[Vision2020] Sitler, Wilson, and Pooh Bear
Robert Sentz
robsentz at hotmail.com
Thu Jun 8 10:45:07 PDT 2006
Joe,
I still cannot understand why ya’ll are so upset about Aaron Ament not
recusing himself. He has personally demonstrated his dislike of NSA in a
public forum. He referred to NSA students as “Androids” which, however
nonsensical, was an open insult in front of the entire town.
For me, this is how this works.
1. My wife went to NSA (which is true).
2. Aaron Ament, an elected official, refers to my wife, as an “Android.”
(Which, Her and I, by-the-way, think is hilarious, but that is beside the
point).
3. Aaron, to my knowledge, has not publicly apologized for his rather
egregious remark.
4. As a tax payer and local citizen, with a wife who went to NSA, I do not
feel that Aaron Ament is qualified to be objective judge on an NSA hearing.
5. As a result I feel that it is in the City’s best interest to have this
person recuse himself from such a case in order to lend credibility
(objectivity) to the case.
6. If this does not happen - I, as a citizen and taxpayer, do not feel
confident that the City has given the case a fair hearing. (because a public
official who refers to my wife as an “Android” based on where she went to
school, just voted on the fate of that school).
Consider a similar example. A judge is a former member of the KKK. Said
judge begins to preside over a case involving an African American. The side
defending the African American asks for the court to consider adding a new
judge based on the fact that he is a former member of an openly racist
organization, and might struggle with being objective. Notice, that even
struggling with objectivity is grounds for dismissal. Juries are picked this
way, this is a common practice.
Cheers
Rob
>From: Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net>
>To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sitler, Wilson, and Pooh Bear
>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 9:38:19 -0700
>
>Doug,
>
>I'll respond to your post later today. Some of my response is contained
>below. The attempt to recuse Ament was, for me, the last straw. I no longer
>trust that CC/NSA have the community's best interests at heart. It seems to
>me that you are going to do what you want whether the majority of town folk
>like it or not.
>
>Donovan,
>
>I have been a critic for some time, so I am not jumping on any bandwagon. I
>notice a demonstrated disregard for the law and community values that has,
>it seems to me, gone far enough.
>
>Do you realize that it isn't enough for NSA to violate zoning laws and to
>push a vote on council about a CUP agreement before the newly elected
>council has had a chance to vote on the matter. No, they must seek to get
>one member, who openly disagreed with the presence of NSA downtown and was
>elected because of it, recused from the most recent CUP decision. That was
>the last straw for me, thank you. Such basic disregard for the democratic
>process should not be tolerated.
>
>Then I find out that two members of the CC community have been guilty of
>sexual abuse with a minor. No one knew about this until recently and yet,
>instead of searching deeper and trying to see if there is some broader
>connection between these various showings of disrespect for common law, I
>am told that I should keep quiet and that my genuine concern is nothing
>more than a political agenda of some unspecified type.
>
>If the safety of our children does not move you to at least question
>whether or not the actions of CC and NSA are appropriate, then you really
>need to look in the mirror and ask yourself why you continue to stand
>behind this group no matter what.
>
>My conscious is clear. Things have gone too far and something must be done
>about it. I will no longer tolerate the blatant disregard for the law and
>the democratic process. I won't want for them to turn on me, or on you,
>Donovan, before I speak out.
>
>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>=============
>
>"Forget about Michael and give me one good reason to think that you,
>Doug Wilson, do not believe that you and your congregation are above and
>beyond the laws of our community? That is and has always been the real
>issue." Joe Campbell
>
>So Joe, your true concern is not the victimized children, but in fact to
>get Wilson to answer a pointless open ended question to your satisfaction?
>
>Under what legal obligation is he to answer you?
>
>Why are you using THIS tragic event to try and force someone to do
>something for you?
>
>Best Regards,
>
>_DJA
>
>
>
>Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:Would you tell me or anyone else
>outside of your church if there were any child molesters who are current
>members of your church? From the facts of this case so far the answer
>seems to be 'No.' Can't you understand why this might be cause for concern
>among some of us?
