[Vision2020] Boycott Redux . . . or Pot Calling Kettle (was RE: When is it and when is it not my business? (update))

[Art Deco]

Concerned Citizens,

Saundra Lund wrote in conclusion in her informative post:

"The more I read, the more I become convinced that Wilson truly deserves a title that seems to have been overlooked:  he's the King of the Double-Standard!"

The cases of censorship noted by Saundra are a real cause for concern.  Hardly anyone wishes to have their choice of reading/viewing material limited by draconian Christless Church dicta.

However, the most alarming case of hypocrisy/double standard of Cultmaster Douglas Wilson and one that should bring community concern and great outrage comes from the case of sexual predator, child molester, and New Saint Andrews student Steven James Sitler:

>From a V 2020 post by Latimer Tyndale:
__________________________________________________
In a Vision 2020 post dated Tuesday, August, 15, 2006, 10:16 AM, Princess Doug Jones of the Church of the Christless wrote:

"It should be added, as Doug Wilson has made clear repeatedly, the death penalty is not automatically required for adultery, homosexual acts, and other forms of "porneia." When guilt is established, such crimes are to be dealt with severely, but the meting out of the death penalty is just one option available to the judge."


Contrast the quoted claim above with the actual facts about Cultmaster Wilson's actions:

One of Wilson's ersatz Christian students at New Saint Andrews, James Sitler, was caught molesting at least one child of a family with whom Wilson had placed Sitler as a boarder. 

Subsequent investigation produced credible allegations that Sitler had engaged in more than 120 instances of similar behavior with an undisclosed number of victims in at least three states.  Further revelations include the fact that Sitler maintained on an Internet website a gallery of photo's of young children including some of his alleged victims. 

What did the self-important, self-proclaimed broker of God Wilson do in this case?  Did he publicly demand that "such crimes are to be dealt with severely?"  No, no, and no.  Not only did Wilson assist Sitler to find a member-of-the-cult attorney so that Sitler, Wilson, and the cult could be protected from the consequences of Sitler's and Wilson's actions, but Wilson wrote a letter to the court recommending extreme leniency. 

Here is the final paragraph of the "such crimes are to be dealt with severely" Wilson's letter to the court:

"I am grateful Steven was caught, and am grateful he has been brought to account for these actions so early in his life. I am grateful that he will be sentenced for his behavior, and that there will be hard consequences for him in real time. At the same time, I would urge that the civil penalties applied would be measured and limited. I have good hope that Steven has genuinely repented, and that he will continue to deal with this to become a productive and contributing member of society."

As a result of plea negotiation, Wilson's request for leniency, and an admittance of guilt of only one of the many instances of his perverted, childhood destroying behavior, Sitler was sentenced to one year, which he is now serving in the Latah County jail with unattended release privileges to attend so-called "therapy" sessions. 

A letter from the case file, almost all of which is now sealed and thus protecting Sitler and Wilson from some of the consequences of their actions, describes in the words of the parents of another victim from another state one of Sitler's vile debaucheries where he attempted to force a very young child ...
______________________________________________________

To see just a small example of the vile depravity of Sitler and the consequent as-vile-as depravity and anti-Christ hypocrisy of Cultmaster Wilson just read a letter to the court from the parents of one of Sitler's victims (from another state, not local) referenced just above.  Caution!  This letter contains graphic, heartbreaking material.  It is not for the faint of heart.
http://www.tomandrodna.com/CR_2005_02027/Private_Letter.htm
The names of the victim and her family have been removed from the letter, else the letter is an accurate copy.

Notice that the victim in this case, one of many of Sitler's victims, was only two years old.

To further illustrate Wilson's shocking depravity and the irresponsibility of the local media, the only news stories from the local media on the Sitler case were ones where Wilson and Roy Atwood argued in effect that the real victim of these crimes was New Saint Andrews (not the many children vilely debauched by New Saint Andrews student Sitler).

So, in addition to the depravity and hypocrisy of Wilson as just shown, think about this:  These are the people who wish to police our morals as Saundra pointed out!  

It is very important to realize that patronizing the business of members of this cult finances through their tithing and gifts to the cult further such attitudes and actions as well as the cult racism, sexism, homophobia, theocracy, covenantal dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc.  I hope that in the main the consciences of most members of this community will lead many to choose not to finance such anti-democratic, anti-social, and anti-decency actions and agendas.


