[Vision2020] Blight-Mind Show-n-Tell

[Saundra Lund]

Hi Chas,

Nice to see you back  :-)

In part, you wrote:
"Most of the Kirker congregants don't support any of their leader's
nonsense, and I know this because I've taken the time to get to know them."

That's an interesting observation and the *opposite* of my experiences with
the Kirkers I've gotten to know.  The Kirkers I've gotten to know absolutely
support "their leader's nonsense" hook, line, and sinker.  I don't think
it's appropriate to trade names, though.

Almost always, they're sincerely shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that I'm
familiar with Luther, Calvin, Rushdoony et al and am therefore not . . .
susceptible to the spin they'd like me to swallow.  They're shocked when I
have reasoned responses, and they almost always suggest that Doug Wilson
could make things clear for me if only I'd "meet" with him.  I'm just
misunderstanding or misinterpreting things since I've not had the benefit of
Wilson's scholarly tutelage.

<snort>

If, as you seem to believe, most of the Kirkers "don't support any of their
leader's nonsense," then why don't they speak out?  Why do they keep
attending a church lead by a man whose "nonsense" they don't support?


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 2007 through life plus
70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
author.*****

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Chasuk
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 1:49 PM
To: Tom Hansen
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Blight-Mind Show-n-Tell

On Dec 30, 2007 12:49 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:

> Huh?  What?

> From the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligencer Report at:>

> http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=647

> "[Doug] Wilson was defiant throughout, portraying his critics as
> small-minded and incapable of honest scholarly inquiry. What he did not do
> was make clear exactly what his goals are as he continues to expand his
> religious empire.

> But he offered a substantial clue last Dec. 28, when, in the midst of the
> controversy, he gave a sermon discussing evangelistic "warfare" to his
> congregation.

> Good Christians, he said, needed to look for "decisive points" in society,
> places that are both "strategic and feasible" targets to be 'taken.' New
> York City, for instance, is strategic but not feasible - too many godless
> liberals. Other places are feasible but not strategic - unimportant places
> in the theological wars that Wilson foresees.

> 'But,' Douglas Wilson added in an upbeat note that day, 'small towns with
> major universities (Moscow and Pullman, say) are both.' And that, say many
> residents of the Palouse, is what has them so frightened."

> What is your interpretation of this, Chas?

I'm familiar with this material, Tom.  It has been regurgitated
endlessly on this forum.  My "interpretation" is, when it includes
bank robberies, counterfeiting, bombings, armored car holdups, and
murder, let me know.  When its congregants are bonafide Neo-Nazis, let
me know.  Most of the Kirker congregants don't support any of their
leader's nonsense, and I know this because I've taken the time to get
to know them.  I work on the same block as Bucers, which draws many
Kirkers.  I've taken advantage of the many opportunities for
discourse.  If Wilson tried to raly them as troops, most would join
another church.  Homeland Security would put Wilson in Guantanamo,
and New Saint Andews would collapse due to the massive hemorrhaging of
students.

Most Kirkers aren't nuts, unlike most (all?) members of the Aryan
Nation groups.  Insurrection requires the complicity of a lot of
people, and few (not any?) Kirkers are going to give it.  If the
popular ideological climate here was even remotely similar to how it
was in Nazi Germany before WWII, then maybe this doomsaying would have
a point.  But it's not, so it doesn't.

Maybe I should agitate against St Augustine's for disallowing women
priests, or for belonging to a larger institution that has caused
untold misery and death by telling the ignorant and trusting that
condoms don't prevent the transmission of AIDS?  True, recently they
have apparently moderated that advice, but they still tell women (who
can't feed the nine children they already have) to depend on the
rhythm method, or practice abstinence.  You know, because sex just for
pleasure is evil, even if it is with your husband. That is real harm
done to millions of real people, as I am writing these words.

Chas

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2003/10/17/note101703.DTL
http://www.nomad4ever.com/2006/11/25/vatican-to-allow-use-of-condoms/