Cultists in Hats

A Sabbath contemplation for Mr. Schwaller

2007-06-24T08:50:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

Pastor Wilson sure took a beating last week after the PCA General Assembly adopted a committee report condemning Federal Vision. In case you forgot, the vote was something like 1400 in favor of the report and about 30 against it. Man, talk about a landslide. Someone should call a search and rescue team to dig Wilson out. The poor gumbo never saw it coming.

There was something else he didn’t see either: this time the good guys took a page from Pastor Wilson’s playbook and had their blogs ready so that they could CONTROL THE CONVERSATION, rather than concede it to him.

For example, Green Baggins is systematically nailing Wilson, point for point, on his blog, and Wilson, who must always have the last word, is responding. This probably explains why you only posted five times last week and Ms. Tanaka ran interference for you. Too busy getting Bagged.

Dr. R. Scott Clark of The Heidelblog (excellent name) wasted no time making a general application of the “W” word — “wolf” — to the heretics who propagate Federal Vision. Dr. Clark also noted their favorite rhetorical device: “their tactic has been to criticize my person and my conduct of the discussion in order to deflect the discussion away from the issue at hand.” Welcome to the party, Dr. Clark; that’s their only argument. (Note to Ms. Tanaka: the sophists gave birth to the ad hominem.)

And Bob Mattes has made the most brilliant point yet on his blog, Reformed Musings. In fact, I believe his simple comparison will help everyone get their heads around the Federal Vision. You see, Mr. Schwaller, Federal Vision confuses the average Joe because it is so difficult to explain. But Mr. Mattes bypassed a convoluted explanation that would only make matters worse and drew a simple comparison between Pastor Wilson’s Federal Vision and his magnum opus Southern Slavery As It Was:

Together Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins did for Christianity and US history what the Federal Vision is doing for the Reformed faith. This is theonomic theology at its absolute best. Here’s a quote from page 18 under the section heading of “Unexpected Blessings”:

Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since. Whatever its failures, slavery produced in the South a degree of mutual affection between the races which will never be achieved through any federally-mandated efforts.

Ouch; that’s gotta hurt. And you will note that Mr. Mattes served on the committee that wrote the report condemning Federal Vision. He sure did his homework. Just wait until he learns that Wilson and Wilkins plagiarized the whole thing!

So there it is, Mr. Schwaller. Something for your consideration before you join the fossils of Pompeii, a mere hole in the ash heap of history.

Dougs’ Hero

Ms. Tanaka and her Samurai sword

2007-06-21T17:28:00.000-07:00

Dear Ms. Tanaka,

I have assumed nothing about you and I projected nothing upon you. You, however, presume that your hatred is not “characterized by maliciousness or malevolence, but rather by an overriding concern for God’s justice, truth, and righteousness” and that your hatred somehow defends the Lord of Glory “from His enemies,” which is preposterous.

I suspect that if you polled this listserv, most people would characterize many of your posts as malicious and malevolent and, whatever else you may think, the King of all the earth does not need someone calling herself “Princess Sushitushi” to defend His cause. Somehow it just looks, ummmmm what’s the word? . . . oh, yes — ludicrous.

But I have a question for you. Last December while you were defending Pastor Wilson’s hateful culture of imprecatory prayer, you wrote,

In Galatians 1:8 Paul pronounces a curse upon heretics who seek to pervert the church, and in chapter 5:12 he prays that they would be emasculated and neutered lest their heresy reproduce.

Here’s my question: since the PCA has added its voice to the swelling ranks of Reformed denominations condemning Federal Vision as disruptive to the peace and purity of the church, sub-confessional, non-confessional, and/or heretical, which certainly fits the biblical definition of the word “heresy” if not the Roman definition, and since Pastor Wilson is perhaps the most outspoken proponent of the Federal Vision, do you pray a curse upon him that God would “emasculate and neuter him lest his heresy reproduce”?

Thanks,

Dougs’ Hero

Thoughts for Ms. Tanaka

2007-06-21T12:08:00.000-07:00

Dear Ms. Tanaka,

Thank you for your extended answer to my question; it helped very much.

Before we lose focus, however, let’s make sure of the original context of your assertion. At the time, you were attempting to defend Pastor Wilson’s imprecatory theology and you premised your argument thus: “The Book of Revelation is vey [sic] revealing indeed in this respect.” Further, you supported your proposition by alleging, “Jesus says twice in this book that He HATES the Nicoliatans [sic].”

However, in response to my inquiry you have modified your position by stating, “Actually, Jesus’ exact words are that He hates the DEEDS and DOCTRINES of the Nicolaitans, which is certainly not the same thing as saying that He hates the Nicolaitans,” though you did not modify your conclusion. Nevertheless, you are correct. Hatred for a person’s deeds is not the same as hatred for that person. Not even close. For example, I hate your DEEDS and I hate your DOCTRINE; but I do not hate you.

This is important for three reasons. First, Scripture declares, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18, 19)

Ms. Tanaka, please notice that this text pronounces a curse — an imprecation — on anyone who adds to or takes away from the words of the Apocalypse. I call this to your attention because you added to the Book of Revelation when you wrote, “Jesus says twice in this book that He HATES the Nicoliatans [sic].” You added an object — the Nicolaitans — an entire body of people, to the Lord Jesus’ hatred. And you aggravated your offense by deliberately taking away words from the Book of Revelation; you took away the words DEEDS and DOCTRINE.

The second reason this is important is because you added to and you took away from the Word of God in an attempt to defend Pastor’s Wilson’s theology of hate. To be sure, you dripped with venom when you wrote, “Jesus says twice in this book that He HATES the Nicoliatans [sic].” Unfortunately, your proof text did not justify your hatred; it only pronounced a covenantal curse upon you and justified your eternal condemnation. Think about it, Ms. Tanaka. A plain reading of the text means that you added all the plagues of the Apocalypse on your head and at the same time you took away your part from the book of life.

And the third reason this is important is that according to your hermeneutic, if you do not repent of your deeds and your doctrines, i.e. your theology that permits interpolation of the Word of God, then the Son of God will hate you, if He does not already. You wrote, “we can safely say that unless the Nicolaitans repent of their deeds and doctrines, they are most assuredly hated by God, even as they suffer torment in Hell while waiting for the final judgment at the end of history when they shall be cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity.”

Yes, Ms. Tanaka, “The Book of Revelation is very revealing indeed in this respect,” and I just thought you would want to know what it reveals. May it lead to a change in heart.

Thank you,

Dougs’ Hero

From: “Taro Tanaka”
To: Vision2020
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 5:53 AM
Subject: Separating the Princess from the Schwaller: Not yet

Ternier Hedenkoff wrote:

[[ can you please show me where in the Book of Revelation that “Jesus says twice in this book that He HATES the Nicolaitans.” ]]

Actually, Jesus’ exact words are that He hates the DEEDS and DOCTRINES of the Nicolaitans, which is certainly not the same thing as saying that He hates the Nicolaitans. However, we can safely say that unless the Nicolaitans repent of their deeds and doctrines, they are most assuredly hated by God, even as they suffer torment in Hell while waiting for the final judgment at the end of history when they shall be cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity. One of the things that will be burned up in the Lake of Fire is the absurd notion that God hates only sins but never hates the sinners who cling to those sins out of their hatred toward Him.

First of all, the Bible says God will “render to every man according to his deeds” (Rom 2:6, quoting Psalm 62:12). Second, from the context, the Nicolaitans are clearly Christians who have apostasized or who are in the process of apostasizing. Third, the Bible clearly states that God hates certain people; some of these are named individuals and some are unnamed persons who happen to fall into certain categories of people that God says He hates. Fourth, we will fail to understand God’s hatred properly if we assume His hatred is essentially no different from our hatreds. We know our own frailties and it is all too clear that the hatreds engaged in by men are encumbered by sinfulness; however, it is crucial to recognize that God is never unrighteous in any respect, including in the hatred He harbors toward certain things and certain individuals.

I hope this helps!

Sayonara

Separating the Princess from the Schwaller: Not yet

2007-06-20T17:09:00.000-07:00

Dear Princess Sushitushi,

Allow me to welcome you back to the Viz and at the same time express my hope that you return quickly to your self-imposed exile; we rather enjoyed the last six-months of relatively venom-free posts.

However, before you go and before I respond to your allegation, I have had a question for you ever since posted something here last December. To set the context, you offered this particular post to defend the wicked imprecatory culture planted by Pastor Douglas Wilson here in Moscow.

You wrote,

The Book of Revelation is vey [sic] revealing indeed in this respect. . . . Jesus says twice in this book that He HATES the Nicoliatans [sic].

Now, I do not doubt that you actually believe this. In fact, I am persuaded me that you believe this alleged twofold statement from the Son of God justifies the contempt you show for persons bearing the image of God. Nevertheless, can you please show me where in the Book of Revelation that “Jesus says twice in this book that He HATES the Nicolaitans.”

Thank you.

Dougs’ Hero

Happy Schwallers Day!

2007-06-18T09:30:00.000-07:00

Dear Dr. Campbell and fellow Visionaries,

I am afraid that Mr. Schwaller cannot accept your invitation to meet for coffee today, as he has a preexisting date to speak at the annual ACCS conference, which is a yearly gathering of so-called educators who couldn’t follow an argument if you marked it with bread crumbs. However, in lieu of his company I shall provide you with the conclusion to yesterday’s tragic story of the Greyfriar who learned his lessons well and the Pastor who taught him how to finish the job, because it did not end when Pastor Douglas Wilson threatened the victim’s father with discipline. There remains yet one more chapter.

Happily, the father of the victim successfully removed himself from Pastor Wilson’s predatory threats and he lived to talk about it. Indeed, he spoke to the SPLC’s Intelligence Report, which reported,

The father of the girl in the second incident told the Intelligence Report that church officials tried to keep that quiet as well. At one point, he said, they threatened to bring him under church discipline for failing to protect his daughter. “It would be like me getting robbed and the police coming over and arresting me because I didn’t have five locks on the door, only one,” he said. “It was just bizarre.”

This paragraph is fair enough. A father analogizes the pastoral abuse he suffered at the hands of Douglas Wilson and concluded it “just bizarre.” But if anything’s true about Pastor Wilson, he has to have the last word. Consequently, he lashed out at the father when he saw the article, writing,

Let’s just say that I have never seen quite so striking an example of a father neglecting his daughter. But this is not one that you have to take my word for. Just look at the previous paragraph. This is a father who was willing to talk to Intelligence Report about this particular incident because he doesn’t believe his daughter has been through enough. And the ghouls at SPLC were willing to print it.

After you’ve picked up your jaw, please track Pastor Wilson’s argument. First, with typical Wilsonnuedno he implied that the Greyfriar sexually assaulted the child because of the father’s negligence. Stay with it; this is not a gratuitous whack at the father. Pastor Wilson really believes this and, quite frankly, everyone knows it’s the father’s fault when the student molests the child after the pastor vouches for him. Remember, if you can’t trust your pastor, who can you trust?

Second, Pastor Wilson conceded that the victim had “been through enough,” though he implied it was at her father’s hands, not the molester’s. And third, Pastor Wilson proved his point by affirming that when the father spoke to the media, he aggravated his child’s ordeal. Unfortunately, Wilson failed to state how speaking to the media about Wilson’s pastoral abuse exasperated the child’s suffering. Nevertheless, Pastor Wilson’s point stands: if you discuss the incident in the media, no matter what context, you compound the victim’s pain.

Fair enough. Let’s say the Greyfriar sexually assaulted the child because of the father’s neglect, and let’s say that the father worsened the child’s torment by talking to the media. In fact, let’s go all the way. Let’s impute ALL blame and guilt for this incident to the father: HE DID IT ALL. But let’s not forget to grant Pastor Wilson’s point either: anyone who brings publicity to this incident adds to the child’s suffering and establishes their own guilt. This crime is so reprehensible that the ghoul who commits it stands self-condemned by their action.

If this true, then why would Pastor Wilson blog it?

On that note, I want to wish Pastor Wilson a happy Schwaller’s day!

Dougs’ Hero

A Sabbath Meditation for Mr. Schwaller

2007-06-17T09:20:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

For today’s Sabbath meditation, allow me to call to your attention an important historical fact regarding “God’s hand of judgment” that you may not know. You will recall that Pastor Douglas Wilson documented in his book Fidelity that “rape is God’s judgment on a culture,” and that he distinguished between rape “perpetrated by foreign soldiers” and rape that resulted from “citizens turning on one another.”

This is an important distinction for you to reflect upon because in the years 2003–2005, TWO rapists, not one, visited Christ Church, and both men were citizens of the Kirk who turned on their own. This historical fact becomes even more interesting when you note that Pastor Wilson hand chose one of the rapists to join the Greyfriars program, so that he could prepare him for the ministry.

However, my point in calling this to your attention is not to comment on this student’s remarkable learning prowess; rather, my point is to note his teacher’s extraordinary ability to reinforce his instruction. You see, before the court convicted this Greyfriar of SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD, Pastor Wilson put a full-court press on the father of the victim to NOT prosecute the perpetrator. Unfortunately, Pastor Wilson never explained why he didn’t want the Greyfriar prosecuted. One theory is that he wanted to avoid the negative publicity attached to two back-to-back Christ Church sex-offender cases in one summer; the other theory is that Pastor Wilson enjoys keeping child rapists near the flock.

Whatever his motive, Pastor Wilson squeezed the father of the victim to lay off the Greyfriar. In fact, he squeezed him so tight that he actually threatened him with church discipline. No, that’s not a typo; read it again. Pastor Wilson threatened the father of one of the victims with church discipline because the man contemplated prosecuting the Greyfriar to the hilt, which could have resulted in a life sentence.

Can you imagine that, Mr. Schwaller? A Kirk family learned that one of Pastor Wilson’s hand-chosen disciples sexually abused their child, and Pastor Wilson responded by protecting the molester AND seeking to punish the victim’s father. This point becomes even more shocking when you remember that one of the primary responsibilities of a shepherd, if not THE primary responsibility, is to PROTECT THE FLOCK. In this case, however, Pastor Wilson was more concerned with protecting the predator than the sheep.

Dr. Jay Adams coined an axiom that I think applies to Pastor Wilson, which I will paraphrase: “whenever a church refuses to discipline its sin, it will discipline the righteous by default.” This is exactly the case at Christ Church. The shepherds have welcomed predators into the flock and simultaneously punished the sheep, which brings us back to my original point.

If this Greyfriar had any doubts about the propriety of his wicked behavior, Pastor Wilson went out of his way to remove them. Indeed, he rewarded the guilty and chastised the innocent to underscore all of his student’s previous lessons, as a good instructor should. Better yet, he taught him how to finish the job. Accordingly, by Pastor Wilson’s standards, it’s not enough to defile an innocent child; an accomplished predator understands the importance of finishing off the father.

But I suppose if there’s any consolation here for the poor lost souls of the Kirk, they can meditate upon this, If you can’t trust your pastor, who can you trust?

Dougs’ Hero

A Lying Schwaller

2007-06-15T20:25:00.000-07:00

Visionaries and Mr. Schwaller,

Mr. Schwaller has represented himself as an authority on Steven Stinger’s case, including such things as where he parks at the courthouse to where he will sit at Christ Church. But he has carefully tailored the information he feeds us about Steven Stinger to place Pastor Wilson and Christ Church in the best possible light and he refuses to explain in what capacity he “worked for several months with Mr Sitler and other sex offenders in our area.” However, Mr. Schwaller made sure to leave the impression that he worked with Stinger in a therapeutic capacity when he stated, “I felt he [Stinger] was grasping” and when he referred to Stinger’s “previous and ongoing treatment.”

Federal privacy laws prohibit physicians/therapists from disclosing their patients’ names except in very limited circumstances, such as court cases, and even then the bulk of their disclosures are not public record. So if Mr. Schwaller worked with Stinger in the capacity that he implied, he would have violated HIPAA, which is punishable by a fine of $250,000 and 10 years in prison (penalties).

Ministers, however, have no obligation to protect privilege, other than what conscience, good faith, and a few landmark cases require, which raises the obvious question: Since Mr. Schwaller could not have worked with Stinger in a mental-health-care capacity, what minister in the area has “worked for several months with Mr Sitler and other sex offenders in our area” who could speak to Stinger’s “ongoing treatment”?

The answer, of course, is Pastor Douglas Wilson, who has worked with at least three high-profile sex offenders in our area in the last year — Steven Stinger, Jamin Wight, and a deadbeat Greyfriar whom Pastor Wilson shamelessly paraded in front of the community as a TOKEN of his contempt. (Two Greyfriars from the same class that expelled Michael Metzler; yes, Pastor Wilson attracts deviants and he cultivates perversion.)

But to answer Mr. Schwaller’s inquiry, “Maybe [Dougs’ Hero] would care to bullet them [Mr. Schwaller’s lies],” here are the most prominent:

First, Mr. Schwaller lied when he wrote, “I am NOT Doug Wilson. I’ve never met Doug Wilson. . . I am NOT affiliated in any way with NSA, Christ Church, Logos School nor anything that (as far as I know) is tied to those institutions.” This is a lie because Glenn Schwaller exists as a consortium of idiots from Christ Church, which includes Pastor Wilson. I say this because only one man holds this community in such contempt that he would dispatch a Taro-type character to address this awful subject, so that he could defend Wilson while simultaneously ridiculing the community. The Princess appeared on this list when the Stinger story broke, just as Mr. Schwaller appeared the day Judge Stegner released Stinger.

Nevertheless, no one familiar with this case — not Bill Thompson, Judge Stegner, Dean Wullenwaber, RC Sproul Jr, and certainly not the primary victims in Moscow — no one thinks any of this is cute or funny, except Mr. Glenn Schwaller, whose future is so bright he has to wear shades, and who found time to work “Fudds [sic] First Law of Opposition” into the conversation as well as a few “apologies to Veronica Quaife.” The staggering contradiction between the content of some of Mr. Schwaller’s posts and his incredibly flip/antagonistic attitude toward the community confounds me. While Steven Stinger horrifies most human beings, Mr. Schwaller finds this an occasion to belittle, mock, and humiliate, and only one man in real life fits that profile — the minister who cares so little about Stinger’s predations that he would yak his schwaller and fantasize about a hostile take over the Moscow Food Co-op on April Fools Day instead of searching for victims. Perhaps if Stinger had stung Hero, he would not live so close to Grandma.

The second lie follows from the first, “Glenn Schwaller lives, breathes, and exists.” Sure, Doug. Glenn Schwaller does not exist as a human being, which probably explains why no one at the county has heard of him.

To save time, I will call your third lie all the times that you misrepresented persons from this list, including me, by putting meanings on our words that we never intended. Several times you have twisted my words and the few times I asked you to clarify your misrepresentation, you ignored my request, which is consistent with your predatory nature. You tried to create vulnerability and failed. But like a wolf, you lied in wait until the next time.

The fourth lie that Mr. Schwaller has told this community relates to critical information that he has withheld from us about Steven Stinger. As I said, Mr. Schwaller has carefully tailored the information he feeds us; I expect the community will learn of Mr. Schwaller’s bad faith soon enough.

“Dougs’ Hero”

PS: Since you’re in Virginia, can you confirm if your pal told Denise? Our sources say she doesn’t know just as you withheld this from your flock.

From: “Glenn Schwaller”
To: Vision2020
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 3:49 PM
Subject: Don’t change the subject DOUG

I’m not sure what information I’ve posted Our Hero thinks is a lie. Maybe he would care to bullet them. I’ve posted some opinions on things he has asked about. At times I’ve cited what I believe to be factual information, but a difference of opinion cannot be construed as a lie.

Glenn

Mr. Schwaller had a very bad day

2007-06-14T08:19:00.000-07:00

Visionaries,

Many of you might not know that for the last five years, Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, has led a theological movement called “Federal Vision,” or “FV” (aka “Auburn Avenue Theology” because it publicly debuted at Steve Wilkins’ church). A summary of FV would require too much, but in short it holds that the Church has misunderstood the gospel for the last 400 years and that the “Federal Vision” now makes it clear. Suffice to say that since 2002 it has caused tremendous problems in churches across the nation.

I call this to your attention because yesterday the 34th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) adopted a report condemning “Federal Vision” as not in conformity with the Westminster Standards, which is the standard of the Reformed church. The vote was overwhelming. One witness reported that only 30–50 commissioners voted “No” out of 1400.

The significance of this vote cannot be overstated. The PCA is the largest Presbyterian & Reformed denomination in the world, so this vote signals the beginning of the end for any of Pastor Wilson’s claims to orthodoxy. For years he has hailed “the voice of the Church” as the final authority. Indeed, he functionally excommunicated his own brother by citing the “the voice of the Church.” Yesterday, however, the Church spoke. The PCA’s report named Douglas Wilson eight (8) times.

Locally, this vote represents a huge step toward isolating Moscow as a center for anti-Christian doctrine, at least to the extent that Pastor Wilson spearheads the Federal Vision. It also legitimizes those who have called Christ Church a “cult” in recent years, at least to the extent that false doctrine is the centerpiece of a cult.

But if anything else is true, you can be sure of these two things. Yesterday the PCA repudiated the teaching of Douglas Wilson. And yesterday Mr. Schwaller had a very bad day.

“Hero”

PS: You can download the PCA report here.

A Communion Meditation for Mr. Schwaller

2007-06-10T07:22:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

As you prepare to defile this week’s Table again, I want to give you more background in your crash course on the disingenuous machinations of Douglas Wilson, particularly as they apply to his distorted sense of self-importance in direct opposition to the needs of his flock..

Please take a moment to read this blog entry entitled “Kick It Up A Notch,” which he posted on April 30, 2005, in response to unnamed events that transpired the previous week. And bear in mind that he wrote this about six weeks after he discovered a serial pedophile committed abominations with Kirk lambs for the past 18 months, or to use his words, six weeks after he learned that “God’s hand of judgment” fell on Christ Church.

Now please note the two most striking points of this post. First, Pastor Wilson immediately established himself as the center of attention, putting himself on par with the psalmist and St. Paul. Second, notice that Pastor Wilson used vivid language to describe a serious event that he called an “attack,” but he NEVER IDENTIFIED the exact nature of this so-called “attack”; he never stated what specifically happened.

For example, he implied that someone had “reviled” him for Jesus’ sake, but he didn’t say who or how. He called this event a “disguised attack on the purity and consequent potency of the gospel,” and He compared its significance to Paul’s confrontation of Peter at Antioch, but I don’t recall any apostolic assemblies in the last two years. He called it a “tribulation” whereby he would “enter the kingdom of heaven,” but he omitted the specifics of his distress. It was something that “troublemakers” caused because they wanted to “win the respect of the unbelieving world,” but he neglected support this innuendo with any facts. He intimated that he refused to compromise his faith, unlike the “moderate Christians” who had. To be sure, the “attack” and subsequent hardship was so severe for Pastor Wilson that it required special intercession from the saints, whom he publicly thanked for their support because it “meant a great deal.” And he eased the concern of his friends, saying that he and his wife were doing “quite well.”

But please notice, Mr. Schwaller, that Pastor Wilson NEVER IDENTIFIED the exact nature of this so-called “attack”; he never stated exactly what happened. He completely failed to pinpoint the actual historical event itself, leaving his readers to their imaginations to discover the awful truth.

It’s fair to say that he described his family’s trial as so severe that the average reader could walk away thinking it was too terrible to mention; that, for example, he just learned a serial pedophile had raped his grandchildren for the past 18 months. I must admit Pastor Wilson left me with the impression that all four of Job’s messengers had visited him at once, or that bad men tried extorting a repudiation of his faith from him.

But none of these things happened, Mr. Schwaller, not even close. You see, Pastor Wilson could not state directly in plain language the nature of this “attack” because the sad facts of the matter would have immediately punctured his inflated storyline. There was no “attack.” No one “reviled” him. There was no “tribulation.” These things were all figments of Wilson’s imagination — pure fantasy. This is because only one event occurred that week: WORLD Magazine reported that Douglas Wilson committed plagiarism when he co-wrote and edited the book Southern Slavery As It Was. That’s it. Pastor Wilson suffered profound tribulation because WORLD Magazine reported that he committed plagiarism. And their report wasn’t even an “article.” It was a 387-word vignette on the sidebar, which was exactly 300 words less than his blog post. This was the “attack” on poor Pastor Wilson; this was his “tribulation.”

But while no one reviled him, he reviled WORLD Magazine for using the words “stolen sections” to describe his sin. And while no one demanded that he renounce his faith, he demanded that WORLD Magazine apologize to him for the story. And while no one suffered harm that required the saints’ intercession, he made the world suffer as he threw his unrelenting fit of rage.

Mr. Schwaller, as you consider Pastor Wilson’s dreadful ordeal, please compare it to the indescribable acts perpetrated against those innocent children by Steven Sitler just a few weeks before Wilson wrote his fantastic story. Factor in Wilson’s refusal to notify congregation and community, as well as his April Fools Day joke on the Moscow Food Co-op; and don’t forget the beatings that he gave MLK Jr and John Wesley for their plagiarism. Finally, look at Wilson’s cholesterol-laden menu for his self-absorbed gluttony festival described in excessive detail down to the obscene stuffing spilling over the belt of his size 66 (too small) pants.

And with all of these historical facts set before you, ask the question, What the schwaller is wrong with this man?

Now make sure you look nice and holy for the people today, because you are a very brave and important person.

Thank you.

A Schwaller Primer

2007-06-09T18:20:00.001-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

You appear quite bent that sex offenders spawned by Christ Church represent a special interest to the community. Unfortunately, you have concluded that this constitutes a form of “persecution,” which is no surprise given your tendency to echo the thought processes of Douglas Wilson who regularly confuses reaping what he sowed with persecution.

Regardless, you will recall that we established four deviant personality traits that Douglas Wilson instilled in Steven Sitler while he preyed in Moscow under Wilson’s oversight. He learned how to deceitfully manipulate; he learned that narcissistic self-love exceeds self-denial as the preeminent Christian virtue; he obtained Wilson’s approval to break any law — God’s or man’s — if it stood between him and his personal lusts; and he learned that human beings made in the image of God are nothing more than physical objects meant to bring sadistic pleasure to kirkers wielding serrated edges. But Steven Sitler’s tutelage under Douglas Wilson didn’t end the day Wilson discovered his abominations. In fact, that’s when the hands-on lessons began. Please, let me explain.

First, Pastor Wilson taught Steven Sitler that kirkers live by another set of standards than the rest of the world. For example, in the case of the BTK serial killer, Wilson maintained that true repentance required the killer to “plead guilty in court to any crimes he committed, publicly declare that he has sought God’s forgiveness, and ask for forgiveness from the families of the victims.”

Sitler, however, used his intimate knowledge of the victims to plea bargain one count, instead of witnessing a good confession. In other words, “he didn’t plead guilty in court to any crimes he committed”; rather, he leveraged the court for a sweetheart deal whereby the court agreed to prosecute him for only one offense if he agreed to name his victims, which obviously spared him the embarrassment of “pleading guilty in court to any crimes he committed.” It also reinforced all of his previous lessons whereby Pastor Wilson instructed him how to manipulate others to obtain his selfish desires.

Second, Pastor Wilson taught Sitler that when kikers commit abominations, Pastor Wilson will cover them up. In Sitler’s case Wilson helped achieve this objective by arranging appropriate counsel for the main principals. For example, Sitler’s parents retained the finest lawyer money could buy — Dean Wullenwaber — as defense counsel — at Wilson’s recommendation. Likewise, the victims retained counsel at their pastor’s recommendation; unfortunately, they retained the most incompetent attorney in the state — Greg Dickison — who recently abandoned his law practice to sell real estate. In the end, Wullenwaber negotiated Sitler’s plea bargain while Dickison no doubt offered consolation to the victims as they watched Wullenwaber work the system.

