<!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 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mr. Schou,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Considering your penchant for overblown rhetoric
and fudging the facts on this topic you will have to forgive me if I do not
accept your every utterance as though it were revealed truth.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Your "long" post seems to be equal parts guilt by
association, accusations of past ill considered remarks with no reference,
citation, or context, and your own unique spin as applied to
the purported statements of others. Hardly the sort of thing that is
going to do a more effective job of convincing me of the imminent harm that will
befall our community from the dread CC than the "thousands" of other rants you
have gone off on before.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It would appear that you would have me believe that
you have the singular ability to see beyond what I hear with my own two ears and
can read with my own to eyes and discern the truth of all that is Christ Church.
That somehow you have been given free reign to roam the back country of the
Wilson psyche. Your inability to back up your assertions with anything by way of
solid reference leads me to the conclusion that your dire warnings are the
product of your overly liberal mind set along with an
unfounded fear of Christianity and precious little to do with
fact.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As an example, you refer to the league of the
south as "a neo-confederate hate group" as though this were
an incontrovertible fact and not just an opinion held by a few like minded
chicken little's and "progressive" parrots.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From their website:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"<EM>We bear no ill will or hatred to any racial,
ethnic, or religious group. </EM></FONT>
<P align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM>We believe that Christianity and
social order require that all people, regardless of race, must be equal before
the law. We do not believe that the law should be used to persecute, oppress, or
favor any race or class. </EM></FONT></P>
<P align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM>We believe that the only harmony
possible between the races, as between all natural differences among human
beings, begins in submitting to Jesus Christ's commandment to "love our
neighbors as ourselves." That is the world we envision and work
for."</EM></FONT></P>
<P align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2>I suppose that your response would
be "so they say but I know better" but baring evidence, I'm inclined to
take them at their word. Now were you to provide solid evidence of their being
involved in a criminal act, you will have found the right button to push to
convince me to change my mind. With out it, just more heated hyperbole such as
you have served up all to often in the past.</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>What this all boils down to is you would
have me and the rest of the community believe that Wilson wants to kill
homosexuals and oppress women and enslave ethnic minorities. What I see is
a church that has amongst its fellowship live homosexuals and smart,
capable women and independent minorities. Which should I believe you
and your unsubstantiated allegations or what I, or anyone else
for that matter, can see and hear for themselves? </FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </P>
<P align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></P>
<P align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </P>
<P align=justify><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></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@roadrunner.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cc: "Warren Hayman" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:whayman@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>whayman@adelphia.net</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>>; "Joe
Campbell" <</FONT><A href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>joekc@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:42 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Trinity Festival
protest</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> On 8/10/07, g. crabtree <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
wrote:<BR>>> To a certain extent I agree, but then again I didn't choose
the<BR>>> battleground. I fight where the opponent is. Mr. Schou for some
reason<BR>>> wanted to attempt to make a point involving that resource and
I was only too<BR>>> happy to refute him on the ground of his
choice.<BR>> <BR>> Gary --<BR>> <BR>> Not having wanted to donate
money directly to Doug Wilson, I'm<BR>> unfortunately without direct
quotations from his books, and I am not<BR>> going to take a walk down to the
library in order to win an argument<BR>> I've already had a thousand times,
and which I'm sure is boring the<BR>> list members who've had to sit through
me having it a thousand times.<BR>> This will be long. It will bore most of
you. You can stop reading<BR>> here, if you like.<BR>> <BR>> So let's
go back to the beginning here, which was the teachings of<BR>> Doug Wilson's
denomination, the Confederation of Reformed<BR>> Evangelicals, on the issue
we were originally discussing: the<BR>> execution of homosexuals for
