        If this is not an accurate statement of what Crabtree has expressed above, then perhaps he can make himself clearer by restating his position.

        There are a large number of comments that could be made about this particular statement of the so-called free-enterprise worldview.  I will limit myself to two issues.

        I.   Narrowness of Focus.

        There is an accurate old saying (I do not know who first said it) that goes something like this:

        "To those whose only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

        The applicability of this adage to Crabtree's worldview as he, himself, has expressed it above is left as an exercise for the reader.  If Crabtree is puzzled by this and does not understand the narrowness of the focus of his worldview and/or the existence of a multitude of alternative worldviews, and wants a bit of enlightenment (highly doubtful), he could start with a reading of A History of Western Philosophy, by W. T. Jones.

        II.  Shallow, Unrealistic Statement of the Free-Enterprise Philosophy as Practiced in America.

        There are a number of different statements of the free-enterprise philosophy, many of which are much richer and much more tenable than the one Crabtree has presented.  In terms of classical debate about free-enterprise, the simple statements of which that are like Crabtree's in their naiveté have generated trillions of words of apt criticism.

        I will comment only on one general deficiency of Crabtree's statement of the free-enterprise philosophy.  It is the one which separates him from almost all others that hold, in part or whole, such worldviews.

        For the sake of comment, let's look at the world as one with a free-enterprise worldview would. Then this is the problem with part of Crabtree's particular free-enterprise view:

        5.    If you don't like a product from a particular business, don't whine about it in public.  (Mind ones (sic) own business.)

        There have been many very successful businesses who have engaged in either illegal and/or unethical practices, or whose products create significant problems for society at large.  Here are just a few examples:

        A.    Companies which manufacture "knock-off" products while labeling and selling them as the original - ersatz Guccis, Rolexes, etc.  Not only are these "knock-offs" inferior to the original, but such practices are illegal because of a variety of laws intended to protect the originators of and original investors in a product from theft of their ideas/investments and the fruits thereof.

        B.    Companies who violate various laws and thus adversely affect the community, region, world, etc.  For example, companies who dump toxic wastes, polluting ground and surface water, or who emit carcinogens into the air which we all breathe.

        C.    Companies who sell products which they have good reason to suspect will cause harm to the purchasers of the products.  Think thalidomide, cigarettes, Vioxx, etc.

        D.    Companies who knowingly expose their workforces to known, egregious risks without informing them:  the asbestos mining/manufacturing industries, for example.

        This is the point:

        There are organizations which in the pursuit of their goals, whether these goals be profit, propaganda, and/or the dissemination of superstition and ignorance, adversely impact the public in communities, regions, and the world.  They are to be held accountable for these practices and not just by not buying their products.

        The biggest weapon a free society has to combat these evils of illegal and unethical practices and of shoddy, misrepresented products is freedom of expression.  A fundamental premise of free expression is that it is the most important tool we have to address and to attempt to correct perceived wrongs.

        Is it any coincidence that various forms of free-enterprise exist successfully in those countries which also embrace freedom of expression?  And that the state runs the industries where freedom of expression is absent or greatly curtailed?

        Most interestingly and cogently, there are industries dedicated to the premise that public/buyers should be well-informed and should avoid patronizing those organizations that are liars, crooks, polluters, etc.  Consumers Union is one.  Many of the specialty magazines on automobiles, cameras, TV, etc are other examples.  There is a belief of and a vigorous tradition in American free-enterprise that practitioners thereof are to be held to legal, ethical, and quality standards and they can expect vigorous public criticism should they fail to meet those standards.

        Let's get to the local level.  There are several local businesses that engage in shoddy practices.  

        There was in the past a large grocery chain that did not always give customers the advertised prices (I don't shop there anymore, hence I don't know if the practice continues).  Sometimes, when they were caught, they attempted to renege even on the advertised prices.  Unless customers raised a loud stink, they got shafted.   Clearly, ethical persons ought to warn their neighbors about such stores so as to prevent them from being cheated.

        A large chain store in the PEM does the same thing.  Many times you will not get the special advertised price of an item unless you ask for it at the time of purchase.  Customers need to know about this.  The store is not about to tell them, hence they must learn about it from those in the public that know.

        There are other local businesses that engage in borderline fraud, deceit, and misrepresent the quality of their wares.

        It is only by the vocal vigilance of the public (and sometimes the media) that such practices are made known and hopefully discouraged/changed.  Such actions are an essential part of the American free-enterprise system.  "Mind your business." is contrary to American free-enterprise and, if practiced, would certainly greatly damage it.  It is by being vocal that the public can change many times things for the better!

        How does the above apply to the Christ Church Cult and their unChristlike leader, Cultmaster Douglas Wilson?

        I would hope that by now almost anyone who has read local newspapers or even (gasp) read a few of the posts on this forum could figure that out.

