[Vision2020] Huskey's Hypocrisies

[Andreas Schou]

Chris --

You seem to believe--and you are quite consistent on this point--that
somehow every belief must be taken to its absolute furthest conclusion
in order to remain consistent. This, of course, is why you coddle
rapists, shrug your shoulders at priests overlooking the marital rape
of children, demand the summary disenfranchisement of those who
disagree with you, and call for the judicial murder of homosexuals.

Perhaps, then, I shouldn't be surprised when you engage in a
full-throated defense of Jim Crow when attacking Rose's desire not to
donate 10% of every French dinner to the 'Disenfranchise Rose Huskey
fund'.

But I am. If only a little.

-- ACS


On Nov 14, 2007 8:26 PM, Christopher Witmer
<christopher.witmer at mizuho-sc.com> wrote:
> Over at Cleaning House, Rose Huskey writes:
>
> "To compare on any level, city/state/or federally sponsored terrorism and
> genocide with individuals choosing not to shop or do business with
> establishments owned by members of the Kirk is a monstrous insult to the
> memories of the tens of thousands of French victims of the Holocaust. How
> dare he? Mr. Foucachon employs the penultimate whine of religious
> persecution; a shopworn strategy of the Kirk. Instead of parroting the party
> line, it would be most beneficial if he decried the arrogant, sneering,
> ignorant, anti-community behavior of his pastor which is the real genesis of
> the division in Moscow. After years of thumbing his nose at the rest of us,
> Doug (and his flock) should not be surprised that we are fed up to our
> eyebrows, or that we are acting on that repugnance. And, we'll do it
> peacefully by snapping shut our pocketbooks."
>
> Actually, I happen to believe that people should have the right to
> discriminate on just about any basis concerning how their property is used
> in a private capacity. Constitutionally speaking, it is primarily a Fifth
> Amendment issue. The right to discriminate would include, but not be limited
> to, decisions concerning who they rent to, who they allow into their places
> of business as employees or customers, who they allow into their clubs as
> members, who they allow into their private schools as students, etc. Of
> course it would also include discrimination concerning decisions on which
> business they choose to patronize. Please note, I'm not saying that all such
> discrimination is good. In fact, much of the discrimination that people
> would be likely to engage in if permitted to do so is personally morally
> repugnant to me, but I still feel strongly that there should not be laws
> against it. I believe that God will bring all things into judgment,
> including our incorrect discriminations, but it does not follow from that
> fact that we should therefore declare all "incorrect" discriminations to be
> illegal. From the Christian perspective, we ought to be discriminating just
> as Jesus would discriminate if He was in our position. There is no doubt in
> my mind that Jesus would discriminate if He was in our position, but the
> difference is that his discrimination would always be perfect and free from
> sin, while ours often is not.
>
> Another way of putting it is, we are all called to make just judgment. God's
> judgments are just; ours often are not. Nevertheless, judgment is
> inescapable for humans since we are all made in God's image, and since
> judgment is one of the things God does, it is also one of the things that
> God's images do. But we must judge as He would judge if we are to image Him
> correctly.
>
> So, I repeat, I believe that people should have the right to discriminate.
> It is one of the things that we need to live out what it means to be human.
> Thus, I think Rose Huskey and her ilk should, legally speaking, have the
> right to discriminate against people simply for being members of Christ
> Church. According to my own logic I need to accept that they have that
> right, even if they are making exceedingly bad judgment when they exercise
> that right.
>
> However, we should also note that when Huskey and her ilk discriminate in
> this way, they are being hypocritical in the extreme. Can you imagine how
> they would react if the shoe was on the other foot? What would happen if the
> logic of this call for a boycott was applied in the other direction and
> taken to its logical conclusion? I can tell you exactly what would happen --
> we would see the complete overthrow of most of the so-called "civil rights"
> laws that Huskey and her ilk fought to have passed in the past half century.
> According to my logic, a boycott of Christ Church businesses is defensible
> at least as being within the bounds of peoples' rights; however, according
> to the logic that has been driving Huskey and her ilk, the boycott in
> question cannot be logically defended. We simply have to say that it
> constitutes gross hypocrisy, pure and simple. Basically, what it comes down
> to is this: "Whatever I personally oppose is okay to discriminate against,
> but whatever I personally support must not be discriminated against." That's
> really what the position of Huskey and her ilk boils down to.
>
> I have only one more thing to say about Rose Huskey's attempt to smear Mr.
> Foucachon. After blabbing about how the notorious Klaus Barbie was based in
> Lyon, the city from which the Foucachon family hails, implying that somehow
> Mr. Foucachon was missing an important lesson to be gleaned from that
> factoid, she goes on to say:
>
> "And, by the way, the German people closed their eyes long before 1940. As
> we know, many Europeans, including the French, were delighted at Hitler's
> vision of a closely monitored, carefully controlled culture which celebrated
> racism, homophobia, and, of course, sexism.
>
> "'The mission of women is to be beautiful and to bring children into the
> world. This is not at all as . . . . unmodern as it sounds. The female bird
> pretties herself for her mate and hatches eggs for him. In exchange, the
> male takes care of gathering food, and stands guard and wards off the enemy.
> -- Joseph Goebbels"
>
> Mrs. Huskey's obvious intent above is to smear Mr. Foucachon and Doug Wilson
> by trying to establish some sort of a link between their beliefs and the
> beliefs of Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. This is truly a shameful hypocrisy.
> Note that she says "the French" were delighted at Hitler's vision. It is
> true that some French were more than happy to go after Jews in very much the
> same vein as the Nazis of Germany, but *some* French is a very long way from
> "the French." Does anyone seriously believe that Mr. Foucachon's father
> ended up in a Nazi concentration camp by being a Nazi sympathizer? Mrs.
> Huskey needs to be much more specific and name names. How about naming noted
> American feminist, free love advocate, racist and eugenicist Margaret
> Sanger, an icon revered by modern American liberals and the author of such
> niceties as "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda," "The Function
> of Sterilization," etc. Board members of her American Birth Control League
> (predecessor to Planned Parenthood) included Lothrop Stoddard, a Harvard
> graduate and the author of "The Rising Tide of Color against White
> Supremacy," among several such board members and writings in a similar vein
> that could be cited. Sanger's "Birth Control Review" published such articles
> as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics," "The Eugenic Conscience," "The purpose
> of Eugenics," "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics," "Birth Control: The
> True Eugenics," etc. It is worth noting that her "Birth Control Review"
> published "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need" by Ernst Rudin, one of
> Nazi Germany's leading eugenicists, just three months before Germany passed
> the mandatory sterilization laws under which between a quarter and half a
> million people were forcibly sterilized. Sanger never repudiated Rudin or
> his orthodox Nazi views that she helped promote in the English-speaking
> world.
>
> I'm not trying to say that Rose Huskey = Margaret Sanger = Ernst Rudin. But
> it is true that such a connection would be a less tenuous and far-fetched
> stretch than the suggestion that there is somehow a connection between Doug
> Wilson and Joseph Goebbels. If the Doug Wilson living in Moscow in 2007 had
> been transported back to Nazi Germany of the 1930s and 1940s, I don't doubt
> for a moment that he would have been martyred like Dietrich Bonhoeffer or
> Sophie and Hans Scholl before the war ended. Everything that Christ Church
> stands for is absolutely inimical to everything that Nazism represents, and
> any attempt to connect the two must be either woefully ignorant or guided by
> malice and hypocrisy.
>
> -- Chris
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>