Wayne A. Fox
1009 Karen Lane
PO Box 9421
Moscow, ID  83843

(208) 882-7975
waf at moscow.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at adelphia.net>
To: "'Bill London'" <london at moscow.com>; <deco at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:09 PM
Subject: Boycott Redux . . . or Pot Calling Kettle (was RE: When is it and when is it not my business? (update))


> Bill London wrote:
> "how about boycott as the tool that was used by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
> et al to integrate buses and other public services in the American South a
> few decades ago?"
> 
> Actually, I think lemeno heirdoug has a different kind of boycott in mind.
> You know, the kind members in his congregation have used to target
> businesses that they disagree with, like Moscow's own Card Farm.
> 
> Just to save myself the time recreating the wheel and for those who weren't
> reading the Viz back then, I'm reposting something I wrote in January, 2004:
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2004-January/006921.html
> 
> Visionaries:
> 
> I, for one, have been incredibly annoyed by Wilson et al's continued whining
> about supposed "boycotts" of CC-affiliated businesses.  As was discussed
> many times in this forum, there is/was no organized boycott but rather
> individuals making personal conscientious spending choices, which is
> something we're still free to do in the good old United States of America.
> Among others, both Melynda Huskey (11/8/2003) and Laurie Danahy (on
> 11/9/2003) did excellent jobs of clarifying the difference.
> 
> Nonetheless, those involved in the Wilson cult have continued cries of
> "Foul!" with respect to non-existent boycotts:
> "To top it all off, local businesses have been boycotted . . ."  (Greg
> Dickison, 12/31/2003)
> "Lots of proud boycotts of businesses owned by people who went to Christ
> Church . . .  (hatesploch.net, 1/22/2004)
> 
> But, for the sake of argument, let's say that individual conscientious
> spending choices to not patronize businesses advocating anti-choice,
> anti-gay rights, and anti-feminism ideologies amount to boycotts.  OK.
> 
> According to Wilson et al, those of us choosing not to patronize businesses
> with which we have HUGE ideological differences makes us "intolerant."
> 
> Why?  What is it that makes us "intolerant" sinners when we make personal
> conscientious spending choices but makes people like Gary Greenfield and
> Heidi Scheibe saints when they organize formal boycotts, circulate
> petitions, and threaten pickets???
> 
> As history, before his connection with Bucer's and Zume's, Gary Greenfield,
> founder & then-president of a local chapter of American Family Association
> (the organization we can thank for the wording of Moscow's ridiculous
> so-called nudity ordinance) decided that the Lewiston-Clarkston area had a
> problem with pornography and organized *two* boycotts four years apart to
> target businesses that sold or rented what he defined as pornography
> (including Playboy magazine).  The following information comes from a
> Lewiston Morning Tribune article by Mohsin Askari entitled "Porn Fighter
> Goes Back on the Warpath" (3/11/1990; 1B):
> "Within a month, Greenfield said, he hopes to have another boycott campaign
> under way and he has targeted 18 businesses at Lewiston-Clarkston which
> operate about 25 stores.  He intends to extend the boycott to other towns in
> the region also.  "We hope that a boycott will be sufficient, but I wouldn't
> rule out picketing,'' he said. . . Greenfield, who last year set up
> affiliation with the American Family Association as its Lewiston-Clarkston
> chapter, said his organization will provide ''concerned citizens'' with a
> list of stores and a boycotting strategy. . . "Those magazines, they promote
> statutory rape.  They promote incest.  They have encouraged that sex at any
> age is healthy.  They have sought to tear down every traditional Christian
> value that promotes the typical family,'' Greenfield said.  "That kind of
> philosophy contributed to teenage pregnancy and sexual disease, like AIDS.''
> ***He does not want his money to support businesses which sell magazines
> that support such philosophies.***"
> [Note:  emphasis is mine.  SL]
> 
> So, what's the difference?  Those of us exercising personal conscientious
> spending choices not to patronize businesses which espouse (among other
> things) anti-choice, anti-gay rights, and anti-feminism philosophies
> *haven't* organized?  Our scope is *too* small?  We've *not* threatened to
> picket?
> 
> I don't understand  . . . can someone please explain the difference?
> 
> Oh, wait . . . maybe Jim Fisher already figured it out.  According to his
> editorial in the Lewiston Morning Trib (How to Fight Lewiston-Clarkston's
> Town Bully; 3/13/1990; 8A), Greenfield claimed his earlier boycott a
> success.  Over time, however, some businesses backslid, so he was again
> organizing a boycott to get them to toe the line.  According to Fisher's
> editorial:
> "He [Greenfield] says Playboy is especially dangerous because it has
> advocated legalization of drugs.   As have former Secretary of State George
> Schultz, Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke and William F. Buckley, editor of the
> conservative political magazine National Review.  Is that on Greenfield's
> list?  If it isn't maybe it should be, because it's clear Greenfield isn't
> declaring war only on pornography. He's declaring war on incorrect ideas. .
> . "
> 
> Well, never fear, Doug Wilson came to Greenfield's defense with his own
> editorial four days later (LMT; If Porn Boycott is Out, What About Others?;
