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

[Scott Dredge]

<So, let’s see if Scott is going to do what he’s picking at Tom for not doing:  apologize for his wrong information  J  If so, kudos; if not, what business does he have picking on Tom?>
Absolutely Saundra.  My apologies for posting less than accurate information about things from years past and thanks for filling in more of the details.  And I'm not looking for kudos nor do I take any great pride in giving Tom a taste of his own 'Golly Gee', etc. medicine in hopes that it stops.  That said, I don't consider myself an unreasonable man and since it's a new year, I'll tone down (and hopefully completely stop) my criticism against Tom and instead simply try to stay focused on the specific topics of the discussions as I should.  Thanks for 'sticking your head into this conversation' with your opinion.

-Scott



From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com; philosopher.joe at gmail.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 22:20:58 -0800

I probably shouldn’t be sticking my head into this conversation, but I’ve noticed a few things recently that have stuck in my craw. First, at the risk of being accused of telling people they can’t or shouldn’t post on certain topics, I think a fair amount of posts are posted (sorry for the redundancy) that would better be sent privately if at all.  Note, please, that I’m not excluding myself as being sometimes guilty of that!  Personal attacks between posters that go on & on & on & on may make those participating in the back & forth feel better, but they are beyond tiresome for many of the rest of us & have, in fact, driven away more than a few people who used to read here if not post.  Note, too, that I’m not talking about bashing politicians but rather about the “Quien es mas macho?” between participants some seem to delight in. Also, IMO, not every mistake or transgression by participating posters needs to be handled publicly from the jump.  As probably more than a few (!) of you know, I often try to give people an opportunity to correct themselves or apologize by contacting them privately first without beating the crap out of them publicly.  I don’t remember who here first taught me the lesson, but it’s a courtesy I greatly appreciate that’s been extended to me here more than once.  And, Scott’s recent ongoing “Tom has the wrong Dale Courtney!” neener-neener-neener is a good example, it seems to me.  To borrow a line from one of Scott’s screeds on the topic, Golly <pause> gee <pause>, Scott:  do you think you might have gotten a different reaction from Tom had you not been such an asshat about it from Jump Street?  We’ll never know, but I personally can’t fathom what possible interest you think Tom would have in being mistaken. Second, there’s a tendency for people here to be a half-bubble or more off yet present things as fact when they aren’t . . . or to only tell parts of a story that support their positions.  Scott’s post below is a good example, and since he’s taken such glee recently in going after Tom, I’m OK using Scott as an example  J  Although, I could easily use Paul – with respect to the Newtown murders, he recently made a comment about shooters, Columbine, and bullying that was factually wrong, too  J  Or, I could use Gary – he got his shorts in a twist over something I said that wasn’t nearly as inflammatory as many of his posts . . . and he didn’t bother to address the very valid point of my post, either.  So much for conversation.  And so forth.  I guess it all depends on when one wants to start the story, and Scott opted in his post to tell only one side of a story with absolutely no balance.  For instance, he brings up the “boycott list” that was apparently circulated by a Co-Op cashier & concludes that she was a progressive or liberal or Intolerista or whatever instead of just assuming that she was anti-hate.  For all he knows, a business she owned may have been one of the many local targets of Kirk boycotts.  Or, maybe she just thought fair was fair, and since the Kirk published and circulated a list of businesses Kirkers were to use – and by exclusion, avoid whenever possible patronizing businesses not on their list – non-Kirk business owners & customers might want to follow suit.  Who knows?  Unlike Scott, I don’t even pretend to know . . . and unless he knows the cashier (I don’t, so I’m fairly certain she wasn’t an Intolerista), he doesn’t know, either. I could spend a whole lot of time debunking the misinformation in Scott’s email below, but I’m pressed for time, so I’ll keep this relatively brief J Scott wrote:“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, Umm – wrong.  Tom didn’t trump up anything.  The city council member in question disqualified himself to serve as a City Councilor by relinquishing his Idaho driver’s license and getting a Washington driver’s license.  As any adult with a functioning brain knows, residency is a requirement for issuance of a driver’s license – I can’t just be-bop over to WA or OR or CA and get a driver’s license just because I want one.  Of course, he switched his driver’s license & vehicle registrations back to Idaho, but the fact remains that he wasn’t qualified to serve on the Moscow City Council for some undisclosed period of time.  I care if it was simply a stupid mistake that he corrected within a day or a week or if it was a longer-standing fraud.  Unfortunately, the reporting that was done never clarified things for me, and this certainly wouldn’t be the first time the City didn’t act when it should have.  