Third, Pastor Wilson taught Sitler that his perversion stems from “discontent” rather than an evil heart. We know this because in his letter to Judge Stegner, Wilson wrote, “The assignments I have given him have included the reading of books on everything from the obvious issues of sex and sexuality, to the underlying issues of his discontent.” Can you believe that, Mr. Schwaller? Douglas Wilson pinned Sitler’s serial pedophile on “underlying issues of his discontent.” HOW STUNNINGLY STUPID! Think about it; when feelings of discontentment overwhelm you, Mr. Schwaller, do you feel like raping two year olds? I certainly hope not. Whatever you may feel, however, I am confident that Wilson’s pastoral counsel reinforced the trivial nature of Sitler’s crimes, at least in the psychopath’s mind, when he attributed its original source to “discontent.” This leads to the final lesson.

Pastor Wilson taught Sitler that his crimes were nothing more than a “problem” requiring repentance, and Wilson rewarded Sitler’s genuine repentance with a letter to Judge Stegner, which stated, “When we first began, I can honestly say that Steven did not know the real nature of his *problem.* . . . I have good hope that Steven has genuinely repented, and that he will continue to deal with this to become a productive and contributing member of society.” Now even you, Mr. Schwaller, must have a difficult time swallowing this one, because you have lectured us time and again that Sitler cannot be “cured” and that he will always pose a constant threat to children. But Pastor Wilson thought Sitler suffered from a “problem” correctable by genuine repentance, which raises the obvious question, If Wilson thinks serial pedophilia is nothing more than a “problem,” what does he call “wickedness”?

Therefore, Mr. Schwaller, you may protest that the community pays too much attention to sex offenders bred by Douglas Wilson’s malignant theology; but you have to admit that Pastor Wilson has done little to discourage criminal behavior in his disciples. In fact, the evidence appears overwhelming that Pastor Wilson diligently labors to diminish their felonies, which not only contributes nothing to their rehabilitation, it positively encourages their iniquity. Obviously this translates into a greater threat to the community at large whether you like it or not.

So once again I encourage you to repent of the bitterness that clearly feeds your compulsion to harass the community on this subject, which really only bothers two people — Glenn Schwaller and Douglas Wilson.

Thank you.

Schwaller channeling Wilson, Schwaller channeling Wilson: Do you read me?

2007-06-07T08:57:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

Recently I received an email from the person whom I consider the foremost authority on the subject of Douglas Wilson’s disingenuous machinations. The email contained a side-by-side comparison of Wilson’s words, which he wrote in response to public criticism of him, and your words, which you wrote in response to public criticism of him. Here are the two citations:

It is my intent to blog my way through this book [a book critiquing Wilson’s disingenuous theology], offering my thoughts on this general subject for the edification of a bemused Christendom, and to do so whenever one of three conditions pertain: a. I am amused b. I am about to burst a blood vessel on my forehead, or c. I need to set the record, as they say, straight. . . . — Douglas Wilson

Just to set the record straight (not that I particularly care about setting the record straight, I just like to hear the collective hammering of the veins in the foreheads of a few of our 2020 visionaries). . . . — Glenn Schwaller

I call this historical coincidence to your attention not to ask you to account for Pastor Wilson’s words. They make sense enough. I call it to your attention to ask you to account for your words. I don’t understand WHY you actually tried to set the record straight if you really “like to hear the collective hammering of the veins in the foreheads of a few of our 2020 visionaries.” This seems to contradict your point of not caring to set the record straight. After all, if you don’t care about setting it straight, and you actually enjoy listening to the collective hammering of veins, I’m not sure why you would stop the pleasure.

Don’t get me wrong. I sense your outrage and your contempt. But I don’t see the irony or the point. It’s as though you channeled Douglas Wilson but someone or something interfered with your reception and the subsequent temporary distortion caused you to mistype a word or phrase, or perhaps a full line of copy. And you will recall that this was your first “I’m not Doug Wilson, I just act like him” episode.

I would appreciate it if you would interpret your words for me and exactly whose veins you heard hammering in whose forehead when you typed your post. As I’ve noted before, I am confident that the answer will help you discover the Schwaller within.

Thank you.

Of Schwallers and Idiots

2007-06-05T19:35:00.001-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

Your recent exchange with Mr. Hansen illustrates your brazen willingness to manipulate words in order to CONTROL THE CONVERSATION; but I confess that Mr. Hansen handled you quite well. In fact, it reminds me of the time that Pastor Wilson, whose disingenuous machinations you know not, tried to manipulate Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey into public debating him about his book Southern Slavery, As It Was. (Of course, this happened before a UW professor caught Wilson in his plagiarism.)

In typical Wilsonian fashion, he strutted around town beating his chest, “I challenge you two to debate me!” And they of course gave him all the attention due the town fool, ignoring him much the way this list ignores you. But Wilson won’t take “no” for an answer because everyone must bow before him and his paramasturbatory visions of post-millennial glory. So the idiot took his challenge to the Viz, which you can read right here.

I tell you, Mr. Schwaller, you really have to admire a Christian pastor when he personally insults respected members of the community. He’s such a brave man. Nevertheless, I call these historical facts to your attention because I want you to see Mr. Hansen’s perfect response to Pastor Wilson’s courageous double dare. You can read it right here.

TOUCHÉ!! Well, that’s about the funniest slam I ever read. Pastor Wilson tried to manipulate other people’s words so that he could CONTROL THE CONVERSATION, and Tom Hansen handed it right back to him, good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over. WHAP! Indeed, I’m sure that even you can appreciate Mr. Hansen’s quick wit.

So I thought that I’d share this moment in history with you, Mr. Schwaller, as a little reminder to be careful when you twist other people’s words.

But before I let you go, I have one question for you about something you wrote to Mr. Hansen. Speaking of Sitler and his probation, you said, “That does NOT mean they will follow these rules. It does NOT mean the community is “safe”. Only an idiot would believe that.”

By contrast, two years ago Pastor Wilson pleaded with Judge Stegner for a “measured and limited” sentence because Wilson had “good hope that Steven has genuinely repented, and that he will continue to deal with this to become a productive and contributing member of society.”

Therefore, given your standard that “only an idiot” would believe the community is safe from Sitler, do you think that Pastor Wilson is an idiot for grounding his urgent plea to Judge Stegner on nothing more than “good hope”?

Thanks,

Bob Herodotus

a schwaller from the beginning

2007-06-05T13:09:00.001-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

You recently declared that you have never met Doug Wilson, so I want to encourage you to meet him in order to familiarize yourself with his deceitful machinations, because when it comes to lying, no one can fudge a better schwaller than Pastor Wilson.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t want you to meet him so you could enhance your ability to schwaller. Rather, I want you to meet him so that you, Mr. Glenn Schwaller, the man who personally worked with serial pedophile Steven Sitler for several months but refuse to prove it, can see the malignant influence that Pastor Douglas Wilson had over the young man in your care. You will be surprised to discover that Pastor Wilson and pedophile Sitler share many things in common.

For example, you recall the time that Wilson ran from this listserv after the community caught him telling huge schwallers. Well, as previously noted he returned to the list using various pseudonyms, such as Edna Wilmington, Rod Johnson, A. Tad Nosey, Bubba Jones, Kyle DeSpinauer, Faul Ottomaticks, Citizen X, Fiat Lux, Christian Burns, Princess Sushitushi — I think you get the picture. You see, he primarily uses these characters to defend his reputation or to run interference for HIS agenda during any one of his regular scandals that occur at random intervals. Of course the irony is that he stoutly condemns “anonymous” posts on the one hand while he regularly uses them on the other. As I said, the man is a flaming schwaller.

However, my point is to show you one particular pseudonym deployed by Wilson in 2004 and the specific location where he laundered that pseudonym’s emails, when he shwallered to this community. The name was “P.S. Stile” and Wilson laundered “Stile’s” posts through Colville, WA. Yes, Colville, WA — Steven Sitler’s hometown. We know this because Mr. Wayne Fox did the legwork and posted it right here on Vision 2020.

I call this to your attention hoping that you could sniff around. Perhaps you could take advantage of your personal relationship with Sitler and contact him to see if he and Wilson worked together in conjunction with Sitler’s parents or his pastor, when Wilson tried to deceive the community with one of his clever schwallers. And mind you, this theory is not beyond the realm of possibility when you remember that Steven’s mother was a diehard Wilson loyalist when he fled from this list:

vision2020/2003-November/005448
vision2020/2003-November/005463
vision2020/2003-November/005552

I mean, can you imagine how awful someone in Colville must feel if, while Wilson taught them to schwaller so they could ridicule “intoleristas,” Sitler used deception to molest children? (BTW, Wilson coined the term “intolerista” to license his flock to treat members of the community with hate; “naming” for Wilson is the first step in dehumanizing.) At least, I hope someone would feel bad because I am certain that Pastor Wilson doesn’t care about “The victims, the victims, THINK OF THE VICTIMS!” He’s too concerned about April Fools’ jokes to worry about a few victims.

Therefore, perhaps you, Mr. Schwaller, could be a vessel of honor to our community. Perhaps you could share some more insight from your counseling sessions with Sitler and show us how Wilson helped corrupt the pedophile. Maybe others, through your hard work, could begin to understand the ripple effects of Wilson’s corrupting influence over the poor souls who sit under his wicked ministry. Perhaps then they may see the truth of Paul’s axiom, “Do not be deceived, evil company corrupts good morals,” for, indeed, there is no evil company like Douglas Wilson. After all, he was a schwaller from the beginning and the father of it.

Bob Herodotus

“Oh, I swear I’d kill that little weasel if I could.”
— Mark Knopfler (with apologies to all weasels)

Mr. Schwaller Preyed All Day

2007-06-03T19:45:00.001-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

You will recall that about two weeks ago, I wrote, “Sitler learned from Wilson how to create opportunities by misrepresentation and then pounce on weakness the moment he saw it.” And you will recall that this particular post sent you over the edge into an “I am not Doug Wilson, I just act like him” fit of rage.

I call this to your attention because you responded to “Let Us Prey” according to this modus operandi. You did not acknowledge that the author of the post predicated his argument on Douglas Wilson’s formal fallacy of affirming the consequent, and you did not acknowledge that the writer illustrated his point with one example of kirkers being inconsistent with their own beliefs, when they should not. Then you made the extraordinary leap from God answering the Kirk’s imprecatory prayers to God sending JH to Moscow for some unknown slight. In other words, you twisted the argument and superimposed your perversion on me:

“It sounds to me as if you are saying Christ Church is an enemy of God, offered an imprecatroy prayer to God improperly, and as punishment for that, God sent Steven Sitler to abuse their children. Did I get that right? Is that how the God you believe in functions?? Did God send us Jason Hamilton for some unknown slight to Him or some other poor soul?”

Can you see your misrepresentation? It’s clear that you wanted to create weakness, or vulnerability in my position, so that you could exploit it by pitting your straw man against the community. Mr. Schwaller, your style (in this post) reminds me of Doug Jones — the Kirk’s sidewinder. He might look cute and chubby, like the Pillsbury Dougboy; but that plump little reptile glides rather smoothly, dripping sincerity with each deception, so that he can position himself to lunge on his prey.

But the Kirk’s cold-blooded elder is not my point; my point is that your misrepresentation constitutes one more proof that you suffer from a terminal case of “I am not Doug Wilson, I just act like him” disease. Think about it. You used deceit to gain the moral high ground. This is classic Wilson who holds deceit as a virtue to take dominion, which brings us back to point.

Doug Wilson and Doug Jones cultured an environment where treachery is a virtue, and Steven Sitler thrived in their treacherous culture. Indeed, he flourished as they taught him to create susceptibility in his victims through guile. Ironically, they taught him, by example, right here on Vision 2020. The Kirk’s predatory elders taught the Kirk’s God-sent predator to sharpen his skills in this very forum. Now that’s ironic. It also leads to my final point.

Your attempt to CONTROL THE CONVERSATION has failed and I remind you of my outstanding request for you to tell us “in what capacity you ‘worked for several months with Mr Sitler and other sex offenders in our area’ and how we may confirm this claim.” I am certain the answer to this request will help you discover the Schwaller within.

Thank you,

Bob Herodotus

From: “Glenn Schwaller”
To: Vision2020
Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2007 2:56 PM
Subject: A Sabbath Contemplation for Mr. Schwaller — Let Us Prey

Dear Mr Herodotus

Thank you for the information. Since Poohs Blog or Poohs Speak (I don’t remember what it’s called) seems to be down at the present time, I have no way of reading all the information that is available.

As I understand it, imprecatory prayer asks for God to destroy His enemies. To me, the “His” indicates enemies of God, not the enemies of some poor guy who thinks he’s being persecuted. An enemy of Doug Wilson (or you, or me, or anyone) is not necessarily an enemy of God. Even if you or I or Doug Wilson THINK someone is an enemy of God, doesn’t make it so. So I guess it’s up to God to determine if the enemies against whom the imprecatory prayers were offered were enemies worthy of being punished in His name.

It sounds to me as if you are saying Christ Church is an enemy of God, offered an imprecatroy prayer to God improperly, and as punishment for that, God sent Steven Sitler to abuse their children. Did I get that right? Is that how the God you believe in functions?? Did God send us Jason Hamilton for some unknown slight to Him or some other poor soul? If so, you may keep your God; mine would never be so evil and callous.

There was what I felt to be a divinely inspired service at the Presbyterian Church this morning. At no time this morning did I feel the presence of an cruel, insensitive God. When I do, it’s time to find another God.

Schwaller

As far as Douglas Wilson’s thoughts on rape, I find them to be abhorrent.

A Sabbath Contemplation for Mr. Schwaller — Let Us Prey

2007-06-03T07:50:00.001-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

Continuing our education in the ABCs of Doug Wilson, you recall that I told you that a local blogger broke the story about Steven Sitler and Pastor Wilson’s failure to warn his flock. Well, exactly one year ago today, that blogger posted the following essay on his website, which I lifted and archived for the benefit of folks like you. You will notice that I used this post as the template for my previous contemplation:

Douglas Wilson has adopted a policy of affirming the consequent, which is the logical fallacy holding that the proposition “if A then B” necessitates the proposition “if B then A,” even though “if B then A” is plainly false. For example, Scripture teaches that, as a rule, righteous people will suffer persecution for their righteousness; but Scripture does not teach that everyone who experiences opposition is living righteously, which is the position advanced by Wilson when he points to all of the Kirk’s internal and external grief, saying, “We must be doing something right.” And while it may be true that Christ Church and its affiliated ministries may be doing something right, it is certainly true that they are doing many things wrong — very wrong — such as prayer.

Perhaps you could reflect upon the Kirk’s imprecatory-prayer policy and its possible relation to Steven Sitler’s serial predation of Kirk children. From June 2003 through July 2003, Christ Church conducted imprecatory-prayer meetings — daily — asking God to visit judgment upon their “enemies.” Steven Sitler arrived in Moscow to attend New Saint Andrews College in August 2003. And if you believe that God answers prayer, then this fact deserves serious contemplation, especially in light of Douglas Wilson’s thoughts on rape, in his book Fidelity:

Violent rape is a judgment of God upon a people. . . This does not justify the perpetrators; it is simply the recognition that when disaster befalls a city, sexual disaster for the women is part of this. This does not mean that a woman who is raped should assume any personal responsibility for it; she is innocent. . . Violent rape is God’s judgment on a culture, and individual women who are part of that culture are included in the judgment. But this does not mean that they as individuals “deserved” it. . . . We see the same judgment at work in disintegrating cultures: ‘Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil’ (Eccl. 8:11). Here the rape is not being perpetrated by foreign soldiers, but is the result of citizens turning on one another. Every culture is a gathering of sinners, and so rape is always a possibility. But when God’s hand of judgment is heavy upon a people, women are in far greater danger of sexual assault than at other times. (Douglas Wilson, Fidelity: What It Means To Be a One-Woman Man [Moscow: Canon Press, 1999] 82, 83)

If this serial pedophilia had taken place in the local government school system, Wilson would have wagged his finger at the disintegrating culture, and if a person against whom the Kirk utters their imprecatory prayers had suffered a similar hard providence, Wilson would fill the web with gloats and jeers. But now we see that God has visited the unspeakable upon Christ Church, and He did it at the exact time when they labored in prayer beseeching harm upon their neighbors. This should not go unnoticed.

Douglas Wilson’s enemy theology cultivates selfishness, implants acrimony, fosters revenge, and breeds hate. It is a culture of death. It is a culture under “God’s hand of judgment.” And the Kirk’s enemy theology reached its zenith in the summer of 2003, when they asked for pain, calamity, torment, and affliction upon others; and God Almighty answered their imprecations with one of their own citizens. God sent them Steven Sitler to rape helpless and innocent children.

But the point is not Sitler’s abuse. These dear loved ones who suffered at Sitler’s hands are not merely victims of child molestation; they are victims of profound spiritual abuse. They are victims of Doug Wilson’s enemy theology. And if the Kirk wants relief, or even mercy, then they should seek it at the very place where they scorned it — on their knees, in prayer.

Thank you.

Another Contemplation for Mr. Schwaller

2007-06-01T09:25:00.001-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

You have noted that you are so new to our community that you are “still educating [yourself] on the history of this rather unfortunate mess [Sitler], MSD’s woes, and many of the other community issues at large.” You have also noted that you are not Doug Wilson, have never met Doug Wilson, and are not familiar with the disingenuous machinations of Doug Wilson; so I want to help you in your education as it relates to the subject of Douglas Wilson; after all, I am the Unofficial Father of Vision 2020 History. Please bear with me.

You will recall that a member of Christ Church caught Steven Sitler molesting one of his children, and a few days later Douglas Wilson discovered the unthinkable took place on his watch in his church. Now let me place this historical fact in another context for you. In one of his books, Wilson wrote this:

Violent rape is a judgment of God upon a people. . . This does not justify the perpetrators; it is simply the recognition that when disaster befalls a city, sexual disaster for the women is part of this. . . Violent rape is God’s judgment on a culture, and individual women who are part of that culture are included in the judgment. . . . We see the same judgment at work in disintegrating cultures: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Eccl. 8:11). Here the rape is not being perpetrated by foreign soldiers, but is the result of citizens turning on one another. . . But when God’s hand of judgment is heavy upon a people, women are in far greater danger of sexual assault than at other times. (Douglas Wilson, Fidelity: What It Means To Be a One-Woman Man [Moscow: Canon Press, 1999] 82, 83)

Accordingly, Pastor Wilson affirms that “citizens turning on one another” and “violent rape” are “God’s judgment on a culture.” Further, he states, “when God’s hand of judgment is heavy upon a people, women are in far greater danger of sexual assault than at other times.” Now if you apply Wilson’s standard and argue from the weak to the weaker, i.e. from “women” (weak) to “children” (weaker), then you may argue that “when God’s hand of judgment is heavy upon a people, *children* are in far greater danger of sexual assault than at other times.”

Given this principle, you may conclude that a Kirk pedophile turning on Kirk citizens and having his way with Kirk children for 18 months falls into the category of “violent rape” and “God’s judgment,” at least by Wilson’s standard. And when you throw in Sitler’s West Virginia spree in summer 2003, the judgment appears much worse, at least as far as the CREC is concerned. Whatever you believe, Mr. Schwaller, I am confident that the Judge of all the Earth has done right, at least by Wilson’s standards.

But my point in calling these awful facts to your attention is not to rub your nose in “God’s judgment.” You have convinced me that you neither fear God nor regard man, and that you have no more concept of human decency than Sitler or Wilson. Indeed, I believe that if you knew the victims saw you right now, you wouldn’t give a rip. What do you care? IT’S ALL ABOUT DOUG.

Nevertheless, I think it’s important for the readers of Vision2020 as well as lurkers from the Kirk to have a little perspective. Douglas Wilson learned of Sitler’s crimes on March 11, 2005. After that, we don’t know when Sitler began confessing the names of his victims; we don’t know how long it took him to remember the names he confessed; and we don’t know when Wilson decided to conceal this information from the Kirk. But we do know this much.

On March 11, 2005, Douglas Wilson had good cause to examine his heart, his doctrine, and his manner of life, because by his standard “God’s hand of judgment” had just fallen on the Kirk’s “disintegrating culture.” We know that of all men, Pastor Wilson had an absolute obligation to exhaust himself searching for more possible victims of Steven Sitler, and that this obligation included an exhaustive search within the local community. Indeed, if any man had occasion to grow up and act mature, Pastor Douglas Wilson was that man.

Unfortunately, this was not the case. We know this because exactly 20 days after Wilson discovered that “God’s hand of judgment” had just fallen on the Kirk, or less than three weeks after he learned that a serial pedophile ravaged Kirk children for 18 months, Doug Wilson resolved for time and eternity to show the world exactly where his pastoral priorities lay. The great man of God found time to play an April Fools’ Day joke on the local community:

Big News Topic: Current Events
Now that the papers are all signed, and my attorney says that there is nothing that can be done about it, I suppose this would be a good time to announce that through the generous help of a third party my wife and I have bought the Moscow Food Coop. For me to have been involved in the negotiations publicly would have been obviously counterproductive, but now that the deal is done, I think there is no longer any sense in being coy. At the same time, despite local politics, I want to assure all the regular Food Coop customers that there is absolutely no intention of selling the Coop’s new downtown location to Christ Church, or of diminishing in any way the quality of service that our customers have come to expect.

Think about it, Mr. Schwaller, the fool had no idea how many more undiscovered victims remained in his church (just as he still does not), but 20 days after he learned a child rapist laid waste the lambs of the flock, Pastor Wilson found time to yank some locals’ chains, hoping to get a good laugh at their expense. In case your math is off, that’s almost one day per confessed victim. What a funny guy. Do you think the victims laughed, Mr. Schwaller? I don’t.

But perhaps I expect too much. Perhaps April Fools’ gags help Wilson reflect on his calling, or maybe April Fools’ Day is the Kirk equivalent of the Day of Atonement. I don’t know and I don’t care. Of this much, however, I am certain. When God delivers the final blow to the Kirk’s rotten culture (which is currently in motion), Pastor Wilson will have no occasion for laughter, he will have no one to mock or belittle, and he will have nowhere to run. In fact, he should know by now that God will make him the punch line that day, because Scripture says,

Because you disdained all my counsel, and would have none of my rebuke, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes, when your terror comes like a storm, and your destruction comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they will not find me. Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD, they would have none of my counsel and despised my every rebuke. Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, and be filled to the full with their own fancies. (Proverbs 1:25–31)

Herodotus

Glenn Schwaller, Pastor of Christ Church

2007-05-31T07:25:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

On May 31, you wrote,

“Unless someone has some specifc [sic] questions regarding the conditions of Mr Sitler’s and others’ release, or related topics, I shall NOT revist [sic] this issue.”

But on June 1, you wrote,

“But what have YOU, Mr Hansen, given the circumstances the legal system has put us in, done to protect or inform the community? Oh yes, you have a little web site. And what exactly did that offer for community protection and information that was not readily and more timely available elsewhere? What have YOU, Mr Hansen, done to educate and inform yourself and others about how the system works and how best to work with it, given the release of sex offenders in our community? Have you talked with our local P&P officers? Have you talked with P&P officials in Lewiston? Have you talked with the local police, Bill Thomspon, Judge Stegner, legislators or community officials? Would you share the information they have given you with us as a gesture of your commitment to educate and inform the community?”

Mr. Schwaller, why do you expect others to answer your questions when you have adopted a policy of stonewalling our questions? This double standard of yours is a classic symptom of the “I am not Doug Wilson, I just act like him” disease, which is a malady that results in bloated selfishness, swollen self-righteousness, inflamed hypocrisy, and engorged ego. Unfortunately, it is terminal. It leads to hell. I urge you to seek help immediately. And may I suggest that the most expedient route for you to overcome your deadly case of “I am not Doug Wilson, I just act like him” is to answer my question, which I asked two days ago — “Please . . . tell this listserv in what capacity you ‘worked for several months with Mr Sitler and other sex offenders in our area’ and how we may confirm this claim.”

This is your remedy, Mr. Schwaller; this is your chance to live. If you answer my question with the truth, you will discover that you are more than a hypocrite; you are a fraud — a fake — a big fat liar. You will discover that Glenn Schwaller is not real in the same sense that Tom Hansen is real. Glenn Schwaller is the figment of a deranged imagination. He is hyper-extension of sick man. Do something. Do something constructive. Get help.

And answer my question.

Herodotus

A personal invitation to Mr. Schwaller

2007-05-28T08:49:00.002-07:00

Visionaries and Mr. Schwaller,

I personally invite Mr. Schwaller to return to this forum because I for one found his posts both provocative and enlightening. Hard facts about serial pedophiles are difficult to ascertain and I commend him for sharing his knowledge of this unseemly subject with us so that we as a community can be better prepared to address a predator in our midst.

With this in mind, I have a couple of questions for Mr. Schwaller.

Can you please tell us the recidivism rate for serial pedophiles?
Can you please share with us the average number of children that repeat offenders violate before their discovery?
Finally, given your familiarity with Steven Sitler’s case file, can you please describe for us a worst-case scenario for the children of Moscow (number of victims, age of victims, types of abuse, etc.), if Mr. Sitler resumes his pattern of serial predation?

I believe that these are reasonable questions for a community to ask and I believe that you have our community’s best interests at heart.

Thank you,

Herodotus

The Secret Life of Schwaller Mitty, Part I

2007-05-19T09:13:00.002-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

You say, “QED,” but your latest rhetorical devices indicate that you have fallen head first into a protracted “I am not Doug Wilson; I just act like him,” downward spiral, which will only end in calamity. Please, let me help restore you by filling in yet more blanks.

In order to understand this next point, you must firmly grasp the axiom that IT IS ALL ABOUT DOUG, and you must understand that the only way for Pastor Wilson to insure that all things remain ALL ABOUT DOUG, he must CONTROL THE CONVERSATION. He must bend and shape and twist the dialogue, if not prohibit it outright, to insure that when anyone says anything about him (or his church), they either say nice things or else he is present to CONTROL THE CONVERSATION.

This objective is easy enough to achieve inside the church where he rules with an iron fist. For example, in a previous post I referenced Duck because, as you know, Wilson gave him an ultimatum: “Sign the Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty or I’ll put you in the bread line.” The Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty prohibited free speech and it required the strict appearance of perfect loyalty to the church — so strict that if anyone ever questioned it, Wilson would immediately terminate him. The rest of the stories spun by Wilson are complete fabrications. I have read the Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty and I have spoken to Duck. Sadly, most kirkers are afraid to call him because they know that when they hang up, they will have to make a costly decision (Wilson knows this too). However, the point of the Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty and the point that you must understand was Wilson’s obsessive need to CONTROL THE CONVERSATION.

An even better example of Wilson’s need to CONTROL THE CONVERSATION is the case at hand — Steven Sitler. Mr. Schwaller, what pastoral consideration could possibly exist that would override Wilson’s absolute responsibility to warn his flock of predation? Of course, you and I both know that the answer is “No reason or excuse exists that could in any way relieve him of this obligation.” But believe it or not, last year the paper quoted Wilson (or one of his proxies), saying something like they “did it for the victims,” whatever that means.

