[Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .

[Saundra Lund]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

George Santayana

 

I don't disagree with some of your comments below, Scott, but the above
applies.

 

The reason, IMO, the Kirk got away with flouting the law and attacking
"unBelievers" for so long was because the vast majority of this community
didn't recognize that the goal of the Kirk is theocracy.  We extended to the
Kirk the same "live and let live" attitude we extended to others - including
churches we didn't share beliefs with -- without recognizing the political
agenda of the Kirk.

 

And, if you think that basic reality has changed just because the Kirk has
been trying to keep a lower profile (the sexinars notwithstanding, and
marrying off pedophiles, and . . . ), then I've got a great piece of
ocean-front property in Spokane to sell you!

 

Best wishes to you, too, for a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2013!

 

Saundra

 

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Scott Dredge
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 9:07 PM
To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Cc: viz
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .

 

Joe/Tom,

There are many examples I could dig out of the archives as Tom has
challenged me to do so, but why should I spend any more time on this?  It's
not like either of you are going to acknowledge any sort mistreatment toward
Christ Church no matter how many links I post.  And I'm fine with that.
Although I certainly mixed it up plenty with Doug Wilson and with Dale, it
never escalated to the level of what some others like Tom went through.  And
I can certainly understand associated animosity, but it seems to be overly
one-sided at this point especially now that the right-mind site has been
taken down.

Beyond that, many of the posts critical of Christ Church are recycled from
many years ago and maybe even a decade ago.  Maybe since they've been beaten
back into their corner as they rightfully were, it's time to drop the whole
Intoleristas bit or morph it into Toleristas.  There's room enough for all
law abiding citizens.  And by that I'm referring to secular law.

Best wishes for happy, healthy, prosperous 2013,

-Scott

  _____  

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:22:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .
From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
CC: ngier at uidaho.edu; moscowcares at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com

Let me just discuss the first point for now.

The first two examples are about a specific person who is progressive. But
two comments by one person -- even if they constitute genuine examples of
"harassment and coercion" (which is absurd in this case) -- does not justify
a general claim about all progressives.

In the third case no specific names are mentioned. "Members of the viz"
could refer to Gary and Paul. They were progressives? Who? And if you can't
see how it is inappropriate for communion to be served at a public, state
university, I'll just refer you to the US constitution.

How did the 4th case work out, by the way? And who were the people? Are we
up to more than 4 folks by now? Again, no names mentioned.

I've talked to people about the 5th case and as far as I know it was true.
Do you know it wasn't true? I talked specifically to friends of the lesbian
couple involved, who I also know, and it seemed to me to be credible. You
know it wasn't credible because ...?

With respect to the 6th case, who was the (single) person who issued the
flyer? Does she/he post on the V? And you are certain of his/her political
affiliation because ...? You don't know who it was but you know it wasn't a
conservative because ...? By the way, a flurry of kids from NSA came into
the Co-op -- her place of work -- shortly afterwards to harass her. So
obviously, THEY don't seem to see any boundaries between business and
politics. Still, as far as I know (which appears to be more than you do)
just ONE person created the flyer. So what are we up to now, 6 people? 6
people speaking for all progressives? Should I use these same standards to
start trashing conservatives?

Why don't you be fair and list the reasons why someone might have circulated
the flyer? You yourself say that you would "not want a single penny of
[yours] going into Doug Wilson's coffers." Why is that? We're skipping over
a lot of the history, aren't we? Do you think it would be difficult for me
to find 6 folks associated with CC/NSA who were guilty of "harassment and
coercion"? Heck, if the standard of "harassment and coercion" is simply
calling someone "unethical" I'm pretty confident that most of use are guilty
at one point or other.

Politic discussion is difficult and I applaud folks on the viz who have the
courage to try to talk about these issues in public, especially given that
there are careless folks like you and Paul around to make unfounded and
vague charges of "harassment and coercion." If you're going to partake in
political conversation some feathers will get ruffled. I challenge you to
find a counterexample. Hopefully this won't inhibit folks from continuing to
try to converse about difficult issues in public, since I think the benefits
outweigh the costs.

By the way, you've mentioned exactly ONE person who is a progressive to
support your general claim, but still feel fine about calling other unnamed
people out for "post[ing] an unfounded rumor on this viz." Holy crap!

Happy New Year!

