<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Mr. Arnold,<br>
<br>
I agree with you that most churches aren't organized like democracies:
they are organizations for worshipers to gather and share in their
beliefs.<br>
As such, they usually do not have agendas and therefore no "sins" that
belong to the church and its members as a collective.<br>
<br>
However, as an extreme example, I head a church that oppresses the
women and children and forces them into compliance with my religious
ideologies against their will, I, and all those in my church who knew
of my actions, are at fault.<br>
<br>
"God does not take requests as to what is right and wrong."<br>
<br>
What does God have to do with the actions of a church? The belief
structures and actions of a church are made by men. Even believers,
except Mormons, which believe in modern-day revelation, agree with
that. I doubt Doug Wilson would say that God organized his church.<br>
<br>
I would not be at all surprised to discover that Doug Wilson's actions
are blown out of proportion. He preaches offensive things, and even
though that is his right, it is an obvious reaction that people would
want to attack him on a personal level. Of course, just because people
hate him doesn't mean that their accusations aren't true, either.<br>
<br>
"So logic dictates it is the content of his religion, his freedom to
practice his faith, that is being hindered."<br>
<br>
The first amendment right to free speech provides protection from the
government, not citizens. I can go to every speech of Doug Wilson's and
make every (legal) attempt to silence him, and I am not violating his
rights in the least.<br>
<br>
I feel it my moral obligation to fight tooth and nail against bigotry,
including hindering the expansion of religions I deem as being a threat
to the good of mankind. However, I believe education, understanding,
and acceptance are the way to do this, not hissy fits. Alienating those
you are attempting to help is counterproductive.<br>
<br>
Just as Christians have a right to stand on street corners and pass out
their religious texts, I have a right to stand up and try to convince
people to not accept their ideals.<br>
<pre wrap="">"Their beliefs do not impact his life unless he lets it."
</pre>
Unless of course, one wants to have a same-sex marriage, buy beer on
Sunday, or buy sex toys in Virginia (yes, its illegal there). Belief
structures have been a source of restricting personal liberty since the
dawn of time, and it is our right to fight back against imposing belief
structures.<br>
<br>
<br>
Steven Simmons<br>
<br>
<br>
Donovan Arnold wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid20050529192637.17052.qmail@web30809.mail.mud.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Mr. Simmons,
"I am not saying every church is their pastor, it
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">just *appears* to be
that way with the kirkers."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Yes, it does appear that way. I do not think it is
that way. I think most the things that are said by Mr.
Wilson are not anymore outrageous than what other
conservatives can say at times.
I do think that people in the church do speak out
against Mr. Wilson when they disagree with him. But I
also think that they do not do it publicly because it
would no doubt be fodder for those that preach against
the Church.
I also do NOT think you can compare a democratic
system of organization to that of a church. Churches
are not democracies, and God does not take requests as
to what is right and wrong.
I also think that most of the things that Mr. Wilson
does wrong are blown out of proportion to what
actually happened.
The real objections to Mr. Wilson are not that he
wrote a book with someone that plagiarized his
portion. It is the religious beliefs of Wilson that
people object too. And nobody is going to leave a
conservative church for conservative teachings if they
are conservative.
Doug Wilson is attacked because be is trying to expand
his Church and it is a conservative church. If Doug
Wilson was preaching tolerance of homosexuals and
equality for women in the church he would not be
facing the same opposition he is. So logic dictates it
is the content of his religion, his freedom to
practice his faith, that is being hindered. That is a
violation of First Amendment rights.
My position is the same regardless of the religion
being preached, the First Amendment applies always.
Nobody is forcing Nick Gier to follow CC or attend
NSA. Why is he attempting to eliminate their right to
attend NSA and CC? Their beliefs do not impact his
life unless he lets it.
Thanks for your remarks and conversation.
Donovan J Arnold
PS, you are right about V2020 to be called Venom 2020,
I prefer Vulture 2020 though.
--- Steven Simmons <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lowman@lowbatteries.com"><lowman@lowbatteries.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am not saying every church is their pastor, it
just *appears* to be
that way with the kirkers.
