[Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .

[Saundra Lund]

I probably shouldn't be sticking my head into this conversation, but I've
noticed a few things recently that have stuck in my craw.

 

First, at the risk of being accused of telling people they can't or
shouldn't post on certain topics, I think a fair amount of posts are posted
(sorry for the redundancy) that would better be sent privately if at all.
Note, please, that I'm not excluding myself as being sometimes guilty of
that!  Personal attacks between posters that go on & on & on & on may make
those participating in the back & forth feel better, but they are beyond
tiresome for many of the rest of us & have, in fact, driven away more than a
few people who used to read here if not post.  Note, too, that I'm not
talking about bashing politicians but rather about the "Quien es mas macho?"
between participants some seem to delight in.

 

Also, IMO, not every mistake or transgression by participating posters needs
to be handled publicly from the jump.  As probably more than a few (!) of
you know, I often try to give people an opportunity to correct themselves or
apologize by contacting them privately first without beating the crap out of
them publicly.  I don't remember who here first taught me the lesson, but
it's a courtesy I greatly appreciate that's been extended to me here more
than once.  And, Scott's recent ongoing "Tom has the wrong Dale Courtney!"
neener-neener-neener is a good example, it seems to me.  To borrow a line
from one of Scott's screeds on the topic, Golly <pause> gee <pause>, Scott:
do you think you might have gotten a different reaction from Tom had you not
been such an asshat about it from Jump Street?  We'll never know, but I
personally can't fathom what possible interest you think Tom would have in
being mistaken.

 

Second, there's a tendency for people here to be a half-bubble or more off
yet present things as fact when they aren't . . . or to only tell parts of a
story that support their positions.  Scott's post below is a good example,
and since he's taken such glee recently in going after Tom, I'm OK using
Scott as an example  J  Although, I could easily use Paul - with respect to
the Newtown murders, he recently made a comment about shooters, Columbine,
and bullying that was factually wrong, too  J  Or, I could use Gary - he got
his shorts in a twist over something I said that wasn't nearly as
inflammatory as many of his posts . . . and he didn't bother to address the
very valid point of my post, either.  So much for conversation.  And so
forth.  I guess it all depends on when one wants to start the story, and
Scott opted in his post to tell only one side of a story with absolutely no
balance.  For instance, he brings up the "boycott list" that was apparently
circulated by a Co-Op cashier & concludes that she was a progressive or
liberal or Intolerista or whatever instead of just assuming that she was
anti-hate.  For all he knows, a business she owned may have been one of the
many local targets of Kirk boycotts.  Or, maybe she just thought fair was
fair, and since the Kirk published and circulated a list of businesses
Kirkers were to use - and by exclusion, avoid whenever possible patronizing
businesses not on their list - non-Kirk business owners & customers might
want to follow suit.  Who knows?  Unlike Scott, I don't even pretend to know
. . . and unless he knows the cashier (I don't, so I'm fairly certain she
wasn't an Intolerista), he doesn't know, either.

 

I could spend a whole lot of time debunking the misinformation in Scott's
email below, but I'm pressed for time, so I'll keep this relatively brief J

 

Scott wrote:

"2) Tom trumped up a charge that a city council member was not a resident of
Moscow.  There were several posts on the viz that this would disqualify this
city council member from continuing his term.  I'd say this a threat of
coercion - by some on the viz - to run this member off the council,

 

Umm - wrong.  Tom didn't trump up anything.  The city council member in
question disqualified himself to serve as a City Councilor by relinquishing
his Idaho driver's license and getting a Washington driver's license.  As
any adult with a functioning brain knows, residency is a requirement for
issuance of a driver's license - I can't just be-bop over to WA or OR or CA
and get a driver's license just because I want one.  Of course, he switched
his driver's license & vehicle registrations back to Idaho, but the fact
remains that he wasn't qualified to serve on the Moscow City Council for
some undisclosed period of time.  I care if it was simply a stupid mistake
that he corrected within a day or a week or if it was a longer-standing
fraud.  Unfortunately, the reporting that was done never clarified things
for me, and this certainly wouldn't be the first time the City didn't act
when it should have.  And, perhaps because Scott doesn't live here, he's not
aware that Brown's residency failure was a huge topic of conversation
amongst conservatives & liberals alike for quite some time before the story
was covered by the newspaper, so why Scott wants to blame Tom for the
(limited) sunshine is beyond me . . . as is why Scott thinks sunshine is a
bad thing.

 

Or, do you think, Scott, that residency requirements for elected officials
is a bunch of crap?  