By comparison, the church in Colville not only sent letters to the congregation, they adopted a policy to purchase a full-page ad in the newspaper to place Sitler’s photograph before the public with the warning: CONVICTED PEDOPHILE, if he ever returns to Colville. Now that’s a church that cares. Not Wilson; he didn’t say boo to the flock, let alone the public, which brings us back to point.

Wilson decided to ignore the urgent duty of warning his congregation because he wanted to CONTROL THE CONVERSATION. He understands that the words “Serial Pedophile” lead to six-inch headlines, and in 2005 he certainly didn’t want to go through another 2003–04. After all, IT’S ALL ABOUT DOUG. So he CONTROLLED THE CONVERSATION by withholding vital information.

Now take this principle and apply it to Vision 2020. Wilson needs to CONTROL THE CONVERSATION, but after he ran away from here in 2003, he put himself in a pickle. How could he honor his pledge to sign off 2020 yet simultaneously CONTROL THE CONVERSATION? The answer to this question lies within the Secret Life of Schwaller Mitty.

It is not enough for Pastor Wilson to have proxies spreading his opinions on this bulletin board. Ultimately, he must visit this list in person to make his arguments firsthand. So when he said farewell in December 2003, he left by name only because even at that time he had two Schwaller Mittys — two fictitious personalities with pseudonymous email accounts — subscribed to Vision 2020 so that he could CONTROL THE CONVERSATION. And these two conjured characters were the first in an endless parade of pseudonyms who would visit this forum at various points in Kirk history, so that Wilson could CONTROL THE CONVERSATION.

Mr. Schwaller, I introduce you to Edna Wilmington (#1) and Rodney Johnson, the first two pseudonyms deployed by Wilson in November 2003, a couple of weeks before he signed off this listserv. Mr. Schwaller, think of them as the Ghosts of Schwaller’s Past, for these two fakes were the beginning of Schwallers — extensions of a deranged imagination slipping into madness — so that Wilson could CONTROL THE CONVERSATION.

Mr. Schwaller, you must save yourself from this “I am not Doug Wilson; I just act like him,” downward spiral, lest you fall into oblivion with all the others.

The Secret Life of Schwaller Mitty, Part II will follow.

Herodotus

PS: Mr. Schwaller, you have persuaded me that you can follow an argument and that you do not need repetitive caps. Please indulge me, however, because there is a group of people who require such things to help jar them out of their stupor.

From: “Glenn Schwaller”
To: Vision2020
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:31 PM
Subject: A Man of Constant Schwaller

Thank you Mr Herodotus.

Your response most certainly put all the pieces together for me.

quod erat demonstrandum

Schwaller

A Man of Constant Schwaller

2007-05-18T14:19:00.001-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

I want to give you incentive to overcome your “I’m not Doug Wilson, but I act just like him” syndrome, by relating another story that hopefully will put all the pieces together for you.

You will recall my narrative about how Douglas Wilson stormed off of this list in a huff after he completely humiliated himself. Unfortunately, the story doesn’t end there. You see, during the whole “It’s Not About Slavery” thing, Wilson took personal offense at public statements issued by three members of the University of Idaho’s faculty and administration. Mind you, he had no cause for offense. Nevertheless, he threw a number of temper tantrums (not unlike your recent outburst), and he demanded apologies from the three men at UI, much the same way that you recently insisted upon apologies.

However, in addition to this, he also utilized members of his church, in a well-coordinated public-relations blitz, to heap constant verbal abuse upon the three men, and Vision 2020 became the primary venue for Wilson and his pet monkeys to rail. Presumably he thought this a wise peace-making strategy. But whatever he thought, I have never witnessed such vicious personal attacks in my life.

Well, time rolled on and Wilson’s efforts at reconciliation only produced more strife in the community and they utterly failed to induce the much-desired apologies. But he wanted satisfaction, so he wrote a letter to the governor of the State of Idaho asking him to compel the three men to apologize, and a couple of weeks later while the governor visited Moscow, a reporter asked him what he intended to do about Wilson’s letter, which brings us to the punch line. The governor replied, “Douglas who?”

No joke. I laughed so hard I almost wet my pants. Of the million different things that any of us could ask Boise to address, Douglas Wilson thought so much of himself that he begged the state governor to make three men say, “I’m sorry.” But his plea never landed on the governor’s desk; his staff deemed it too unimportant to waste the boss’ time (or else some mail clerk round-filed it thinking it was a Trinitarian prank). Can you imagine Wilson’s humiliation? If he had any sense he would have gone home and stuck his head in the oven. But he didn’t, and that’s not my point.

My point is that while Pastor Douglas Wilson exhausted all of his church’s energy demanding apologies from the Daily News, the Spokesman Review, The Idaho Statesman, the AP, Governor Kempthorn, etc.; and while his army of goons went forth to harass and intimidate the local community, the unthinkable took place inside Kirk homes. Steven Sitler raped Kirk children. And nobody knew it.

Pastor Wilson had them all consumed with his hate-filled agenda. They wrote letters to the editor; they made sport on hatesplotch.net; they flooded Vision 2020 with malicious emails. They had only one cause: IT WAS ALL ABOUT DOUG.

And it’s still ALL ABOUT DOUG. Steven Sitler’s abominations have changed nothing. Even now, as some of them read this, they are grinding their teeth, scheming ideas to exact retribution against me. This is because Douglas Wilson has trained his followers to think one dimensionally; they have only one purpose that brings meaning to their lives: IT’S ALL ABOUT DOUG. Pastor Wilson welcomed a serial pedophile back into the fold (without ever warning them of predation), and the Kirk families don’t care one whit, because they have learned IT’S ALL ABOUT DOUG.

So you see, Mr. Schwaller, it really isn’t worth it. Don’t give your life to this hopeless cause. You will lose the rest of your days pursuing empty apologies for non-existent offenses to satisfy an unfeeling man whose only interests reside in his bloated ego. He will waste your soul the same way Sitler violated those dear children.

And because he has no capacity for human emotion, and because he cares only about himself, and because he uses people and throws them away, he is called A MAN OF CONSTANT SCHWALLER.

Herodotus

The Schwaller Returned to Capistrano

2007-05-17T20:21:00.001-07:00

Welcome back, Mr. Schwaller,

I have many things to say to you, but I fear each one may provoke another temporary “I am not Doug Wilson, I just act like him,” lapse of reason on your part; so I shall limit myself to three points and proceed delicately.

First, I note your “I am not Doug Wilson; I just act like him” syndrome because whenever called to account for his obvious failures, Doug Wilson invariably throws a fit and begins accusing everyone right and left of wrongdoing. It is really quite a remarkable phenomenon to behold. The man is like one of Pavlov’s dogs with a bad case of rabies; instead of salivating when he hears the bell, he froths at the mouth, shows his teeth, and growls. Thankfully, 2020 has witnessed few of his outbursts for some time; few, that is, until yesterday when you reacted to my post right on queue. So I encourage you to deal with your obvious bitterness before it spreads out of control.

Second, I note that you apologized to me for “venting” when you should have apologized to the entire listserv for your rude, “venomous” little fit. Your behavior was completely inappropriate and not conducive toward civil dialogue. Admittedly, we have a local church in town that encourages petulance such as yours; however, this listserv is for the most part dedicated to reasonable exchanges, with perhaps a few exceptions. So I encourage you to apologize to the entire list, which you specifically named during your fit of rage, so that no one will think you a hypocrite. After all, you demanded that Messieurs Fox and Hansen apologize to the whole bulletin board for statements that you deemed offensive; how much more should you have to apologize for your reckless, unqualified statements, which essentially blasted every one in the forum?

Third, I note that you tagged your tirade with John 8:7 and I confess that you appear somewhat confused, because YOU were the one throwing stones yesterday. Please remove the rock pile that covers your post and reread it. Then apologize to the list for twisting Scripture during your “I am not Doug Wilson; I just act like him,” panic attack.

Well, as I said, I have many things to say but you have convinced me that you’re too immature to hear them all at once; perhaps tomorrow, after you have apologized, we may pick up where we left off and you can tell us by what standard you attribute “some modicum of sincerity” to an apology delivered by the psychopath Sitler? and by what standard do you ask Messieurs Fox and Hansen to apologize?

After that, maybe you will be kind enough to engage the arguments I advanced in my post yesterday, which sent you over the edge into your “I am not Doug Wilson; I just act like him” eruption.

Thank you,

Herodotus

The Inner Schwaller

2007-05-16T20:00:00.001-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

Given the wide variety of contributors on this board as well as the broad range of subjects broached on any given day, I am not sure how you conclude:

“Moscow Vision 2020 seems to be a very partisan group of Moscow residents designed to discourage public information unless it meets that partisan viewpoint, and debate seems to be limited to name-calling, mudslinging, shin-kicking and eyeball-gouging.”

Unlike you, I do not presume to condemn this whole list based upon a limited sample addressing an isolated subject, unless, of course, things are not as you represented. I must confess that your shrill response indicates that I touched a nerve. It’s as though you’re personally invested in things pertaining to Douglas Wilson, despite assuring us otherwise.

Therefore, Mr. Schwaller, I encourage you to slow down, take a deep breath, and reach down to touch that inner you. Be at peace with the real person inside of you. Identify the man within and say, “Be still, Glen, there is no venom here. No one has called me any names; no one has slung any mud at me, kicked me in the shins, or gouged my eyeballs out. I’m going to be A Okay. Everything’s just fine.”

There you go, Glenn, everything will be just fine.

Perhaps it will help if I give you some more perspective. You recall how Douglas Wilson ran from this listserv after he proved to the whole community that he did not live by his own standard, which he had previously maintained was fixed and unmovable. Well, this time last year Mr. Wilson rejoined this list for a short period after a local blogger notified the community about Steven Sitler’s predations. And it’s important to note that the blogger’s information relative to Sitler was much like yours — just the facts.

The strangest thing, though, was that while the blogger focused on points of community awareness, Wilson immediately dragged the victims into the conversation, saying that any talk of Sitler reopened their wounds and forced them to relive their tragedy; and Wilson used this pretense to demand silence from the community regarding the subject of Steven Sitler: “The victims, the victims, the victims; THINK OF THE VICTIMS!”

It was a remarkable display of cowardice for a pastor to use victims of a serial pedophile as human shields to protect himself from answering for his failure to warn the flock of predation. Think about it. He never warned his congregation that a serial pedophile dwelled among them for 18 months. Talk about negligence. As you said, Mr. Schwaller, “Doug Wilson could have handled things in a better way.”

But my point is that you have provided some very helpful information with your posts, and your contributions are consistent with the goals of this list; however, you should be thankful that you’re not dealing with a madman constantly screaming, “THE VICTIMS! THE VICTIMS! THE VICTIMS!” You seem to understand much better than Pastor Wilson that serial pedophiles create horrible prospects for a community. In fact, even though you still have not answered my question (“by what standard do you ask Messieurs Fox and Hansen to apologize?”), I believe that if you had been here last year, you would have demanded an apology from Pastor Wilson to the entire community.

Anyway, I have carried on much too long here. I simply wanted to help you get composure after your last outburst and I hope I offered you some perspective in much the same way you have tried to offer “facts.”

Before I let you go, though, I have one more question. How do you think the victims feel knowing that Steven Sitler is roaming the streets on probation, and that his freedom may be due in large part to Pastor Douglas Wilson’s letter to Judge Stegner?

Herodotus

From: “Glenn Schwaller”
To: Vision2020
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Schwaller the Reductio

“Schwaller catches a whiff again. . .”

Just to set the record straight (not that I particularly care about setting the record straight, I just like to hear the collective hammering of the veins in the foreheads of a few of our 2020 visionaries) I was not attempting to absolve, forgive, condone, nor vilify Doug Wilson, Steven Sitler, Christ Church, nor anyone for that matter. I was simply addressing a VERY specific point in Ms Ford’s post, and how I chose to interpret (some of you might use the words “twist” “manipulate” “exploit”) that particular passage of scripture.

One can use any passage of scripture to strengthen one’s point. One can use any manner of teaching styles or methods to inform or influence. In either case, it seems it is up to every individual to determine if we agree or disagree, follow or flee. All of us are teachers. All of us have taught well. All of us have taught poorly. All of us have wounded a weak conscience and thus “sinned against Christ.”

I’ve been monitoring this site for less than a month, and the venom that oozes from a majority of these posts becomes tedious. Contrary to the disclaimer on the homepage Moscow Vision 2020 seems to be a very partisan group of Moscow residents designed to discourage public information unless it meets that partisan viewpoint, and debate seems to be limited to name-calling, mudslinging, shin-kicking and eyeball-gouging. I must admit though, it DOES make a difference.

Schwaller

“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”
John 8:7

Schwaller the Reductio

2007-05-16T06:49:00.001-07:00

Schwaller whiffs again, this time minimizing the impact of Wilson’s influence on his devotees when he wrote,

“For your example to hold up, Mr Sitler . . . would need to have seen Doug Wilson . . . in the act of molesting children, then justify his actions by saying “Well Doug did it, it must be OK for me to do it.” Since this was not the case, Doug Wilson cannot be held accountable for Mr Sitler’s actions, in the sight of man, of law, or of God.”

Of course, this is absurd because it ignores the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, which clearly holds teachers to a higher standard, “for in many things [they] offend all” (James 3:1, ff). And the “many” includes all the little things that encompass a man’s doctrine and that illustrate his sermons on a daily basis. Consider these examples of the influence of Wilson’s doctrine on Steven Sitler:

Pedophiles rely on manipulative deceit to capture and silence their victims, and Steven Sitler sat under the master of manipulation — Douglas Wilson — when he preyed in Moscow. Rest assured that by reading Wilson’s blog and observing his interaction with the public, Sitler learned cunning beyond measure. Yes, indeed, he watched his pastor twist other’s words into meaning something that no one intended, in order to manipulate them into giving him what he wanted (do kirkers really believe the stories that Wilson peddles about Duck? He fabricated every one of them while he applied enormous economic and emotional pressure on the Schulers, hoping they’d cave). Sitler learned from Wilson how to create opportunities by misrepresentation and then pounce on weakness the moment he saw it. And not ironically, Sitler arrived in Moscow in fall 2003, just in time to witness Wilson and Jones deceitfully manipulate the thesis of Southern Slavery As It Was into a book about non-violent emancipation. He saw Wilson dismiss the capital crime of manstealing and manipulate its proceeds — slavery — into a “life of plenty.” Wilson taught him how to manipulate words so that oppressive slaveholders became “noble Christians” and stolen labor became a lifestyle of “mutual affection.” Yes, know for sure that Wilson taught Sitler the deceitful art of manipulation.

Pedophiles are typically narcissists and Sitler sat under the poster child of narcissism — Douglas Wilson — during his stay in Moscow. Indeed, his parents educated him on the Wilson classical model, praising all things Wilson, with the hope they could send him to New Saint Andrews College where he could fawn over every word that fell from the master’s lips. And as saw the master encourage the worshiping multitudes to adore him, know for sure that he learned self-love exceeds self-denial as the preeminent Christian virtue.

Pedophiles act in contempt of all law — God’s and man’s — in order to obtain their desires, and Sitler’s 18 months in Moscow forever embedded the principle in his mind that if the law stands in your way, break it. Steven Sitler was an eyewitness to Douglas Wilson’s public defiance of state property tax law as well as the City Zoning Code, and he learned firsthand that Christian dominion Wilson-style provides for self-willed antinomianism, if necessary. Wilson taught Sitler that the law does not represent a gift from God, rather it is a tool of the godless intoleristas to persecute the godly kirkers whose reign shall be for ever and ever. No doubt Wilson’s wholesale contempt for authority encouraged Sitler to disdain any authority who would check his impulses. (If you disagree with this assertion, please show me one example in the last five years where Wilson exemplified humble Christian submission to the civil magistrate pursuant to Romans 13.)

Finally, pedophiles see children not as humans but as objects, and the most important lesson that Steven Sitler learned in Moscow was in the field of anthropology. Douglas Wilson taught Steven Sitler to take joy and satisfaction in dehumanizing and humiliating human beings made in the image of God. And just as Wilson strips people of their dignity, taking sadistic pleasure in flaying them alive with his serrated edge, so Sitler stripped children of their dignity, scarring them for life with his naked flesh. No surprise that victims of pedophiles usually suffer acute shame — inexplicable feelings of humiliation and embarrassment — as a result of their molestation. And Sitler learned the chief article of his faith in Moscow, Idaho, where Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church, taught him the ABCs of dehumanization. (This is also perhaps the best explanation that accounts for kirkers’ lack of horror at Sitler’s crimes; Wilson has successfully desensitized them from feeling compassion for their fellowmen. They are “without natural affection.”)

No, Christian doctrine is not limited to a set of credos; rather, it is a system of beliefs lived out each day. And while Douglas Wilson never approved of pedophilia or taught Steven Sitler how to rape a child, he certainly helped the serial pedophile hone the deviant personality traits necessary to commit the unspeakable, and Wilson did it in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Welcome to Christ Church, Moscow.

Herodotus

Question for Mr. Schwaller

2007-05-15T07:39:00.002-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

You would have “staved off some ignorance” and “offered up . . . factual information” if you had simply replied, “We may never know,” and even then you should not have qualified your answer with the word “may” because we WILL NEVER KNOW what drives Steven Sitler. This is because the man is a psychopath, i.e. he has no conscience and no compunction. He lacks the moral capacity to feel right and wrong — and he is aggressive. One public record (which the court has sealed) documented in explicit detail his rape of a two-year-old girl, in a room immediately adjacent to a group of adults. “Perhaps perhaps perhaps,” you find this flip. I do not; hence my inquiry about the website in relation to the so-called apology.

At best, Steven Sitler did not comprehend that the photographs of victims on his website horrified normal, decent human beings, which is another way of noting that he is twisted at levels no one understands. Consequently, “‘cured’ is not an option.” And as “cured” is not an option, then it follows that no one can ever trust him under any circumstance, which probably accounts for his constant need to have a chaperon, i.e. a court-appointed guardian who will insure that he does not wander near children. And if the man is so untrustworthy that even “a distressed result from a polygraph is going to bring P&P and the court down on him like a ton of Logos Bricks,” then it follows that no one should believe a word he says, which includes his apologies. Besides, somehow the words, “I’m sorry I molested your baby,” just don’t cut it.

So it is laughable that you attribute remorse, “even if it was not 100% heartfelt,” to a psychopath, and if this was not so serious it would be downright hilarious that you manipulated this seeming remorse into cause for demanding an apology from community members who expressed shock at the probation of a serial pedophile.

Since you represent yourself as new to the listserv, let me tell you a story. Years ago, Pastor Douglas Wilson used to berate this list with the question, “By what standard?” I say “used to” because after hectoring and haranguing the community with his fixed biblical standard, he proved himself a textbook hypocrite when he applied a relative standard to justify the unbiblical thesis of his book “Southern Slavery As It Was.” It was really quite amusing, though the amusement didn’t last long. The poor fool ran from here faster than you can say “Edna.”

I call these historical facts to your attention, Mr. Schwaller, to ask you two questions: First, by what standard do you attribute “some modicum of sincerity” to an apology delivered by the psychopath Sitler? and by what standard do you ask Messieurs Fox and Hansen to apologize?

Bob Herodotus

From: “Glenn Schwaller”
To: Vision 2020
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:37 AM
Subject: Question for Mr. Schwaller

Dear Mr Herodotus

I’m not quite sure what you are implying by referring to me as “one of the all things to all men kind of guys.” If you mean that I think I’m an omnipresent self important kind of guys, then no. If you are suggesting as Paul did to the Corinthians that “I am made All things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”, well no, I don’t think that is correct either. I don’t believe I’m trying to save anyone, other than to try and stave off some ignorance by offering up what I believe to be factual information. Not that it matters; I’m just curious.

And alas (at least for those of you who thrive on innuendo, conspiracy, supposition and gossip), I am not another incarnation of Doug and Doug on a skylarking expedition. I’m glad you “know better.”

I make no excuse nor offer any apology for seeming to be intimately familiar with the court records (they are public domain), P&P policy and procedure (I also have some insight into policy and procedure of the prosecutors office, and MPD and LCSO), Mr Sitler’s automobile (I just happened to see him leaving the jail on they way to one of his treatment programs), and Christ Church’s seating arrangement. Well, here I should make an apology — I did not intend to suggest that I know anything about their seating arrangement. I was attempting to point out that I know how other similar situations have been handled, and how Mr Sitler’s attendance at that or any other church (or public arena in which children may be present), would most likely be handled.

So, onto contradictory implications:

I was not trying to be dismissive about Mr Sitler’s trophy website — this was a response to Wayne Fox’s questions from May 4th “Was the court aware of Sitler’s trophy website of photos of children, some of whom were his alleged victims? Or was this information withheld from the court? Was this evidence in the possession of the LCSD at the time of sentencing and re-sentencing or did they miss this in their “investigation?”“

I was assuming (possibly an error on my part) that Mr Fox meant “were they aware at the time of the original sentencing.” As such, I believe I was correct in stating that if the court was not aware of the website (at the time of the original sentencing) they are now (as of his review on May 4th). I don’t know why Mr Sitler chose not to disclose that fact earlier on. Perhaps he was advised not to do so (the right to remain silent among all those obnoxious civil rights we have — sorry. I apologize for the sarcasm). Perhaps it was to see how well local law enforcement was at doing their job of “discovery.” Perhaps he thought it was not germane to the case. Perhaps perhaps perhaps. We may never know. I believe the court was well aware of his other victims since his admission to other crimes was, I think, part of the plea agreement. If one wants to split hairs as lawyers are so fond of doing, from a legal perspective (assuming these were “normal” photographs) it may not have been illegal for him to have these photos in his possession. In the interest of full disclosure, remorse, and empathy for his victims, Mr Sitler should have brought this to the court’s attention. And admittedly it does leave his apology somewhat hollow. My point was, at least at some level he did offer an apology. It may not have been 100% heartfelt, but I choose to believe there was some modicum of sincerity in there. That was more than I have seen from Mr Hansen and Mr Fox for suggesting Mr Sitler should be allowed to board in a home with children present, putting them at potential risk. As I and others have pointed out, regardless of their tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic intent, this was worse than in poor taste: this was and is unacceptable, and they (Mr Hansen and Mr Fox) should apologize to the 2020 community.

Schwaller

Question for Mr. Schwaller

2007-05-13T09:15:00.001-07:00

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

You seem like one of those “all things to all men” kind of guys to me; in fact, if I didn’t know better I might be tempted to think you’re another incarnation of Doug and Doug on one of their “skylarking” expeditions. They’re such clever guys.

Nevertheless, since you appear intimately familiar with the court records, P & P’s policy & procedure, Sitler’s automobile, and even the Christ Church seating arrangement, I’m wondering if you could please account for the contradiction between the implications of two of your statements?

On Friday, May 4, you wrote,

“I’m sure if the court was not aware of the “trophy website” then, they are now.”

But on Saturday, May 12, you wrote,

“I would note that even Mr Sitler was responsible enough to stand in open court and apologize for his actions. Yes, it may very well have been self serving of him to do so, but nonetheless he did apologize.”

In the former instance, you seemed almost dismissive about the so-called “trophy website.” However, in the latter you placed great weight on Mr. Sitler’s public act of taking responsibility, whatever may have motivated him.

This is important because the “trophy website” contained photographs of Sitler’s victims from the states of West Virginia and Washington, and Bill Thompson has confirmed that Sitler failed to own it prior to its discovery. So if you believe that Sitler “was responsible enough to stand in open court and apologize for his actions,” then why do you believe the scope of his responsibility didn’t include full disclosure?

Thanks,

Bob Herodotus

COTK, CREC, & Tyranny: Part 16

2006-12-21T04:38:00.000-08:00

Dear Michael,

Christopher Witmer has registered a protest on Vision 20/20 to this post on your blog about the circumstances surrounding COTK’s departure from the CREC. Unfortunately, Mr. Witmer gives no evidence that he actually read COTK’s announcement, but his ignorance furnishes another opportunity to consider the ramifications of COTK’s statement, which is good.

First, in response to Mr. Witmer’s allegations, let me note that he predicates his understanding on a mysterious email that he refuses to produce. He writes:

I am in possession of an email addressed to me by an elder of the Church of the King (COTK) which seems to clearly contradict some of the key claims made in Mr. Metzler’s post referred to above. I am not going to quote the email here at any length, but I am prepared to stand by what I state here. Any plain, straightforward, common-sense reading of the email I received makes it impossible to accept at face value the assertions made in Mr. Metzler’s post.

Therefore, I refer Mr. Witmer to this post that quotes extensively from an email exchange with a COTK elder. Between it and COTK’s original announcement, you will see that all of Mr. Witmer’s claims are demonstrably false.

In the following text, I placed Mr. Witmer’s claims next to direct quotations from COTK so that everyone judge for himself or herself. I double indented Mr. Witmer’s words in red; COTK’s once in blue. And again, the colored texts are verbatim quotations:

First, contrary to the assertion of Mr. Metzler’s post, my correspondent stated that personal disagreements had “zilch” and “zero” bearing on anything regarding COTK’s exit from the CREC.

At one point Rev. Wilson communicated to us that the main issue of this entire dispute was his personal differences with one of our elders, P. Andrew Sandlin.

Second . . . it stands to reason that short of Doug Wilson explicitly stating his motives for what he does, any conjecture as to what motivates him must be necessarily just that — conjecture — and nothing more.

Rev. Wilson communicated to us that the main issue of this entire dispute was his personal differences with one of our elders, P. Andrew Sandlin. . . Nevertheless, when Rev. Sandlin repeatedly offered to meet Rev. Wilson privately to address any differences these highly visible men might have, Rev. Wilson declined each offer.

Apparently there were some people in COTK who wanted to start a separate church and apparently Doug Wilson supported them in that. Rather than charitably cutting people some slack concerning things about which he is ignorant, Metzler’s unnamed correspondent leaps to the conclusion that Wilson sowed discord with the conscious intention of splitting COTK, all as part of a personal vendetta against COTK’s leadership. But this view is not supported by the communication from my COTK correspondent.

A group of disgruntled COTK-SC members — as well as non-members — contacted Anselm (Western) presbytery moderator, Rev. Douglas Wilson, with their concerns. He advised them to work with us local elders to resolve their issues. At the same time, however, he continued working with these dissidents behind the scenes, leading them to understand him to be in agreement with their negative assessment of the COTK leadership, thereby validating their negative assessment. . . Rev. Wilson pressed the COTK elders to support the disgruntled group in forming a new CREC church, and he irresponsibly assisted that group in plotting a course to accomplish this goal. He unilaterally contacted another CREC minister to solicit his assistance in starting this church. . . despite the fact that we had implored Rev. Wilson not to go over our heads as the duly chosen leaders of the local flock. Rev. Wilson disregarded nearly every one of our pleas. . . . Throughout this ordeal, Rev. Wilson repeatedly dismissed our concerns. . . . Again and again we asked Rev. Wilson to notify us whenever individuals from the disgruntled group contacted him, but he consistently ignored our pleas. On several occasions he portrayed the COTK elders negatively before this group, even while we were seeking to work responsibly with them. When we implored Rev. Wilson to stop his undermining our pastoral efforts with this group, he persistently ignored our requests and continued to do so behind our backs. The desires of our local leadership were of little evident interest to him, in that he ignored us so completely. . . . As it stands now, Rev. Wilson has determined to start a congregation from a church split, a split that his actions repeatedly encouraged. . . This is the same split-group congregation that Rev. Wilson has all along insisted we agree with him in recognizing, and he has finally gotten his way in starting it as a CREC church. The end was visible from the beginning.

