Sunday, December 16, 2007

This Is “My Town” Hall Meeting

Okay, last “DUMB and Tan” post for a while; but it’s important to fill the archives with these federal facts.

I cannot overstate the awful polarizing effect of Douglas Wilson’s Southern Slavery scandal on the Palouse. We have seen the in-your-face ads that Christ Church purchased to rehabilitate their public image, and we have also seen that the Kirk’s mother church — the Evangelical Free Church of Pullman — warned its congregation about Wilson during this time because of his reckless antics in public over one of those essential Christian doctrines — Southern slavery. I have noted before that you can witness him antagonizing the community by reading the Vision 20/20 archives for the months October 2003 – February 2004. But perhaps the best way to establish the psycho environment that Wilson created at that time is to consider the “Town Hall Meeting.”

On December 4, 2003, Wilson changed his strategy towards the Palouse by inviting the public to attend his “Town Hall Meeting” to discuss the Southern Slavery scandal. The evasive op-eds didn’t work; the insulting ads didn’t work (twice); the cutting remarks on 20/20 didn’t work; so Wilson called a “Town Hall Meeting” to see if it would work. Rosemary Huskey, as usual, saw through Wilson’s spin and she called him on it here. Many others in the community didn’t buy it either. Nevertheless, the event took place on December 11, 2003; here is the Spokesman Review’s article from Friday, December 12, 2003.

Church, town test tolerance
Pastor clears Moscow air about stand on slavery
Hannelore Sudermann, Staff writer

MOSCOW, Idaho — A controversial Moscow church held an open forum Thursday night to address accusations of being pro-slavery, homophobic and opposed to public education. “Meeting face to face and speaking about misunderstandings is an important thing to do,” said Csaba Leidensfrost, one of 13 elders at Christ Church, a nearly 30-year-old group that members describe as a Presbyterian/Christian church. “We think there have been some serious misunderstandings.” The church pastor, Doug Wilson, went a step further. “I believe we have been erroneously, slanderously lied about,” he told about 300 people at the Kenworthy Theater.

The recent controversy arose with the announcement of a conference Christ Church members are sponsoring at the University of Idaho in February. Wilson and a man named Steve Wilkins will be speakers at the conference. They have been criticized for their stance on slavery. They co-authored a book on Southern slavery and in it described the situation as “harmonious” and “based on mutual affection and confidence.” Wilkins is a member of the League of the South, which is considered a neo-Confederate organization, and an author and pastor.

Though the topic of the conference is history, not slavery, several UI faculty members and students have spoken out against the men being allowed a forum on campus. Negative attention toward the church has spread to businesses owned by church members. The owners of a bakery say their business has been spit on and vandalized. Some community members have urged a boycott of the businesses.

“We really would like this town meeting to put the controversy to death,” said Wilson. Diving into the heart of the controversy, Wilson addressed the subject of slavery. He said he believes it is sinful and wrong, but that the slavery that took place in the South prior to the Civil War wasn’t as bad as the slavery in ancient Rome. He also said that slavery in the United States could have ended in a more peaceful manner.

Most of the forum took place in an organized fashion, with people talking about philosophy and Scripture and questioning the church’s positions. But a stir went through the audience when Ruth Drollinger stepped up to the microphone. Last spring, she pulled her children out of Logos, a private school in Moscow that many Christ Church children attend. “I’m going public tonight,” she said. “I’m here to say Christ Church is in control of that school.” She said her children were spanked for challenging the teachers’ beliefs, and she feels what is taught about the Civil War at Logos is one-sided. “They celebrate Robert E. Lee’s birthday,” she said. “But not Lincoln’s.” While some in the audience wanted Drollinger to continue, others shouted that she was out of order and called for her to sit down. One man tried to lead her away by the arm.

Others, like John Dickinson, questioned Wilson and the church about their stance on homosexuality. Wilson said he’s opposed to homosexual marriage, but he doesn’t think gays should be executed, as the biblical book of Leviticus advises.

As for public schools, Wilson, calling them “government schools,” said he and members of Christ Church believe they are antithetical to their values as Christians. He said that parents, not the government, should be responsible for educating their children and that he didn’t want to pay taxes to support the public system.

Wilson said he and others see Moscow as a place of faux tolerance. People “really want diversity until they actually get some,” he said. “Here we are.”

Hannelore Sudermann can be reached toll-free at (866) 332-3674 or by e-mail at

You can see footage of the meeting below, where the opening scene captures Evan Wilson, estranged brother of Douglas, the other scenes capture glimpses of an outraged community determined to vent on Wilson. But in the end, none of these things mattered. The Town Hall Meeting remedied nothing because Wilson answered no one questions and so he returned to his natural man and began insulting the community once again, as we shall see in future posts.

Thank you.


Marla said...