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
wrote:

<Please support your claim. If "they" -- meaning progressives, liberals, or
Intoleristas -- "resort quickly to the instruments of harassment and
coercion" you must have plenty of cases to back up your claim, enough to
support the claim that "they" are doing, as opposed to a select few. Please
give those examples and make sure you have enough of them to support this
very general, over-the-top claim.>
Joe - there were just two recent examples of this. 1) Tom posted a twitter
link charging it as inappropriate and that the poster is 'unethical'.  I'd
say that borders on harassment in trying to drum up any more hatred toward
the real Dale, 2) Tom trumped up a charge that a city council member was not
a resident of Moscow.  There were several posts on the viz that this would
disqualify this city council member from continuing his term.  I'd say this
a threat of coercion - by some on the viz - to run this member off the
council, 3) going back a few years, Christ Church was hosting an event at
the UI and when members of this viz found out he would be serving tradition
communion, they went to the UI to successfully block this.  It's not that
far fetched to see how Christ Church could view this as both 'harassment and
coercion', 4) Also a few years ago, there was fervent discussion on the viz
about Christ Church claiming 501c3 non-profit tax exempt status in a
building where they were running for profit businesses.  There was some
investigation into this which if I recall resulted in a split decisions
where the activities qualifying as tax exempt remained so, and the other
activities that did not were not allowed to be tax exempt.  Again, it's not
a stretch for Doug and his flock to consider this both 'harassment and
coercion', 5) Someone posted an unfounded rumor on this viz to the effect
'Is is true that the coffee shop (might have been Bucer's) refused to serve
a gay couple?'.  There was a flurry of posts about this.  If this wasn't
harassment, it certainly gave the coffee shop a bad name. 6) There was a
list being circulated with names & businesses of Christ Church members
urging a boycott of these businesses.  Personally, I have mixed feelings
about this one as I'd not want a single penny of mine going into Doug
Wilson's coffers and yet at the same time I think it's unjust to punish a
whole congregation just because of their rogue pastor.  I'm sure I could
find more examples.

<And of course "No conservative has ever told [you, Paul] that [you]
shouldn't make posts of a certain type." Why should they? You are there
mouthpiece.>
I'll let Paul chime in on this, but I think he was referring to his posts
that are more moderate and that conservatives don't tell him not to make
those posts.

<The two posts are ironic because I've posted a slew of questions about gun
control over the last few weeks, asking some straightforward questions and
trying to engage in thoughtful discussion. None of the questions received
any serious answers. There were some sarcastic posts by Paul but no serious
attempt to engage in discussion.>
I think for the most part, their has been OK discussion on this.  I don't
recall any sarcastic posts by Paul, but there have been a lot of posts.  The
one positive take away on the gun control discussion is that the folks who
presently enjoying their nearly unfettered gun rights are at least engaging
in the discussion.  It's better than having them just walk away which they
certainly could do.  I'd find it hard to believe that fun enthusiasts
wouldn't be just as heartbroken as anyone else over the Sandy Hook massacre
so I believe it's counter productive to demonize them or even the NRA - but
that's just my opinion.  I'd like to see the discussion on gun control
continue even though I think gun control is the wrong answer and there
should be unified goal of 'reducing/eliminating gun violence' even though
there are a wide variety of opinions on who has the right answer on this.

<I've refuted several arguments given by conservatives on this these issues
but guess what? Conservatives keep using those bad arguments anyway, without
attempting to respond to them. I can't count the times that Paul or Gary or
others, for instance, have jumped from "let's talk about gun control" to
"let's ban all firearms.">
Slippery slope to hyperbole comes into play in most discussions of where to
draw the line (if any) on rights as can be seen on topics of gay marriage,
abortion, etc.  I can't help you much on that one.  In most cases,
moderation seems to be the key and maybe there is some middle ground that
can be reached.

<I'm ready to talk and I can talk without insulting anyone. Can either of
you? Is it even possible for Scott, Paul, or Gary to have a conversation
without insulting someone, or making the kinds of unsupported general claims
in these two posts? This is not an insult, it is a challenge.>
Yes.

-Scott

  _____  

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:53:42 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .
From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
CC: ngier at uidaho.edu; moscowcares at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com

Scott,

Can you give some specific examples? Or is it just enough to say "This is
happening"? 

Wilson says "But they would rather not talk at all, and so they resort quite
quickly to the instruments of harassment and coercion" to which Scott
responds "This is happening." 

Please support your claim. If "they" -- meaning progressives, liberals, or
Intoleristas -- "resort quickly to the instruments of harassment and
coercion" you must have plenty of cases to back up your claim, enough to
support the claim that "they" are doing, as opposed to a select few. Please
give those examples and make sure you have enough of them to support this
very general, over-the-top claim.

Or maybe Paul could provide evidence backing up this claim: "I would like to
point out that it's the liberals on this list (or 'Intoleristas', if you
prefer) that come across as the most dogmatic of the two main groups on this
list (Intoleristas/liberals vs. conservatives/Christ Church members)." Come
across as dogmatic to whom? And how many liberals come across as dogmatic?
Why not name 10 since there are enough, on your view to make such a general
claim.

