<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> "He'll kill a child that disobeys his parent,
<BR>he'll kill any gay just because they are gay"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>V2020 070216 at 13:47</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Andreas Schou" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>ophite@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: "g. crabtree" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cc: "J Ford" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:privatejf32@hotmail.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>privatejf32@hotmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>;
<</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:34
AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Wilson's
Excuses</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> On 2/20/07, g. crabtree <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>> A,<BR>>> You really didn't have
to feel obligated to take my "got something new"<BR>>> remark quite so
literally. While I'm glad that you've decided to give the<BR>>> "Doug
wants to kill kids and queers" mantra a rest, moving on to the<BR>>>
subversion of liberal democracy just because you think you've found<BR>>>
documentation for it is an intellectually lazy technique for furthering
this<BR>>> discussion.<BR>> <BR>> G --<BR>> <BR>> You've asked
for two particular things: proof of a political agenda<BR>> and proof of a
political agenda that advocates the death penalty for<BR>> homosexuality. I
provided the former and you accuse me of changing the<BR>> subject.
Apparently, providing evidence from Doug's associates and the<BR>> magazine
he edits is not enough. So, here's evidence of Doug's<BR>> moderate views,
from the Idaho Statesman, 10-12-2003.<BR>> <BR>> "The Bible indicates the
punishment for homosexuality is death. The<BR>> Bible also indicates the
punishment for homosexuality is exile. So<BR>> death is not the minimal
punishment for a homosexual. There are other<BR>> alternatives."<BR>>
<BR>> This sets the moral range of options for dealing with
homosexuality<BR>> from "totally unacceptable" to "Holocaust." You might find
it<BR>> unsurprising that I might find exile (or just stoning someone half
to<BR>> death) to be unacceptable.<BR>> <BR>> Doug's a smart guy. He
doesn't like to rock the boat, because he has a<BR>> local constituency to
appease -- he's not simply responsible for<BR>> pandering to mouth-breathing
neoconfederates behind closed doors.<BR>> That's not the kind of guy he is:
he realizes that it's difficult for<BR>> true radicals to take power. So he
says one thing to his supporters,<BR>> when he feels like he's in private,
and says quite another to the<BR>> media, when he feels like his views might
become subject to criticism.<BR>> <BR>> Not so with his Trinity Fest
co-presenter George Grant, who,<BR>> apparently, has no particular desire not
to be regarded as absolutely<BR>> nuts. Here's a quote from his 1987 book,
"The Changing of the Guard":<BR>> "Christians have an obligation, a mandate,
a commission, a holy<BR>> responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ
- to have dominion<BR>> in the civil structures, just as in every other
aspect of life and<BR>> godliness. But it is dominion that we are
after. Not just a voice.<BR>> It is dominion we are afier. Not just
influence. It is dominion we<BR>> are after. Not just equal
time."<BR>> <BR>> You can find echoes of the same principles in Doug's
work. Take, for<BR>> instance, this sermon from December 28, 2003: "In the
60s, my father<BR>> wrote a small but enormously influential book called The
Principles of<BR>> War. In it, he applied the principles of physical warfare
to what he<BR>> called strategic evangelism. This idea of warfare is
necessary in<BR>> order to understand a central part of what is happening
here, and by<BR>> this I mean the concept of the decisive point. A decisive
point is one<BR>> which is simultaneously strategic and feasible. Strategic
means that<BR>> it would be a significant loss to the enemy if taken.
Feasible means<BR>> that it is possible to take. New York City is strategic
but not<BR>> feasible. Bovill is feasible but not strategic. But small towns
with<BR>> major universities (Moscow and Pullman, say) are both."<BR>>
<BR>> This isn't just theoretical. In the 90s, according to his
bookkeeper,<BR>> Wilson was involved in channeling church funds (and using
the<BR>> bookkeeper herself) to support the radical U.S. Taxpayers' Party.
The<BR>> church email list is regularly used to support church-funded<BR>>
candidates in local elections. These things are not irrelevant.<BR>>
<BR>>> What protestant religious leader (or any religious leader, for that
matter)<BR>>> doesn't think that our country would be made a better, more
righteous place<BR>>> if it were to internalize the teachings of *insert
dogma here*. Rushdooney<BR>>> was hardly unique in this regard. The fact
that Mr. Wilson thinks the world<BR>>> would be a better place if run from
a more biblical perspective hardly comes<BR>>> as a major surprise, in
fact, the surprise would be if he didn't. Given a<BR>>> choice between
government run from a more biblical perspective and sharia,<BR>>> I'll
stick with the one that has provided at least a modicum of the legal<BR>>>
underpinning for this country for the last couple hundred years. Feel
free<BR>>> to continue lose sleep over the impending crisis that is a
country dominated<BR>>> by Douglas Wilson and his teachings. Personally, I
think it's the least of<BR>>> your worries.<BR>> <BR>> Here's the
deal: we are in no danger of being overrun by Muslims and<BR>> being forced
to submit to sharia. Why modern conservatives are<BR>> currently busy wetting
themselves over the prospect of being forced to<BR>> submit to a form of law
that absolutely no one in our country believes<BR>> in is -- well, it's
completely beyond me. Likewise, it might surprise<BR>> you to know that I
have very little fear of a country run according to<BR>> Old Testament law:
we have a deep-seated small-l liberal democratic<BR>> tradition in this
country.<BR>> <BR>> What confuses me, Gary, is why you keep insisting that
we ignore the<BR>> fact that people with a deep-seated aversion to basic
principles of<BR>> accountability and, indeed, to liberal democracy itself
are running<BR>> for elected office. Kirkers claim that their faith is not
irrelevant<BR>> to their politics. I take them at their word: it is clear
that their<BR>> faith is not irrelevant to the policies they recommend.
When<BR>> threatened, they duck behind the 1st Amendment -- a principle in
which<BR>> they do not even believe -- and take cover behind the<BR>>
constitutionalist principles that they themselves would abolish if<BR>> they
ever took power.<BR>> <BR>> I am not required to reducio my own priniples
to absurdium in order to<BR>> maintain absolute consistency. I believe in
religious tolerance, but<BR>> my belief in religious tolerance -- that the
state should do nothing<BR>> to prohibit their faith's peculiarities -- does
not mean that I am<BR>> required to spend my money in ways that facilitate
their efforts,<BR>> however quixotic, to put in place a social order not
just<BR>> contradictory to absolutely every principle I hold dear,
but<BR>> contradictory to the get-along-go-along Christian faith held by
the<BR>> majority of our country's founders.<BR>> <BR>> -- ACS<BR>>
<BR>> * Actually, Rushdoony was sort of unique. He's nothing like
Robertson<BR>> or Falwell -- guys so irritating they make my teeth itch -- in
that he<BR>> doesn't even see democracy as the appropriate way to establish
the<BR>> idiotic and unethical social reforms he recommends.<BR>> <BR>>
Take, for instance, this quote: "One faith, one law and one standard<BR>> of
justice did not mean democracy. The heresy of democracy has since<BR>> then
worked havoc in church and state . . . Christianity and democracy<BR>> are
inevitably enemies."<BR>> <BR>> and<BR>> <BR>> "Christianity is
completely and radically anti-democratic; it is<BR>> committed to spiritual
aristrocracy."<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>