And, perhaps because Scott doesn’t live here, he’s not aware that Brown’s residency failure was a huge topic of conversation amongst conservatives & liberals alike for quite some time before the story was covered by the newspaper, so why Scott wants to blame Tom for the (limited) sunshine is beyond me . . . as is why Scott thinks sunshine is a bad thing. Or, do you think, Scott, that residency requirements for elected officials is a bunch of crap?   Scott also wrote:“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', Again, Scott is more than half a bubble off.  Below is an article from the Daily News that correctly summarizes Rose’s & my concern about providing alcohol to minors as a part of communion, a practice Christ Church gleefully crowed about, on state-owned property.  Please note two additional facts:  1) in its application to rent the Kibbie Dome, Christ Church was given the same rules as everyone else yet failed to disclose – as required -- that it intended to include alcohol; and 2) when Christ Church was held to the same standards as every other religious & non-religious group providing alcohol, it took its toys & went home.  Boo-flippin’-hoo.  So, rather than thinking it not far-fetched that that Kirk would view this as harassment & coercion, any reasonable person would focus on why the Kirk thinks it’s exempt from the same standards as everyone else, which is, factually, a recurring theme with respect to the Kirk’s interaction in the community. Church will serve communal wine at UI By Megan Doyle | Posted: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:00 am Daily News staff writerChrist Church in Moscow has been given approval to serve communal wine at a Sunday worship at the University of Idaho Kibbie Dome. The service will be in conjunction with the churchs history conference and Trinity Festival that begins Aug. 7.UI President Tim White signed the permit Wednesday. It includes an addendum that grape juice instead of wine will be available for minors.Sodexho, the food service provider at the Kibbie Dome, will monitor the service of alcohol in a manner that assures minors do not have access to alcohol, it states in the permit.Christ Church is responsible for meeting insurance requirements.Two Moscow women have raised concerns with the university that Christ Church should not be allowed to give alcohol to minors on state property.Though Moscow residents Saundra Lund and Rosemary Huskey did not file an official complaint regarding the serving of alcohol for the event, they have sent correspondence to the university expressing their views on allowing the permit.Quantity doesn’t matter, Lund said.On private property during the regular Sunday worship, alcohol requirements are different, they said.The prohibition of alcohol consumption by minors is a method that least burdens religious practices while protecting the states compelling interest, the women wrote in a June 10 e-mail to the university.Mike Lawyer, administrative assistant to Christ Church Pastor Douglas Wilson, said he was unaware of the requirement that Sodexho monitor the event and did not want to comment on it.It’s purely worship, it has nothing to do with recreation or selling, Lawyer said.The whole thing is about whether we can worship or not, he said. UI just happened to get stuck in the middle of the debate.The wine used has an alcohol content of 13.5 percent.We put the wine in little tiny cups. They hold 1.5 teaspoons, Lawyer said.We always have grape juice available. Every Sunday we have a ring of cups on the trays with grape juice, he said, adding that children are not limited to grape juice.Huskey said she and Lund are not trying to deny children the opportunity to participate in communion, but grape juice would serve the same purpose.For me its a significant issue because - what does the research show? Lund said, citing negative impacts of alcohol.About 1,500 people are expected to attend the worship service at the Kibbie Dome. The regular Sunday service for Christ Churchs 700 members is at Logos School.(Doug Wilsons) hoping that some publicity of him being persecuted will be a rallying point, Lund said.The featured speakers at the event are J. Steven Wilkins, Doug Wilson and Peter Lillback.Wilson is the pastor of Christ Church in Moscow and co-author of a controversial pamphlet with Wilkins titled Southern Slavery, As It Was, which discusses pre-Civil War slave life.Wilkins has attended previous Christ Church conferences.Lillback is an author of theology and history books and is the executive director of the Providence Forum, an organization dedicated to educating Americans on faith and values of the nations founding fathers.The deadline to register for the conference is Monday. For more information on the Trinity Festival, visit the Christ Church Web site at . Again, I could go on & on debunking the misinformation in Scott’s post, but he’s at least as guilty of whatever as he thinks Tom is, it seems to me. So, let’s see if Scott is going to do what he’s picking at Tom for not doing:  apologize for his wrong information  J  If so, kudos; if not, what business does he have picking on Tom?  Saundra LundMoscow, ID I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from cruelty of man.~ Mahatma Ghandi    From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Scott Dredge
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:41 PM
To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Cc: viz
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . . <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.

-ScottDate: 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.

JoeOn 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. :)

-ScottDate: 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/20130101/d006e766/attachment-0001.html>