Paul also writes: "It was the Intoleristas that spent a lot of time and
effort trying to convince me that boycotting businesses run by Christ Church
members wasn't somehow intolerant of another religion." Please be sure to
name the Intoleristas that "spent a lot of time and effort trying to
convince" you to boycott Christ Church businesses? Be specific. Name enough
of them to justify this slander of a whole group of people who happen to
disagree with your views.

And of course "No conservative has ever told [you, Paul] that [you]
shouldn't make posts of a certain type." Why should they? You are there
mouthpiece.

The two posts are ironic because I've posted a slew of questions about gun
control over the last few weeks, asking some straightforward questions and
trying to engage in thoughtful discussion. None of the questions received
any serious answers. There were some sarcastic posts by Paul but no serious
attempt to engage in discussion. 

I've refuted several arguments given by conservatives on this these issues
but guess what? Conservatives keep using those bad arguments anyway, without
attempting to respond to them. I can't count the times that Paul or Gary or
others, for instance, have jumped from "let's talk about gun control" to
"let's ban all firearms."

I'm ready to talk and I can talk without insulting anyone. Can either of
you? Is it even possible for Scott, Paul, or Gary to have a conversation
without insulting someone, or making the kinds of unsupported general claims
in these two posts? This is not an insult, it is a challenge.

Joe

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
wrote:

It's got some substance Dr. Gier, you just need to cut through a lot of
Doug's crap to see some of it:

<Everything goes great in this world of monochrome diversity until someone
actually disagrees with them in their town>
This happened.

<They cannot handle disagreement and debate, and so to the extent that they
have to talk at all they resort immediately to shrill invective.>
This is still happening and you can see it in the threads about 'gun control
& the NRA' and 'global warming'.

<But they would rather not talk at all, and so they resort quite quickly to
the instruments of harassment and coercion.>
This is happening.

<This is what has happened in every place in the world where they have had
their way.>
This is true.  Might makes right.  We're lucky to live in a country where
individual rights are protected against mob rule.

<These people we are up against are as intolerant as it gets. While I grant
they are not as dangerous as they used to be, they are certainly as noisy as
they used to be.>
Intolerance cuts both ways.  Atheists can be just as intolerant and Fundy
religious types.  Again, we're lucky to live in a country where individual
rights are protected against mob rule.

As for your comment that <[Doug's] is a very narrow world indeed>, I agree
with this as it's quite obvious.  Even so, Doug and his gullible flock
deserve the exact same Constitutional rights and protections as everyone
else even though they doesn't believe in the Constitution and do not believe
in an egalitarian society.

<Happy New Year to all beings> I couldn't agree more. :)

-Scott

  _____  

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:45:59 -0800
From: ngier at uidaho.edu
To: moscowcares at moscow.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com


Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .

Hi Tom,

Thanks for posting this.  I had not read it either before now.  It is
vintage Wilson--all rhetoric and sarcasm with little substance.  Much like
his papers for my philosophy classes.

Some time ago a Kirker accused me of being a "Hindu-Lover," or something
like that.  I had to inform him that I have supported four Indians for their
studies:  one Christian who is now practicing psychotherapy in Australia,
one Hindu for his art career, and a man and wife team (both devout
Christians). My Hindu friends may have good reason to charge that I'm a
"Christian-lover."

The husband just finished his Ph.D. at the University of Denver on the
psychology of being a Christian untouchable. (I thought that they did not
exist.) It was a brilliant analysis that gained him a dissertation prize of
$2,000.  The wife just graduated summa cum laude from the School of Nursing
and the University of Houston. 

I had a great weekend celebrating with them (Indian food at every meal) and
a wonderful church service for Telegu-speaking Christians.  What a change
when they switched from the stodgy English hymns to the ones in Telegu.  The
tamborines and tabla came out, and I was able sing along because an IT guy
projected the phonetic equivalents on a screen.  A weekend of total
immersion in Indian culture that will never be forgotten.

Wilson praises that fact that many, but not as many as he implies, Latin
Americans have converted to Pentecostal Christianity. (The highest
percentage of them in coffee producing countries is 20 percent in
Gautemala.) As he does with his right hand, he calls American Pentecostals
less than Christian on the left.  (I can play the right and left hand game
as well as he can.)  There is absolutely no healing, speaking in tongues,
prophesying, and holy rolling at Christ Church.

The only foreign travel Doug Wilson did was on U.S. subs.  He doesn't have a
clue what multiculturalism is or what seasoned travelers experience and
learn in foreign lands.  His is a very narrow world indeed.

Happy New Year to all beings,

Nick



A society grows great when old men plant the seeds of trees whose shade they
know they shall never sit in.

-Greek proverb



-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of Moscow Cares
Sent: Sun 12/30/2012 5:40 PM
To: Joe Campbell
Cc: viz
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .



---------------------------------------

Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares"
http://www.MoscowCares.com
 
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho







======================================================= 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
=======================================================

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121231/ddb3eb07/attachment-0001.html>