[Vision2020] Wilson's Excuses

[g. crabtree]

A,
  You really didn't have to feel obligated to take my "got something new" remark quite so literally. While I'm glad that you've decided to give the "Doug wants to kill kids and queers" mantra a rest, moving on to the subversion of liberal democracy just because you think you've found documentation for it is an intellectually lazy technique for furthering this discussion.

What protestant religious leader (or any religious leader, for that matter) doesn't think that our country would be made a better, more righteous place if it were to internalize the teachings of *insert dogma here*. Rushdooney was hardly unique in this regard. The fact that Mr. Wilson thinks the world would be a better place if run from a more biblical perspective hardly comes as a major surprise, in fact, the surprise would be if he didn't. Given a choice between government run from a more biblical perspective and sharia, I'll stick with the one that has provided at least a modicum of the legal underpinning for this country for the last couple hundred years. Feel free to continue lose sleep over the impending crisis that is a country dominated by Douglas Wilson and his teachings. Personally, I think it's the least of your worries.

g
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
Cc: "J Ford" <privatejf32 at hotmail.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Wilson's Excuses


> On 2/19/07, g. crabtree <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Andreas,
>>   I'll grant you that killing "gay men, disobedient children, heretics,
>> witches, et cetera" is mentioned in the Bible and that Mr. Wilson has made a
>> great point of not backing away from or apologizing for what is contained
>> there. How does this equate with promoting a theocratic system of government
>> sponsored murder? You and an increasing number of like minded souls on this
>> forum continue to make these statements as though they were self evident.
>> Why is it so difficult to provide so much as a tiny shred of documentation?
> 
> This is a quote from Doug Wilson's blog. It's not the only one.
> 
> "The next two hundred years, whatever happens in them, will be
> governed by a certain intellectual sensibility. The apostle Paul used
> to call them principalities, but nowadays we wrestle not against flesh
> and blood, but rather against sensibilities and powers. This
> intellectual sensibility will allow some things and prohibit others,
> and it will do so in accordance with a certain standard.
> 
> If fundamentalist Muslims were to overrun the world, that would
> constitute an idolatrous postmodern era. The word that governed all
> discourse would be the word of their Allah; Sharia law would be the
> standard. It wouldn't be right, but it would be genuinely postmodern.
> But if we react away from this (against every form of
> "fundamentalism"), and say that we want the "free interchange of all
> ideas," "principled pluralism," "the give and take of neutral,
> secular, civilized discourse," and whatnot, we are returning to the
> very font of all modernity -- a frightened postmodern child running
> back to his modernity mama.
> 
> Postmodernism as a buzz word began as an architectural movement, and
> it was just another fad in a long series of fads. But the same thing
> is true of every other application of the word. Modernity is going
> through a crisis of faith in its own larger system of dogmatics, that
> is true enough. But we still keep churning out the goods -- medicine,
> travel, clothing, electronics -- and modernity (for all its loss of
> faith) still tenaciously defends the goose that keeps laying these
> eggs. And on this subject, postmodernists join ranks with the
> modernists, shoulder to shoulder. Postmodernists (falsely so-called)
> make different choices about what they buy and sell, but all this is
> just milling about in different aisles of the same superstore.
> 
> Christians who are "emergent" complain (like lots of people do) about
> the global market forces that are busy distributing their market havoc
> and wealth, but iPod sales have mysteriously remained steady among
> them. And all you have to do to reveiw the latent modernist in
> virtually everyone is suggest that the Lordship of Christ needs to be
> publicly recognized over all market transactions. Note -- not that I
> personally should remember the Lordship of Christ as I head out to buy
> my personal iPod.
> 
> No. Who is Lord of all things? Who should be recognized as Lord in the
> public square? The one who actually is Lord, or some other god?
> Suppose someone advances the idea that the Lordship of Christ must be
> publicly recognized as the final authority over the market, over the
> legislature, over all our public life."
> 
> After this, Doug discusses that it must not be through revolution --
> Doug is opposed to revolutions -- but rather through subversion of
> liberal democracy. While I appreciate that he is not a revolutionary
> (which would be a stupid way of achieving his goals regardless), I do
> not appreciate my liberal democracy, a thing which I very much
> appreciate, being subverted.
> 
> You might also want to find out who Rousas Rushdoony is.
> 
> -- ACS
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070220/43b353a0/attachment-0001.html