Imagine I confidently declare, “no one who wears bow-ties ought to vote in national elections.” Someone then asks me “why?” And I explain, “they are incompatible with the majority of Americans who no longer wear bow ties.”

Then suppose my friend asks me, “so would you also oppose such a person voting in state elections?” Imagine I replied, “the suppositions in your comment are your own.” A smart friend would ask, “where are suppositions being made?”

Willie W.

So I’m assuming you’d consistently apply this value-matching principle in other places as well. For example, if a GLAAD or GLISTEN chapter wanted to meet in Memphis TN in a school that was largely against gay-values, you’d also support the school opposing the gay-group, right? It’s a mismatch again, and the school’s values are out-of-sync with gay group. Therefore, out goes the group.

Right?

When you issue judgments against VC, labeling their presence as “incompatible” with PS3, you are assuming that your interpretations of compatibility (i.e. your perspective) trumps, or overrules, the perspective of VC and it’s members. Had you assumed that your views were merely equal, you’d opt for a less judgmental term like, “different” or if you were really being inclusive and open-minded you’d choose to celebrate the views of VC as adding to the spectrum of PS3′s “diversity” in the community. But you didn’t. You labeled VC as “incompatible.”

I’m assuming you’re not the sheriff of Greenwich Village or PS3, or the elected arbiter of Greenwich Village morality. Therefore, I’m simply asking the obvious question, “why do you get to decide who is ‘out of bounds’ and ‘incompatible’?”

If I were to make a ‘supposition’ I’d simply tell you which bias you espouse. But I’m taking a more charitable road. I’m asking you to simply explain why you can assume the mantle of moral authority?” Obviously (in your mind) VC has broken an obvious moral law of some kind. Mind sharing which law VC has broken?

Willie W.

Willie – I suggested in my first comment that Exodus International’s mission was incompatible with the values of the PS3 community, and explained why in a second comment. That’s all. The suppositions in your last comment are yours and yours alone.

As a non-member of VC (I’ve never attend once), what obligates VC to match PS3 in all respects–teaching that ‘changes channels’ each week to match every view of PS3 families? If a family at PS3 were against ‘handouts’ to the poor, should VC (in the name of representing all views, cease from social service ministry?

You seem to assume that VC has obvious obligations to represent views, tastes, ‘equally’ and be for the things you favor, and against the things you don’t (I assume ‘narrow-mindedness’ and like). Why should your views trump all other views? What gives you a privileged perch, from which, to pass judgement down upon VC? You present yourself to be tolerant, open-minded and inclusive. But your quickness to cast VC out of town (for running afoul of a value of yours) calls into question whether these values are really covert intolerance (i.e. “agree with me, or get out of town). How are you different from what you despise?

Respectfully yours,

Willie

Lest my New Jersey address become a liability here: my wife and I are exceptions to the question of native New Yorkers (though, for a time, my wife worked at a Manhattan veterinary clinic and I currently work on Wall Street). The rest of our church lives in one of the five boroughs, and over half are in Manhattan. Of the New Yorkers, some of our congregation are born-and-raised, others are life-long transplants, and many have come to NYC for school or work aspirations.

With my family as an exception, the other people arriving in cars are coming from elsewhere in the city as the MTA runs less frequently (or less reliably) on weekends and parking is easier on Sunday mornings.

Note that the Times piece talked about churches being drawn to NYC schools because fees for their use are lower than market rental rates, not because New York generally offers “cheap space.”

To Willie W:

Rather than considering your lurid analogy, let me explain why I think the VC’s mission is incompatible with PS3′s ethos.

PS3 families include Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, religiously observant Jews, agnostics, atheists, and so on. Many of the children have gay or lesbian parents. As a community, the school is fine with all of this.

VC, on the other hand, sees the world as including Christians (of a specific sort) and non-believers, with the Christians obligated to convert the others. Despite the Website’s general lack of candor, VC also believes that acting on same-sex desire is sinful and that some sort of conversion is in order for gays and lesbians. Never mind the ample evidence–whether from scientific studies or the history of Exodus International itself–of the intractability of sexual orientation.

So, an unremarkable aspect of family life at PS3 is the target of VC’s highest profile mission.

have also been outside PS 3 on Sunday mornings, and seen people getting out of cars and going inside–so is it true to imply that all members of The Village Church are local?

PS3 serves lunches to school children. If Village Church held a support group for Overeaters, is Village Church’s mission then, antithetical to the values of PS3?

Your conclusion could only be correct if the mission of PS3 is to encourage its elementary school children to engage in homoerotic play (or have sex with same sexed children). And I’m guessing most parents of PS3 would not want the school encouraging that kind of recreation.