> 3/17/1990; 12A)!  Wilson decided Greenfield was "someone who is trying hard
> to defend people" for his willingness "to organize a boycott of those
> establishments which promote the degradation of women."  Wilson took great
> exception to "bully" being used to describe Greenfield & his tactics, and
> Wilson "examined" what he perceived to be the Trib's real objection to
> Greenfield's boycott:
> "There are two elements to Greenfield's efforts; his opposition to porn, and
> his willingness to use a boycott as a means of persuasion. . . At first
> glance, it might look as though they [LMT] believe boycotts are a bullying
> tactic, and unfit for use in a democratic society. But this is not true. The
> Tribune would defend the use of boycotts, provided the target was
> ideologically suitable.     For example, would the Tribune identify Martin
> Luther King as a ''bully'' because of his successful use of boycott in the
> pursuit of his goals? . . .It means that Greenfield is to be opposed, not
> because he is willing to organize boycotts, but because his target is
> pornography. If Greenfield were boycotting something else more fashionable,
> like stores carrying white supremacist stuff, then it would be no problem.
> But he isn't, so there is.  You see, if a store carries magazines which
> treat blacks and Jews in a degrading way, Greenfield would be a ''good
> citizen'' and ''civil rights activist'' if he organized a boycott. But if
> stores treat women in a degrading way, the Tribune thunders against the town
> bully. . .    So then, boycotts are all right provided the target is a good
> one. Porn must not be a good target, even though it is degrading to women.
> Therefore, those down at the Trib must want this type of material around.
> They have chosen sides: they want to defend those who degrade women, and
> attack those who honor women. . . ''
> 
> A pretty simplistic, not to mention relativistic, way of looking at things,
> huh?
> 
> So, it's OK for Wilson et al to support an *organized* boycott of businesses
> who rent/sell material *they've* decided should be off-limits, but it makes
> those of us who personally choose conscience spending philosophies
> "intolerant"?
> 
> What's that saying . . . something about what's sauce for the goose is sauce
> for the gander?
> 
> And, it doesn't stop there:  Heidi Scheibe, another of Wilson's flock, took
> exception with products sold at the Card Farm in the Palouse Empire Mall in
> late 1990.  According to an AP story carried by the LMT on 12/2/1990:
> "***A group of fundamentalist Christians is taking a Moscow card shop to
> task with a boycott***, petitions and complaints to police about the sale of
> allegedly obscene greeting cards and other material. . . Heidi Scheibe of
> Moscow filed a written complaint with local police, saying three cards and a
> book sold at the Card Farm violate state obscenity laws. She contends the
> cards and book promote casual sex by the young, debauchery by adults and an
> increase in broken marriages, single mothers and abortions."
> [Note:  emphasis is mine.  SL]
> 
> Never fear, once again Wilson jumped forward to support his follower with
> his "Obscenity on Display at Palouse Empire Mall" column in the LMT on
> 12/1/1990 (6A):
> "The Card Farm is a shop in the Palouse Empire Mall in Moscow. . . But
> unlike respectable shops and stores in that mall, this particular store
> sells gross and obscene material. . . For those parents who are trying to
> impart basic moral values to their kids, the store is a moral nuisance.  For
> the past few months, a number of people have been seeking a way to resolve
> this problem quietly.  They were organized by Heidi Scheibe, a concerned
> Moscow resident. . . . So this last Thursday, Mrs. Scheibe filed a complaint
> with the Moscow Police Department.  ***The Card Farm is in violation of the
> Idaho Code at several points, particularly with regard to the law protecting
> minors from obscenity. . . Public congratulations are in order for Heidi
> Scheibe.***"
> [Note:  again, the emphasis is mine.  SL]
> 
> Ahhh . . . so when someone organizes a boycott that supports Wilson's notion
> of Good & Bad, Right & Wrong, Moral & Immoral, Tolerant & Intolerant, then
> they deserve public kudos for being "concerned," but when those of us with
> philosophies differing from Wilson et al's make personal conscientious
> spending choices, then we are "intolerant."  Clear as mud, don't you think?
> 
> As a side note, it's a good thing Wilson kept his day job because his
> understanding of Idaho Code & obscenity was woefully lacking according to an
> AP wire story:
> "Three cards at a local gift shop that offended a Moscow woman cannot be
> considered legally obscene, Moscow City Attorney Mark Moorer has concluded.
> . . the cards sold at The Card Farm in the Palouse Empire Mall are within
> the city's community standards. . . Last week, Heidi Scheibe of Moscow
> complained to police about cards at the store she said depicted sex acts or
> obscene words. She linked such materials to broken homes, unwanted
> pregnancies and mass murders . . . "
> (LMT; Gift Shop Cards Ruled Not Obscene; 12/6/1990; 1C)
> 
> So, please remind me again which group is supposedly intolerant???
> 
> The more I read, the more I become convinced that Wilson truly deserves a
> title that seems to have been overlooked:  he's the King of the
> Double-Standard!
> 
> 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 2006, 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: /pipermail/attachments/20061109/3299e3f1/attachment-0001.html