Third, despite Mr. Metzler’s constant reference to Doug Wilson’s “tyranny,” my correspondent stated flatly that “tyrannical leadership” was never experienced by anyone involved in any way, shape or form.

The CREC constitution forbids that the moderator may exercise judicial authority. . . The CREC constitution specifies a limited, narrow scope to the moderator’s duties and authority, and the CREC has operated according to this constitutional standard until the latest unfortunate events involving Church of the King. A CREC moderator is already now operating as just such a “bishop,” but in so doing, he is acting contrary to the CREC constitution. . . . We had implored Rev. Wilson not to go over our heads as the duly chosen leaders of the local flock. Rev. Wilson disregarded nearly every one of our pleas. . . . Throughout this ordeal, Rev. Wilson repeatedly dismissed our concerns. . . . By his actions, however, Rev. Wilson shifted much of this constitutional authority to his own office as moderator — without specific constitutional warrant, and in conflict with specific constitutional warrant. Throughout our protracted exchanges, Rev. Wilson did not adhere to courtesies and Christian ethics common among church leaders. . . . Our church has been damaged by the actions of Rev. Wilson. . . . Our responsibility is to the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made us overseers (Ac. 20:28), and this awesome obligation dictates our severance from an organization that sanctions injury to that flock and its duly chosen leadership.

Fourth, the assertion that CREC leaders acted contrary to their lawful authority and in violation of every principle of justice taught in scripture is, to put it midly, a real stretch. . . What we are talking about here, from the perspective of my correspondent at least, is largely a procedural error.

It has become clear that one or more leaders in the CREC have fundamentally redefined the organization’s authority from what is expressed in its constitution, without the due process of discussion and/or vote by its member churches. . . . By his actions, however, Rev. Wilson shifted much of this constitutional authority to his own office as moderator — without specific constitutional warrant, and in conflict with specific constitutional warrant. Throughout our protracted exchanges, Rev. Wilson did not adhere to courtesies and Christian ethics common among church leaders. . . . By these actions it has now become apparent that the CREC, in conflict with its constitution, has become functionally Episcopal, coalescing around the office of the moderator as the denominational bishops vested with sweeping judicial and prelatical authority. . . . The chief issue is the CREC leadership’s disregard for their own constitution. We cannot remain in an organization that acts so radically at variance with its own constituting documents. . . the CREC leadership is guilty of dishonest subscription to its own constitution. Our responsibility is to the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made us overseers (Ac. 20:28), and this awesome obligation dictates our severance from an organization that sanctions injury to that flock and its duly chosen leadership. . . . We pray that this present statement will be helpful for responsible governance for those remaining within the CREC.

Fifth, given the slimy way these so-called “facts” have been formulated and presented, it is little wonder that no CREC official has denied them.

The Anselm presbytery has at this late date retroactively sanctioned his injurious actions.

No doubt Mr. Metzler and his unnamed correspondent will protest that they are only motivated by an overriding love for the truth.

Exactly because this “contra-constitutional” activity “could cause others to suffer,” we chose to publish what we did, in the interest in putting before those “others” the information they would need to be fully and responsibly informed, for their own future protection and choices. That WAS our intention, to seek to “protect the whole flock.”

Michael, COTK’s statement is an exceptionally well-written document that leaves no wiggle room for anyone to misconstrue its meaning. The CREC can only affirm it or deny it. They chose to ignore it and hope it goes away. This probably accounts for Mr. Witmer’s state of confusion. You can see that every one of his claims is false and he shows no evidence of actually examining the record. Here we are at the five-week mark after the announcement, and poor Mr. Witmer is still in denial. One more witness has stood up and joined the swelling ranks of those bearing witness against Pastor Douglas Wilson after he wronged them using the same duplicitous measures he deployed against so many others in the past, and Mr. Witmer has not the wherewithal to process it. He’s like a sheep without a shepherd.

I suggest that Mr. Witmer reflect upon the Rev. Wilson’s shameful behavior in light of Hebrews 13:7, which says, “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.” Mr. Witmer should contemplate “the outcome” of Pastor Wilson’s conduct because it leads to death. It is a treacherous way full of snake pits and bear traps, strategically placed by the Rev. Wilson just in case he needs a lamb, a pastor, or a church to disappear. And someday Mr. Witmer may find himself face to face with a viper or impaled on a spike, just like the COTK elders, but because of their warning he will have no excuse.

It’s Good To Be the King!

2006-09-21T17:22:00.000-07:00

Toque thinks of Monty Python and the Holy Grail whenever he hears dogs barking:

ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

WOMAN: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.

ARTHUR: I am your king!

WOMAN: Well, I didn’t vote for you.

ARTHUR: You don’t vote for kings.

WOMAN: Well, how did you become king then?

ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake . . . [angels sing] . . . her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. . . [singing stops] . . . That is why I am your king!

DENNIS: Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: Well, but you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: I mean, if I went ’round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!

ARTHUR: Shut up, will you. Shut up!

DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help! I’m being repressed!

ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!

DENNIS: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That’s what I’m on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn’t you?

Toque is our premier Reliable Source, with a good sense of humor. David Bayly is out of his mind.

This Just In:

2006-09-20T09:25:00.000-07:00

Hatwitness News has learned that Pastor Tim Bayly is under investigation by the IOC on suspicion of using banned performance-enhancing substances.

Eyebrows were raised after his breakaway performance in the 1000-M Ad Hom, but investigators didn’t become suspicious until his easy 30-second victory in the 3200-M biathlon, an event which combines simple rudeness with aggressive subjugation of women.

Bayly has declined to comment on the accusation, instead citing the desire to “Bite off the kneecaps” of several argumentative women of his acquaintance.

Witnesses say that they observed Bayly applying an unknown substance, and then activating it using a motion strikingly similar to pounding on his chest with alternate fists.

Bayly’s trainer suggested that the substance may have been applied without Bayly’s knowledge by a masseuse, “One of those feminist, rebellious, educated working women who took exception to the simple truths Tim exegetes so masterfully from Scripture. She set him up.”

A source close to the investigation, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the A samples contained a 5:1 bloviation/hypocrisy ratio, were much higher than the normal limit of 2.4:1. The results of the B sample testing are expected later this week, after which the investigative committee will present its findings to the disciplinary panel.

If found guilty of the violation, Bayly will likely receive one week with no dessert and an injunction to quit reading Doug Wilson books so close to bedtime.

Film at 11.

Boonie is the Site Reporter for Unchristian Affairs; Tim Bayly is out of his mind.

The Need of Reproof

2006-09-19T07:59:00.000-07:00

For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision; Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. — Titus 1:11

St. Paul informeth us that there were many rebels even among the faithful, and such as attempted to preach the gospel, who were given to vain prattling and filthy lucre, teaching that which did not edify . . . St. Paul notes them as being the greatest disturbers of the church.

When the wicked sow tares (whether it be of false doctrine or wicked talk), to turn the faithful from the right way, if we dissemble, or make as thought we saw them not, the weak will become infected, and many will be deceived; thus there will be a general plague. . . . Shall we leave the church of God among thieves and wolves, as it were, and let the whole flock be scattered, and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ trodden under foot? Shall we suffer all order to be abolished, the souls which have been redeemed destroyed, and in the meantime shut our eyes and be silent? If we act thus, are we not cowards?

Let us therefore remember that when persons of honor and dignity have been in credit a long time, and then become deceivers, and endeavor to sow tares and destroy the building of God, we must withstand them the more courageously; for they are far more dangerous than those of lower rank. If an ignorant man, who is but little known, be wicked, and disposed to do evil, he cannot pour out his poison afar off, for he is, as it were, fettered. But he that is of reputation and intelligence, who setteth himself on high that he may be seen afar off, who can boast of his credit, that man, I say, will be armed like a madman; and if he is suffered, he may do much hurt.

Let us mark well when we see men that are honorable, whether it be on account of the office they fill, or the reputation they have had for a long time. In other places where St. Paul speaketh of those that pervert the truth of the gospel, and put forth errors and false doctrine, he calleth them heretics: but in this place he calleth them unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, who will not be ruled by truth or reason. There are no worse enemies than traitors who, under color of God’s name, come and make divisions in the church, and endeavor to destroy that which God hath established. . . I would to God we were entirely rid of such infection and filth. . . We ought to withstand such enemies courageously; but we are so far from it, that every one seemeth to thirst after nothing so much, as to be wittingly poisoned. . . .

There are bastard Christians among us at this day who know not God, nor obey His Word; therefore they will not bear correction. St. Paul reproveth the Cretians by putting them in mind of the witness of their own prophet; who saith, “The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts,” &c. When God maketh known our faults, and reproveth us, He doth it for our salvation; we ought therefore to be displeased with ourselves, and confess our sins with the deepest humility. We gain nothing by being stubborn: it is of no use; for if we will not bow, God will break us into pieces. (John Calvin, The Mystery of Godliness and Other Sermons, “The Need of Reproof” [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Ministries] 171–178)

Mister Ed’s Greatest Hits

2006-09-17T17:38:00.000-07:00

Not to kick a dead horse, but I searched the archives and put together a handful of letters to the editor, written to the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, in response to Ed Iverson’s regular columns. Here are my top-ten favorites, unedited, from the past year:

Ed Iverson is an ass
Yes, lots of things in this world can be an ass or ass-like, including myself from time to time. However, at least in my case I hope, not as often nor as enormously as Iverson regularly demonstrates himself to be. There’s not even remotely enough space (300-word limit and all) to recount each way he has made an ass of himself, but the “Advisory Board II,” the paper’s ownership and editors, can consider this letter my comments as solicited in the same edition containing Iverson’s most recent column.

My feeling is that providing a special interest group’s representative regular access to the bully pulpit isn’t exactly unbiased or nonpartisan (a tenet of good journalism as I recall). I cannot remember a single of his columns that hasn’t whined to some extent of his group’s self-described “persecution.” His opinions are his, perhaps are shared by others, and mine is that he can kiss my curvy white “Iverson.”

John O’Dowd
Moscow

Look in the mirror, Mr. Iverson
In his Daily News column (Opinion, Nov. 5 & 6), Ed Iverson called upon Charles Dicken’s character, Mr. Bumble, as a supporting chorus for what he judges as wrong laws being passed today. Over and over again, Iverson uses Bumble’s remark, “The law is an ass!” as a litany-like echo for a list of current legislative actions he begrudges. This could be an interesting device, but Iverson’s choice of character to support his point of view is his own folly.

Many of us who read Oliver Twist in our juvenile years recognize Mr. Bumble as the pompous, cruel, and dishonest beadle who ran the workhouse where Oliver was born — the man who starved the poor under his care, working many of them to death. Remember? — Mr. Bumble, the self-righteous church official who preached Christian morality, but lacked anything even close to compassion or actual moral sense in his relationships with others.

So, calling up Bumble as any kind of credible chorus for legal authority is folly. In fact, Mr. Bumble is the bigger ass here — and invoking the words of a hypocritical ass (even a fictional one) in support of one’s own opinions, seems, well, (sorry to say it so bluntly) just a little bit “asinine,” don’t you think?

Rebecca Rod
Moscow

Column was waste of space
What in the world possessed you folks to run Eddie’s rant (Ed Iverson, Opinion, Feb. 25 & 26) about diversity on the weekend of the Jazz Festival when Moscow is swarming with crowds of diverse visitors?

Every family has its embarrassing secret. We in Moscow are learning to live with the New Saint Andrews’ gang, which is our little secret. But for heaven’s sake keep Uncle Eddie up in his room when there’s a big party, and let him rant next week at a regular family dinner where everyone understands and no one cares.

Or maybe you figure that no one reads the paper anyway.

Ross Coates
Moscow

Gold Star logic of columnist
I lament the fact that I feel too old and already have accumulated enough degrees to return to college. If things were otherwise I would certainly enroll in New Saint Andrews College. For in carefully reading the statements and opinions of those associated with the college for the past several years, such as the example of Ed Iverson (Opinion, Aug. 27 & 28), head librarian of the college, I am convinced that NSA has solved puzzles and conundrums that have plagued Western thought for nearly 25 centuries.

Iverson’s view on Cindy Sheahan is exemplary of this unassailable logic. It begins with an unsubstantiated premise that also serves as the conclusion, thereby deftly skirting the “begging the question” fallacy of Western logic. The argument then truncates the world into “us,” the God-fearing Christians, versus “them,” the unwashed secularists, or worse, liberal lefties. Again, here too, the logic apparently taught at NSA allows one to deftly ignore ad hominem assertions, the genetic fallacy of Western philosophy in developing argument.

Then, of course, there is the obligatory invocation of biblical truth to trump empirically confirmed evidence. So, Iverson, despite the availability of an entire library (not to mention the Internet) at his disposal, seems unaware of the countless non-Christian societies that have moral codes they live by nor with the fact there is no society known to scholarship that reserves moral authority for the individual.

The dénouement of the NSA style of argument is a thinly veiled smugness that its logic is so foolproof that no one but the unwashed could not be convinced of its validity. So, is it any wonder that I lament my restrictions from enrolling in NSA. I would certainly save time not having to struggle through the puzzles of many centuries and save considerable money because of the far fewer books I would need to purchase.

Eugene Rosa
Moscow

This is not Mark Twain’s time
Once again it was a pleasure to read Ed Iverson’s erudite drivel (Opinion, Oct. 8 & 9). This time he decried the lack of opportunity for men to be around men and, I assume, women to be around women. According to Iverson the breakdown of our Christian values has made this impossible. This seems to me to be a genuine non-problem.

In my limited social sphere, there are men’s discussion groups, women’s raft trips, boys’ and girls’ separate soccer teams, and my children’s social groups, which are voluntarily quite strictly sex segregated. And that is the operative term: voluntarily. Kids continue to have same-sex groups, like Tom Sawyer’s gang, but unlike Mark Twain’s time, my daughter is much less likely to be excluded from sports or adventures or the country’s finest universities. It is really quite wonderful how many opportunities are now open to her.

Janice Boughton
Moscow

Stop insulting the majority
There are several errors in Ed Iverson’s recent editorial (“Crossing the line between liberty and tolerance,” Moscow-Pullman Daily News, Aug. 13 & 14) worth noting.

First, Iverson is not the only one who thinks he has a hand on the “absolute truth.” I think it is an absolute truth that slavery is always wrong; persecution “even of gays and lesbians” is always wrong; and it is always wrong to appeal to God in an effort to try to condone one’s immoral actions. The problem is not that you, Iverson, adhere to an absolute truth and I do not. Rather it is that your supposed absolute truths differ from mine. Not all who disagree with the folks at Christ Church are relativists.

Second, if those in Christ Church are at “liberty” to “evangelize” given that the “Constitution” acknowledges religious liberty (Iverson’s claim, not mine) then it is also true that others are allowed to criticize Christ Church.

Third, there have been no “frivolous zoning complaints, tax-code grievances and other public harassments” against Christ Church, as far as I know. Christ Church is in violation of zoning laws and tax codes. That is a fact. What Christ Church wants is not freedom from persecution but the right to be above and beyond the law. This is not guaranteed by either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Maybe if the folks at Christ Church stop blaming others and took responsibility for their own indiscretions, we might be able to get beyond this mess. Maybe if they stopped insulting the majority of people in town and started to acknowledge our concerns, the rest of us might be able to believe that their indiscretions were mistakes and not merely an effort to gain power at any cost.

Joe Campbell
Moscow

Proud to be intolerant
In his discussion of tolerance and liberty (Opinion, Aug. 13 & 14), Ed Iverson shows he is proud to be intolerant. His church is infallible; it knows the truth about everything. “Other religions, while well-intentioned, are false.” Persons who believe in tolerance wish others Godspeed in their individual quests for truth. How should they react to folks who are smugly certain they own the truth? With tolerance, of course — plus occasional constructive criticism!

Clifton Anderson
Moscow

Same old tiresome choices
I stopped participating in Vision 2020 because it was so dominated by the great polarizer, Doug Wilson. I got a sense for how he thought and it had no intrigue and no interest. Demagoguery and closed mindedness draws out the reaction of opposition or agreement, both tiresome choices.

Now, the Daily News has given the microphone to a similar speaker. Ed Iverson presents a false dichotomy and then demands a choice, like there really is such a thing. I think he’s been watching Master Wilson too long. The Daily News is just trying to sell papers (Duh!). If this is your idea of promoting a community discussion, I suggest a booth at the Saturday market: “Arguments $5.”

Dan Schmidt
Moscow

Some interesting definitions
Ed Iverson (Opinion, Aug. 13) has given us some interesting new definitions. First, “religious liberty” means the freedom to try to convert everyone else. Second, “diversity” means acknowledging that some people follow “real truth” and others “real falsehoods.” Third, “religious tolerance” means being religiously indifferent while surrendering one’s religious convictions.

Iverson says we should all be concerned. I agree. But what we should be concerned about is his mischaracterizations of liberty, diversity, and tolerance.

Sandy Hathaway
Moscow

Time to look in the mirror
Your Aug. 13 Their View titled “Crossing the line between liberty and tolerance” was informative. This column provided insight into the controversy surrounding Christ Church, its Pastor Doug Wilson, and New Saint Andrews College. In the view of guest columnist Ed Iverson, the “tolerance police” are restricting the liberty of Christ Church. He accuses the “tolerance police” of subjecting Christ Church and New Saint Andrews College to “frivolous zoning complaints, tax grievances and other public harassments.”

Iverson’s reasoning neglects very important facts. The legal processes of our government have found that Christ Church and New Saint Andrews College are not in compliance with our tax and zoning laws. He also disregards the fact the vast majority of our community disagrees with Wilson’s views about slavery and gay rights. To challenge such views is not harassment. It is common sense.

He suggests that this unnamed Christian church’s “only crime” is that they are the arbiters of “absolute truth” confirming that their religion is the “true” religion and all others, including my own are “false.” This sounds all too similar to the ideas of other infamous churches in the recent history of northern Idaho. It is hostile and intolerant to label others religions as false.

It is bigotry to defend slavery and not support gay rights. It is arrogant to think that this church is being unfairly persecuted because they are expected to abide by our laws. I think that Iverson and the “Christian church along with its pastor and affiliated ministries” which he defends, should look in a mirror where they will find neither religious tolerance nor religious liberty.

Bill Beck
Pullman

Heaps Upon Heaps

2006-09-17T08:10:00.000-07:00

The Book of Judges tells us that Samson deployed the mandible of an equus asinus as a weapon to slay 1,000 men:

And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith. And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men. (Judges 15:15, 16)

One wonders the exact body count that Ed Iverson can boast.

Cultist of the Week Award

2006-09-15T17:00:00.000-07:00

Ed Iverson wins our Cultist of the Week Award for his column “Contemporary Comedy and Tragedy in Society,” which he published in last weekend’s Daily News as one of their biweekly guest editorialists. Mr. Iverson, of course, is the head librarian at New Saint Andrews College where “head” is the operative term, because Ed makes quite the fashion statement with that pricey silver fork from Tiffany’s lodged firmly in his skull. Mr. Iverson is also an elderling at the Christ Church Cult, where their canon law holds two primary doctrines:

Article 1: All human life in gestation must be protected.

Article 2: All post-gestation human life must suffer profound abuse and suffering with sharp weapons — at the hands of kulters — if that post-gestation human life disagrees with or offends them.

Furthermore, subsection (a) of Article 2 requires the use of across-the-board misrepresentations to justify their application of said sharp weapons, as witnessed by the glosses, falsehoods, and strawmen advanced by Mr. Iverson in his award-winning column, which we have appended below along with the letters to the editor it garnered.

We wish we could attribute Mr. Iverson’s highly irregular opinions to the brain damage caused by that shinny piece of cutlery embedded in his gray matter; however, he has convinced us that his opinions stem from an unbending loyalty to a bent canon law, which appears more crooked daily. Therefore, Ed, we tip our Fedora to you, acknowledging your twisted sense of values and leaving you with a word of wisdom: You can’t extract the fork from your cranium unless you pull your head out first.

HIS VIEW: Contemporary comedy and tragedy in society
By Ed Iverson

So many things in our society are bottom side up that a person doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry. The line between tragedy and comedy is a narrow one. It is sometimes hard to know if we should howl with laughter or howl in anguished disbelief.

Take the common case in which municipalities and companies extend employee benefits that were formerly reserved for married couples to men who are romantically involved. This means opening the health group to homosexual domestic partners. These same municipalities and companies are generally very severe about employees using tobacco. Employees are badgered about tobacco because it drives up the cost of health insurance for the group.

Can you think of a bigger howler? We must ban smoking for health reasons and at the same time we will invite practicing homosexuals to participate in our health plan? That is either deep tragedy or high comedy. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, homosexual men are 1,000 times more likely to contract AIDS than someone in the general population. The Medical Clinics of North America report that almost 80 percent of homosexual men have had at least one sexually transmitted disease. We could go on citing statistics like these. The truth is, homosexual behavior is not user friendly.

Even if it were to be shown that inviting practicing homosexuals into the insurance group dramatically increases insurance premiums, municipalities and corporations would never dare to openly resist the homosexual juggernaut. It is cool to be hotly opposed to “big tobacco.” But it is “in” to be “out.”

Then there is the case of the uncomfortable geese. Long ago and far away some curious Frenchmen wondered what would happen if they force-fed their geese. Someone must know the story of the goose herder who first dreamed up this plan. However that tale goes, it seems as though this force-feeding results in big goose livers. This appeals to goose liver lovers (even if they are not French); and so the story has been written for centuries. French farmers stuff their geese and make them fat. French butchers wring the neck and cut out the big goose liver. French chefs take the big goose livers and make a paste they call foie gras. French connoisseurs pay big bucks for the resulting snack.

Everything is pretty cool until the loony left rides in to champion the cause of the fat geese. By their own reckoning, the trendy lefties are the guardian of the oppressed and the defender of the defenseless. (Well, actually they are the defenders of only a select few of the defenseless.) No one ever cared for geese like these guys. They contend that every goose has the right not to be overfed. To my knowledge, no useless lefty judge has yet discovered that right tucked away in the U.S. Constitution. No doubt they will.

Advocates for fat geese decry the cruelty of poking food down a gooses’ [sic] neck. They bemoan the animalistic pain involved. They assault restaurant patrons with pictures of crazy Frenchmen stuffing grain down the neck of a goose. A number of localities (including Chicago) have simply thrown up their hands and outlawed the French delicacy.

Is there anything more tragic, or perhaps more comic than earnest folly? These are the same people who can enthusiastically support plunging a fork into an “unwanted” child’s head, killing it in the very act of birth. Feeding an animal more than it would normally eat is condemned as cruel and painful, but chopping up a baby is celebrated as a “choice” of someone who has a right to privacy. Storming eateries with pictures of force-feeding geese earns respectful attention while showing pictures of developing babies to women contemplating an abortion is condemned as emotional blackmail.

Protesting the production of foie gras while rationalizing the killing of defenseless infants has a comedic aspect. But it is not comedy. It is one of the tragedies upon which the ship of our state is foundering.

Columnist’s hate rhetoric twists the truth
Ed Iverson is a “contemporary comedy and tragedy of society.”

I have had it with Iverson and his Saturday morning rants (Opinion, Sept. 9 & 10) It’s supposed to be an editorial page, not a propaganda page. He would have us believe the world is black and white. Most of us know the world is black, white and so many shades of gray that are complex and ever changing. The fact is that everyone’s life experiences are different and lead to different views. If Ed Iverson’s worldview is as narrow as he tells us then so be it. But it is my right to my worldview. Don’t like it? Tough — welcome to grown-up land.

He stated “. . . according to the CDC, homosexual men are 1,000 times more likely to contract AIDS than someone in the general population. . .” I went to the CDC website and could not find any facts to verify this claim. I emailed the CDC and gave them the quote. Here is part of the information I received from them:

MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) are slightly more than 2 times more likely to have HIV than non-MSM, however, that profile is changing. While HIV infections in MSM remain relatively stable, infections in heterosexual persons, especially women, are increasing.

This seems to say that not only are homosexual men not 1,000 times more likely to get AIDS than I am (he only missed it by 997) but that this is a health issue that affects all Americans. It is typical of hate rhetoric to twist the truth.

I am tired of the hateful rhetoric. Ed Iverson must go. A community with two public universities, many faith communities that preach tolerance for others, and people who believe in respecting our differences deserve more from the Daily News than someone preaching hate.

Leslie Fort
Pullman

Iverson’s rant spoils weekend
A big football weekend (Sept. 9 & 10) with Vandal and Cougar supporters pouring into the Palouse, and the University of Idaho College of Art and Architecture celebrating a new beginning with visitors from all over the Northwest (and one from Spain), and amazingly the Moscow-Pullman Daily News unlocks the attic door and Uncle Eddie (Iverson) clumps down the stairs for one of his Saturday rants about homosexuals, the loony left, the emotional blackmail used by supporters of women’s right to choose and useless lefty judges.

What a strange Saturday morning read for all our visitors. And a time for the rest of us to have another cup of coffee, shake our collective heads in embarrassment and turn to Peanuts for some love and compassion and Frank and Ernest for real intellectual exchange.

Ross Coates
Moscow

Columnist spreads prejudice
I urge the people of Moscow to read Ed Iverson’s column (Opinion, Sept. 9 & 10). I realize my 27 years of medical practice does not compare to his wisdom, and I don’t have the space here to refute his slanted statistics about disease and sexuality, so suffice it to say I humbly disagree.

I routinely see spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) in the first trimester of pregnancy and have known gynecologists who perform first trimester abortions. The image of a doctor “plunging a fork into a child’s head . . . in the very act of birth” is beyond ludicrous. And the connection between abortion and foie gras? Only a schizophrenic off their medicines could make that one.

But that is not why I am writing. I would ask the people of this community to read Iverson’s column and ask: Is it written with humility or arrogance? Is it tolerant or intolerant? Does it come from love or hatred? What would Jesus write?

I am the father of a gay son (whose picture happened to be in that same day’s paper in the 9/11 story). God created him gay just like he created me straight. I have seen him hurt too many times when nasty people like Ed Iverson spread their prejudices under the cover of religion.

I would be a hypocrite to call myself a Christian because I cannot live up to the Christian philosophy of selflessness, loving one’s enemies, and rejecting personal wealth. Now I have another reason to avoid the label. That is to avoid being associated with people like Ed Iverson and the institution of Christ Church which he represents.

Maybe if we all boycott the businesses downtown that support Christ Church we can help. Sometimes if you deny a cancer it’s blood supply, it goes away.

Jay Hunter M.D.
Moscow

The Thing About Money

2006-09-15T12:15:00.000-07:00

“The thing about money, Bud, it makes you do things that you don’t want to do.” — Hal Holbrook to Charlie Sheen in the movie Wall Street.

Not Given to Filthy Lucre

2006-09-15T10:45:00.000-07:00

For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre. — Titus 1:7

They must be no strikers nor brawlers: they must not be like soldiers or contentious men, who are always ready to fight and wrangle; this fault must be corrected also: neither must they be given to filthy lucre; they must not be covetous. The minister that seeketh to enrich himself by his office, will not do his duty faithfully. He will put a gloss upon the Word of God and . . . he will endeavor to ascertain in what way he can make it most advantageous to himself. Therefore, if covetousness reign in ministers of the Word, they will undoubtedly prove to be false teachers, whose chief study will be to pervert good doctrine, and turn the truth into a lie. (John Calvin, The Mystery of Godliness and Other Sermons, “The Character of the Faithful” [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Ministries] 160)

The Character of the Faithful

2006-09-14T16:45:00.000-07:00

For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed. — Titus 1:7

The virtues here spoken of by St. Paul are necessary for all ministers of the Word of God, who must show the way to others. . . Is it a small matter to be a minister of God, and governor of His house? St. Paul showeth in this place that those to whom God hath committed His Word, and called to preach the gospel, ought to conduct themselves in an exemplary manner.

