Last point, and this is fundamental. Is Louisiana on trial for “failure to indict” or “failure to convict”? If the former, then if the SJC finds her guilty, then the requirement should then be to ensure that formal charges are brought against Steve at presbytery, a trial held, and then, as necessary, appealed. Or, as an alternative, the SJC could assume original jurisdiction, and hold a trial for Steve, starting from scratch, with Steve being given the presumption of innocence in that trial. The problem with this second option is seen in the manifest injustice of how the national leaders of the PCA stacked the study committee — as stacked as Dolly Parton after her new implants. If the SJC is stacked similarly, then Steve will just escorted through the motions of a trial, and in the aftermath, there would be no appeal.
Douglas Wilson
16 Comments
Comments are closed.
Just had to get that in there didn’t he. We’re going along fine then all of sudden BOOBS!
“We’re going along fine then all of sudden BOOBS!”
I think Doug would find a way to inject boobs in a children’s story. He just can’t help himself. And if he writes about them this much, then one has to wonder how much he thinks about them.
Of course he’s going to argue that fellow visionary Steve Wilkins ought to be granted the presumption of innocence, right before he complains that “the national leaders of the PCA stacked the study committee”, meaning that they didn’t fill it with federal vision sympathizing men. Even if it had been stacked the way he wanted it, given the way Doug Wilson’s mind works, he probably still would have been thinking of Dolly Parton’s assets.
In this quote Doug Wilson combines his fixation with the boobs of other women with an ad hominem attack, which means he has coined a new fallacy — the boob hominem argument.
Neat trick. Now the reader is thinking about boobs, or wondering why the pig is thinking about boobs, instead of thinking about whether Steve is a heretic.
Yeah, I have a feeling Doug thinks he’s throwing “boob” smoke bombs and congratulating himself on his cleverness. In reality, the fact that he only knows how to use one red herring (“boobs”) and that poorly and crassly merely telegraphs to the rest of us what self-gratifying, halfwit baboon he is.
No doubt he thinks he’s cleverly poking people in the eye with the constant breast references. But “Pastor” Wilson should be aware that after awhile, constant boob babble becomes simply boring, and loses its, well, titillation factor. Bring in other body parts of both sexes, “Pastor” Wilson. A couple of GOP debates ago, it was signaled that penis size is fair game, so weave that into some of your self-important babble. Or, I don’t know, maybe really big, jiggly, overhanging male bellies. For instance.
Speaking of creepy, I have a question for any of those that are more knowledgeable about Wilson’s beliefs. Does he believe that the marriage bond continues into the afterlife? With his “husband is accountable for wife’s sins” and his buddy Sproul’s strange comment (regarding Ashley Madison involvement), “I did not sign up for their service or interact with any clients. I have always remained faithful to my wife even after her passing,” I just wondered if this was anything to get legitimately creeped out about based on what others know of this crowd.
But back to the topic. A commenter over there said this today, “For instance, Doug and Nancy will not be married in eternity . As much as they like being married now, they know that Gods way is better!”
How could you LIKE being married to someone who so obviously is not “satisfied with the breasts of the wife of his youth”. Given Doug’s wandering eyes and less than solid stance against polygamy, maybe he’s hoping God has something even better planned in heaven.
I have decided that whenever I comment, I will include the following link. The link, along with this site here, was what finally helped me not feel so guilty about heeding some warning bells and fitting some rational pieces of the puzzle together about that group. A lightning bolt moment, a moment of escaping the maze of the madness there. So just in case it helps any other person who stumbles into all of this:
“Not Where She Should Be (Douglas Wilson)”
Just. Wow. Every time I read it. This man is sick. I know he issued a non-pology apology about it, but it did not go far enough for something so carefully and controllingly crafted from his heart. And there are ever echoes of the same sentiment as he continues his “ministry”. The downfall of his ministry cannot come soon enough.