The woman at the closing of the You Tube video stating her views on Christ Church, etc, etc, Ruth Drollinger Stoneman Drollinger is a notorious publicity seeker. Four years later, after this event on You Tube, she has also managed to maintain her "video film status" in Yakima Washington and Naches Washington this past summer by fabricating FALSE COURT DOCUMENTS about an "alleged" dispute between the Naches community pool and the Yakima YMCA. ( As a woman, I am thankful that I know other women who are far more credible, not given to the feminist tactics of this pathetically deceived woman and as a result, have far more impact on our youth and our community, WITHOUT shaming all of our gender.

Mark T. said...


The article did not report that Stoneman falsified any court documents, which is a felony in most states. The article implied but did not report that Stoneman flashed a restraining order that was illegitimate.

Nevertheless, your point is well made, she appears to have a natural attraction to the spotlight. But I don’t know anyone who ever saw her as a spokesperson for feminism or the female sex in general. She brought no shame on anyone, in my opinion.

The anger you saw on film, however, is legitimate. Ruth gave me copies of the correspondence between her and Logos School, where school administrators harassed her and her children because they echoed criticism of Christ Church that they had heard elsewhere. Time permitting, I’ll post the letters. They’re quite revealing.

Marla said...

In response to the statement that Ruth Drollinger has never claimed to be a feminist, please read the following from her blog on VISION 2020, titled "The Heckler had to be another Liar".

"It wasn't unusual for me to be shunned for being a strong,
independent, single parent divorcee, shunned especially by Christ Church members. I
remember how hurt I was, when Logos faculty asked to read my supreme court case,
and their only comment was, "Does your ex-husband ever get to see his
children?" They called me a feminist, which I am, but isn't every woman who believes
in equal treatment under the law?"

Mark T. said...


Careful now, I never wrote that she “has never claimed to be a feminist,” I wrote, “I don’t know anyone who ever saw her as a spokesperson for feminism or the female sex in general.”

Marla said...

Let me see if I understand you. You agree that she is confronted with being a feminist and you agree that she admits to being a feminist, but you say that no one sees her as a feminist? In what language does that make sense? She is indeed a feminist by her own admission. Many people know this about her because she admitted it four years ago in a publicized blog, so how is it that people know that she is a feminist but do not see her as one nor see her as a speaking for the female gender? She indeed does not speak for the female gender because not all females are feminists. Not all females hate men and not all females believe that men should be emasculated. One cannot claim to be a feminist and a Christian at the same time. The feminist agenda is one of the most vicious causes ever to be unleashed on our country. When men support this cause, we truly lose hope.

Not all women believe that we should have a loud voice against immigration because the illegals are taking our dental welfare away from us rather than going out and getting a job to pay for our dental work ourselves like the rest of working society and let the gainfully employed American working class speak credibly against illegal immigration. See news article: "The group is sponsoring a ballot initiative that would require the state to require proof of citizenship from anyone who applies for government assistance, she said.

Drollinger said she joined the group after she tried to apply for dental assistance and found herself in a government office competing with 40 Mexican nationals."

When the illegals are working harder at their jobs than the bloggers who want media attention, who have business degrees but refuse to obtain employment with dental benefits and then cry out in dismay NOT because a Mexican took their job, but their welfare? Oh my gosh, that weakens the credibility of the whole movement! We need to stop illegal immigration, but when do-nothing-talk-loudly protesters like Drollinger hit the streets, we have to fight harder on this issue to gain credibility against the ingnorants who want open borders. We have our own homegrown variety of poachers right here! Yikes!
My friend, I don't know how long you have been supporting this woman and following her wagging your tail, but you would be wise to investigate those with whom you labor in order that your mission might not look foolish and you lose considerable ground. I do not know if your agenda in regard to this Town Hall meeting four years ago is of a political nature, a religious nature, a feminist nature, a hormonal nature, or a desire to seek absolute truth, but there is very little credibility backing a woman who claims severe abuse of her children over a four year period at the hands of unscrupulous men running a church and school and beating her children on their birthdays, teaching erroneous history and harassing her through correspondence. If this is indeed true, her stability as a parent is seriously in question for allowing a four year course of such abuse instead of withdrawing her children from that school with the first misdeed. And where does an unemployed mother get such funds for a private school? Were it her own income, there would have been some incentive to withdraw from paying tuition at such an outrageous institution, if not just for the sake of the wellbeing of her children, don't you think? These are the kinds of questions you should be asking. If you have a strong position against these persons associated with this meeting, please do yourself and your community a favor and find out if the woman you are supporting is reputable. If you have a PACER account, you would be able to obtain valuable information on her three bankruptices and testimony contained therein covering a more than -three-year period. If you seek honest support for a legitimate issue, you will find it. If you are looking for isolated outbursts of a theatrical nature to support your legitmate issue, whether you are the follower or the followee, you will find that also. Obviously, one will take more time. Your results will indicate which seeker you are. As another blogger puts it to Ruth: "Why would you not present your issues to the Logos
School Board, especially if you were invited to do so?
Regardless of the response you expected to receive, it
seems that the Board would have been the proper
channel for expressing your concerns.
I don't know anything about your particular situation,
other than what you have now posted on Vision 2020.
But this strikes me as analogous to not reporting a
crime to the police, then complaining that no one ever
solved the case, while claiming that the police would
not have listened anyway. Perhaps this is true (that
they would not have listened), but it seems that, by
choosing not to report to the proper authorities, you
preclude yourself from being in a position to
criticize their failure to act.
Again, my purpose here is not to defend Logos School,
Christ Church, or anyone else involved. As a graduate
of Logos, however, I do feel compelled to insist upon
a representation of the school that is factually
correct, regardless of whether that representation is
ultimately positive or negative."