St. Paul saith a good shepherd must be blameless; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre: as if he had said, the man that is given to these vices, doth nothing but infect the place he is in, and injure the church. He that is blemished with any of these faults is not a fit man to serve God: these things must therefore be purged out from among us. The first virtues required by St. Paul, in order to qualify a man to preach the Word of God, is to abstain from the faults which are here condemned.

If he be stubborn and self-willed, he will offend the flock of God, and make a breach in the church. . . Thus we have the meaning of St. Paul in a few words: namely, those who are called to preach the Word of God must take heed that they be not self-willed, but willing to be taught: they must be meek and quiet spirited; not puffed up with pride, but endeavoring to edify others; they must not think that they know all things, but on the contrary desire to learn continually and be gentle in their behavior. Those who are lofty spirited, and self-willed, often become schismatics: that is to say, they trouble the church of God, and divide it into sects.

They must be no strikers nor brawlers: they must not be like soldiers or contentious men, who are always ready to fight and wrangle; this fault must be corrected also. . . . (John Calvin, The Mystery of Godliness and Other Sermons, “The Character of the Faithful” [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Ministries] 158–160)

When in Doubt, Confess the Other Guy’s Sins, or Kicking the Habit

2006-09-11T17:37:00.000-07:00

The Confederation of Evangelical Churches has memorialized today, September 11, as a day of prayer and fasting for member churches, that they “may unite in confessing the sins of [their] respective nations.” Accordingly, the CREC believes that the 9-11 terrorist attack against the USA was a judgment from God for our republic’s sins of “wholesale idolatry and polytheism,” “tolerating everything except the truth,” “telling damnable lies,” and “turning its face against the living God.”

Now, from a distance, this memorial appears devout, noble, grandiose, and even prophetic. Indeed, such a memorial might even tempt one to believe that the men who framed it held genuine religious convictions grounded in a sincere desire to see the Christian Church united in true biblical worship. Up close, however, when you examine the origin of the CREC and the backgrounds of its principal leaders, the nobility, as well as the sins needing confession, takes another form.

Consider, for example, the Rev. Randy Booth, CREC “Council Moderator,” who is pictured to the right wearing a snappy black habit. In 1994, while he was an ordained elder in a Reformed Baptist church, the Rev. Booth split his church over infant baptism. At the time, Booth tried to get the building and the money, however, he only succeeded in getting half the people, which compelled his elders to draft a letter declaring him a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

In January 1998, the Rev. Booth applied for membership in the CRE during its first “Presbytery Meeting,” and they received him into full membership in November 1998. Unfortunately, the Rev. Booth had to reapply for membership into the CRE in 2000 because he left his previous church — the splinter group that gave him his first pastorate — for another church after a few issues at home called his qualification for the ministry into question. The Rev. Booth’s household problems didn’t produce any felony convictions or unplanned children, so in 2002 the CRE once again welcomed him into full membership, appointing him moderator in 2003.

It’s safe to say that while the Rev. Booth lived up to his former elders’ denunciation, his checkered past certainly didn’t hinder the CREC from elevating him through their hierarchy. This is probably because Booth’s approach to the ministry resembles Doug Wilson’s, whose coup is carefully documented on Dr. Terry Morin’s website.

Moving right along, in 1998, while only 1 year old, the CRE voted to receive Pastor Dennis Tuuri and his church into fraternal status even though the CRE minutes say that Tuuri needed to “seek reconciliation” with Westminster Presbyterian Church (PCA), who charged him with “abuse of the flock.” The minutes also say that Westminster Presbyterian Church cautioned the CRE not to accept Tuuri into membership. But Doug Wilson argued “that reconciliation between RCC (Reformation Covenant Church) and WPC is unlikely apart from RCC becoming part of a larger body like the CRE,” which makes perfect sense to us. In 1999 the CRE voted unanimously to receive Tuuri into full membership.

Greg Strawbridge, moderator for the CREC “Augustine Presbytery,” once held the office of elder in a Reformed Baptist church, and though he did not split the church, he embraced infant baptism — contrary to the Statement of Faith — and somehow forgot to notify his fellow elders of this change in doctrine. Two years later, in 1998, those same elders accidentally discovered his secret when they caught him teaching paedobaptism. They terminated his employment immediately. In 2001 he joined the CRE where bad faith appears to be a prerequisite for membership in good standing.

In 1999, PCA minister Burke Shade split his church, making a move on its savings account and half of the furniture. His money grab failed as did his quest for the furnishings; but he did take half the congregation. Not long afterwards, the PCA defrocked him, which placed him on the fast track to join the CRE who welcomed him with open arms a year later. Michael Metzler has thoroughly documented this scandal on Pooh’s Think.

Of course, we must note R.C. Sproul Jr., whom the RPCGA defrocked earlier this year for a laundry list of crimes that uniquely qualify him for honorary membership in the CREC, though he is currently unaffiliated. And since Sproul is not a member of any denomination, the Rev. Booth commissioned a “non-judicial” tribunal from the CREC to vindicate Sproul from the RPCGA’s uncontested Declaratory Judgment. A few weeks later, without trial or testimony, the CREC deemed RCJR “ordained.” Michael Metzler has documented this travesty as well.

We could write more, but this short list of rogues, scoundrels, and miscreants represents the body of men who framed the CREC’s “Memorial on Terrorism,” which certainly puts their lofty words in another light. So if it’s not too late, the editorial staff at Cultists in Hats calls upon the CREC to confess its own sins this day, that the Christian Church may be safe from your schismatic hypocrisy.

You Know You’re in a Cult if . . .

2006-09-09T20:03:00.000-07:00

You know you’re in a cult if your religious sect’s reputation is so bad and untrustworthy in the community that the City Council requires you to give regular “progress reports” to them, to insure that you are being good neighbors in compliance with the conditions the Council imposed on you. How humiliating.

You Know You’re in a Cult if . . .

2006-09-09T16:31:00.000-07:00

You know you’re in a cult if your pastor denies that he is a racist, but he affirms that the Son of God is a racist who used racial insults to “make a point.” No one looks better in the pointed hood worn by the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan than Douglas Wilson for one simple reason: he put the “N” word on the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ, who “made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26).

Jesus was not above using ethnic humor to make His point either. . . . (Mt. 15:22–28) . . . . My understanding of this encounter is that Jesus was pulling his disciples’ chain. This woman was not a Jew, and the Jews had problems dealing with such people, considering them beneath contempt — in a word, dogs. Put in terms that we might be more familiar with, Jesus was white, and the disciples were white, and this black woman comes up seeking healing, for her daughter. She gets ignored. The disciples ask Jesus to send her off. She comes up and beseeches Christ for healing. It’s not right, He says, to give perfectly good white folk food to “niggers.” Disciples mentally cheer. But she sees the look in His eye, and the inverted commas around the epithet, and answers in kind. He relents, which was His intent all along, and heals the woman’s daughter. If this understanding is right, then Jesus was using a racial insult to make a point. If it is not correct, then He was simply using a racial insult. In either case, His language is more than a little rough. (Douglas Wilson, A Serrated Edge [Moscow: Canon Press, 2003], 43–44)

Cultist of the Week Award

2006-09-08T17:00:00.000-07:00

We hand our Cultist of the Week Award to attorney at law Gregory Dickison, lawyer for the Christ Church Cult as well as legal counsel for New Saint Andrews College. Mr. Dickison wins our prize for his stellar performance before the Moscow City Council on Tuesday night, as he argued in defense of NSA’s conditional use permit during an appeals hearing. We note in particular, however, Mr. Dickison’s extraordinary composure in front of the Council notwithstanding his gangly jester’s cap and an incredible five-alarm fire raging in his pants, which ignited the moment he opened his mouth and blazed the entire evening. You know, there are some things that they just don’t teach in law school, such as sticking to your story despite black-and-white evidence and a khaki inferno. Therefore, we give you a ripping round of applause and a tip of the Fedora, Gregory, as we leave you with a word from our Juris Doctor who has a few victories in court under his belt — Get used to the heat.

Christ Church & NSA Put the “F U” in Fun

2006-09-08T12:36:00.001-07:00

Thanks to the men-folk at the Kirk, Moscow has become a really fun place.

How so? Business owners in the Central Business District are still dancing with glee that they get to pay higher property tax so that NSA can avoid paying a thin dime to the county coffers. How much fun is that?

Shoppers who would like to park reasonably close to downtown shopping have the fun of healthy exercise thanks to the corn-fed lazy piggies attending NSA. Thank a Kirker for being so darned concerned about our health and fitness.

The whole community gets the fun of Trinity Festival complete with the yodeling of “Sweet Home Alabama” in Friendship Square. What could beat that for a good time?

And how ’bout the spectacle of long-time NSA attorney, Greg Dickison, clumsily avoiding questions raised in the recent City Council hearing for NSA’s CUP? That was the best time I’ve had in weeks.

What could be funnier than Doug Wilson pretending to be godly? Oh, I know, failing to alert his flock to a presence of sexual predators in their midst; robbing the church till to pay off gambling debts from the NSA casino; shunning members who publicly disagree with the Bishop of Moscow; touting Nate Wilson’s explanation for the Shroud of Turin as a legitimate and insightful investigation; and claiming to be a good neighbor (to downtown business people as well as the unfortunate neighbors of NSA under-the-radar boarding houses).

This is fun on a world-class level — at least in terms of the first two letters of fun.

Zoning Wars: Revenge of the Androids

2006-09-08T08:44:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday night, the Moscow City Council voted 4-2 to show kindness to New Saint Andrews College by granting them a temporary conditional use permit, to use the downtown, predicated on four conditions:

1. NSA must maintain 160 feet of commercial street frontage.

2. NSA must provide 42 parking spaces in or out of the Central Business Zoning District within the next two years, though they do not have to use the parking lot.

3. NSA must cap its student body at 150 FTE students until they have met the parking requirement.

4. NSA must give City Council a “progress report” every six months.

As far as conditions go, NSA got off easy. In fact, their leadership should get down on their knees and thank God that City Council didn’t deny the CUP outright, exacting from the Kultmaster the letter of the law without mercy, which would have been much kinder than the various sanctions he’s meted out to various members of Kult and community over the last decade.

Nevertheless, City Council did put an edge on its kindness. The terms of the fourth condition, i.e., the “progress reports,” included a very clear message to NSA that they had better start getting along with their neighbors. Indeed, the point of the condition is to insure that NSA works with their neighbors as they endeavor to mitigate the parking problemn caused by their 166 students and 25 faculty..

The City Counci framed this condition after NSA spent the last 18 months hurling monkey clumps and other insults at anyone who squeaked a complaint about their loss of parking due to NSA’s illegal presence in the downtown. Of course, this has been the Kult’s standard operating procedure since 2003 when the leadership adopted A Serrated Edge as their public relations manual, which successfully helped them achieve their goal of giving offense to everyone — especially their neighbors.

For example, Louis Reed, who is the former owner of Bassilios Restaurant (NSA’s next-door neighbor for three years), testified that his sales plummeted 70% after NSA occupied downtown, essentially squeezing him out of business through lost parking. The Daily News reported,

But some neighboring business owners said the students who drive are causing the problem with parking. Louis Reed, owner of Basilios Italian Ristorante, located in the Moscow Hotel building and adjacent to the college, said he is being forced to shut his doors. “I’ve been here for six years and I’m going out of business because of the lack of parking. NSA claims it is a nonprofit institution. Well, I’m nonprofit too, but not by choice,” Reed said.

Reed said during peak restaurant hours during the week, at noon and at dinner time, there is no parking available for potential customers. “A retail parking space can generate nine customers in an eight-hour shift, whereas a parking space for the college only generates one customer for eight hours,” he said. (March 29, 2006)

And how did the Christ Church Cult respond to Louis Reed, who also happens to serve as deacon in a local Christian church? — with their usual insults and contempt. Gabe Rench, organizer of the Trinity Fest, posted these thoughts concerning his neighbor on the worldwide web:

In regards to the owner of Basilios: Microwave Spaghetti has never tasted good to me, and how many restaurants have moved to Moscow or grown since 2003 . . . hmmm . . . Patty’s, Rudy’s, Sangria, Wingers, Tucci’s . . . I understand competition is tough but blaming it on parking what a cop-out. I cant [sic] tell you how many restaurants that I have been to in big dowtowns were [sic] parking was way more difficult than in our little downtown . . . it is not about parking. But hey it is always good to find someone to blame when your business can’t make when there is ligit [sic] competition. . . . . . . Cheers! (Gabe Rench)

Factoid: Louis Reed owns Basilios Italian Ristorante in downtown Pullman, which has operated successfully for years, and the only difference between his Moscow & Pullman operations was parking supply: the City of Pullman protected Reed’s parking whereas NSA and the City of Moscow have not. And Reed’s lost parking supply translated into lost customers, forcing him to change his menu several times in the last three years as he scrambled to make a profit while serving a leaner customer base. More importantly, Reed was one of many downtown merchants who complained about lost revenue because of NSA, which gives the serrated saints even greater cause to thank God because if they had any Christian virtue they would pay restitution to their neighbors. But then A Serrated Edge gives license to abuse in the name of the gospel, much like “Corban” relieved the Pharisees of their obligation to the Fifth Commandment, which brings us back to City Council.

NSA has two years to be nice neighbors. They have two years to provide a limited number of parking spaces, and during that time they have to give “progress reports,” like a schoolyard bully on the verge of expulsion, updating the Council on how well they’re getting along with the other kids on the playground. Unfortunately, at the end of those two years, the Moscow City Council will learn that despite all of their good faith in granting the “classical Christian college” a CUP, Friendship Square will be unchanged if not worse. And hopefully by then, the new Council will understand that there is only one remedy to the problem created by NSA — “Cast out the scoffer, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease” (Prov. 22:10).

Grandiose Fantasies

2006-09-07T08:14:00.000-07:00

Question:
What happens to a narcissist who lacks even the basic potential and skills to realise some of his grandiose fantasies?

Answer:
Such a narcissist resorts to deferred Narcissistic Supply which generates an effect of deferred grandiosity. He forgoes his grandiose schemes and gives up on the present. He defers the fulfilment of his fantasies — which support an inflated Ego — to the (indefinite) future. Such narcissists engage in activities (or in daydreaming), which they fervently believe will make them famous, powerful, influential, or superior in some future time. They hold themselves answerable only to History, God, Eternity, Future Generations, Art, science, the Church, the Country, the Nation, and so on. They entertain notions of grandeur which are dependent upon a (sometimes) positive judgment or assessment of a fuzzily defined collective in an ambiguous time frame. Thus, these narcissists find solace in the embrace of Chronos.

Deferred grandiosity is an adaptive mechanism which ameliorates dysphorias and grandiosity gaps.

It is healthy to daydream and fantasise. It is the antechamber of life and often anticipates its circumstances. It is a process of preparing for eventualities. But this is different from grandiosity. Grandiosity has four components.

Omnipotence
The narcissist believes that he will live forever. “Believe” in this context is a weak word. He knows. It is a cellular certainty, almost biological, it flows in his blood and permeates every niche of his being. The narcissist “knows” that he can do anything he chooses to do and excel in it. What the narcissist does, what he excels at, what he achieves, depends only on his volition. To his mind, there is no other determinant. Hence his rage when confronted with disagreement or opposition — not only because of the audacity of his, evidently inferior, adversaries; but because it threatens his worldview, it endangers his feeling of omnipotence. The narcissist is often fatuously daring, adventurous, experimentative and curious precisely due to this hidden assumption of “can do.” He is genuinely surprised and devastated when he fails, when the “universe” does not arrange itself, magically, to accommodate his unbounded fantasies, when it (and people in it) does not comply with his whims and wishes. He often denies away such discrepancies, deletes them from his memory. As a result, he remembers his life as a patchy quilt of unrelated events and people.

Omniscience
The narcissist often pretends to know everything, in every field of human knowledge and endeavour. He lies and prevaricates to avoid the exposure of his ignorance. He resorts to numerous subterfuges to support his God-like omniscience. Where his knowledge fails him — he feigns authority, fakes superiority, quotes from non-existent sources, embeds threads of truth in a canvass of falsehoods. He transforms himself into an artist of intellectual prestidigitation. As he gets older, this invidious quality may recede, or, rather, metamorphose. He may now claim more confined expertise. He may not be ashamed to admit his ignorance and his need to learn things outside the fields of his real or self-proclaimed expertise. But this “improvement” is merely optical. Within his “territory,” the narcissist is still as fiercely defensive and possessive as ever. Many narcissists are avowed autodidacts, unwilling to subject their knowledge and insights to peer scrutiny, or, for that matter, to any scrutiny. The narcissist keeps re-inventing himself, adding new fields of knowledge as he goes. This creeping intellectual annexation is a round about way of reverting to his erstwhile image as the erudite “Renaissance man.”

Omnipresence
Even the narcissist cannot pretend to actually be everywhere at once in the PHYSICAL sense. Instead, he feels that he is the centre and the axis of his “universe,” that all things and happenstances revolve around him and that disintegration would ensue if he were to disappear or to lose interest in someone or in something. He is convinced, for instance, that he is the main, if not the only, topic of discussion in his absence. He is often surprised and offended to learn that he was not even mentioned. When invited to a meeting with many participants, he assumes the position of the sage, the guru, or the teacher/guide whose words carry a special weight. His creations (books, articles, works of art) are extensions of his presence and, in this restricted sense, he does seem to exist everywhere. In other words, he “stamps” his environment. He “leaves his mark” upon it. He “stigmatises” it.

Narcissist the Omnivore (Perfectionism & Completeness)
There is another “omni” component in grandiosity. The narcissist is an omnivore. He devours and digests experiences and people, sights and smells, bodies and words, books and films, sounds and achievements, his work and his leisure, his pleasure and his possessions. The narcissist is incapable of ENJOYING anything because he is in constant pursuit of perfection and completeness.

Classic narcissists interact with the world as predators do with their prey. They want to own it all, be everywhere, experience everything. They cannot delay gratification. They do not take “no” for an answer. And they settle for nothing less than the ideal, the sublime, the perfect, the all-inclusive, the all-encompassing, the engulfing, the all-pervasive, the most beautiful, the cleverest, the richest, and the most brilliant. The narcissist is shattered when he discovers that a collection he possesses is incomplete, that his colleague’s wife is more glamorous, that his son is better than he is in math, that his neighbour has a new, flashy car, that his roommate got promoted, that the “love of his life” signed a recording contract. It is not plain old jealousy, not even pathological envy (though it is definitely a part of the psychological make-up of the narcissist). It is the discovery that the narcissist is NOT perfect, or ideal, or complete — that does him in. Ask anyone who shared a life with a narcissist, or knew one and they are likely to sigh: “What a waste.” Waste of potential, waste of opportunities, waste of emotions, a wasteland of arid addiction and futile pursuit.

Narcissists are as gifted as they come. The problem is to disentangle their tales of fantastic grandiosity from the reality of their talents and skills. They always tend either to over-estimate or to devalue their potency. They often emphasise the wrong traits and invest in their mediocre or less than average capacities. Concomitantly, they ignore their real potential, squander their advantage and under-rate their gifts.

The narcissist decides which aspects of his self to nurture and which to neglect. He gravitates towards activities commensurate with his pompous auto-portrait. He suppresses these tendencies and aptitudes in him which don’t conform to his inflated view of his uniqueness, brilliance, might, sexual prowess, or standing in society. He cultivates these flairs and predilections which he regards as befitting his overweening self-image and ultimate grandeur.

But the narcissist, no matter how self-aware and well-meaning, is accursed. His grandiosity, his fantasies, the compelling, overriding urge to feel unique, invested with some cosmic significance, unprecedentedly bestowed — these thwart his best intentions. These structures of obsession and compulsion, these deposits of insecurity and pain, the stalactites and stalagmites of years of abuse and then abandonment — they all conspire to frustrate the gratification, however circumspect, of the narcissist’s true nature.

An utter lack of self-awareness is typical of the narcissist. He is intimate only with his False Self, constructed meticulously from years of lying and deceit. The narcissist’s True Self is stashed, dilapidated and dysfunctional, in the furthest recesses of his mind. The False Self is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, creative, ingenious, irresistible, and glowing. The narcissist often isn’t.

Add combustible paranoia to the narcissist’s divorce from himself — and his constant and recurrent failure to assess reality fairly is more understandable. The narcissist overpowering sense of entitlement is rarely commensurate with his accomplishments in his real life or with his traits. When the world fails to comply with his demands and to support his grandiose fantasies, the narcissist suspects a plot against him by his inferiors.

The narcissist rarely admits to a weakness, ignorance, or deficiency. He filters out information to the contrary — a cognitive impairment with serious consequences. Narcissistic are likely to unflinchingly make inflated and inane claims about their sexual prowess, wealth, connections, history, or achievements.

All this is mighty embarrassing to the narcissist’s nearest, dearest, colleagues, friends, neighbours, even on-lookers. The narcissist’s tales are so patently absurd that he often catches people off-guard. Unbeknownst to him, the narcissist is derided and mockingly imitated. He fast makes a nuisance and an imposition of himself in every company.

But the narcissist’s failure of the reality test can have more serious and irreversible consequences. Narcissists, academically unqualified to make life-and-death decisions often insist on rendering them. I “treated” my father for muscular pain for five days at home. All that time, he was enduring a massive heart attack. My vanity wouldn’t let me admit my diagnostic error. He survived. Many others don’t. Narcissists pretend to be economists, engineers, or medical doctors — when they are not. But they are not con-artists in the classic premeditated sense. They firmly believe that, though self-taught at best, they are more qualified than even the properly accredited sort. Narcissists believe in magic and in fantasy. They are no longer with us.

Sam Vaknin

The Most Dangerous Man in the World

2006-09-06T07:18:00.000-07:00

The most dangerous man in the world is the religious leader who is guided by nobody. He trusts his own visions. He obeys the attractions of an interior voice but will not listen to other men. He identifies the will of God with anything that makes him feel, within his own heart, a big, warm sweet interior glow. The sweeter and warmer the feeling is, the more he is convinced of his own infallibility. And if the sheer force of his own self-confidence communicates itself to other people and gives them the impression that he is really a saint, such a man can wreck a whole city or a religious order or even a nation. The world is covered with scars that have been left in its flesh by visionaries like these. (Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation [New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1961] 194–195)

Another Contemplation for Labor Day

2006-09-04T18:39:00.000-07:00

As the United States honors its working force with a national holiday, we reflect upon the Communist hero Joseph Stalin whose rise to power paved the way for Douglas Wilson and whose form of government became the blueprint for the Christ Church Cult. Purges, show trials, secret executions, “rehabilitation” camps — Comrade Stalin wrote the book; and Wilson has incorporated every principle into everyday Kult life.

Today, we shall contemplate Nikolay Ivanovich Yezhov, whom Stalin appointed to carry out his decrees. Nikolay led the NKVD (Russian acronym for People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs), which developed into the KGB (Kirker Gone Bad), and you can be sure that a midnight visit from Nikolay meant that you would disappear for the rest of your life. Starvation in a gulag, bullet in the head, mass grave — it didn’t matter — you were a dead man. And after you vanished, everyone knew better than to ask what happened because they could disappear just as fast.

But Nikolay knew the importance of cleaning up the details. He left no loose ends, no evidence, if you will, or reason to inquire. If you were a well-known party official, he made sure to erase you from the history books and, more importantly, he airbrushed you out of the photographs to insure that you never existed. This, of course, made it easier for people to adapt their worldviews to Stalin’s, though their ease probably ended there, which brings us back to the Kult.

A visit from Nikolay in 1936 was tantamount to a letter from Doug Jones, “on behalf of the elders,” in the Kult. He may lead a “life less petty,” but if you hear from him then it’s guaranteed your life in the Kult is finished. They’ve arranged your disappearance; the only question is whether or not you’ll get a show trial. For example, in one case, they took an entire family of members in good standing and simply dropped them from the membership roll, in defiance of their constituted authority and their pastoral charge. But in another case, they conducted the trial and the execution by mail. First, kulters received written notice of the imminent demise of a high-profile member in good standing; second, the member and his family vanished from the Kult forever, which is where we meet Stalin’s playbook again.

Take a moment to examine these two side-by-side photographs of the NSA faculty. The photo on the left was taken before the arrest, and the photo on the right is the same image after the arrest. Please notice that the Wilsonist regime erased a man from memory, as if he meant no more to them than an electronic pixel, simply because he voted against promoting the Kultmaster’s son to full fellow. If you didn’t know this, it’s probably because Wilson fabricated all the other stories you’ve heard. After all, he hadn’t written his 89 “Justice Primers” yet, so he couldn’t draw from his own wisdom before pumping the rumor mill full of yarn. But what did that matter? It only mattered that kulters had something to hang their hats on. The people need something to believe.

And what of Doug Jones who lived next door to the terminated? Well, Jones extended to his neighbor in time the very thing that Jones should expect in eternity — shunning. He didn’t bother to help his neighbor move; he never lifted a finger or said goodbye. He was too busy being “less petty.” But he did dispatch his son to ask the names of those who were helping the vanished family move, which reminds us of this text:

Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders. And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity. Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD. Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, Behold, I will melt them, and try them; for how shall I do for the daughter of my people? Their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaketh deceit: one speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart he layeth his wait. (Jer. 9:4–8)

So the next time you open your Cantus Christi, don’t worry about the Table of Contents. Comrades Wilson & Jones will airbrush the forgotten name away forever, before the next printing.

Preparing for Labor Day

2006-09-04T12:18:00.000-07:00

For those unfamiliar with Greyfriar position papers, “each student in Greyfriars’ is required to complete four position papers per year. The papers are to be pastoral in nature, written for the edification in the church.” Most students seemed to understand the guidelines: Virgil Hurt addressed Returning to Old Paths: Rediscovering the Riches of the Westminster Shorter Catechism; Ben Zaked Smith struggled through a treatise on Pastoral Confidentiality; Dave Hatcher showed less-than-original scholarship in Remember the Sabbath: Our Privilege and Obligation. But the intellect that trumps them all is Ben Merkle’s, and his work Preparing for Childbirth is a tour de force of maladroitness.

Now, it is curious that given all of Scripture and all the works of Reformed theologians, two of Merkle’s papers focus on feminine issues, of limited church-wide interest, where he has no experience or training, viz. childbirth and head coverings for women. It is even more curious that given his deficiencies, Merkle did not hesitate to arrive at conclusions that hitherto the world has never known. Accordingly, Merkle believes that childbirth — and this is where the Kirk stench begins to waft pass my nostrils — is not limited to the physical process of having a baby. Rather, it’s about the attitude and behavior of the laboring woman — hang on, this précis is frankly unbelievable — insofar as it reflects upon her husband.

Consider this quote, for example, where Merkle affirms that the delivery room is a stage upon which the birthing mother’s hidden bitterness erupts to disgrace the man:

There are plenty of stories of women in labor losing their tempers, shrieking and cursing, and generally doing things that they wouldn’t dream of doing at any other time. And most of these stories are true. When a woman is in child labor, somewhere inside, someone turns the volume on her heart all the way up and plugs in four amps. What may have been just a murmur of discontent under ordinary circumstances turns into a deafening shriek in the delivery room. Put another way, the pregnant woman is about to have a number of people come and visit her heart; and this company is going to see how well she has kept her heart in order. . . . Bitterness, when given the chance, will spring up and defile many. It is the sort of sin that easily pollutes others. If a woman goes into labor and has any sort of bitterness within her, it is a fairly certain thing that the delivery room will see this bitterness springing up and causing trouble.

