[Vision2020] Wilson's Excuses

[g. crabtree]

Hold the phone there, Andreas. You are right that I asked for two particular things. They were evidence to back up the ludicrous assertions, made by your teams idiot mascot, that her former pastor advocates: 1. killing disobedient children and 2. homosexuals.

 "He'll kill a child that disobeys his parent, 
he'll kill any gay just because they are gay"
V2020 070216 at 13:47

I made no mention of proof of a political agenda except in response to your last post, and you didn't even get into the ball park on the actual issues in question. (Although I do have to say you did a far better job then your unfortunate friend but, give her a Scooby snack and a pat anyway. Sadly, she's doing her best)

If your desire to score points on this issue is so intense that you feel the need to fall back on the all to familiar tactic of changing the parameters of discussion and then declaring victory it's clear you have a more intense and vested interest in the subject then I. My condolences. It was obviously out of line for me to request specific, concrete facts to back up specific, nasty accusations. I'm going to happily join you now in laying this tired topic aside. Read any good books lately?

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: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Wilson's Excuses


> On 2/20/07, g. crabtree <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> G --
> 
> You've asked for two particular things: proof of a political agenda
> and proof of a political agenda that advocates the death penalty for
> homosexuality. I provided the former and you accuse me of changing the
> subject. Apparently, providing evidence from Doug's associates and the
> magazine he edits is not enough. So, here's evidence of Doug's
> moderate views, from the Idaho Statesman, 10-12-2003.
> 
> "The Bible indicates the punishment for homosexuality is death. The
> Bible also indicates the punishment for homosexuality is exile. So
> death is not the minimal punishment for a homosexual. There are other
> alternatives."
> 
> This sets the moral range of options for dealing with homosexuality
> from "totally unacceptable" to "Holocaust." You might find it
> unsurprising that I might find exile (or just stoning someone half to
> death) to be unacceptable.
> 
> Doug's a smart guy. He doesn't like to rock the boat, because he has a
> local constituency to appease -- he's not simply responsible for
> pandering to mouth-breathing neoconfederates behind closed doors.
> That's not the kind of guy he is: he realizes that it's difficult for
> true radicals to take power. So he says one thing to his supporters,
> when he feels like he's in private, and says quite another to the
> media, when he feels like his views might become subject to criticism.
> 
> Not so with his Trinity Fest co-presenter George Grant, who,
> apparently, has no particular desire not to be regarded as absolutely
> nuts. Here's a quote from his 1987 book, "The Changing of the Guard":
> "Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy
> responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ - to have dominion
> in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and
> godliness.  But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.
> It is dominion we are afier. Not just influence.  It is dominion we
> are after. Not just equal time."
> 
> You can find echoes of the same principles in Doug's work. Take, for
> instance, this sermon from December 28, 2003: "In the 60s, my father
> wrote a small but enormously influential book called The Principles of
> War. In it, he applied the principles of physical warfare to what he
> called strategic evangelism. This idea of warfare is necessary in
> order to understand a central part of what is happening here, and by
> this I mean the concept of the decisive point. A decisive point is one
> which is simultaneously strategic and feasible. Strategic means that
> it would be a significant loss to the enemy if taken. Feasible means
> that it is possible to take. New York City is strategic but not
> feasible. Bovill is feasible but not strategic. But small towns with
> major universities (Moscow and Pullman, say) are both."
> 
> This isn't just theoretical. In the 90s, according to his bookkeeper,
> Wilson was involved in channeling church funds (and using the
> bookkeeper herself) to support the radical U.S. Taxpayers' Party. The
> church email list is regularly used to support church-funded
> candidates in local elections. These things are not irrelevant.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Here's the deal: we are in no danger of being overrun by Muslims and
> being forced to submit to sharia. Why modern conservatives are
> currently busy wetting themselves over the prospect of being forced to
> submit to a form of law that absolutely no one in our country believes
> in is -- well, it's completely beyond me. Likewise, it might surprise
> you to know that I have very little fear of a country run according to
> Old Testament law: we have a deep-seated small-l liberal democratic
> tradition in this country.
> 
> What confuses me, Gary, is why you keep insisting that we ignore the
> fact that people with a deep-seated aversion to basic principles of
> accountability and, indeed, to liberal democracy itself are running
> for elected office. Kirkers claim that their faith is not irrelevant
> to their politics. I take them at their word: it is clear that their
> faith is not irrelevant to the policies they recommend. When
> threatened, they duck behind the 1st Amendment -- a principle in which
> they do not even believe -- and take cover behind the
> constitutionalist principles that they themselves would abolish if
> they ever took power.
> 
> I am not required to reducio my own priniples to absurdium in order to
> maintain absolute consistency. I believe in religious tolerance, but
> my belief in religious tolerance -- that the state should do nothing
> to prohibit their faith's peculiarities -- does not mean that I am
> required to spend my money in ways that facilitate their efforts,
> however quixotic, to put in place a social order not just
> contradictory to absolutely every principle I hold dear, but
> contradictory to the get-along-go-along Christian faith held by the
> majority of our country's founders.
> 
> -- ACS
> 
> * Actually, Rushdoony was sort of unique. He's nothing like Robertson
> or Falwell -- guys so irritating they make my teeth itch -- in that he
> doesn't even see democracy as the appropriate way to establish the
> idiotic and unethical social reforms he recommends.
> 
> Take, for instance, this quote: "One faith, one law and one standard
> of justice did not mean democracy. The heresy of democracy has since
> then worked havoc in church and state . . . Christianity and democracy
> are inevitably enemies."
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity is completely and radically anti-democratic; it is
> committed to spiritual aristrocracy."
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070220/0866ceb7/attachment-0001.html