 

Scott also wrote:

"3) going back a few years, Christ Church was hosting an event at the UI and
when members of this viz found out he would be serving tradition communion,
they went to the UI to successfully block this.  It's not that far fetched
to see how Christ Church could view this as both 'harassment and coercion',

 

Again, Scott is more than half a bubble off.  Below is an article from the
Daily News that correctly summarizes Rose's & my concern about providing
alcohol to minors as a part of communion, a practice Christ Church gleefully
crowed about, on state-owned property.  Please note two additional facts:
1) in its application to rent the Kibbie Dome, Christ Church was given the
same rules as everyone else yet failed to disclose - as required -- that it
intended to include alcohol; and 2) when Christ Church was held to the same
standards as every other religious & non-religious group providing alcohol,
it took its toys & went home.  Boo-flippin'-hoo.  So, rather than thinking
it not far-fetched that that Kirk would view this as harassment & coercion,
any reasonable person would focus on why the Kirk thinks it's exempt from
the same standards as everyone else, which is, factually, a recurring theme
with respect to the Kirk's interaction in the community.

 

Church will serve communal wine at UI 

By Megan Doyle | Posted: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:00 am 

Daily News staff writer

Christ Church in Moscow has been given approval to serve communal wine at a
Sunday worship at the University of Idaho Kibbie Dome. The service will be
in conjunction with the churchs history conference and Trinity Festival that
begins Aug. 7.

UI President Tim White signed the permit Wednesday. It includes an addendum
that grape juice instead of wine will be available for minors.

Sodexho, the food service provider at the Kibbie Dome, will monitor the
service of alcohol in a manner that assures minors do not have access to
alcohol, it states in the permit.

Christ Church is responsible for meeting insurance requirements.

Two Moscow women have raised concerns with the university that Christ Church
should not be allowed to give alcohol to minors on state property.

Though Moscow residents Saundra Lund and Rosemary Huskey did not file an
official complaint regarding the serving of alcohol for the event, they have
sent correspondence to the university expressing their views on allowing the
permit.

Quantity doesn't matter, Lund said.

On private property during the regular Sunday worship, alcohol requirements
are different, they said.

The prohibition of alcohol consumption by minors is a method that least
burdens religious practices while protecting the states compelling interest,
the women wrote in a June 10 e-mail to the university.

Mike Lawyer, administrative assistant to Christ Church Pastor Douglas
Wilson, said he was unaware of the requirement that Sodexho monitor the
event and did not want to comment on it.

It's purely worship, it has nothing to do with recreation or selling, Lawyer
said.

The whole thing is about whether we can worship or not, he said. UI just
happened to get stuck in the middle of the debate.

The wine used has an alcohol content of 13.5 percent.

We put the wine in little tiny cups. They hold 1.5 teaspoons, Lawyer said.

We always have grape juice available. Every Sunday we have a ring of cups on
the trays with grape juice, he said, adding that children are not limited to
grape juice.

Huskey said she and Lund are not trying to deny children the opportunity to
participate in communion, but grape juice would serve the same purpose.

For me its a significant issue because - what does the research show? Lund
said, citing negative impacts of alcohol.

About 1,500 people are expected to attend the worship service at the Kibbie
Dome. The regular Sunday service for Christ Churchs 700 members is at Logos
School.

(Doug Wilsons) hoping that some publicity of him being persecuted will be a
rallying point, Lund said.

The featured speakers at the event are J. Steven Wilkins, Doug Wilson and
Peter Lillback.

Wilson is the pastor of Christ Church in Moscow and co-author of a
controversial pamphlet with Wilkins titled Southern Slavery, As It Was,
which discusses pre-Civil War slave life.

Wilkins has attended previous Christ Church conferences.

Lillback is an author of theology and history books and is the executive
director of the Providence Forum, an organization dedicated to educating
Americans on faith and values of the nations founding fathers.

The deadline to register for the conference is Monday. For more information
on the Trinity Festival, visit the Christ Church Web site at .

 

Again, I could go on & on debunking the misinformation in Scott's post, but
he's at least as guilty of whatever as he thinks Tom is, it seems to me.

 

So, let's see if Scott is going to do what he's picking at Tom for not
doing:  apologize for his wrong information  J  If so, kudos; if not, what
business does he have picking on Tom?

 

 

Saundra Lund

Moscow, ID

 

I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to
protection by man from cruelty of man.

~ Mahatma Ghandi

 

 

 

 

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Scott Dredge
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:41 PM
To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Cc: viz
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .

