<!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>A,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</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: Monday, February 19, 2007 11:00
PM</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 2/19/07, 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>>><BR>>> Andreas,<BR>>> I'll
grant you that killing "gay men, disobedient children, heretics,<BR>>>
witches, et cetera" is mentioned in the Bible and that Mr. Wilson has made
a<BR>>> great point of not backing away from or apologizing for what is
contained<BR>>> there. How does this equate with promoting a theocratic
system of government<BR>>> sponsored murder? You and an increasing number
of like minded souls on this<BR>>> forum continue to make these statements
as though they were self evident.<BR>>> Why is it so difficult to provide
so much as a tiny shred of documentation?<BR>> <BR>> This is a quote from
Doug Wilson's blog. It's not the only one.<BR>> <BR>> "The next two
hundred years, whatever happens in them, will be<BR>> governed by a certain
intellectual sensibility. The apostle Paul used<BR>> to call them
principalities, but nowadays we wrestle not against flesh<BR>> and blood, but
rather against sensibilities and powers. This<BR>> intellectual sensibility
will allow some things and prohibit others,<BR>> and it will do so in
accordance with a certain standard.<BR>> <BR>> If fundamentalist Muslims
were to overrun the world, that would<BR>> constitute an idolatrous
postmodern era. The word that governed all<BR>> discourse would be the word
of their Allah; Sharia law would be the<BR>> standard. It wouldn't be right,
but it would be genuinely postmodern.<BR>> But if we react away from this
(against every form of<BR>> "fundamentalism"), and say that we want the "free
interchange of all<BR>> ideas," "principled pluralism," "the give and take of
neutral,<BR>> secular, civilized discourse," and whatnot, we are returning to
the<BR>> very font of all modernity -- a frightened postmodern child
running<BR>> back to his modernity mama.<BR>> <BR>> Postmodernism as a
buzz word began as an architectural movement, and<BR>> it was just another
fad in a long series of fads. But the same thing<BR>> is true of every other
application of the word. Modernity is going<BR>> through a crisis of faith in
its own larger system of dogmatics, that<BR>> is true enough. But we still
keep churning out the goods -- medicine,<BR>> travel, clothing, electronics
-- and modernity (for all its loss of<BR>> faith) still tenaciously defends
the goose that keeps laying these<BR>> eggs. And on this subject,
postmodernists join ranks with the<BR>> modernists, shoulder to shoulder.
Postmodernists (falsely so-called)<BR>> make different choices about what
they buy and sell, but all this is<BR>> just milling about in different
aisles of the same superstore.<BR>> <BR>> Christians who are "emergent"
complain (like lots of people do) about<BR>> the global market forces that
are busy distributing their market havoc<BR>> and wealth, but iPod sales have
mysteriously remained steady among<BR>> them. And all you have to do to
reveiw the latent modernist in<BR>> virtually everyone is suggest that the
Lordship of Christ needs to be<BR>> publicly recognized over all market
transactions. Note -- not that I<BR>> personally should remember the Lordship
of Christ as I head out to buy<BR>> my personal iPod.<BR>> <BR>> No.
Who is Lord of all things? Who should be recognized as Lord in the<BR>>
public square? The one who actually is Lord, or some other god?<BR>> Suppose
someone advances the idea that the Lordship of Christ must be<BR>> publicly
recognized as the final authority over the market, over the<BR>> legislature,
over all our public life."<BR>> <BR>> After this, Doug discusses that it
must not be through revolution --<BR>> Doug is opposed to revolutions -- but
rather through subversion of<BR>> liberal democracy. While I appreciate that
he is not a revolutionary<BR>> (which would be a stupid way of achieving his
goals regardless), I do<BR>> not appreciate my liberal democracy, a thing
which I very much<BR>> appreciate, being subverted.<BR>> <BR>> You
might also want to find out who Rousas Rushdoony is.<BR>> <BR>> --
ACS<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>