In the non-retraction, he says the “article concerned what a husband should do when the wife was living in an unruly and radically undisciplined way”. But folks might have misread it to mean hubby should call the elders over a cereal bowl in the sink, and of course that should be reserved for radical situations like leaving soiled diapers all over the house (obviously hubby can’t be expected to pick up the diapers or even change them himself).
But he doesn’t retract the 4-step process (including something remarkably like dog training in #4) which is recommended to deal with his distress over “her spending habits, television viewing habits, weight, rejection of his leadership, laziness in cleaning the house, lack of responsiveness to sexual advances, whatever.”
I’m putting you into the 4-step process for lack of response to my advances, woman! This is my fault for not leading you more better. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have an article to finish about other women’s boobs….
……”which is recommended to deal with his distress over “her spending habits, television viewing habits, WEIGHT, rejection of his leadership, laziness in cleaning the house, lack of responsiveness to sexual advances, whatever.” But it must be A-OK for Doug to, um, be, how shall I say, somewhat the opposite of svelte. So the husband can be a fat pig, but his wife best not distress him because of HER weight. Right……
“This is my fault for not leading you more better.”
I couldn’t even figure out how to clearly express the convoluted thinking on THAT score. I’m accountable for your sins, your sins are my fault, but what do we do about your sins, the dirty kitchen is my fault, but you need to prove your heart is right by cleaning it… and if I were leading properly the kitchen would be cleaned again, but you are the one that needs to be reported to the elders if this doesn’t happen.
Seriously. This is so messed up one can barely type one’s way through it. I’m glad you brought it up. Thought I was losing my mind from trying to figure theirs out 🙂
Just another indication that their minds are, um, on other things.
Have I said, “Creepy” before…
I was thinking the same, but decided to let someone else say it. No doubt Nancy has an article for wives distressed over their husbands’ weight …. searching…. must be there somewhere….
So in essence, the wife best not have a weight problem, she should have breasts that meet the standards of the good “Pastor”, and must immediately submissively leap into the lusty arms of the naked Michelin Tire Man whenever he’s “in the mood”. Sounds like a wonderful cult to be a part of.
I was just thinking as I attempted above to type through their loopy “it’s my fault, no it’s your fault” reasoning . . . this kind of “say whatever to get what I want out of you and save my ego, too” language is a symptom of narcissistic, verbal abuse spousal situations. I’m all too familiar with the pattern. On that sad note, I feel for those wives and children. I am aware that apart from a miracle, the only choices for surviving the ridiculosity is a) turning off your mind and heart, become a robot b) learning to hate yourself and believe you are bad enough to receive this treatment — twisting reasoning to accept his as holy behavior and your discipline from him as sanctification from the Lord or c) getting brave enough to confront, expose, reject — fighting the battle daily (which is hard for the kids to see), leave (which is a huge likely permanent choice affecting so much), or kill yourself. There is absolutely no way to please a person like that. But they think you are in sin because they aren’t being pleased. And because of their ego vs. the wife’s failure, they have this ideal of a woman that they think must be out there. The woman becomes averse to his touch because there is so much emotional rejection already. Which leads me to wonder if Nancy and fellow slaves are GLAD their husbands are fixated elsewhere so they won’t expect so much of them any more. It hurts initially, but is a relief if there can’t be a miracle otherwise. Now there’s a twist. Nancy doesn’t care about his, um, fascination because it’s a relief he’s not fascinated with her.
Okay, I’m not being very edifying on Easter weekend. I’ll stop. But first:
It still amazes me that they claimed Sitler’s wife was to be his “mentor” or whatever and report back to the church. With all this, she was to have confidence she had the right to mentor him, question him, report him? And then she was to have confidence that they would actually believe her or back her if she spoke ill of her husband? The acceptance/encouragement of the marriage was bad enough, but under SUCH a pseudo-Christian religion. Mercy.
Doug sort of addressed this in a post from April 2013. Whether he did so adequately is another matter: “Clunkity, Clunkity, Clunk”