<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>You know, I am hard pressed to think of a single tragedy in our neighborhoods, community, or nation, that didn’t get a foot hold because folks were reluctant to say “hold on, there is something really stinky going on here.” Racism, sexism, homophobia, pedophilia all flourish because people keep silent. Paul, maybe you ought to take a deep breath and listen to some Enya. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Rose<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Rumelhart<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 06, 2011 4:32 PM<br><b>To:</b> Ted Moffett; Joe Campbell<br><b>Cc:</b> vision2020@moscow.com; Kai Eiselein<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Angry Hens, Roosters & Marriage Ceremony Objection (Bitter Motive?)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>I, for one, am in no way trying to inhibit anyone's free speech.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>I'd just like to point out that whether or not this guy gets married or who he gets married to is none of our goddamned business. I feel that strongly. I would extend that same courtesy to any of you out there and your choice of a spouse, or your choice on whether or not to get married or to have kids. You're welcome.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Everyone can feel free to keep blathering on about the subject, though. By the way, I think the "angry hens" thing came from an analogy of a bunch of hens sitting around the hen house gossiping about their neighbors.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><hr size=1 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'> Ted Moffett <starbliss@gmail.com><br><b>To:</b> Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><br><b>Cc:</b> Kai Eiselein <fotopro63@hotmail.com>; Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com>; "vision2020@moscow.com" <vision2020@moscow.com><br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 6, 2011 12:08 PM<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Angry Hens, Roosters & Marriage Ceremony Objection (Bitter Motive?)<br></span><span style='color:black'><br>Many essential ideas in this thread have already been aired, including<br>the perennial "If you object to a post's subject, delete, rather than<br>attempt to squash the subject, and hamper free speech (my wording)."<br><br>But "Angry Hens" as a subject heading? Several of the most vociferous<br>on Vision2020 regarding a certain local church's ideology and conduct<br>in this case are male, and thus not "hens."<br><br>It should be more than obvious from past data, to certain self<br>appointed guardians of Vision2020 propriety, that to object to certain<br>subjects is likely to make some "mad as a wet hen," thus inspiring<br>even more in-depth detailed posts about the exact subject objected<br>to...<br><br>Not a very effective tactic to suppress posting on that subject!<br><br>If we are to defend the right of free speech to publish a book<br>regarding slavery in US history that claims “There has never been a<br>multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and<br>harmony in the history of the world" (p. 24)<br>http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/wilsononslavery.htm , why not also<br>defend the right to speech that objects to a marriage that might<br>endanger children?<br><br>It appears relevant to this discussion that some marriage ceremonies<br>include a plea for those who object to the marriage to speak out<br>before they tie the knot, so the crude arrogant command to "butt the<br>f--k out" might be against the interests of the community, expressed<br>in the marriage ceremony objection plea, given marriage is not a<br>contract that is only of interest to those being married, when<br>children are a likely outcome.<br><br>The following source indicates that objections to marriage should<br>involve only actual violations of the law, and that objections should<br>be given before the wedding:<br><br>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_object_during_a_wedding_ceremony<br><br>From website above:<br><br>"Objecting at a wedding ceremony can be very hurtful and embarrassing<br>so all objections should be given before the wedding. Never do to<br>others what you wouldn't want someone to do to you. Making a public<br>spectacle to highlight your objections would suggest a bitter motive.<br>Many service orders no longer even include the option for obvious<br>reasons.<br><br>However if the people being married are committing a crime by getting<br>married you must object. Of course you can only object for a valid<br>legal reason, like bigamy; not because you simply don't like the idea<br>of the two people getting married. The Minister requires anyone to<br>"show just cause" why they cannot be married. Note the word "just",<br>this means a cause that would be sustained in a court of law."<br>------------------------------------------<br>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br><br>On 5/5/11, Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> Above, Paul writes: "I'm glad that his church elders are working with him in<br>> an attempt to improve his life."<br>><br>> But that is the issue. HOW can the elders improve his life? What is the<br>> recidivism rate for sex offenders, child molesters? What is the recidivism<br>> rate for sex offenders or child molesters WHO RECEIVE TREATMENT? But somehow<br>> we're to believe that Doug Wilson can do better? Holy crap. This is the<br>> celebration ignorance gone too far.<br>><br>> Kai writes: "As I argued before, it is the community's right to choose what<br>> is socially acceptable."<br>><br>> But the pedophile shows that this view is BS. If the community says that it<br>> is socially acceptable for adults to have sex with children, the community<br>> is wrong. Period. No amount of philosophy is going to wreck this rule.<br>><br>> This is the area where the right wing view of tolerance is shown to go too<br>> far. Church elders don't have the right to say that they are experts about<br>> human psychology merely because they are church elders. The idea that<br>> knowledge is socially constructed and that all viewpoints are equally valid<br>> is bogus and easily refuted (see pedophilia above). And dangerous.<br>><br>> And how dare either of you tell Rose and others to shut up! There are at<br>> least five of us who find this news interesting and who are thankful for it.<br>> And two of you who think it is unworthy of public discussion.<br>><br>> Let free speech reign and damn those who speak against it! Please use delete<br>> rather than edit the content of these pages.<br>><br>><br>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>>><br>>> > (Sing along Kai, Paul, Dougie, Dale. You must know the words by now.)<br>>><br>>> As divisive as you guys seem to be, I still consider myself "on your<br>>> team",<br>>> more-or-less. Meaning that I am far more liberal than I am conservative,<br>>> and have more in common with the "intoleristas" than I do with Kai, Doug,<br>>> and Dale. . We just disagree on a few things, most of them having to do<br>>> with the perceived importance of this one church. Though I do acknowledge<br>>> that I agree with Kai and Dale on some occasions (I haven't seen Doug<br>>> posting anywhere), mostly having to do with financial matters. It would<br>>> be<br>>> nice if we didn't draw so many lines in the sand. We might see areas<br>>> where<br>>> we agree, and actually learn some respect for each other.<br>>><br>>> Paul<br>>><br>>><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>