I am not saying that I know anything of the sins of
Doug Wilson, I am
simply stating my opinion that members of an
organization are
responsible for its actions and the actions of its
leaders. In most
churches I have been to, I would not describe the
pastor as the
*leader*, either. It just appears that Doug Wilson
seems very much to be
a powerful figure in his church structure.
Most churches seem to be, as you said, an
environment "to worship their
God with their family and friends", and such
churches' pastors usually
do not have any external political or social
agendas.
By being a member of an organization, you are
supporting that
organization and its actions. As a United States
citizen, the war in
Iraq is, in part, my responsibility (if not my
fault), and though I have
spoken out against the war on terror since it was
declared shortly after
the 9-11 attacks, I will not shrug off that heavy
burden of truth that
my country is responsible for the actions of George
W. Bush and our
representatives in the legislature. Being a member
of a republic means
that you choose to let others act in your name.
Being a member of an
organization is no different. Silence or
indifference are not excuses
and do not absolve you of responsibility.
Notice the difference between *fault* and
*responsibility*, a
distinction most people don't make: "If its not my
fault, its not my
responsibility".
The kirkers, as continued members of Christ Church,
are responsible for
the actions of their leaders (at least when acting
in an official
capacity), whether those actions be good or bad,
especially if they
voice no dissent (and not necessarily publicly -
privately, within the
organization, would be more appropriate). You don't
have to defame to
show dissent.
As far as facts, I learned within reading my first
three posts on this
message board that any and all comments are taken as
hostile and
responded with hostility, from all sides. Whoever
coined the phrase
"Venom 2020" has it right. So, I assure you, I take
nothing on this
forum blindly as fact, and very little of it as
actual discussion or debate.
There are exceptions, however, and I thank you for
your well-mannered
and thought-provoking comments.
Sincerely,
Steven Simmons
Donovan Arnold wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Mr. Simmons,
By your reasoning you must also hold me responsible
for the sins of my pastor and the Pope. The Pope
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">sets
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">all policy in the Catholic Church. I believe the
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">same
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">is true for other religions.
Where is it written that members of the church that
disagree with the actions of their pastor must
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">defame
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">him and his actions in public? I do not think that
members of any church think their pastor does not
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">make
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">mistakes or sin. But they do not write letters to
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">editor and establish websites about it either, why
should members of CC or NSA be any different?
And I disagree that a church is their pastor. A
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">church
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">is a whole group of people. A pastor is SUPPOSE to
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">be
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">a connector between God and the people. Members of
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">church many choose to stay with a church to worship
their God with their family and friends and ignore
certain teachings of the church. I know that people
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">in
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">my Church do.
I do not support what Doug Wilson preaches, just
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">his
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">right to preach it.
On a personal note, I would not take anything said
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">on
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Vision 2020 about Mr. Wilson as factual, on either
side of the issue.
Donovan J Arnold
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">about them. From reading both their websites and
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">others I have seen
reference to on V2020, it seems to me that Doug
Wilson IS Christ Church,
in as far as his doctrines are the church's
doctrines, and he controls
the actions and belief structure of his church.
However, being relatively uneducated about the
subject, my comments are
submitted in humility.
But I will say this with conviction:
You can, and should, hold members of an
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">organization
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">responsible for the
codified belief structure and even the actions of
that organization and
its leaders, unless they are a voice of dissent
during the time those
actions took place, or at least afterward.
Any kirkers who do not decry any exposed sins of
their pastor are
supporting them.
Steven Simmons
Donovan Arnold wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Mr. Hansen,
First, thank you for correcting my error in
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">referring
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Mr. Wilson as having a degree he did not earn.
However, Mr. Wilson's level of educational
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">attainment
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">has nothing to do with my arguments.
Second, I do believe that Dr. Gier has insulted
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">members of Christ Church in his arguments
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">comparing
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the Taliban to the members of Christ Church.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Which
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">is
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">why he got himself in hot water on Mr. Courtney's
Blog.
Finally, I never said that Mr. Wilson should not
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">be
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">held to higher moral standards of scrutiny than
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mail.yahoo.com">http://mail.yahoo.com</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>