        Here are three hints.  (The rest is left as exercises for the reader):

        1.    Part of the products of the cult:

        Racism, homophobia, sexism, anti-democracy, theocracy advocation, retaliation against those with whom they disagree (especially apostates), covenantal dishonesty, etc.

        These beliefs, disseminated by the cult, and attendant actions have effects on the behavior of those that believe them and thus on the society we all live in.  There are those who believe that these effects are harmful, not only to the believers themselves, but to the community at large.  They care about the quality of their community; hence they publicly express their opinions to attempt to combat such beliefs and attendant actions.

        They equate these beliefs/actions of the cult to large scale industrial toxic pollution, dishonesty, etc.  Hence, they are exercising that essential element of the American free-enterprise to warn their neighbors and attempt to prevent/mitigate the damage of the toxicity/dishonesty pouring out of the cult.

        2.    The cult claims to be Christian.  An examination of their behavior and views shows that they act in significant ways in direct contravention to the teachings of Christ (an example is reposted below the line.)  

        Such behavior can easily be characterized as fraud.  There are a number of Christians (and others) in this community who are greatly offended by this fraud.  They are motivated, not only by citizenship, but by strong religious beliefs to expose this fraud and to eliminate it.

        3.    There are those who believe that the right to the Rule of Law is a basic and essential right of those who live in this country.  No person or organization should be above the law.  There is clear evidence that the cult has violated laws, knowingly and with impunity (and sometimes with the willful connivance of certain parts of the City of Moscow government).

        When citizens who believe in the Rule of Law see it intentionally and gloatingly disregarded in favor of a particular organization, they have the right, if not the obligation, to speak out publicly.

        In summary, it is a mistake to believe that a realistic free-enterprise worldview includes:

        5.    If you don't like a product from a particular business, don't whine about it in public.  (Mind ones (sic) own business.)

        Even a casual examination of the American free-enterprise system shows the opposite is true and an important reason for its success!

        Hence, neither the Christ Church Cult nor any other organization whose beliefs/actions are illegal and/or can adversely affect a group of citizens are immune from public comment.  In fact, failure to point out the illegalities and adverse community effects of organizations and to gain at least a modicum of knowledge about such illegalities and effects is failing to demonstrate belief and confidence in the American free-enterprise system as it exists and is practiced today.

        Wayne A. Fox

        1009 Karen Lane

        P.O. Box 9421

        Moscow, ID  83843

        (208) 882-7975

        waf at moscow.com

        Tom,

        Thank you for quoting another revealing piece of litter from the Christ Church Cult.

        Roy Atwood and Cultmaster Douglas Wilson [quoting Atwood (who may have been quoting the Cultmaster in the first place)]: 

        "As for those who prefer to wage malicious smear campaigns, we are eager to give them an opportunity to prove their charges. Our legal team is preparing for when and where that will be."

        Once again in the full glory of Supreme High Priestess Wilson we see how he gives us even more evidence of being the Antichrist and allows us to infer that NSA (No Saints Around) is not a Christian School as they gloatingly trumpet themselves, but rather a clever tool of the Antichrist.

        One would expect a Christian and so-called Christian Institution to follow the terse, unambiguous, explicit, teachings of Jesus when insulted, defamed, etc:

        Love Your Enemies, Etc

        Matthew 5:38 - 48  Young's Literal Translation of the Bible

        38   'Ye heard that it was said: Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth;

        39   but I-I say to you, not to resist the evil, but whoever shall slap thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other;

        40   and whoever is willing to take thee to law, and thy coat to take-suffer to him also the cloak.

        41   'And whoever shall impress thee one mile, go with him two,

        42   to him who is asking of thee be giving, and him who is willing to borrow from thee thou mayest not turn away.

        43   'Ye heard that it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and shalt hate thine enemy;

        44   but I-I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those accusing you falsely, and persecuting you,

        45   that ye may be sons of your Father in the heavens, because His sun He doth cause to rise on evil and good, and He doth send rain on righteous and unrighteous.

        46   'For, if ye may love those loving you, what reward have ye? do not also the tax-gatherers the same?

        47   and if ye may salute your brethren only, what do ye abundant? do not also the tax-gatherers so?

        48   ye shall therefore be perfect, as your Father who is in the heavens is perfect.

        It is clear from these simple, direct words of Christ the correct path to take when allegedly insulted or defamed.  The CCC and its raggedly child, No Saints Around, have done the opposite.  Who does the opposite of what Christ commands while pretending to be a Christian?  The Antichrist.

        NSA has really painted itself into a corner with their silly threats to sue their detractors.

        If they sue, then it is obvious from the above, they are not acting as Christians -- they are unambiguously acting in direct contravention of the commands of Christ, whom they claim to worship.  And such action would greatly eviscerate any case they might bring under the claim they are suffering persecution/defamation because they are Christians.

        On the other hand, if now they do not sue after their boasting, prideful, published promise, they will show themselves as cowardly liars.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060220/7ffec7e0/attachment-0001.htm