<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7655.1">
<TITLE>RE: [Vision2020] Angry Hens</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Dear Kai and Paul,<BR>
<BR>
The Wilson controversy is not about liberals and conservatives; rather, it is about a form of religious extremism that conservatives ought to and many have condemned.<BR>
<BR>
Wilson and his friend Steve Wilkins have been kicked out of the most conservative Calvinist denomination. On the academic side Wilson has dissed the UI and even most other evangelical colleges. For us collegiality is a virtue, but Wilson has made it a vice for evangelicals to uphold academic standards at their excellent liberal arts colleges and cooperate with non-Christians.<BR>
<BR>
I will be once again meeting with these fine Christian scholars at the Pacific Northwest American Academy of Religion in Spokane May 14-16. Each year I invite NSA faculty and staff to participate and each year they refuse, even when it was in Moscow in 2003. I have supported evangelical candidates to become president of the region just as they voted for me to be president in 2003. To Wilson and his minions that would have been equivalent to voting for the Devil.<BR>
<BR>
Wilson and Wilkins, thanks to leads to me and others from a disgruntled Christ Church member, were found to have plagiarized 20 percent of their slavery booklet. A history professor at UW, who was a member of Wilson's mission church in Seattle, begged him to disavow and withdraw the positions taken in the slavery booklet but Wilson refused. Wilson has been discredited time and time again; he stands condemned in religious and academic circles; he does not deserve any respect from anyone or any organization.<BR>
<BR>
As I have posted many times, I written a book on evangelical Christians and I praise the ones who understand and respect academic studies of the history of Christianity and are intellectually honest about what can and cannot be proved in the context of the Christian faith. All but one chapter of that book "God, Reason, and the Evangelicals" can be found at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre.htm.<BR>
<BR>
This is not intolerance of Christians or an attempt to limit free speech; rather, it is intolerance of intellectual dishonesty, incivility, and indecency. That is why I and others wear the badge "intolerista" (Wilson's word) with great honor.<BR>
<BR>
Nick<BR>
<BR>
Nicholas F. Gier, Professor Emeritus<BR>
Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho<BR>
"The Palouse Pundit" on Radio Free Moscow, 92.5 FM<BR>
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO www.idaho-aft.org/ift.htm<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com on behalf of Saundra Lund<BR>
Sent: Thu 5/5/2011 11:30 PM<BR>
To: 'Kai Eiselein'; vision2020@moscow.com<BR>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Angry Hens<BR>
<BR>
Kai,<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
OK, I missed your point, and I'm still missing your point -- sorry. What is<BR>
it, exactly? That it's OK for one group to speak publicly about the evils<BR>
of some marriages (I surely don't recall you ever telling any of the<BR>
anti-gay marriage advocates to "butt the f-k out"), but it's not OK for<BR>
other groups to speak publicly about the evils of some marriages and the<BR>
hypocrisy of those who whine about the sanctity of marriage being desecrated<BR>
if we don't deny "immoral sinners" who are law-abiding, loving, consenting<BR>
adults equal protection under the law? Or is it that you think it's peachy<BR>
to keep stunningly silent about the hypocrisy from theocracy cravers like<BR>
Doug Wilson while never missing a chance to ram the "hypocrisy" label down<BR>
the throats of those who have the nerve to point out Wilson's rank<BR>
hypocrisy?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
We Get It, Kai, that you don't care about Wilson, or about what he's tried &<BR>
is trying to make our community into, or about his hypocrisy, or about any<BR>
of the rest of it, but what I don't understand is why those of us who do<BR>
care deserve your ire & insults? Talk about childish . . .<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
You are correct that there's an ideological clash - that's exactly what<BR>
Wilson wanted & engineered. His congregation managed to exist here just<BR>
fine until it started in earnest (as opposed to organized boycotts of local<BR>
businesses they thought indecent) trying to ram their ideology down the<BR>
throats of us all. Not that I expect you to care - you've made it crystal<BR>
clear that you really don't give a rip about the facts (and, BTW, it's<BR>
really childish for you to dispute the accuracy of attributed quotes simply<BR>
because you choose to "not care"), but for the sake of those who are coming<BR>
to the conversation late and who do care, I'll toss out the reminder that<BR>
Doug Wilson views the Moscow/Pullman area as a decisive point for his<BR>
strategic evangelism. I'm going to repost something I wrote back in 2004 -<BR>
it's obviously no longer current as time has passed, but it's accurate up to<BR>
that point (I'll not include cites since you've clearly stated you don't<BR>
"care" to educate yourself, Kai):<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I was aware of Doug Wilson almost from the beginning (of my time at the UI)<BR>
-- I used to listen to him speak/debate in the area I believe used to be<BR>
known as the Quad outside the UCC building on the UI campus. I remember<BR>
well my reaction to his positions: interesting, entertaining fellow with<BR>
some problems with his "philosophical" thinking . . . not my cup of tea, but<BR>
hey: live and let live. He's certainly entitled to his beliefs, just as<BR>
I'm entitled to my beliefs.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And, that's a position I held for many years whenever I heard rumblings<BR>
about what was going on with respect to CC/Logos/Cannon Press/Credenda<BR>
Agenda/ACCS/NSA et al. That's a position I continue to hold, but I now<BR>
understand that in Wilson's World, he would use his theocratic power and his<BR>
minions and his twisted interpretation of the Bible to punish those who<BR>
don't share his views. IMHO, that's a far cry from the tolerance I extend<BR>
to him and to those who have beliefs different from mine.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
For years, in the name of tolerance, I mistakenly didn't look any further<BR>
than the difference of religion. Now, my position has matured: they are<BR>
certainly welcome to continue believe and worship as they choose, but I'm<BR>
drawing a big bold line between that and dishonesty, stealth candidates, and<BR>
theocracy.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
According to Wilson and his minions, people who share his views are moving<BR>
to Moscow (he makes it sound like in positive droves, although I personally<BR>