Is there no activity on earth that is spared a critique by a Kirk-contaminated man? Is there any subject conceivable upon which they do not possess universal knowledge? It appears not. Regardless, charity obligates us to ignore Merkle’s reliance on hearsay evidence regarding the “shrieking and cursing” of laboring women. Charity also demands that we refrain from undue scrutiny of the recurrent misuse (7 times) of the term “child labor,” which originally denoted the forced labor of children during the Industrial Revolution. And charity compels us to overlook the hackneyed cliché, “A woman should remember that labor is called labor for a reason, there will be a lot of work,” which denotes the author’s incompetence.

However, if this position paper were graded on the basis of cogent argument, satisfactory development of its thesis, syntactical error, and substantiated research, it would receive a D letter grade in a government high school. That this trifling essay fulfilled a quarterly requirement of Greyfriars Hall exposes the inferior academic quality of the singularly indifferent faculty that accepted this shoddy product, which at that time was composed of one man — Ben Merkle’s father-in-law — Doug Wilson.

That said, these things are true: Unlike Ben Merkle, I draw no spiritual inferences from the way a laboring mother expresses herself. Unlike Ben Merkle, I’ve actually been in labor a time or two. And, unlike Ben Merkle, my husband did not interpret my travails as anything more than the normal pain experienced by a woman when her uterus expels a twelve-pound baby through her narrow birth canal into the world. Thankfully, my husband didn’t feel that my labor provided an opportunity for him to showcase his headship — but then, he was more concerned about me than he was about himself.

On this Labor Day, I wish that Ben Merkle, and other like-minded Kirk men, would put aside their pathological need to be the bride at every wedding, the pregnant woman in every delivery room, the authority on every subject, and the center of attention at every moment. I wish that they would labor at evacuating a whole cantaloupe while simultaneously and melodiously thanking God for the fruits of the earth. And I wish, with all my heart, that their wives would have the spiritual and intellectual wherewithal to refuse to allow this pigheaded misappropriation of childbirth.

Pop Quiz

2006-09-02T17:27:00.000-07:00

Why does Roy Atwood wear a lampshade on his head?

1. To keep the sun out of his eyes.

2. Because he was drunk when he bought it and mistook it for a fez.

3. Because he is the light of the world.

4. Because it matches the lamp on his wetbar.

5. What lampshade?

Cultist of the Week Award

2006-09-01T17:00:00.000-07:00

Today we bellow a high and mighty “Congratulations!” to Warren Jeffs, winner of this week’s Cultist of the Week Award, who can add our prize to his long list of accomplishments, which is noteworthy. Jeffs is the prophet and president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, husband of about 40 wives, father of 56 children (give or take a few), stand-up comic, and, until his arrest this week, member of the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list. The FBI wanted him for being an accomplice to child rape, for having sex with a minor, and for conspiracy to have sex with a minor. If convicted, Jeffs faces a life sentence in Purgatory Correctional Centre, a just end for the self-proclaimed prophet who ruled his cult “with an iron fist, making outrageous demands and expelling anyone who disobeys (as well as those whom he considers to be a threat).” Hmmm, that sounds familiar. Therefore, we tip our Fedora to you, Warren Jeffs, as we bid you fair adieu, confident that neither your anointing nor your costume will keep you safe in Purgatory. But we take pleasure in this, for as Groucho Marx said, “Time wounds all heels.” And your time just started.

Update From the Bunker: Two Roys Don’t Make A Right

2006-09-01T09:18:00.000-07:00

From: New Saint Andrews College
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 9:18 AM
To: NewSaintAndrews@nsa.edu
Subject: City Council to rule on appeals against NSA Tuesday night

NSA NewsBrief

City Council to rule on appeals against NSA Tuesday night

Moscow City Council members will turn their attention to New Saint Andrews College on Tuesday night, Sept. 5, to hear the remaining appeals against the College’s conditional use permit. The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.

President Roy Atwood is encouraging friends of the College to turn out in support of New Saint Andrews. “We’re hopeful this will be the last of it and the community can move on to more important issues,” he said. “But given our experience, anything could happen.”

Tuesday’s hearing is for the Council to consider the appeals based on the existing record, not new testimony. At its June 5 meeting the City Council remanded the permit back to the Board of Adjustment based on an appeal claiming new information existed that would have impacted the board’s decision. The new information turned out to be old and the Board of Adjustment reaffirmed its earlier decision to grant the College a conditional use permit.

The College’s conditional use permit, originally granted March 29 and reaffirmed June 30, limits the school to 200 FTE students and its existing amount of commercially accessible street frontage, which refers to the library and the restaurant.

Posers and Hypocrites

2006-09-01T09:12:00.000-07:00

They devour books of piety indiscriminately, not stopping to consider how much of what they read applies, or can be applied, to their own lives. Their chief concern is to acquire as many externals as possible, and to decorate their persons with the features they have so rapidly come to associate with perfection. . . . If they do their job thoroughly, their spiritual disguises are apt to be much admired. Like successful artists, they become commercial. After that there is not much hope for them. . . They have become satisfied with their own brand of sanctity, and with the perfection they have woven for themselves out of their own imagination.

Such “sanctity” may perhaps be only the fruit of mutual flattery. The “perfection” of the holy one is something that reassures his neighbors by confirming them in their own prejudices, and by enabling them to forget what is lacking in their own communal morality. It makes them all feel that they are “right,” that they are on the right way, and that God is “satisfied” with their collective way of life. Therefore nothing needs to be changed. But anyone who opposes this situation is wrong. The sanctity of the “saint” is there to justify the complete elimination of those who are “unholy” — that is, those who do not conform.

So too in art, or literature. The “best” poets are those who happen to succeed in a way that flatters our current prejudice about what constitutes good poetry. We are very exacting about the standards that they have set up, and we cannot even consider a poet who writes in some other slightly different way, whose idiom is not quite the same. We do not read him. We do not dare to, for it we were discovered to have done so, we would fall from grace. We would be excommunicated.

A clever kind of insolent servility, a peculiar combination of ambition, stubbornness and flexibility, a “third ear” keenly attuned to the subtlest modulations of the fashionable clichés — with all this you can pass as a saint or a genius if you conform to the right group. You will be blamed in a way that gives you great pleasure, because the blame will come from an out-group by which to be blamed is praise. You may not be enthusiastically praised, even by your own friends. But they know exactly what you are driving at. They full accept your standards. They dig you. You are canonized. You are the embodiment of their own complacency. (Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation [New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1961] 110–103)

“Even the Freakiest Ones”

2006-08-31T19:16:00.000-07:00

One of the most important symptoms of pathological narcissism (the Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is grandiosity. Grandiose fantasies (megalomaniac delusions of grandeur) permeate every aspect of the narcissist’s personality. They are the reason that the narcissist feels entitled to special treatment which is typically incommensurate with his real accomplishments. The grandiosity gap is the abyss between the narcissist’s self-image (as reified by his False Self) and reality.

When narcissistic supply is deficient, the narcissist decompensates and acts out in a variety of ways. Narcissists often experience psychotic micro-episodes during therapy and when they suffer narcissistic injuries in a life crisis. But can the narcissist “go over the edge”? Do narcissists ever become psychotic? Some terminology first:

The narrowest definition of psychosis, according to the DSM-IV-TR, is “restricted to delusions or prominent hallucinations, with the hallucinations occurring in the absence of insight into their pathological nature.” And what are delusions and hallucinations?

A delusion is “a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.”

A hallucination is a “sensory perception that has the compelling sense of reality of a true perception but that occurs without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ.”

Granted, the narcissist’s hold on reality is tenuous (narcissists sometimes fail the reality test). Admittedly, narcissists often seem to believe in their own confabulations. They are unaware of the pathological nature and origin of their self-delusions and are, thus, technically delusional (though they rarely suffer from hallucinations, disorganized speech, or disorganized or catatonic behavior). In the strictest sense of the word, narcissists appear to be psychotic. But, actually, they are not. There is a qualitative difference between benign (though well-entrenched) self-deception or even malignant con-artistry — and “losing it.”

Pathological narcissism should not be construed as a form of psychosis because:

1. The narcissist is usually fully aware of the difference between true and false, real and make-believe, the invented and the extant, right and wrong. The narcissist consciously chooses to adopt one version of the events, an aggrandizing narrative, a fairy-tale existence, a “what-if” counterfactual life. He is emotionally invested in his personal myth. The narcissist feels better as fiction than as fact — but he never loses sight of the fact that it is all just fiction.

2. Throughout, the narcissist is in full control of his faculties, cognizant of his choices, and goal-oriented. His behavior is intentional and directional. He is a manipulator and his delusions are in the service of his stratagems. Hence his chameleon-like ability to change guises, his conduct, and his convictions on a dime.

3. Narcissistic delusions rarely persist in the face of blanket opposition and reams of evidence to the contrary. The narcissist usually tries to convert his social milieu to his point of view. He attempts to condition his nearest and dearest to positively reinforce his delusional False Self. But, if he fails, he modifies his profile on the fly. He “plays it by ear.” His False Self is extemporaneous — a perpetual work of art, permanently reconstructed in a reiterative process designed around intricate and complex feedback loops.

Though the narcissistic personality is rigid — its content is always in flux. Narcissists forever re-invent themselves, adapt their consumption of narcissistic supply to the “marketplace,” attuned to the needs of their “suppliers.” Like the performers that they are, they resonate with their “audience,” giving it what it expects and wants. They are efficient instruments for the extraction and consumption of human reactions. As a result of this interminable process of fine tuning, narcissists have no loyalties, no values, no doctrines, no beliefs, no affiliations, and no convictions. Their only constraint is their addiction to human attention, positive or negative.

Psychotics, by comparison, are fixated on a certain view of the world and of their place in it. They ignore any and all information that might challenge their delusions. Gradually, they retreat into the inner recesses of their tormented mind and become dysfunctional.

Narcissists can’t afford to shut out the world because they so heavily depend on it for the regulation of their labile sense of self-worth. Owing to this dependence, they are hypersensitive and hyper vigilant, alert to every bit of new data. They are continuously busy rearranging their self-delusions to incorporate new information in an ego-syntonic manner.

This is why the Narcissistic Personality Disorder is insufficient grounds for claiming a “diminished capacity” (insanity) defense. Narcissists are never divorced from reality — they crave it, and need it, and consume it in order to maintain the precarious balance of their disorganized, borderline-psychotic personality. All narcissists, even the freakiest ones, can tell right from wrong, act with intent, and are in full control of their faculties and actions.

Sam Vaknin

Union and Division

2006-08-29T07:28:00.000-07:00

And now I am thinking of the disease which is spiritual pride. I am thinking of the peculiar unreality that gets into the hearts of the saints and eats their sanctity away. . . . As soon as they have done something which they know to be good in the eyes of God, they tend to take its reality to themselves and to make it their own. They tend to destroy their virtues by claiming them for themselves and clothing their own private illusion of themselves with values that belong to God. Who can escape the secret desire to breathe a different atmosphere from the rest of men?

This sickness of most dangerous when it succeeds in looking like humility. When a proud man thinks he is humble his case is hopeless.

Here is a man who has done many things that were hard for his flesh to accept. He has come through difficult trials and done a lot of work, and by God’s grace he has come to possess a habit of fortitude and self-sacrifice in which, at last, labor and suffering become easy. It is reasonable that his conscience should be at peace. But before he realizes it, the clean peace of a will united to God becomes the complacency of a will that loves its own excellence.

The pleasure that is in his heart when he does difficult things and succeeds in doing them well, tells him secretly: “I am a saint.” At the same time, others seem to recognize him as different from themselves. They admire him, or perhaps avoid him — a sweet homage of sinners! The pleasure burns into a devouring fire. The warmth of that fire fells very much like the love of God. It is fed by the same virtues that nourished the flame of charity. He burns with self-admiration and thinks: “It is the fire of the love of God.”

He thinks his own pride is the Holy Ghost.

The sweet warmth of pleasure becomes the criterion of all his works. The relish he savors in acts that make him admirable in his own eyes, drives him to fast, or to pray, or to hide in solitude, or to write many books, or to build churches and hospitals, or to start a thousand organizations. And when he gets what he wants he thinks his sense if satisfaction is the unction of the Holy Spirit.

And the secret voice of pleasure sings in his heart: “Non sum sicut caeteri homines” (I am not like other men).

Once he has started on this path there is no limit to the evil his self-satisfaction may drive him to do in the name of God and of His love, and for His glory. He is so pleased with himself that he can no longer tolerate the advice of another. . . When someone opposes his desire he folds his hands humbly and seems to accept it for the time being, but in his heart he is saying: “I am persecuted by worldly men. They are incapable of understanding one who is led by the Spirit of God. With the saints it has always been so.”

Having become a martyr he is ten times as stubborn as before.

Its is a terrible thing when such a one gets the idea he is a prophet or a messenger of God or a man with a mission to reform the world. . . . He is capable of destroying religion and making the name of God odious to men. (Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation [New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1961])

Paparazzi!

2006-08-28T23:08:00.001-07:00

Our crack paparazzi have done it again. Last night we saw Princesss Sushitushi (aka Taro Tanaka, that wacky Cultmaster Douglas Wilson) at the Emmy Awards as she gallivanted across the red carpet in this stunning chiffon gown, lined with a soft ruffle above her bust (chest?) line. After the ceremony she snuck out the backdoor with her escort, whom she calls Über-tripe, who wore a pair of jumper cables over his naked torso. Rumor has it these two have been steaming the windows since 2003 in an on-again off-again romance, and every time she dumps him, the jilted gigolo leaves some schnitzengruben in her mailbox. But last night they were on-again and our paparazzo caught them the moment she threw the switch. Zap! We call it Torrid Tanaka Gives a Royal Shock. Looks like someone blew a fuse! Oh, Princess, we know you can’t speak for Doug, but preach to us about your anointing!

Cultist Fables

2006-08-27T08:20:00.000-07:00

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one an evangelical Christian, and the other a Kultist. The Kultist stood and prayed thus with himself, “God, reign down judgment upon my enemies because I want them to be my friends so much that I harass them daily, but they repent not.” And the evangelical Christian, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, “God be merciful to me a sinner.”

He’s No Schmoe, He’s Your Pastor

2006-08-26T23:27:00.001-07:00

Earlier today, on the local listserv, Doug Wilson visited Memory Lane when someone asked him (through his latest nom de plume Joe Schmoe), “And how’s Edna?” The question, of course, refers to “Edna Wilmington,” one of the pseudonyms that Wilson pulled out of his hat during the “It’s Not About Slavery” flap.

Edna was quite the hoot; she gave us all a good laugh. She also gave Wilson plausible deniability because, as with Princesss Sushitushi, several of the Anselm pranksters posted in her name, giving each of them sufficient latitude to deny the direct question: “Are you Edna Wilmington?” “Ah, no I am not.” Talk about a jokester. Tricks like this prove that Doug really does have the anointing.

Anyway, Edna insisted she was a real person, though she always refused to meet people and she conveniently left the country when things got too close. So Cultists in Hats put our crack team of paparazzi on the Edna trail to see if we could catch her on film. Here is a small teaser of our portfolio; you can click on each photograph to see a larger sample of the image.

In this first photograph, our paparazzo caught Edna in the middle of a workout. We call it Edna the Thighmaster. Notice that she’s sporting a sharp pastel sweatshirt with bright white shorts, and she’s barefoot! You can tell by her stance that she’s practicing her dance steps, getting ready for the big windy. Don’t want to lose balance in front of all those future men.

This black-and-white classic is especially timely given the current controversy. That’s Francis Foucachon with his arm wrapped around Edna Wilmington, smiling at a two-way mirror, not knowing that we had a paparazzo hidden on the other side. Edna is wearing a lovely dress with a white lace collar, and she has the look of love in her eyes because she knows the Frenchman is loaded. That’s right — he’s rich — beaucoup rich, baby! Frankie, you can have the liver; pass Edna the wallet!

We call this one Edna the Prairie Muffin because she’s got that Little House on the Prairie look, with her apron jumper, darkly shaded in UPS brown, no hat. Unfortunately, the darling little lass with the blue head covering is another man’s daughter, and we confirmed that the child’s father did not give Edna permission to visit her. In fact he instructed Edna to leave his girl alone. But that didn’t stop Edna; nobody tells her what to do. Since then, the father left the Christ Church Cult.

This next shot is really quite tragic. That’s Edna, of course, wearing a snappy pullover, brown on rust, riding her little scooter. But the sad part is that she was crying hysterically; the entire (as in global) academic community had just shunned her because of her booklet Southern Slavery As It Was. The front-page headline was rather embarrassing; Edna cried for days — and then they discovered the plagiarism. Now that’s something to cry about.

And finally, this one’s our all-time fav because our paparazzi captured Edna Wilmington and Princesss Sushitushi in the same shot. Better yet, we caught them on the set of Gilligan’s Island, hobnobbing with the cast and yucking it up. We call it “Lovie Dovie” in honor of Mrs. Howell. If you look carefully, that’s Edna on the right, near Ginger, and the Princess is on the left, next to Maryanne. Look out, girls, ne touchez pas!

So there you have it, Douglas Wilson in all his glory. What a guy. He’s no Schmoe, he’s your pastor.

Food For Thought

2006-08-25T17:01:00.001-07:00

The current community discussion centered around the serving of foie gras (as supply allows) at Moscow’s newest restaurant, West of Paris, offers a splendid example of the cultural divide between those within the Christ Church covenant and those who stand apart from it. The topic of a specific controversy, i.e., slavery in the antebellum South, obligation to pay property taxes, observance of city ordinances, human rights, the separation of church and state, or serving foie gras, is immaterial. The ensuing drama is always the same.

Act One: The Temperamental Chef
A representative or member of Christ Church acts or communicates in a way guaranteed to garner a spirited response from the larger community.

Act Two: The Pot Is Stirred
The dramatic tension rises with the introduction of howls of religious persecution, protests of righteousness, and claims of victimization on the one hand; countered by appeals to well-documented history, the city code, and respect for human rights on the other. Gratuitous insults are exchanged by all parties, which represent the comedic aspect of the play.

Act Three: Gag Me With A Spoon
The denouement includes a public denunciation of opponents by all parties and occasionally, intervention by government entities (generally interpreted as an insufficient remedy by one side, or a vivid example of divine blessing and approval of the precipitating action or words by the other). Unlike a well-crafted play, the audience is consequently denied a reasonable resolution. Instead, a hardening of previously held positions, a shouldering of additional grudges, and a strong premonition — given the current cast — that within six months the production will again be on center stage in Moscow.

Throwing aside (only for a moment) the religious components that cloak any Christ Church related topic, what reaction did Monsieur Foucachon expect when he announced in an interview with the The Daily Evergreen, “his new restaurant is just the opposite of what most Americans consider acceptable meals . . . [instead] he wants to use the French ‘gastronomy’ style of cooking to show people how to truly enjoy dining again.”

Were we, the dimwitted denizens of the Palouse, supposed to clap our dirty paws together in anticipatory glee when a Presbyterian minister from Lyon, France, promises to unlock the secrets of fine dining for us? Once again, the hubris of a Kirker trumps good manners, gracious humility, and, tellingly, by his own belittling words and know-it-all attitude, sabotages his new business. (A little FYI to Monsieur Foucachon: I don’t know anyone who raises their kids on corndogs and cotton candy, much less anyone who routinely relies on squat-and-gobble eateries for dinner.)

Thus ends Act One.

In a private email to me, Monsieur Foucachon confirmed the accuracy of the Daily News article by Alexis Bacharach, published August 23, 2006:

He wants local activists, who got their hands on an outdated menu earlier this week, to know their threats of protest mean nothing to him or his staff. . . . “This is a group that was looking for something to use against my business and they found something,” he said. “While I believe there are some valid concerns here, I’m not going to stop serving what people want. I will put foie gras on my menu again.”

The translation (for those who aren’t familiar with Kirkspeak) is this: Speaking for myself and family, as is my divine right in a federal household, I don’t care who I offend especially if they are picking on me for religious reasons. Furthermore, I will continue to offend those people because even if there are ethical issues involved I can profit from the transactions while enjoying the bonus of flipping off pagans who are bound for hell. My real friends, connoisseurs who gladly gulp great gobs of greasy goose liver, applaud my moral courage and great business vision.

West of Paris, sans foie gras, was always a precarious venture. Zume Bakery’s failure should have been a red flag to Mr. Foucachon. Despite the self-serving encouragement emanating from those who risked nothing, and disregarding the unhappy institutional affiliation with New Saint Andrews College, an expensive French restaurant with a pretentious menu is probably not going to be a successful venture in Moscow. While it is handy to have a cast of thousands to blame, ultimately, the responsibility rests on Mr. Foucachon — not on the folks who refuse to patronize West of Paris.

End of Act Two: hold the applause, please, this sad tale offers nothing to clap about.

Act Three: Yet to be performed.

Finally, and in my view, most importantly, I must comment on the religious aspect of this new Kirk-related debacle. I am offended beyond measure that while children go to bed hungry on the Palouse, single mothers or fathers agonize over inadequate means with which to feed and care for their families, elderly or disabled people choose between buying food or paying rent, a minister of the gospel — an avowed Christian — puts his money and his efforts into inaugurating an elitist restaurant where fat-assed, gluttonous, bearded bores swill expensive wine and lick their oily pendulous chops in anticipation of a cholesterol-laden feast.

Francis Foucachon, I say to you in truth, rethink this venture. Establish a soup kitchen where your skills will be appreciated and respected. Feed the hungry for free and those of us with the resources to do so will gladly pay for their soup, salad, and sandwiches as well as our own. Use your daughter’s considerable skill in interior design to create a space of beauty and peace that nourishes the soul as well as the eye of all diners. Treat those with the greatest needs with the greatest respect. Create a testimony with your life that truly glorifies God by serving those who are suffering, hungry, and vulnerable.

Rosemary Huskey

Cultist of the Week Award

2006-08-25T17:00:00.001-07:00

Gee, that’s a toughie. This week we bestow our esteemed prize upon Francis Foucachon, proud member of the Christ Church Cult and owner of West of Paris, who really cooked his goose with this one. It appears that Monsieur Foucachon has picked a fight with the animal-rights activist group PETA over the French delicacy pâté de foie gras, which translated into modern means “force feed the duck; harvest the liver.” Monsieur Foucachon is determined to serve foie gras despite an escalating public-relations nightmare, which includes a scheduled PETA protest in the heart of Friendship Square. But as the Daily News reported, “Their threats of protest mean nothing to him and his staff.” Holy Moses! Do these people ever learn? We trow not. Nevertheless, we do see one upside to this latest Christ Church Cult controversy — it makes Brown Derby a shoe in for the office pool; he bet that West of Paris would go belly up before the spring semester — the earliest date on the chart. Therefore, we tip our Fedora to you, Francis Foucachon. You give new meaning to Daffy Duck’s famous quote, “Sufferin’ succotash!”

A Happy Compromise

2006-08-25T14:14:00.000-07:00

As West of Paris faces a showdown with PETA, the editorial staff here at Cultists in Hats suggests this happy compromise that should satisfy all parties, including those gaggles of geese.

In lieu of serving foie gras, West of Paris should offer fresh cornmeal to its customers, served via a hand-held funnel manned by the wait staff. As proposed, it would work like this: one waiter would grab the customer by the throat and shove the funnel down his esophagus, holding it firmly in place. Once secure, another waiter would pour the cornmeal into the funnel until the customer starts vomiting. When the convulsing ceases, the wait staff would immediately resume the force-feeding and thereby insure a complete dining experience.

While this compromise is labor intensive, it is considerably cheaper than the huge overhead required to harvest goose livers. Nevertheless, it would still create logistical issues, such as the amount of resistance waiters should tolerate from customers before knocking them silly and when to clean up the vomit (before or after dessert?), etc. But in the main, this appears to be a very wise solution to a rather nasty problem. Take the culture war to the customer instead of the beast.

West of Paris

2006-08-25T10:24:00.001-07:00

Actually I had no idea where the restaurant was located or that it was affiliated with NSA until AFTER I stated my objection to foie gras and my plans to protest (I found out from Saundra’s post about foie gras before I had begun researching the restaurant). So I’m not singling anyone out for their religious affiliations, I could really care less what church Mr. Foucachon belongs to or if he’s affiliated with NSA. And he did tell me that he plans to look for a more humane supplier (but the production of foie gras really can’t be done humanely, because it relies on force feeding to fatten the animals’ livers) and that he took it off the menu until then. He did not mention to me that he planned on putting it back on the menu, nor that he took it off simply because he ran out of it.

As for why I don’t attack every single restaurant that serves meat, well that would be a losing battle. I’m not trying to tell people what they can eat. I do protest at KFC because they have especially cruel practices in the way they raise & slaughter their chickens, and they have quite a bit of clout and presence in the industry and could make a lot of changes if they so chose to. PETA has a campaign against KFC because they have refused to make some very minor changes in their slaughtering process (we’re asking them to gas the chickens before they are dropped into the feather removal tank that many go into alive, just to be sure they are dead and don’t die so painfully). I have to pick my battles here, and I try to pursue campaigns that have the capacity to educate people and bring about real change, and those where the suffering of the animals is the worst. I oppose ALL animal cruelty, but use different tactics in each case. For instance, I’m not going to force all restaurants to stop selling pork or even attempt to because I don’t think it would work, but I will happily educate anyone about a vegetarian diet and ask restaurant owners to serve more vegetarian options. I also freely distribute information to anyone who wants it, speak at classes or to the press about animal cruelty issues, etc.

The reason I am particularly concerned with foie gras is that first of all this is the first time I have ever heard of it being served in Moscow (in the 5 years I have lived here) and second, it is a particularly cruel practice, involving what seems to me a bit more inhumane treatment than your average factory farm. These ducks & geese are restrained, a metal pipe is forced down their throats, and food is stuffed into them until they contract a liver disease (their livers swell to 6–10 times the normal size, not exactly comfortable or healthy). Of course most farms also keep them in tiny, cramped cages during this feeding stage, just like chickens in factory farms, but the force feeding is what I find particularly questionable. Also, this food is a delicacy, very expensive, and totally unnecessary for anyone to eat it. So it’s not like I’m asking for all meat to be abolished, it would just be one small step in the right direction if foie gras was not served.

I hope I have cleared things up a bit. Mr. Foucachon, I am NOT trying to single you out based on any affiliations, I would campaign against foie gras at any restaurant I found out was serving it mostly because I have a particular aversion to this horrible practice, and it is completely unnecessary to the success of your business anyway.

I don’t appreciate accusations either, Mr. Arnold.

peace,

~megan

He Should’ve Stuck to French Fries

2006-08-25T06:00:00.000-07:00

PETA activist plans protest over foie gras
Associated Press
August 25, 2006

MOSCOW, Idaho — An animal rights activist is planning a protest in the next several weeks over a local restaurant’s serving of foie gras, a French delicacy obtained by using tubes to force-feed ducks and geese until their livers become saturated with fat.

“There are still a lot of people out there who don’t know what foie gras is or how it’s made,” said Megan Prusynski, a member of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States. “When I heard there was a restaurant in Moscow serving it, I started talking to people about doing some kind of protest to raise people’s awareness — maybe get it banned.”