>
>The more you turn this into the story of one poor soul who has lost his
>way the more it looks to me like you are hiding something.
>
>Again, try to understand it from my perspective. From my perspective
>Michael is merely providing information that you have failed to make
>public. I can find room for the possibility that I am wrong in this
>judgment but your continual public harassment of this young man makes it
>difficult to do so.
>
>Forget about Michael and give me one good reason to think that you, Doug
>Wilson, do not believe that you and your congregation are above and beyond
>the laws of our community? That is and has always been the real issue.
>
>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- Douglas wrote:
>
>=============
>Visionaries,
>
>Michael is grieved and baffled at the consequences of his actions.
>Little kids playing with matches in tinder dry forests often feel the
>same way, which in no way alters the consequences. Michael needs to
>apologize for intruding himself into a situation that was way over his
>head, where he didn't have all the facts, and for failing to understand
>what a naif he has been. His anonymous friend who had him post this
>salacious material has perhaps lost a friend over how the information
>was used on the Internet? "Oh, /dear/, what are /those /people /doing
>/out there?" It appears that Michael's friend was born yesterday, and
>Michael was born the day before that.
>
>Keep it simple, Michael. The request for privacy that you refused to
>honor was a reasonable and heart-wrenching requests from someone who has
>already been through enough. Read through what you posted below, and
>then read through all your cyber self-centeredness of the last week. It
>is hard to suck and blow at the same time. The only way out is to drop
>it. Stop grieving over not dropping it. You are being pathetic, and you
>need to ask for help from somebody.
>
>Douglas Wilson
>
>
>
>Michael wrote:
> >
> > Vision Friends:
> >
> > Writing is a bit hard on the road with four little kids
> > (understatement!); so I don’t hope to accomplish much for now, even
> > though it is true that I’m finding my name out in public a bit more
> > than I would like. For now I wanted to offer some important
> > clarifications to my involvement in this issue.
> >
> > First, the Sitler issue never has been nor is it now something I have
> > wanted to be involved with. Although I have been tempted to cease all
> > blogging many times now, for various reasons I continue to plug away
> > at trying to analyze, and at times unmask, what I see as some unusual
> > corruptions at Christ Church; this has been a difficult process of
> > going from a loyal Wilson defender to a public critic, and I still
> > feel like I’m in process. My primary concerns have been with respect
> > to the ‘serrated edge,’ a developing ‘enemy theology,’ and what
>I call
> > Wilson’s ‘sociology of violence.’ The problem of cult of
>personalities
> > and closed communities is also of interest. The Sitler issue does not
> > sit very snuggly in these categories, and I have been—probably to a
> > great fault—very apathetic to it. I remain apathetic to it in many
> > respects. However, after a long bit of encouraging and arguing from a
> > friend of mine, and after getting notice that I had many respectable
> > people with the same encouragement, I went ahead and forwarded the
> > public announcement. Even after I did, I was asking people I trust if
> > they thought it was the right thing to do, and I received no thumbs
> > down. I forwarded the public announcement along with trepidation, and
> > I actually had little desire to make this some sort of political
> > attack against Doug Wilson. I do desire to continue to unmask the
> > various levels of corruption at Christ Church, but if you haven’t
> > noticed, most nonChristians find much on my Blog a bit boring. I’m not
> > into this politics stuff, nor am I interested in bashing Wilson with
> > anything I find on the ground. In fact, I have been forced to actively
> > defend Wilson and Christ Church on occasion off line because of my
> > status of public critic.