 

<Please support your claim. If "they" -- meaning progressives, liberals, or
Intoleristas -- "resort quickly to the instruments of harassment and
coercion" you must have plenty of cases to back up your claim, enough to
support the claim that "they" are doing, as opposed to a select few. Please
give those examples and make sure you have enough of them to support this
very general, over-the-top claim.>
Joe - there were just two recent examples of this. 1) Tom posted a twitter
link charging it as inappropriate and that the poster is 'unethical'.  I'd
say that borders on harassment in trying to drum up any more hatred toward
the real Dale, 2) Tom trumped up a charge that a city council member was not
a resident of Moscow.  There were several posts on the viz that this would
disqualify this city council member from continuing his term.  I'd say this
a threat of coercion - by some on the viz - to run this member off the
council, 3) going back a few years, Christ Church was hosting an event at
the UI and when members of this viz found out he would be serving tradition
communion, they went to the UI to successfully block this.  It's not that
far fetched to see how Christ Church could view this as both 'harassment and
coercion', 4) Also a few years ago, there was fervent discussion on the viz
about Christ Church claiming 501c3 non-profit tax exempt status in a
building where they were running for profit businesses.  There was some
investigation into this which if I recall resulted in a split decisions
where the activities qualifying as tax exempt remained so, and the other
activities that did not were not allowed to be tax exempt.  Again, it's not
a stretch for Doug and his flock to consider this both 'harassment and
coercion', 5) Someone posted an unfounded rumor on this viz to the effect
'Is is true that the coffee shop (might have been Bucer's) refused to serve
a gay couple?'.  There was a flurry of posts about this.  If this wasn't
harassment, it certainly gave the coffee shop a bad name. 6) There was a
list being circulated with names & businesses of Christ Church members
urging a boycott of these businesses.  Personally, I have mixed feelings
about this one as I'd not want a single penny of mine going into Doug
Wilson's coffers and yet at the same time I think it's unjust to punish a
whole congregation just because of their rogue pastor.  I'm sure I could
find more examples.

<And of course "No conservative has ever told [you, Paul] that [you]
shouldn't make posts of a certain type." Why should they? You are there
mouthpiece.>
I'll let Paul chime in on this, but I think he was referring to his posts
that are more moderate and that conservatives don't tell him not to make
those posts.

<The two posts are ironic because I've posted a slew of questions about gun
control over the last few weeks, asking some straightforward questions and
trying to engage in thoughtful discussion. None of the questions received
any serious answers. There were some sarcastic posts by Paul but no serious
attempt to engage in discussion.>
I think for the most part, their has been OK discussion on this.  I don't
recall any sarcastic posts by Paul, but there have been a lot of posts.  The
one positive take away on the gun control discussion is that the folks who
presently enjoying their nearly unfettered gun rights are at least engaging
in the discussion.  It's better than having them just walk away which they
certainly could do.  I'd find it hard to believe that fun enthusiasts
wouldn't be just as heartbroken as anyone else over the Sandy Hook massacre
so I believe it's counter productive to demonize them or even the NRA - but
that's just my opinion.  I'd like to see the discussion on gun control
continue even though I think gun control is the wrong answer and there
should be unified goal of 'reducing/eliminating gun violence' even though
there are a wide variety of opinions on who has the right answer on this.

<I've refuted several arguments given by conservatives on this these issues
but guess what? Conservatives keep using those bad arguments anyway, without
attempting to respond to them. I can't count the times that Paul or Gary or
others, for instance, have jumped from "let's talk about gun control" to
"let's ban all firearms.">
Slippery slope to hyperbole comes into play in most discussions of where to
draw the line (if any) on rights as can be seen on topics of gay marriage,
abortion, etc.  I can't help you much on that one.  In most cases,
moderation seems to be the key and maybe there is some middle ground that
can be reached.

<I'm ready to talk and I can talk without insulting anyone. Can either of
you? Is it even possible for Scott, Paul, or Gary to have a conversation
without insulting someone, or making the kinds of unsupported general claims
in these two posts? This is not an insult, it is a challenge.>
Yes.

-Scott

  _____  

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:53:42 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .
From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
CC: ngier at uidaho.edu; moscowcares at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com

Scott,

Can you give some specific examples? Or is it just enough to say "This is
happening"? 

Wilson says "But they would rather not talk at all, and so they resort quite
quickly to the instruments of harassment and coercion" to which Scott
responds "This is happening." 

Please support your claim. If "they" -- meaning progressives, liberals, or
Intoleristas -- "resort quickly to the instruments of harassment and
coercion" you must have plenty of cases to back up your claim, enough to
support the claim that "they" are doing, as opposed to a select few. Please
give those examples and make sure you have enough of them to support this
very general, over-the-top claim.

Or maybe Paul could provide evidence backing up this claim: "I would like to
point out that it's the liberals on this list (or 'Intoleristas', if you
prefer) that come across as the most dogmatic of the two main groups on this
list (Intoleristas/liberals vs. conservatives/Christ Church members)." Come
across as dogmatic to whom? And how many liberals come across as dogmatic?
Why not name 10 since there are enough, on your view to make such a general
claim.

Paul also writes: "It was the Intoleristas that spent a lot of time and
effort trying to convince me that boycotting businesses run by Christ Church
members wasn't somehow intolerant of another religion." Please be sure to
name the Intoleristas that "spent a lot of time and effort trying to
convince" you to boycott Christ Church businesses? Be specific. Name enough
of them to justify this slander of a whole group of people who happen to
disagree with your views.