Francis Foucachon, who owns West of Paris, said protests against foie gras — French for fatty liver — will not stop him from offering it on his menu when he gets more in. He sold out the foie gras he had in the first week. “This is a group that was looking for something to use against my business and they found something,” he said.

Foie gras is banned in Austria, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom. In Chicago, city leaders banned the item earlier this month, and the California Legislature passed a phased ban last year on the sale and production of foie gras.

“The people complaining about foie gras have a point,” Foucachon said. “The way the birds are being stuffed is questionable, and I do believe it’s important to treat animals humanely. I will put foie gras on my menu again when I find a producer that doesn’t engage in force feeding.”

Matt Prescott, a spokesman for PETA, said Foucachon will not find such a supplier.

Spokesman Review

Take the Duck and Shove It

2006-08-24T14:08:00.000-07:00

Few images capture life in the Christ Church Cult better than a hand covered in vomit shoving a funnel down a caged duck’s throat, force-feeding it cornmeal to fatten it for the slaughter. And few PR blunders capture the Christ Church Cult’s relationship with society better than Francis Foucachon’s smash-mouth turnaround, cramming pâté de foie gras in Moscow’s face after promising to remove it from his menu.

Francis Foucachon owns West of Paris, the gourmet restaurant francais that replaced Zumé Bakery, the high-end French bakery that closed up shop after eating hundreds of thousands in American dollars. West of Paris occupies the ground floor of New Saint Andrews College, where Foucachon plans to go out of business when he’s done offending the folks he hoped to feed.

Foucachon justified his about face in typical CCC fashion by casually dismissing the public outcry as part of the community conspiracy to persecute the Cult: “This is a group that was looking for something to use against my business and they found something.” Never mind that Israel, Germany, the United Kingdom, Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Italy, Poland, Denmark, California, and Chicago have banned the product — this group was looking for something to use against his business. So he’ll give them more.

Not ironically, Foucachon contradicted himself as he explained his position. According to the Daily News, first he claimed the menu that sparked the controversy was “outdated,” suggesting that he never intended to serve foie gras. Then he claimed he nearly sold out of the dish, suggesting that he gave his customers outdated menus on opening night. Then he agreed that the goose-stuffing process is “questionable,” and finally he changed the subject to lobsters, chickens, and why activists should protest grocery stores — after declaring he would still serve the liver.

Perhaps Foucachon could put side orders of foot in mouth on his menu too — right next to red herrings. Better yet, he should offer chickens with their heads cut off; then he could coordinate it with his PR. But most importantly, he should proudly display the vomit-covered hand so that all may see where the problem lies.

Now, if you really want something to feast on, eat this.

West of Paris

2006-08-24T12:10:00.001-07:00

I don’t know the owner of West of Paris, so this is not an allegation, but a caution.

Although certain items are not available on the menu of a restaurant does not mean they are not available at the restaurant. For years, for example, it was against the law (and may still be) to serve wild game/horsemeat/cat meat/etc at restaurants. Although such items were not on the menu, they were available, sometimes to select customers, sometimes to all, at certain restaurants.

Perhaps it is just the Daily News — but I have a high regard for Alexis Bacharach’s reporting accuracy — but there seem to be a some inconsistencies in the West of Paris owner’s statements in the news article which did not inspire confidence in me in his value for the truth.

West of Paris faces major challenges to succeed:

First, the owner’s visible, vocal, strong membership and association with a sexist, homophobic, racist, anti-secular, crackpot religious cult whose cultmaster and some members are certainly not known for their honesty but for eating out of the public trough without paying their share means that some proportion of the local population will not choose to eat at West of Paris — these abstainers understandably do not wish any of their money to go to support the doctrines, activities, and flimflam of the cult.

Second, the foie gras controversy, the reaction of the owner to such, and the reactions/comments of some cult members about such have alienated other potential customers.

Third, high-priced meals, even if they might be of high quality, further restrict the potential customer base.

Hence, if West of Paris makes foie gras available to select customers even though it is no longer on the menu, I would expect that such potential dishonesty (if it happens, and becomes public) will reduce the potential customer base even further.

How many potential customers can a business consider throwaways and still succeed in the very competitive local restaurant business?

Art Deco

Faux Pas

2006-08-23T14:00:00.000-07:00

Foie gras controversy hits Moscow
Activists up in arms over delicacy’s inclusion on restaurant menu; item has since been removed

Foie gras is no longer available at Moscow’s West of Paris, but not for the reasons one might think. Restaurant owner Francis Foucachon sold out of the item his first week in business. He wants local activists, who got their hands on an outdated menu earlier this week, to know their threats of protest mean nothing to him or his staff. “Here is the bottom line,” he said. “I ordered a small amount just to see if there was a demand in Moscow. It was such a huge success, we almost sold out our first night.”

Foie gras, French for fatty liver, is produced through a process of force-feeding ducks and geese until their livers become saturated with fat. Handlers insert tubes down the birds’ throats and funnel pounds of cornmeal into their stomachs several times a day.

Megan Prusynski, a local activist with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States, said consumption of foie gras went down in areas that provided focused education and outreach programs. With that in mind, she’s teaming with local and national groups, including Compassion Speaks at Washington State University, to organize protests in Friendship Square later this month. “There are still a lot of people out there who don’t know what foie gras is or how it’s made,” she said. “When I heard there was a restaurant in Moscow serving it, I started talking to people about doing some kind of protest to raise people’s awareness — maybe get it banned.”

More than a dozen countries, including Israel, Germany, the United Kingdom, Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Italy, Poland and Denmark, have outlawed the French delicacy. In the United States, lawmakers are proposing bans at the state and municipal levels. The California Legislature passed a phased ban last year on the production and sale of foie gras. Earlier this month, city leaders in Chicago banned the controversial item from all menus in the city.

“The people complaining about foie gras have a point,” Foucachon said. “The way the birds are being stuffed is questionable, and I do believe it’s important to treat animals humanely. I will put foie gras on my menu again when I find a producer that doesn’t engage in force feeding.”

PETA spokesman Matt Prescott said that’s a victory for animal rights, because Foucachon will never find what he’s looking for. “There are producers in the industry who say their foie gras is produced humanely, but such claims are unsubstantiated,” he said. “Investigations at every foie gras farm has uncovered incidents of sick, dead and abused animals. We’ve seen birds with holes in their throats and bloody beaks. We’ve seen farms where dead birds were dangling from wires, dripping blood on the live birds.”

Video footage and photo galleries on PETA’s Web site provide images of birds with gaping wounds, images of blood-soaked cages and buckets full of feathered corpses. “No animal should be subject to torture,” Foucachon said. “But these things they’re complaining about, I would suggest American chickens are treated far worse than the ducks and the geese. Why aren’t people writing letters and staging protests at the grocery stores and restaurants that sell chicken?” Why stop there, he asked? Foucachon suggested protests against restaurants that cook live lobsters. “This is a group that was looking for something to use against my business and they found something,” he said. “While I believe there are some valid concerns here, I’m not going to stop serving what people want. I will put foie gras on my menu again.”

Alexis Bacharach

West of Paris

2006-08-23T11:55:00.001-07:00

I also wanted to give you all an update on West of Paris and the foie gras issue. Mr. Foucachon has decided to take foie gras off the menu and I would like to congratulate and thank him for making the compassionate choice. Hopefully his kind actions can be a way to educate people about just what goes into foie gras production and how cruel it is. Thanks very much, Mr. Foucachon and West of Paris.

Megan Prusynski

If the Hat Fits

2006-08-22T12:51:00.000-07:00

Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).

2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

4. Requires excessive admiration.

5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.

6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.

7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.

9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

Cultist of the Week Award

2006-08-18T17:00:00.001-07:00

We hand this week’s Cultist of the Week Award to the Southern Africa’s Catholic bishops, who earlier this week warned their priests to “stop moonlighting as witchdoctors, fortune tellers and traditional healers.” You really have to applaud Rome for its softened response to pestilent heretics; they used to execute by day and torture by night. Now they simply offer a warning. Then again, these ain’t the Dark Ages. The thing we don’t understand is how on the one hand Rome condemns witchcraft, but on the other they condone transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration. Looks like magic to us. Dark too. Anyway, we tip our Fedora to the bishops, as we admire their pointy hats, and leave them with a word of exhortation from Hedley Lamarr, “Go do that voodoo that you do so well.”

Shun Thy Neighbor as Thyself

2006-08-18T12:56:00.000-07:00

One of the most difficult things for a Christian to learn when they join a cult, or when they belong to a factious sect emerging into a cult, is the Amish practice of shunning. Of course the Amish are those radical Anabaptists well known for their stylish sixteenth-century hats, hook & eye clothing, and horse-drawn buggies — you could never mistake them for postmodern. They don’t even have cell phones. Anyway, this cutting-edge Christian culture gave birth to shunning, which in its elementary form is the religious ritual of intentionally avoiding someone to show your allegiance to your sect. In cults, however, the rite oftentimes takes on various nuances unique to the particular sect.

For example, in the Christ Church Cult, they practice shunning in coordination with imprecatory prayers because, as the Cultmaster said, they really want those people (i.e. the “targets”) to be their friends. And we all know that the best way to befriend someone is to treat them with contempt and pray that God would kill them. It really says that somewhere in the Bible. But these things are beside the point. As noted, shunning is not easy to learn, so here are some important tips to remember as you grow in your shunification:

1. First, if you see your neighbor — whether driving on the road, walking through the neighborhood, or nose to nose in the market — then make your face like flint, stern & unforgiving.

2. Second, look away and be as mean as possible. You must remember that you do not approve of this person and they must know it. More importantly, your Cultmaster rejects that person, and the Cultmaster’s opinion carries more weight than God.

3. Third, ignore them. Do not say “Hello” or offer any kind of greeting. You must resist the temptation to be kind — especially if you see them in need. You are superior to them, so let them know it. And if you succumb to temptation or if your natural reflex overwhelms you so that you initiate a greeting, then make sure you grunt it with a begrudging tone. You’re a miserable soul, don’t hide it.

4. Fourth, if you feel awkward, you should. The practice is unnatural, unbiblical, and it makes you look like a jackass. But don’t worry about it; you’ll get over it as your conscience erodes with further indoctrination from the cult. Pretty soon you’ll learn to like it.

5. Fifth, teach your children to be as mean and nasty as yourself so that the world can be a better place for everyone.

6. Finally, don’t forget that the Cultist Bible says, “He that shunneth not knoweth not God.”

If you do these things, your heart will continue to harden and you’ll enjoy the rich fellowship provided only by your cult. So carry on and dread naught.

Eat This

2006-08-18T10:16:00.000-07:00

Why thank you for the lovely welcome to the “intoleristas.” I find it funny that that name came from someone quite intolerant. . .

And as for the foie gras, the suppliers in the US and elsewhere all have the same practice (as seen in several undercover investigations into these suppliers), in fact, to make foie gras one has to induce a liver disease. That is why it gets fatty, because the ducks & geese are so overfed that their liver swells and they become very sick, often unable to move or do anything they would do normally. There is no way to produce foie gras without force-feeding the animals and inducing the disease. Foie gras is not a delicacy, it is a disease.

It’s great that the restaurant offer free-range chicken instead of factory farmed chicken, but it seems that your “ethics” are quite skewed, this doesn’t make up for the fact that foie gras is just about the most cruel way to produce a meat (fat?) that is totally unnecessary and considered a “delicacy.” I hope you’ll consider making a higher degree of ethics universal throughout the restaurant. I would love to offer you more information on this subject, or some videos so you can see exactly what goes into foie gras production. Many restaurants, states (including California) and countries (including the UK & Switzerland) have banned it because producing it requires cruelty and there is much public outcry against it.

I would be happy to eat at the restaurant if you’re willing to take foie gras off the menu (assuming you offer vegetarian and vegan options). Until then, I’d be even happier to protest it. I hope we can have a civilized discussion about this, but if not, be prepared to deal with protesters.

Here’s a video showing what was revealed at an undercover investigation of a foie gras “farm.”

Megan Prusynski

“Return to Sender”

2006-08-17T16:32:00.000-07:00

Most people don’t know this, but when Wilson filed his police complaint alleging that someone placed a used condom in his mailbox, he omitted a critical piece of information that could have solved the mystery in the drop of a hat — the prophylactic was marked “Return to Sender.”

You Know You’re in a Cult if . . .

2006-08-17T14:57:00.000-07:00

You know you’re in a cult if your cult master cites the book of Ezra as his authority to dissolve a marriage of 30 years. Not quite as efficient as a UPS truck, but it’ll do.

You Know You’re in a Cult if . . .

2006-08-17T09:06:00.000-07:00

You know you’re in a cult if your elders help you circumvent the law rather than encouraging you to obey it. In this case, the Cultmaster wants to prevent the City from identifying the 20+ illegal boarding houses that support the cult’s college instead of directing cultmembers to bring their lawless operations into conformity by obtaining conditional use permits required by the City.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christ Church
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:06 AM
To: office@christkirk.com; TrinityReformedChurch@gmail.com
Subject: students in church directory

Due to problems we have faced with boarding students, the church directory will only include the email addresses and cell phone numbers of students that board with families. If you are in an apartment or student house we will be happy to publish your address. If you need the address of a boarding student you will have to call or email them personally. Sorry for the inconvenience.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Christine LaMoreaux, Administrative Secretary Christ Church - Anselm House
205 East 5th Street P.O. Box 8741
Moscow, ID 83843
office@christkirk.com
Voice: (208) 882-2034 Fax: (208) 892-8724 www.christkirk.com

West of Paris, Grand Opening

2006-08-16T15:38:00.000-07:00

I have debated and debated about whether to post this or not, but I’d hate for an unsuspecting person to go to West of Paris only to be horrified.

I was deeply disappointed to see that West of Paris will be selling foie gras. For that reason alone, I will refuse to patronize the business, no matter how delicious other menu items look or sound — it’s a matter of ethics for me.

The process used to make foie gras is animal cruelty, pure and simple. Fifteen nations (including the UK, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, and Israel — formerly the fourth largest producer in the world) have banned force-feeding birds for foie gras production. The City of Chicago has banned the sale of foie gras, and Philadelphia is likely to follow. Beginning 2012, the production and sale of foie gras from force-fed birds will be banned in the State of California.

I won’t go into the horrifying and graphic details of how foie gras is produced, but for those who want to learn more, you can check out Wikipedia. You can also Google it, but WARNING: there’s a lot of deeply disturbing (although accurate) information and photos you’ll find.

Very disappointing that foie gras will be sold in any Moscow restaurant.

JMNSHO,

Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

You Know You’re in a Cult if . . .

2006-08-15T14:39:00.000-07:00

You know you’re in a cult if your pastors connive to deploy a pseudonym on the local listserv so that when one of them is asked, “Are you Princesss Sushitushi?” he can answer, “No, I am not,” knowing that he is technically telling the truth because he is only one component of the composite personality. Christian churches call this kind of deception “lying”; the Christ Church Cult calls it “cultural warfare.”

You Know You’re in a Cult if . . .

2006-08-15T12:10:00.000-07:00

You know you’re in a cult if two or more of your elders adopt a pseudonym on the local listserv — the same listserv they swore off — in order to defend the cult’s master: “I can’t speak for Doug Wilson, but . . .”

Missing the point

2006-08-15T05:28:00.000-07:00

Does the vision of Doug Wilson and his elders and the fellows at NSA for a transformed culture include a society where people obey zoning laws imposed by civil authority and eschew lying en masse to one’s neighbors?

Golly, that does sound nifty!

keely

Cultist of the Week Award

2006-08-11T17:00:00.001-07:00

This week’s Cultist of the Week Award goes to Bob Hieronymus — that madcapping publicist for New Saint Andrews College who managed to place NSA in the top 50 “All-American Colleges: Top Schools for Conservatives, Old-Fashioned Liberals, and People of Faith.” In our opinion, anyone savvy enough to place NSA in the top 50 of anything deserves commendation. Look at it this way: in 2005 NSA perpetrated a Shroud of Turin fraud; successfully concealed vital information about a serial pedophile from the community; dodged a legitimate charge of plagiarism; and was declared in violation of the Zoning Code for the third time in a decade. How’s that for family values? This year, however, NSA dug deep and got their money’s worth out of Bob Hieronymus, who pulled the mother of all rabbits out of his hat, proving the maxim: “There’s a sucker born every minute, but none of them ever die.” Bob, we salute you with a special tip of the Fedora.

NSA story was a stretch

2006-08-10T14:00:00.000-07:00

One of the unexpected benefits provided by a subscription to the Daily News is its remarkable consistency in stretching the reader’s credulity. One can find no better example of this than the article in the Aug. 4 edition describing the listing of New Saint Andrews College in a forthcoming book All-American Colleges: Top Schools for Conservatives, Old-Fashioned Liberals, and People of Faith.

While noting the book is published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the article fails to mention this is a right-wing organization whose agenda is to promote conservative and religious values. Further noting that “the book doesn’t list any typical All American colleges,” the article implies — with its mention of Princeton and University of Chicago — that NSA is part of a collection of the nation’s elite universities: a remarkable achievement for NSA, no doubt, given its short 13-year history and its very recent and nebulous academic accreditation. Or does the remarkable achievement lie in the limitless creativity of ideology to categorize and shape the world to its own desires and agendas?

Gene Rosa, Moscow

Secular Jihadists and the blow-up castle

2006-08-09T14:00:00.000-07:00

Summer in Moscow means fun-filled and beautiful days for everyone. For the second year in a row, Trinity Festival is coming to our town. On Aug. 1, the Moscow Chamber of Commerce sent out this announcement:

“Second Trinity Festival Held in Moscow
Credenda/Agenda magazine is sponsoring its second Trinity Festival on August 7–9. . . . Tuesday, August 8: the festival will be moving downtown. Third through Fifth Streets will be closed from 5–10 and all local community folks, as well as festival attendees, are invited to come buy dinner from downtown vendors, enjoy the Wine Garden provided by Camas Winery, and have a fun evening of musical entertainment in Friendship Square. La Bella Vita will be selling Chicago-Style Hot Dogs, as well as snocones [sic] and cotton candy. The huge blow-up castle will make its appearance again for the youngsters. . .”

In case you do not know, Credenda/Agenda is the magazine published through Moscow’s Christ Church affiliate Canon Press. The festival also is linked with the church and its associated enterprises. It is inviting of the magazine and church to welcome “all local community folks” downtown to partake in this event and provide a bounce house or “huge blow-up castle” for anyone’s chldren. It would be a shame if such a significant event right in downtown on a beautiful August evening excluded the general public.

It is funny though that the announcement does not mention the theme of the overall event — “Secular Jihad in America: The War on the Constitution.” Well, now, that makes me stop and question the intent of the announced offer, and the real theme of the event. In fact, the idea that I am a jihadist because I believe in a secular government makes me feel quite uneasy about joining the whole event. Being somehow equated with a terrorist participating in an attack on our country’s foundation makes me think I might just choke on that Chicago-style hot dog provided by La Bella Vita. (Of course as a liberal, secular, vegetarian I probably couldn’t eat a Chicago-style hot dog if I tried.)

These two incongruous ideas: that my family and I are invited to this event and that they are calling me a jihadist are difficult for me to reconcile. Am I really welcome? Should I attend with the hopes that this olive branch to the community at-large is real?

I do want this community to work to heal some of its wounds created by our ongoing conflict between Christ Church leaders, outspoken progressives, historians and others who take issue with teachings and writings of Christ Church, Credenda/Agenda and Canon Press. Sometimes, I find common ground between myself and others in the community who belong to Christ Church.

Really, I long to maintain hope that somehow we can all live together without regular conflict in Moscow. But, the idea that Credenda/Agenda is holding an entire conference centered on the theme that people who believe in the separation of church and state (secularists) are the same as people who kill thousands jihadists makes my head ache and my hopes falter. Snow cones and being called a jihadist just don’t go together in my brain. I can’t help but wonder what the banners downtown will say? “Welcome community terrorists to our fun family event.” “Please remove shoes and explosives before entering the bounce house.” “Please don’t blow up the blow-up castle.”

By the time my Town Crier is published, this event will have passed. For now, I would like “all local community folks” to understand the connection between the event downtown and the theme of the Trinity Festival conference. Next year, let’s hope Credenda/Agenda and the leaders of Trinity Festival will think a little harder about their festival title and theme. Until then, I’ll try to keep a little flicker of hope alive.

Julia Parker

Julia Parker lives in Moscow and is a nurse at Gritman Medical Center, a mother and a former academic. Town Crier II is a weekly series of columns contributed by 13 local writers. The Town Crier columns run on Wednesday.

Ecclesiastical Discipline in the Christ Church Cult

2006-08-07T10:04:00.000-07:00

THEORY
The Bible vests in church elders exclusively the authority to render a final determination over a member charged with the commission of unrepented sin, if — and only if — unstipulated sin-factual questions are decided in a church “trial,” subject to extensive procedural safeguards (see e.g., Matthew 18:15–17.)

After a member is found to be unrepentant of sin and they remain obdurate, he/she must be rebuked in the presence of all and the Lord Jesus Christ instructs His church to treat the unrepentant like a Gentile or tax-collector, i.e., with normal human courtesy, but not as a fellow believer.

APPLICATION
Christ Church implements Matthew 18:15–17 in the following way:

First, congregants are expected to confer with other members to make assessments of their neighbor’s level of cooperation with Pastor Douglas Wilson’s ministry objectives. The congregation is also required to police their brothers & sisters in Christ, and quietly inform an elder if there is any potential disagreement or lack of cooperation with Pastor Wilson’s personal ministry objectives, which is tantamount to committing sin, if not high rebellion.

Second, the congregation must be vigilant in ascertaining whether Pastor Wilson intends the congregation to pressure, totally ignore, or disfellowship the believer in good standing. They obtain this information by tapping into the Kirk rumor mill, which originates in Pastor Wilson’s office via his well-known whisper campaigns.

Note: Congregants with a financial connection to the church, e.g., employees of any of Wilson-associated ministries, MUST disfellowship & shun a dissident, or else quit or face termination (without notice). No unmarried, unadjudicated dissident members are permitted to marry within the Church. No member is permitted to speak kindly to an unadjudicated dissident in church, unless said member is of high status or standing in the church, e.g., Doug Jones dripping love & affection on Pooh Bear.

CONCLUSION — EXHORTATION
Every member of Christ Church should mete out Kirk discipline to those dissident members who interfere with Pastor Wilson’s ministry objectives: such dissenting conduct is sin and all requirements for a trial are hereby dispensed.

Existential Liar

2006-08-06T16:32:00.000-07:00

TO and I once debated the subject of Doug’s dishonesty. TO held the position that Doug is not guilty of “lying” when he delivers a bald-faced lie, because, according to TO, Doug really believes the lie when he utters it. In other words, since Doug really believes his lies when he tells them, he is therefore not guilty of lying. To TO, it doesn’t matter if Doug says one thing and five minutes later completely contradicts it; TO believes this involves consistency and competence, not honesty.

I do not deny that Doug believes his own lies at any given time, even when he contradicts them within a 5-minute window. However, I hold that Doug has studied the finer points of rhetoric and he understands the importance of closing the deal, i.e. a salesman, or con artist, will not bag the customer unless he prevails upon him with his sales pitch, which relies not only upon the content of his words but their delivery. Therefore, Doug taught himself how to use persuasion in order to lie, and he learned that he could not persuade others unless he persuaded himself, or at least appeared persuaded. Of course, self-persuasion, or the appearance thereof, is not without cost. Scripture teaches that hypocritical liars scorch their scruples to a stub: “Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (1 Tim 4:2). But I digress.

TO’s analysis correctly identifies the reason that Doug is a successful liar, i.e., he deceives himself before he deceives others (TO does concede that Doug is guilty of self-deception). But TO fails to explain why self-deception should be exculpatory. Consequently, his analysis boils down to a ridiculous question: “Which came first, the deceiver or the self-deceiver?” as if the liar who depends upon self-deception to successfully mislead is somehow not culpable. Who cares?

If Doug predicates his lies on self-deceit, then Doug’s self-deception reveals premeditation, which only aggravates his sin. It certainly doesn’t justify him. He lies, and he calculates his lies to exonerate him. He does this by design. It’s all planned — every word. Therefore, if Doug has disciplined himself to actually believe his lies before he tells them, then he is simply an existential liar, but a liar nonetheless.

An Illustration

2006-08-01T08:53:00.000-07:00

Body odor is hard to discern when it is your own. You are happy with your choices of hygiene and you will not notice your pungency without shoving your face in your armpit. You are at peace. Others are not so lucky. It is your odor and their nose. They don’t need to put their face in your armpit. They merely need to walk by or step into an enclosed place with you. Soon they are dreading the “fellowship” you offer after church. “Someone,” they say gossiping like the Philistine, “must tell you.” They certainly should be braver but they are not. They should, in a manly way, walk up to you and declare to the ears that which the nose lacks. “Sir, you are offensive to all that breathes. Without breath we die, but sir, with it we are sore wounded until death may be preferred.” Such would the brave man say to his, now, ex-friend. Instead, less brave, he leaves an unsigned note in the pages of the odiferous friend’s KJV (the stinky are often sticklers).

Once this note is found and read, the comfort of the pungent is disturbed. The borders of his life have been breached. The proverbial rock with a note has been bunged through his window. Is it a psyops attack of enemies? “You stink” when you don’t can be viewed as an attempted misdirection of your efforts in ruling your fief. Is it the fearful admonition of friends who wish you to remedy something that affects them? Both are likely stories as stories go. The choice between them will tell another story, that of self assessment. Most of us, I think, are insecure about our attempts to be physically pleasing and would naturally understand that our self-comfort has misled us again. We may quickly develop into a three-shower-a-day obsessive compulsive. It takes a mighty proud man to be so confident of his hygiene that he feels free to consider the note-writer an enemy whose efforts were an obviously flawed attempt on the citadel of a kingdom wonderfully run. Do they not know that this is how all men should smell?

There is an irritation ratio that could be discerned. In both stories it is a negative act to lob a unsigned missive into another’s life commenting on a failing and it is a negative condition to stink. How annoyed we are with which, is the ratio we find defining our souls. Does my annoyance with the unknown writer predominate? Or my failure to clean myself sufficiently? Sometimes, when the planets align, the stink is real and the enemies are real. This ratchets up the confusion in dealing. The foul one easily sees the animus of the commentary and is tempted to consign the whole proceeding to motives unconnected with his stench. Others, friends, see that an enemy spoke the needful first and was rejected so they hurriedly scratch out a note and file it in the KJV. “No really, I mean this, you do stink. This is not from the previous anonymous writer.” “Sure its not,” says the offensive to himself and others who have grown comfortable with a certain level of greenish miasma in the places they gather. This is not a circumstance which will get the stinking to stop anytime soon. Some give up and avoid. Some try to find new ways to speak to the stink. They try directly, as the brave should have done but it is too late. The stinkers have developed a view. They have addressed the concept of stinking thoroughly because they defended against enemies. As for the enemies, damn them. For the olfactorily offended, they need to realize that noses are merely the evolutionary residue (like the appendix) of radical Anabaptist pietism. And our friends, we will make and sell a bacterial cocktail that will, when applied to your sweaty areas, grow into a New Wave of Wafting Greatness that Will Sweep the Infidel Nosiness Down to the Pit. And we will also need to develop something for our watering eyes.