> >
> > What has followed my posting of this announcement has simply grieved
> > me. I deplore the undisciplined and ungodly use of this information to
> > spew bitterness and fabricate half truths. The person who wrote the
> > announcement has condemned the handling of it by some others, to the
> > point of possibly loosing a friend over it. And I have been saddened
> > to see the way both sides of this ‘dispute’ have handled the topic
>of
> > “victims.� In fact, I almost feel like I’m staring into a
>wasteland of
> > chaos as I watch the posts role in. This is just further illumination
> > of what I see as the continuance of a ‘sociology of violence.’ Are
>all
> > the claims made about Wilson just? Of course not. Are all of them
> > true? No way. What I feel in my heart seems so simple to me that I
> > would not have imagined that anyone would entertain the idea of
> > lumping me in with those people who will pick up any stick to do the
> > work once the ‘enemy’ is located. In some ways I wish I never posted
> > this announcement, thus freeing my name from the train wreck that was
> > going to result once this information got out—which was inevitable.
> > Perhaps I was unwise in posting this. It would seem so looking at what
> > Christ Church has done with my posting of this announcement. Many of
> > you not following some aspects of this might not realize the fact that
> > Wilson and others at Christ Church have rhetorically associated me
> > with the wildest responses to all this and have gotten the suspicion
> > off the ground that my posting the announcement makes me just as sick
> > as a child molester. I have now been labeled as totally immoral and
> > psychologically unstable. This is in fact the primary response of
> > Wilson and Christ Church to the revealing of this information: those
> > who offered the information are attacked first, other questions are
> > partially addressed secondarily.
> >
> > So this is where I see myself in this issue. My blog was the conduit
> > of revealing this information. My name is attached to the origination,
> > and that is all. Wilson has therefore made me the whipping boy as this
> > issue heats up. This kind of slanderous attack by Wilson is fully in
> > line with the purpose of my web site; Wilson’s response to this issue
> > is my primary concern: the deceitful rhetoric; the maligning of people
> > instead of dealing with the evidence and issues directly; abusing his
> > position through intimidation and manipulation, etc. Apparently, many
> > do not share this concern as much, but I believe they should; I
> > believe that this is really getting more at the heart of the problems
> > at Christ Church. Do I think that there was pastoral misconduct in how
> > the Sitler case was handled? From everything I can tell so far, it
> > would seem so; but I’m reading this off the nature of Wilson’s very
> > troubling response to this more so than the actual evidence we yet
> > have of what had really transpired. I wish I could just correct the
> > announcement and say that it is true that the congregation was
> > sufficiently notified, but I still cannot. One of the reasons for this
> > is the fact that myself and many other kirkers were indeed not
> > successfully notified at all. Does this reveal aspects of the
> > corruption at Christ Church? I would think so. But this does not mean
> > that there was some kind of big sex scandal to go on the front page of
> > the newspaper. I could be wrong; there could be more to this than I
> > know. But I currently have little reason to believe this and I have no
> > intentions of being a part of the next big politicized attack on Doug
> > Wilson or Christ Church. So few find it interesting that Wilson is
> > currently attacking the person who posted the information on Sitler
> > more so than providing basic information; I think this highlights how
> > at odds I just might be with this current ‘controversy’. Some of you
> > will thank me for the info and then tip your hat once the Kirk has
> > lynched me. A good reason to be careful on all fronts it seems to me.
> >
> > Finally, I want to also comment on my thoughts about Sitler. I agree
> > more with Wilson and Christ Church than others who have so far
> > commented to this—although I do not wish to suggest a great coherence
> > between this and their prior theonomic stances and attitudes. We are
> > all sinners, and it is ultimately not by my choosing that I’m Metzler
> > and not Sitler. The entire world is sick and full of perversion. I am
> > thankful for the American Legal Tradition and its careful balancing
> > between protection from harm and the disciplining of vengeance. The
> > law and the courts are not God, nor do they perfectly reflect ultimate
> > justice. The way some of the talk has gone about the death penalty and
> > disgust reveal hearts that need to know the God who became man and died.
> >
> > I think I rambled a bit, but if you are still reading: Thanks for
> > listening; I hope this at least clarifies my take on all this.
> >
> > Michael Metzler
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >
>
>_____________________________________________________
> 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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
> 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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>_____________________________________________________
> 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
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list