homosexuality. The issue is confused more<BR>> than a little, now, by the
rapid backpedaling and sidestepping that<BR>> occurred in 2003, when Christ
Church finally realized that the locals<BR>> were paying attention to what he
was saying (he thought) to an<BR>> external audience.<BR>> <BR>> First
of all, let me start out by saying that of his two most regular<BR>>
confederates, George Grant and Steve Wilkins (the two co-presenters at<BR>>
most of the "History Conferences"), our Doug is by far the most<BR>> publicly
reasonable. George Grant is an unreconstructed Christian<BR>>
Reconstructionist, who, in 1993, wrote an entire book (titled<BR>>
"Legislating Immorality") devoted to the subject of executing people<BR>> for
crimes ending in the letter 'y'.<BR>> <BR>> Steve Wilkins, on the other
hand, is largely a southern theo-partisan<BR>> and co-founder of the League
of the South, a neo-confederate hate<BR>> group. His works include a
full-throated defense of the Salem Witch<BR>> Trials as being appropriate for
American jurisprudence, a reprinting<BR>> of the works of R.L. Dabney,
including "A Defense of Virginia," in<BR>> which Dabney claims that the
purpose of the Civil war was to breed a<BR>> race of killer mulattos to
destroy the pure Southern Anglo-Celtic<BR>> stock.<BR>> <BR>> You'll
likely get the same answer from the vast majority of members of<BR>> his
church -- like, for instance, Andrew Sandlin, whose Church of the<BR>> King
in California is part of the CREC, is a former editor of the<BR>> Chalcedon
Report, whose sine qua non was the establishment of,<BR>> essentially,
Christian sharia courts in the United States. Here's a<BR>> quote:<BR>>
<BR>> "It is not our responsibility to select certain portions of the Law
of<BR>> God that we like. I realize that in late 20th century America, we
have<BR>> certain tender sensibilities about how abortionists or
homosexuals<BR>> should be treated. We live according to a "rights" theory of
life,<BR>> rather than a responsibility view of life. So there are some of
God's<BR>> laws that do, especially on first reading, seem harsh and
difficult.<BR>> The question we have to ask is -- Are we going to conform our
ideas<BR>> and practice to the Law of God? -- Or are we going to permit
the<BR>> modern culture dictate to us our ethical values?"<BR>> <BR>>
So, again, up until 2003, Doug really had nothing to lose by saying<BR>>
whatever it is that he wanted. These guys -- knuckle-dragging,<BR>>
unreconstructed theocrats like Grant and Wilkins -- were the only<BR>> people
he was speaking to. And he wasn't particularly good at<BR>> moderating his
message for public consumption; again, he hadn't had to<BR>> up to this
point. At that point, he was, in fact, poor enough at<BR>> moderating his
message that his books were widely promoted and<BR>> discussed on "kinist"
websites, "kinism" being basically racism with a<BR>> theocratic twist
(again, if you've the stomach for it, you can look at<BR>> the November
2003-February 2004 archives of blogs like Badlands and<BR>> Little
Geneva).<BR>> <BR>> Now, why is that? Because his "nuanced" views were, at
the time,<BR>> non-existent. His current protestations to the
contrary<BR>> notwithstanding, he was making public claims that the only
option for<BR>> homosexuals was execution -- he actually made that claim
(along with<BR>> arguing that raped virgins should be forced to marry their
rapist) at<BR>> a debate with Edward Tabash in October of 2002, long before I
actually<BR>> knew who he was.<BR>> <BR>> When backed into a rhetorical
corner with no way out of admitting to<BR>> what he said (and knowing that
continuing to say these things in<BR>> forums accessible to outsiders would
certainly hurt him in Moscow),<BR>> Doug started to scramble for "nuance"
where none had previously<BR>> existed. He told the Daily News that exile was
an alternative to<BR>> execution -- a rhetorical move that, when he found
that it did not, in<BR>> fact, quell the furor over his bigotry, he
disavowed. He began<BR>> claiming around this time that the "real issue" (as
though no one<BR>> really cared about the slavery issue) was
homosexuality.<BR>> <BR>> This was not a particularly novel claim, as
George Grant and Steve<BR>> Wilkins had been explaining that the reason for
the "abortion,<BR>> feminism, and homosexuality" was, in fact, the abolition
of slavery<BR>> for years.<BR>> <BR>> So this brings us, then, to his
contemporary views on using the<BR>> judicial system to murder gays and
lesbians.<BR>> <BR>> I actually sat down for lunch with him, at Zume,
around this time. I'd<BR>> characterize it as a perfectly pleasant lunch. And
I got to ask him<BR>> quite a few interesting questions -- about his links to
Christian<BR>> Reconstructionism; about homosexuality; about the
implementation of<BR>> Mosaic Law in modern society. I didn't ask about the
slavery issue (at<BR>> the time, it was, of course, a little touchy), but I
did get a fairly<BR>> straight answer with regard to his wildly skidding
theology (or<BR>> politics; the distinction is a bit vague for Wilson) with
regard to<BR>> homosexuality. It was that "oh, sure, in 500 years, when
everybody's<BR>> Christian, execution will be mandatory, but there will, of
course, be<BR>> very few homosexuals at that point, so it will merely be a
sad, rare,<BR>> eventuality."<BR>> <BR>> He's a little more coy about
it here, but from this blog post --<BR>> actually, a reprint of an answer he
gave me on the list back in 2004<BR>> -- you can see exactly the same answer.