think his perception is likely skewed given his interpretation of the Bible)<BR>
from as far away as Korea. I don't think he's having luck recruiting a ton<BR>
of existing community members to his flock, although if local individuals<BR>
and families are finding his church "home" a fit for their beliefs, then<BR>
that's their right.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
It's not Wilson's theology that's dangerous for our community (although I<BR>
certainly don't agree with his interpretation), it's his stated mission for<BR>
his flavor of theocracy that's the problem: his religious beliefs and his<BR>
stated desire for theocratic rule cannot be separated from each other. If<BR>
he was just expressing his beliefs by "preaching and teaching and persuasion<BR>
and so forth" and encountering opposition, I'd be standing up for his right<BR>
to believe the moon is made out of cheese.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
But, in spite of what he tells us Intoleristas and/or Non-Believers (defined<BR>
as those who don't share his particular flavor of religion/theocracy), he<BR>
clearly wants to put the force of law behind his beliefs to tell others what<BR>
they can or cannot do, what they can or can't believe. Either we live<BR>
according to his dictates of The Good Life or we're punished in this life:<BR>
he hopes he can convince us to repent to Save Our Souls for the hereafter,<BR>
but if not, then in his theocracy, there's always legal punishment in this<BR>
life to get what he wants. That's his goal for our community. And he's<BR>
actively recruiting people to move to this community to help him accomplish<BR>
his worldview here.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Do you think that by not knowing and discussing this that the threat will go<BR>
away? You have to look no further than Moscow Ordinance 2002-13 to see the<BR>
effect Wilson and followers had with a seat on the City Council. And, it's<BR>
not difficult to imagine the negative impact on public education in our<BR>
community had Kirker/anti-public education stealth candidate Mark Beuchamp<BR>
been successful in his 2002 bid for a seat on the public school board.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Bluntly put, Wilson and his followers are going to keep right on marching<BR>
towards their goal. Period. It seems to me that we, as a community, have a<BR>
responsibility to be aware of Wilson & his followers theocratic beliefs and<BR>
stated agenda and be vocal in our opposition (assuming you disagree with<BR>
theocracy and laws that reflect a fringe vocal minority's morality).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Wilson views Moscow as a decisive point:<BR>
<BR>
"In the 60s, my father wrote a small but enormously influential book called<BR>
The Principles of War. In it, he applied the principles of physical warfare<BR>
to what he called strategic evangelism. This idea of warfare is necessary<BR>
in order to understand a central part of what is happening here, and by this<BR>
I mean the concept of the decisive point. A decisive point is one which is<BR>
simultaneously strategic and feasible. Strategic means that it would be a<BR>
significant loss to the enemy if taken. Feasible means that it is possible<BR>
to take. New York City is strategic but not feasible. Bovill is feasible<BR>
but not strategic. But small towns with major universities (Moscow and<BR>
Pullman, say) are both."<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
No, being silent is not the answer; you can see from the quote above that<BR>
Wilson et al view the existing community as the "enemy." And he doesn't<BR>
hesitate to bully those who disagree with him by applying provocative and<BR>
divisive labels, insulting our intelligence, and accusing those who disagree<BR>
with his flavor of religion/theocracy of the very things he and his sheep<BR>
are: intolerant.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
[Note: for those interested, the sermon referenced above was given by<BR>
Wilson on 12/28/2003.]<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Kai, until you "care" enough to educate yourself, which hasn't happened yet,<BR>
it really is you who should shut the f-k up. That's not something I'd<BR>
normally say, but since you think that kind of response to those with whom<BR>
you disagree is appropriate, then it seems appropriate to meet you where<BR>
you feel comfortable.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
BTW, I don't think I responded to your post (it fell into that category of<BR>
posts I thought deserved response but got lost in the shuffle of my life),<BR>
but I couldn't be more happy for you, your family, and your brother that you<BR>
reconnected. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Saundra Lund<BR>
<BR>
Moscow, ID<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do<BR>
nothing.<BR>
<BR>
~ Edmund Burke<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2011 through life plus<BR>
70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside<BR>
the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the<BR>
author.*****<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [<A HREF="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</A>]<BR>
On Behalf Of Kai Eiselein<BR>
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:38 PM<BR>
To: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Angry Hens<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Saundra, you seem to have missed my point.<BR>
The same people who engaged in much gnashing of teeth over anti-gay marriage<BR>
laws a few years ago are now gnashing their teeth over what appears to be a<BR>
marriage that is completely legal.<BR>
As I argued before, it is the community's right to choose what is socially<BR>
acceptable. That argument was met with plenty of derision right here on the<BR>
ol' viz. Now it seems that position has changed and a number of people who<BR>
disagreed with my argument then have proven my point, in spades, I might<BR>
add.<BR>
Anybody for a big steaming helping of hypocrisy?<BR>
As for Wilson, I haven't read any of his books, pamphlets, comic books,<BR>
novels or flyers. I'm sorry, I'm just not all that interested in his<BR>
religious or world views, so I cannot comment on what he may or may not have<BR>
said based soley on the word of someone who appears to have an axe to grind<BR>
with him.<BR>
If there is a legal issue, then by all means take it to the courts, council,<BR>
commission, or wherever it needs to be addressed.<BR>
This constant screeching about every little thing is just plain childish and<BR>
I believe it goes deeper than any legal issues. In fact, I believe it is an<BR>
ideological clash and despite all of the "Coexist" stickers on cars in this<BR>
town, there is a deep seated hatred towards anybody or anything that doesn't<BR>
fit in with the local liberal lockstep.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>