And of course "No conservative has ever told [you, Paul] that [you]
shouldn't make posts of a certain type." Why should they? You are there
mouthpiece.

The two posts are ironic because I've posted a slew of questions about gun
control over the last few weeks, asking some straightforward questions and
trying to engage in thoughtful discussion. None of the questions received
any serious answers. There were some sarcastic posts by Paul but no serious
attempt to engage in discussion. 

I've refuted several arguments given by conservatives on this these issues
but guess what? Conservatives keep using those bad arguments anyway, without
attempting to respond to them. I can't count the times that Paul or Gary or
others, for instance, have jumped from "let's talk about gun control" to
"let's ban all firearms."

I'm ready to talk and I can talk without insulting anyone. Can either of
you? Is it even possible for Scott, Paul, or Gary to have a conversation
without insulting someone, or making the kinds of unsupported general claims
in these two posts? This is not an insult, it is a challenge.

Joe

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
wrote:

It's got some substance Dr. Gier, you just need to cut through a lot of
Doug's crap to see some of it:

<Everything goes great in this world of monochrome diversity until someone
actually disagrees with them in their town>
This happened.

<They cannot handle disagreement and debate, and so to the extent that they
have to talk at all they resort immediately to shrill invective.>
This is still happening and you can see it in the threads about 'gun control
& the NRA' and 'global warming'.

<But they would rather not talk at all, and so they resort quite quickly to
the instruments of harassment and coercion.>
This is happening.

<This is what has happened in every place in the world where they have had
their way.>
This is true.  Might makes right.  We're lucky to live in a country where
individual rights are protected against mob rule.

<These people we are up against are as intolerant as it gets. While I grant
they are not as dangerous as they used to be, they are certainly as noisy as
they used to be.>
Intolerance cuts both ways.  Atheists can be just as intolerant and Fundy
religious types.  Again, we're lucky to live in a country where individual
rights are protected against mob rule.

As for your comment that <[Doug's] is a very narrow world indeed>, I agree
with this as it's quite obvious.  Even so, Doug and his gullible flock
deserve the exact same Constitutional rights and protections as everyone
else even though they doesn't believe in the Constitution and do not believe
in an egalitarian society.

<Happy New Year to all beings> I couldn't agree more. :)

-Scott

  _____  

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:45:59 -0800
From: ngier at uidaho.edu
To: moscowcares at moscow.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com


Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .

Hi Tom,

Thanks for posting this.  I had not read it either before now.  It is
vintage Wilson--all rhetoric and sarcasm with little substance.  Much like
his papers for my philosophy classes.

Some time ago a Kirker accused me of being a "Hindu-Lover," or something
like that.  I had to inform him that I have supported four Indians for their
studies:  one Christian who is now practicing psychotherapy in Australia,
one Hindu for his art career, and a man and wife team (both devout
Christians). My Hindu friends may have good reason to charge that I'm a
"Christian-lover."

The husband just finished his Ph.D. at the University of Denver on the
psychology of being a Christian untouchable. (I thought that they did not
exist.) It was a brilliant analysis that gained him a dissertation prize of
$2,000.  The wife just graduated summa cum laude from the School of Nursing
and the University of Houston. 

I had a great weekend celebrating with them (Indian food at every meal) and
a wonderful church service for Telegu-speaking Christians.  What a change
when they switched from the stodgy English hymns to the ones in Telegu.  The
tamborines and tabla came out, and I was able sing along because an IT guy
projected the phonetic equivalents on a screen.  A weekend of total
immersion in Indian culture that will never be forgotten.

Wilson praises that fact that many, but not as many as he implies, Latin
Americans have converted to Pentecostal Christianity. (The highest
percentage of them in coffee producing countries is 20 percent in
Gautemala.) As he does with his right hand, he calls American Pentecostals
less than Christian on the left.  (I can play the right and left hand game
as well as he can.)  There is absolutely no healing, speaking in tongues,
prophesying, and holy rolling at Christ Church.

The only foreign travel Doug Wilson did was on U.S. subs.  He doesn't have a
clue what multiculturalism is or what seasoned travelers experience and
learn in foreign lands.  His is a very narrow world indeed.

Happy New Year to all beings,

Nick



A society grows great when old men plant the seeds of trees whose shade they
know they shall never sit in.

-Greek proverb



-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of Moscow Cares
Sent: Sun 12/30/2012 5:40 PM
To: Joe Campbell
Cc: viz
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .



---------------------------------------

Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares"
http://www.MoscowCares.com
 
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho







======================================================= 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
=======================================================


=======================================================
 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
=======================================================

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121231/2749d534/attachment-0001.html>