The Oracle

Escalation of claims (was: Echoes from the Whinery)

2006-07-30T10:00:00.000-07:00

Once again, the smoke and mirrors of the Doug Wilson Empire have gotten us off track. I don’t give a rat’s fanny if Doug had a condom in his mailbox. I don’t give a rat’s fanny if the other thirty people with a condom in their mailbox that week (and there were likely that many, given Moscow is a college town) did or didn’t report it. It is beside the point. Doug’s postage stamp-size smelly spot on a window (to which every kid in the area had access), and the general run-of-the-mill tire damage Doug has experienced are also beside the point.

Doug, in a police report, has groundlessly implicated folks with whom he has a political beef. THIS, my fine neighbors, is the point. No evidence, just baseless opportunistic slander. If my roof falls in, my children are unhappy, my tractor breaks down, traffic blocks my instant access to my driveway, or the last item on sale is gone when I arrive, I do NOT assume a conspiracy from my political enemies. In fact, I would love to be able to do that. Unfortunately, I can’t. It is my responsibility to maintain my roof, teach my children to find happiness in their lives, lube my tractor, understand traffic flow patterns, and manage my time and money.

And — listen up, Doug — it is also my responsibility to maintain good relationships with my community. If I, like you, had spent the past twenty-ish years telling the larger community what a bunch of evil losers they are, I might expect the community to retaliate every chance they had. Whether or not the community did retaliate, my own guilt and paranoia over my own bad behavior might prompt me towards groundless accusations.

Doug Wilson has made no FRIENDS in the larger community. He knows he has offended just about everyone not associated with his church. He knows his behavior has been reprehensible. He expects everyone to behave the way he behaves . . . petty retaliation, character assassination, vitriole couched in religious garb, evasion, nasty practical jokes, and just plain vicious slander. In Doug World, a random act of rudeness means all the enemies he self-manufactured are banding together and out to get him? Perhaps paranoia, perhaps another example of the Wilson Do unto others before they do unto you tactics. He continues to get away with bad behavior while shrieking about how he is victimized. Poor whiney Doug. . .

One more time — everyone join in the chorus — Doug, Honey, get over your old fat self!! Nobody who really dislikes you cares quite enough about you to stop what they are doing in the middle of the night and drive a condom to your mailbox. You just are not that Flippin’ Important. All the people you named in the police report are involved in real lives. Just because their real lives don’t involve you anymore is no reason to slander them. Oh, wait, that’s the Wilson Way . . . sorry, I forgot my Moscow History for just a moment.

There must be a couple of thousand people on the Palouse who despise you — shall we collect names for your next police report?

DR-S

Ted’s car (was: Escalation of claims)

2006-07-29T14:48:00.000-07:00

Joan et. al.

Thanks for your reply.

I warmly recall your concern and offer of “The Beast” (isn’t that what you called it?) as a temporary replacement vehicle, at the time my car was vandalized.

I’d rather not be too critical against the Latah Sheriff Dept.’s conduct in the case of my vandalized car, for a number of reasons. They had answers regarding how they conducted themselves in this case. But I agree you raise valid questions regarding their conduct in this incident.

The tow fee is one of those cases where the victim of a crime gets victimized again due to how the system works. When property someone owns presents a hazard to public safety, like having a car left in the middle of the road, even though the fact of the car being in the road occurred because of the commission of a crime, not by my doing, the owner still can get stuck with a tow bill. And the tires were all flat, so the car had to be dragged or towed off the road, not just pushed. Law enforcement felt public safety dictated getting the car off the road as quickly as possible via a tow truck. Law enforcement apparently does not feel compelled to pay the bill in these cases. That lovely expense falls on the owner of the vehicle.

Anyway, I did not check into the details of the law in regards to the tow fee I was expected to pay, so I really do not know all the legal issues involved. The whole incident was so upsetting I just wanted it to go away. . .

My main point was, the level of vandalism I experienced makes a mailbox condom, a few flat tires, and a window mess, seem rather tame by comparison. Yet I felt, knowing the seriousness of implicating someone as a suspect, and the lack of evidence I had regarding who committed the crime, that I could be sending law enforcement on fishing expeditions, possibly causing harm to totally innocent people, to name anyone, though there were certain individuals I suspected and still suspect. It’s entirely possible total strangers vandalized my car.

I think it natural of Wilson to be concerned that these incidents of “vandalism” might be indicative of a pattern that could involve much more serious actions in the future, or continuing actions of the same nature, thus the need to call law enforcement to report the incidents, or to expect more monitoring of his residence.

As has been made clear, it is the naming of individuals as suspects with no good evidence they were involved that is questionable, individuals some of whom I highly doubt would commit such juvenile prankish vandalism, at least now that they are mature adults, though I know nothing about several of the individuals named in Wilson’s statement.

Ted

Ted’s car (was: Escalation of claims)

2006-07-29T13:49:00.000-07:00

Hi Ted,

I do remember when this happened to your car. It was dreadful! The damage was very clearly deliberate, targeted, and it took someone or some persons, multiple, quite some time to complete the job. That you did not supply the Sheriff’s Department with a speculative “enemies list” is a credit to your integrity. What a great opportunity to take a whack at old adversaries or present irritants! I still cannot fathom that you were obliged to pay $100 to retrieve your battered car from the towing yard, or that the deputies on call did not bother to contact you (even though you were at home) before towing your vehicle.

This is vandalism. This is harassment. This is worthy of police time and inquiry. Doug has experience nothing like what Ted suffered. What Doug has done is taken diddly-squat and turned it into a means to discredit a few of his critics. That their names are now in the public record as possible condom-stalkers and dung-flingers is a disgrace. That Doug has turned a couple of flat tires and a dirty window into a means of damaging the reputations of five people he happens to dislike ought to be treated as slander. Again, let’s have an investigation. Doug says in his statement that he doesn’t want one. I’ll bet not. But the people he names deserve and investigation. Perhaps it will serve to polish their now tarnished reputations.

Auntie Establishment

A little Doug music

2006-07-29T13:07:00.000-07:00

I fear that this is like shouting down a rain barrel. At this point, if Doug Wilson stood in the middle of Friendship Square farted into a megaphone, Donovan and company would claim that they’d just heard the London Philharmonic playing Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony. There is no silly, rude, cruel or offensive thing Doug Wilson can do without a collection of fact-free defenders leaping to his aid. Have any of them read the actual complaint? If so, then they fail to demonstrate any familiarity with its contents. Do any of them know the named “suspects” on Doug’s enemies list? Then they clearly don’t give a rat’s ass about them.

Poor Doug Wilson. What a victim! He breaks the law; the law bends. He violates City Zoning Ordinance; the ordinance is changed. I’ve seen no evidence that his assorted businesses have suffered or that he’s been asked to do anything other than obey the laws that are supposed to apply equally to us all. That he hasn’t, and that he’s gotten away with it, does seem to put paid to the whole “poor me” show. I hope Gary or Tony or Dick or Donovan play the violin. Can’t have a good pity party without one.

Auntie Establishment

Escalation of claims NOT normal procedure

2006-07-29T12:59:00.000-07:00

Joan et. al.

Joan may remember the extreme vandalism committed against a vehicle I owned in the spring of 2005. I communicated with Joan at that time about this incident. The level of violence and destruction against said vehicle makes Wilson’s “harassment” look like a playful punch in the shoulder from a buddy compared to a having someone drop kick your face into the pavement losing your front teeth in a bloody fractured enameled mess.

My car windows were smashed out, doors frames bent, it looked like from being impacted by a cinder block, tires flattened. . . The car had been pushed or towed into the road from the parking area by the vandals, blocking traffic. Consider this was on a rural gravel road, the crime was committed in the early morning hours on a Saturday, and my car was parked a distance away from the residence.

When Latah Sheriff deputies showed up, having been notified by someone driving that the road was blocked, they had my vandalized car towed, sticking me with the 100 dollar tow bill. I was sound asleep the whole time.

After my car was towed away, the two Latah Sheriff deputies pounded on my door, waking me up. They informed me what had happened, and told me the identity of the tow truck business where my car was being held.

And the main relevance of this story to the naming of “suspects” by Wilson regarding the alleged “harassment?”

During my brief discussion of the vandalizing of my car with the Latah Sheriff deputies, one of them asked if I had any enemies, or could give them names of suspects. I offered none. Sure, I could have reeled off a list of people who might or do have something against me for one reason or another. But I felt I had nothing solid to go on to name anybody.

I am not as naive as some on this list who seem to think that offering the police names of individuals who might be suspects in a crime, when you have no solid evidence to implicate them, is a trifling issue. I think it is highly ethically questionable to implicate others in crimes without solid grounds.

I could expand in great detail on this theme regarding the negative consequences of my name being unfairly given to law enforcement to implicate me in a crime, based on flimsy, unfounded ”evidence.” This can damage reputation, limit employment options, subject someone to embarrassing police scrutiny, if not harassment, etc.

We see cases in the media where just naming someone as a suspect in a crime does tremendous damage to the person named, even when later they are totally exonerated. And police reports are public documents, are they not?

It would appear so, given that the police reports in question are now on Tom Hansen’s web site. I don’t think law enforcement would release them to the public if they were meant to be kept “secret,” unless forced legally by some means

Hansen, Metzler, et. al. are all justified in being very concerned about this issue, in my opinion.

Ted

Echoes From the Whinery

2006-07-29T12:49:00.000-07:00

I think vandalism has been pretty roundly condemned, Donovan, when and where it exists. Sorry if that’s not been clear to you. What’s also been condemned is a pastor’s naming as suspects a handful of people who have had the temerity to leave his church and criticize him publicly — with no evidence that they have ever committed any crime whatsoever. Perhaps it’s not clear to some that leaving Christ Church and criticizing Doug Wilson is not a crime. In fact, it may be a virtue.

keely

Escalation of claims NOT normal procedure

2006-07-29T10:18:00.000-07:00

Another anonymous chickenshit writes:

Wonder, when Mary’s car was smeared with dog dung, if the police asked her about any enemies or suspicions she might have had? If she did, I’m sure (to be as helpful as possible) she readily complied. It wouldn’t surprise me if she mentioned a select few Kirkers as suspects.

When Joan’s car was smeared with dung, she didn’t bother to call the cops. She just washed the car. And then she washed it again. It takes a lot of washing to get that smell out of the air intakes. Does Joan suspect her car was smeared by Kirkers? I don’t know — does she have reason to? At the time, she suspected it was just some jackass with a turd in his pocket.

That’s her story, and she’s sticking to it. She’s had a few screws in her tires as well, but there’s a lot construction going on around town, and Les Schwab repairs those punctures for free. A minor irritation, but no harm done.

Should she find herself growing paranoid about turds or screws or zoning complaints, she’ll probably seek out a licensed therapist rather than calling the Po-Po.

Auntie Establishment

Escalation of claims, or normal procedure?

2006-07-29T05:56:00.000-07:00

Again, there is no reason to think that any of the people that Wilson listed “wished him harm.” Why is it so hard for Wilson to just accept that many people disagree with him and are vocal about their disagreement?

And if “Mary” or anyone else list Wilson as a “suspect” in some act of vandalism just because he has publicly criticized them, that would be equally irresponsible. Two wrongs do not make a right. You can’t justify your actions just because you think that your enemies would do the same thing.

Lastly, as I noted, Wilson is playing the same game on his blog — publicly accusing Metzler of something without providing any evidence to support his charge. The fact that Metzler was a former student of his makes his actions even more reprehensible.

Joe

Echoes From the Whinery

2006-07-29T05:42:00.000-07:00

It is a shame, Tony, that you and Wilson are unable to distinguish between verbal criticism and physical harassment, or the difference between a hunch and a belief supported by evidence.

Joe

Escalation of claims (was: Echoes from the Whinery)

2006-07-28T20:25:00.000-07:00

Joe is quite right. The escalation of claims — from a nail in a tire to tires slashed, to calling this a campaign of terror — is outrageous. When did “There’s a condom in my mailbox” become “Play Misty for Me?” A smelly smudge on a picture window is not the work of the Nightstalker. No one I know approves of actual vandalism, but let’s not pretend that that’s what this is. Doug Wilson has suspicions. He’s had a couple of flat tires. He’s had a condom in his mailbox. He’s been obliged to break out the Windex with Ammonia D. And, lest we forget, Doug includes as “harassment” legitimate legal zoning complaints. He writes this specifically in his statement.

There is no relationship between dirty condoms and zoning complaints. None. Moscow Zoning Code forbade educational institutions in the Central Business District. That was a fact. The previous City Council had to rewrite zoning code to permit New St. Andrews to operate in the CBD. City Council first legitimized the complaint and then rendered it moot. Is this in any way related to a screw in a tire? Prove it.

Prove all of it. Show me the money. Photograph the screws. Photograph the stinky window. Document these complaints and then ask Moscow Police to investigate. In fact, I think the five (not four) people Doug Wilson names should insist that this be investigated. They’ve been named and shamed without evidence, without proof, without recourse. How fair is that? I’d rank it right up there with asking “When did you stop beating your wife?”

Auntie Establishment

Echoes From the Whinery

2006-07-28T19:40:00.000-07:00

Donovan,

It is hard for me to determine what has actually happened to Wilson. I am interested in knowing the basis of your claims below, for instance? Did you see nails in Wilson’s drive way? Did you help him change some of his tires?

I don’t know of anyone who would cheer violent acts toward another individual, whether or not they agreed with the individuals religious and political views. Vandalism is always wrong, as far as I can see.

But what proof do we have that violence or vandalism has actually been done to Wilson? Furthermore, what proof do we have that Wilson’s political critics have had anything to do with it, even if it did happen?

I know of at least two persons, both critics of Wilson, who have had dog feces speared on the inside (in one case) and outside (in another case) of their cars. If I think that Wilson had something to do with this — perhaps only indirectly, since he suggests that violent behavior toward gays and lesbians is justified — does that give me the right to say in public that he is responsible for it? I don’t think so.

We need to get a better grip about what’s going on here. You can start by telling me exactly how Wilson has been harmed and what EVIDENCE there is to believe that such harm has occurred.

Best,

Joe

Echoes From the Whinery

2006-07-28T13:22:00.000-07:00

Joe,

I’ll one up you. Wilson not only offered no evidence that anyone committed any acts against him, he offered no evidence that the alleged acts of vandalism even took place. Further, he offered no evidence that anyone has acted with “malice” towards him either. However, Wilson’s Information Report with the Moscow Police Dept. is a perfect example of his unaccountability. He walked in off the street and named five possible suspects to a series of crimes that for all we know never took place. Wilson directly connected five names with sordid accusations in the public record, attended by absolutely no evidence, and he did it with complete impunity.

Finally, I personally take offense at his misrepresentation regarding the various complaints against his manifold illegal operations. The Moscow City Council as well as the Board of Adjustment upheld the zoning complaint, and the Latah County Commissioners, acting as the Board of Equalization, upheld the original challenge to their property-tax exemption.

Therefore, if these lawful challenges constitute “harassment,” then Wilson should complain that the City Council and the Latah County Commissioners harassed him. Do you think Jack Nelson left the Trojan in Wilson’s mailbox? Not likely. And it really doesn’t matter because I am confident that the event never took place and that Wilson fabricated the whole thing, as he does most of his vain imaginations, which is why he needs to be held accountable. Liars make good criminals, but they make horrible ministers.

CFM

The nature of the complaint

2006-07-28T12:42:00.000-07:00

On Jul 28, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Joe wrote:

Tony,

The point is not that Wilson shouldn’t have filed a police report.

The point is that he has used his misfortunes as an opportunity to punish and silence his critics. Wilson named the names of four persons in the police report yet provided no evidence that any of them had anything to do with any of violence committed against him. That is irresponsible.

Or are you suggesting that just because you’ve been critical of some of my comments I now have the right to, say, list you as a possible suspect should something happen to my private property or to me? That would be ridiculous and wrong of me to do and you know it. The same goes for Wilson.

He did it again on Blog and Mablog, accusing Metzler of being an anonymous critic with no evidence to support his claim whatsoever.

Best, Joe

Let’s just for a moment consider the nature of the complaint Doug filed. If a condom, a screw, and a smelly window constitute malicious harassment, then the English language has lost all meaning. He found a rubber johnny in his mailbox; I found a spider in my shoe. Doug is wasting police time. He is making frivolous and baseless complaints. He says in the complaint that he does not want these matters investigated — but he then goes on to name names, all of them former members of his church. This becomes part of the public record, and these people all find that their names have been carefully besmirched. So much for any legitimate criticisms of Doug Wilson and Christ Church that they might level. They send ribbed Trojans by Priority Mail! They put road hazards in the way of my truck! They flung dung at my picture window! (Okay, maybe it wasn’t dung, but it was 4 inches by 8 inches, and it smelled really bad.)

You want malicious harassment? Try filing a frivolous police report that casts nasty aspersions on decent citizens. Fire people who disagree with you. Harass the ex-members of your church. Take private information about their health, their marriages, and their personal finances, and make that information public. Embark on a systematic program of church-wide character assassination. If you’re going to be malicious, be malicious. Do it up right. And then, for good measure, set yourself up as the victim. That’s truly clever. Except that it’s transparent.

Some years ago, we were told that Logos School had been egged. I believe an official police report was filed. And then it was withdrawn. Would anyone care to step up and give us the details of that incident and its aftermath? Perhaps one of the Rench boys? They seem to know all, see all.

Auntie Establishment

Echoes From the Whinery

2006-07-28T12:13:00.000-07:00

Tony,

The point is not that Wilson shouldn’t have filed a police report.

The point is that he has used his misfortunes as an opportunity to punish and silence his critics. Wilson named the names of four persons in the police report yet provided no evidence that any of them had anything to do with any of violence committed against him. That is irresponsible.

Or are you suggesting that just because you’ve been critical of some of my comments I now have the right to, say, list you as a possible suspect should something happen to my private property or to me? That would be ridiculous and wrong of me to do and you know it. The same goes for Wilson.

He did it again on Blog and Mablog, accusing Metzler of being an anonymous critic with no evidence to support his claim whatsoever.

Best,

Joe

Echoes From the Whinery

2006-07-28T08:55:00.000-07:00

Donovan wrote:

Are you suggesting that if someone complains about 4 of their tires being slashed . . .

Huh??? Who had their tires slashed? Donovan, I think you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Based on the documents I read, there was NO allegation of tires being slashed but rather that ordinary road hazards (a screw and nail were specified) seemed to be happening at an unusual rate. That is a far, far different thing than having tires slashed: when tires are slashed, there’s no question of intent, but picking up common road hazards is a fairly common occurrence (talk to the tire folks about that).

I will easily admit that if Wilson’s self-reported estimates of the frequency is accurate — and it should have been easy enough for him to prove with records of the repairs — it does sound suspicious to me unless the rigs have been driving through construction areas a lot.

Quite a few years ago, my landlord was having work done on the his duplexes. The workers were less than careful with the materials, and six or seven of us and had flat tires — I personally had THREE in the space of a couple of weeks because my duplex was at the dead-end by the dumpster. The culprits? Screws and nails! That’s when I found out that screws and nails are considered road hazards not covered by tire warranties.

However, you’re not doing anything helpful, Donovan, by inflating flat tires to slashed tires.

JMHO,

Saundra

FOG and MAYFOG

2006-07-25T11:56:00.000-07:00

Blind we are, but how we love it. Fog and Mayfog.

Too lazy to examine on our own, just follow the piper. Fog and Mayfog.

Allegorize Scriptures to fit our theology, Why we are brighter and more noble-minded than Saint Paul and the Bereans. Fog and Mayfog.

Such dummies you all are not to see our uprightness and “truth”/twist on Scripture. Don’t you know that God requires you to read hundreds of pages of “our” material and under our tutelage before you can fully understand the truth. Fog and Mayfog.

Poke your critics in the eye and run to authorities when they turn the other cheek and don’t retaliate. Why we can’t have that, the attention is off of me. Fog and Mayfog.

Additional suspects might be 30 million blacks who weren’t too pleased with slavery. John Newton of “Amazing Grace” (not “Amazing Chains”) fame and that other grand man, William Wilberforce, saw the light. Evidently, the Wilsonites are of dimmer bulb and wit. But . . . More Fog and Mayfog.

-----------------------------------------------
AN OLD RABBINICAL STORY ABOUT SPREADING SUSPICIOUS RUMORS/GOSSIP/HEARSAY

There was a man who spread negative gossip about his rabbi. Later the man felt sorry and went to his rabbi to apologize. The rabbi told him that he accepted his apology, but there was one thing he must do; he must bring him a feather pillow. The man was bewildered, but obeyed his rabbi. The rabbi then told him to go to a place to cut open the pillow and let the feathers scatter in the wind. Ever the more perplexed, the man does it. The rabbi then tells him to recover all the feathers. The man pleads that it’s impossible! So it is with gossip and the restoration of men’s reputations. Every feather is someone who has heard the accusations and formed an opinion. How can all that damage be undone?

Property tax cut?

2006-07-25T07:26:00.000-07:00

Huh.

Saundra nailed it a couple of days ago when she asked, in response to Doug’s naming four possible suspects in the alleged vandalism of his property, where his execution of the Biblical standard was. Granted, the “two or three witnesses” is, strictly speaking, to be employed when an accusation is leveled against an elder, but it’s a wise principle when engaging with everyone else, too. For one, it’s simply reasonable; two, it prevents the bearing of false witness, which a lot of churches take seriously.

However, no matter how Doug tries to wrestle with Matthew 18, he sinned against Ford, Metzler, Morin and Nolan by naming them as suspects, and he owes God repentance and them apologies.

And a note to the good pastor — no fair “rejoicing because (you) were counted worthy of suffering for the Name of Jesus . . .” None of us is rejoicing because you have caused the Name to suffer, and you aren’t being targeted, if you are at all, because of any courageous righteousness on your church’s part. I deplore acts of vandalism and harassment, but I assume no pastors are committing them. I also deplore acts of vindictiveness and haughtiness, and it saddens me to see that you’ve committed those here.

keely

Timely Filing?

2006-07-17T10:31:00.000-07:00

On 15 July 2006:

06-M06520 Harassment
Incident Address : 1151 North Polk St Ext
MOSCOW ID 83843
Responding Officers: Art Lindquist
Disposition : CLO
Time Reported: 10:15
Cad Comments:
RP is at the PD to report a pattern of harassment that has been occurring in his home. Officer contact rp, report taken.

Interesting, isn’t it, considering the following which was written on 27 June 2006:

Somebody’s Idea of An Argument
Topic: Moscow Diversity Cleansing

Just finished talking with the cops about an incident last evening. When I came home last night (June 26, 2006), I checked our mailbox by the road before heading up the driveway. The mailbox contained a used condom, or a condom doctored to look as though it had been used. Now there are two basic possibilities here. One of them is that this is some drunk frat boy’s idea of random acts of kindness. The cop told me that while such incidents are not commmon, they do sometimes happen. But, honestly, given the climate that the Intoleristas have tried to create here in Moscow, what are the odds of that? The much more likely possibility is that an unstable someone took his inspiration from the rancor that Intoleristas have been assiduously cultivating. This, um, open-minded activist was therefore making his anonymous statement. He is no doubt concerned that if I am allowed to continue to preach the gospel the way I do, and write the way I do, the distinct danger exists that there might be a degradation of our public discourse. And of course, the kind of person who would do this kind of thing is very concerned about degraded public discourse. The hypocrisy of the Tolerant has long since blocked their drains, has backed up, and is all over their floor. I even found some in my mailbox last night.

Posted by Douglas Wilson — 6/27/2006 1:20:20 PM

Dougie, Dougie, Dougie. . . . it took you two weeks to do the reporting that you stated you had already done? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Oh, what webs we weave. . . .

J

A few Sunday thoughts on looks, theology, rancor and city staff

2006-07-02T09:57:00.000-07:00

On Jul 2, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:

Deacon James stated earlier, “Gabe, I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: You are a good-looking fella.”

And now “No Clue” Lemon-O farris proudly claims, “He [Deacon James] is a young good looking man . . .”

As if looks were the point. It doesn’t matter if Deacon James is a dead ringer for Antonio Banderas (in Shrek II) or that Gabe Rench is mistaken for Orlando Bloom by the teenyboppers who work the Wendy’s late-night drive-thru. When you act like Beavis and Butthead, no one notices your lovely blue eyes and your tight little . . . wallet. The externals fade into the background, drowned out by the chorus of boos, hisses, and “oh my god, how flippin’ juvenile.” Forty may be the new thirty — I’ll find out in five months time — but behaving like a fourteen year-old when you are not, in fact, a fourteen year-old is never attractive. It’s grim. And it’s discouraging. I remember in the seventies seeing bumper stickers that said, “The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.” I didn’t think it was funny then, and I don’t find it funny now. I like grown men, smart men, responsible men — I like men who are secure enough to be themselves and to let me be me. I’m fortunate to know many such men, and I enjoy their company very much. Men are not from Mars, and women are not from Venus; we’re all from Earth. Of course, not all of us are from the surface . . .

Speaking of which, I want to address something J. Ford just posted from Doug Wilson’s blog. Doug claims that someone placed a condom in his mailbox because of “rancor” created against him by people like myself. Poppycock. Accept a little responsibility, Doug. You are perfectly capable of brewing up a cloud of rancor whenever and wherever you write, speak, or sing hillbilly anthems in Friendship Square. You have volition. You stir rancor on your blog, you create dissension in your church and in the larger Reformed Christian world, and you delight in stirring the manure with a big old stick. You are a controversial public figure; so am I. I’d welcome you to the club, but you ought to be welcoming me. I’m much, much younger than you are.

In short, if you don’t like the heat, don’t harrow hell. I would argue that Doug’s theology is only a small part of the rancor he generates in the larger community. Who, apart from Kirkers and ex-Kirkers, really cares what Doug Wilson believes? God knows I don’t. While it might be fun (of a strange and esoteric sort) to debate paedo-communion, I don’t give a toss about the principles involved. What gets my dander up is the fact that in Moscow, there’s one rule for the well-connected, and another for the rest of us. Doug Wilson is well connected. When he violates zoning code over and over and over again, the city bends over backwards to accommodate him. Joel Plaskon granted New St. Andrews College an occupancy permit, despite the fact that educational institutions were clearly and explicitly prohibited in the Central Business District. When that decision was found to be in error, the previous City Council rewrote the code to create a special spot zone for Doug Wilson. Compare this to Plaskon’s treatment of Rob Davis and Brenda von Wandruska at last Monday night’s Planning and Zoning hearing. Good grief.

To paraphrase Bob Dylan, how many cock-ups must one man make, before the city buys him a farewell cake from Rosauer’s?

Auntie Establishment

PS: Perhaps the city needs a chart: ass, elbow, ass, elbow . . .

The Police Report That Wasn’t

2006-06-28T17:16:00.000-07:00

I just went through the Police Reports for the MPD for the last two weeks — funny, but there is NO report of any suspicious packages having been delivered to 1151 N Polk Ext. Hmmmm. . . . curious.

If you read his blog he specifically states “Just finished talking with the cops about an incident last evening.” So, let me see — did you happen to save the condom for them or just “talked” to them about it? I mean, report a crime but don’t save the evidence of a crime having been committed? Putting ANYthing in a postal box is a federal offense unless you happen to work for the post office and are delivering a bit of mail (not male) package.

You don’t suppose Dougie faked the incident, do you? Nah — not Dougie! Surely he wouldn’t do such a bad, bad thing. Surely — he wouldn’t.

J

P.S. To those commiserating with Dougie on his blog site — at worst, it was a condom, people! No one threatened him, no one broke into his house, no one destroyed any property. Clean it up and move on. IF someone did do that — Don’t. Oooo. . . .iky! Now — go wash your hands.