Again, remember that this is<BR>> written specifically to mollify an outside
audience.<BR>> <BR>> "There are a number of other questions I am leaving
unanswered. One of<BR>> them has to do with the governmental treatment of
certain individuals<BR>> convicted of certain homosexual acts in some unnamed
Christian<BR>> republic five hundred years from now. They are reasonable
questions,<BR>> but please keep in mind that I am in a series of
controversies of some<BR>> unreasonable people, and so I will answer
generally. In such a<BR>> republic, would homosexual acts be against the law,
and if so, what<BR>> would the penalty be? Like I said, reasonable questions.
Yes, such<BR>> behavior would be against the law -- just like it was
throughout all<BR>> fifty states just a few short years ago. And what would
the penalties<BR>> be? The answer to that question requires a certain level
of cultural<BR>> maturity (beyond what is currently in evidence) -- that has
to take<BR>> into account careful exegesis of the Old Testament texts, the
nature<BR>> and purpose of common law, the circumstances of each particular
case,<BR>> the flow of redemptive history, and the forgiveness that is
offered to<BR>> everyone in Jesus Christ.<BR>> <BR>> It is not hard for
me to imagine a secularist differing with all of<BR>> this. But the one thing
he should be careful to do is not to<BR>> misrepresent it."<BR>> <BR>>
This wasn't really the end of it all. In order to further muddy the<BR>>
waters, Doug Wilson (in conjunction with Doug Jones) produced a<BR>> further
elaboration of this "nuanced" view. I'll use World Magazine's<BR>> summary of
his view, rather than repost it:<BR>> <BR>> "In an article entitled
"Owning the Curse: Re-Thinking Same-Sex<BR>> Marriage," written with Douglas
Jones in the journal Credenda/Agenda,<BR>> Wilson makes the following
argument: (1) Homosexuality, according to<BR>> Romans 1, is God's judgment on
societies that reject Him. (2)<BR>> Christians should not reject God's
judgments, but take responsibility<BR>> for them so as to repent. (3)
Homosexuality is a particular judgment<BR>> against the Church, for failing
to promote Biblical fatherhood. (4)<BR>> Homosexuality may well be
genetic--as are other sins from our<BR>> inherited fallen nature--and
Christians should treat homosexuals<BR>> kindly, as victims of bad fathering.
(5) Christians should let gay<BR>> marriage happen, as God's judgment on our
culture. (6) The only remedy<BR>> for this judgment is restoring "right
worship" and recovering Biblical<BR>> fatherhood."<BR>> <BR>> So, in
other, less charitable words:<BR>> <BR>> Homosexuality (including gay
marriage) is a judgment on America, much<BR>> like a plague of locusts or
frogs, brought on by feminism. Men haven't<BR>> sufficiently oppressed women;
therefore, God judges us by making men's<BR>> sons effeminate. Therefore,
under the current system, harsh punishment<BR>> for homosexuality is uncalled
for, because it would be an "autonomous"<BR>> (contrast "autonomy" with
"theonomy") rejection of a judgment against<BR>> America by God.
However, once America has brought its house in order,<BR>> punishment for
homosexuality can include death; however, the Mosaic<BR>> code specifies only
*maximum* punishments -- a judge might sentence a<BR>> homosexual merely to
exile, if he were merciful. The death penalty is<BR>> reserved only for the
most "serious, unrepentant" cases.<BR>> <BR>> And that's the final
word.<BR>> <BR>> -- ACS<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>