Further your comment about the Naches pool dispute is in error. The article CLEARLY states that the document was written by Ruth Drollinger Stoneman Drollinger:
" Another local media outlet has reported there is a restraining order between the YMCA and Hawver. It's true the YMCA stopped coming to the pool after a disagreement with the manager. But the document which was presented at the meeting says "objection to restraining" at the bottom. It was actually written by Ruth Stoneman, the mother of Nate."

And yes, it is a felony in most states, including Washington. Not all felonies get prosecuted, do they? They certainly do not. The KNDO news station is/was aware of this legality and it was their decision whether to pursue it. Of the two news stations reporting this issue, KNDO was the one who was careful not to report on the "document" until they investigated its legitimacy. The other news station was left to backpedal when the discovery was duly reported.

These are issues of credibility. I do not dispute the legitmacy of your position, rather the support or following of someone whose tactics you are obviously not familiar with, whether you are the follower or the followee. Whether you seek to gain that familiarity is your decision. There is more than can possibly be published here. With due respect.

Mark T. said...


You’re a little bent and you’re attributing words to me that I never wrote or thought. Here are two examples:

First, I wrote, “But I don’t know anyone who ever saw her as a spokesperson for feminism or the female sex in general. She brought no shame on anyone, in my opinion.”

But you misconstrued my words thus: “Let me see if I understand you. You agree that she is confronted with being a feminist and you agree that she admits to being a feminist, but you say that no one sees her as a feminist? In what language does that make sense?”

I believe you should ask your question of yourself, not me.

Second, you wrote, Further your comment about the Naches pool dispute is in error. The article CLEARLY states that the document was written by Ruth Drollinger Stoneman Drollinger: “Another local media outlet has reported there is a restraining order between the YMCA and Hawver. It’s true the YMCA stopped coming to the pool after a disagreement with the manager. But the document which was presented at the meeting says ‘objection to restraining’ at the bottom. It was actually written by Ruth Stoneman, the mother of Nate.”

If you read the four sentences, you’ll see that the reporter distinguished between a restraining order reported by another local media outlet (first sentence) and the document which was presented at the meeting (third sentence). You are free to assume that the two are the same, but since the reporter did not go that far, I won’t either.

I have no beef with Ruth; I actually feel sorry for her, despite here antics. And I have no beef with you. Ruth was not the point of the post and she is completely marginal to the post, though she is part of the story.

Bottom line, don’t read anything into her presence here.

Ruth D. said...

I just discovered this blog and I am not surprised that I am still under attack. I have no clue who this "Marla" is but I would really like to know what I have done to her to cause her to have to spend so much time and energy to actually research and look for dirt on me. My parents actually paid for my children to attend a christian school in Moscow after having fled Montana and severe domestic violence. Marla sounds more like someone defending abuse than an innocent blogger. Since you're so interested in finding out about me-- I rarely get involved in social issues unless it involves injustice against children. Each and every time I have been in the news over the last 8 years it's about that. Regarding the the story of the Naches Pool- you had a situation involving an abusive pool manager--which resulted drownings in the local Naches River because children were so afraid of her! My son had the guts and courage to stand up to this "pool nazi" as the local kids called her-- and the document had nothing to do with a restraining order-- that was a typo at the bottom of the page-- the document was an affidavit from an employee of the YMCA who witnessed the abuse-- and the YMCA children's program refused to return!! KNDO didn't get the story right and didn't even bother to get it right. The employees a the YMCA verified that everything in the affidavit was true. All you have to do is to check contact a reporter named Maria at KIMA news in Yakima. Her station videotaped a town hall meeting on the issue of the abusive pool manager-- where my son stood up as the head of the lifeguards and predicted the death of at least one girl who two days later died in the Naches River-- because she and her cousins were afraid of the abusive pool mananger at the Naches Pool. Okay-- that said-- on to the story from years earlier on illegal immigration. Its all too easy to see whats happening on this issue-- business owners is search of cheap labor and treated these people like slaves-- and we've had to pick up the peices-- fluent in Spanish and as a friend of one of the leading Hispanic community leaders-- we are in agreement that something has to be done. Okay-- onto the issue of Feminism. Feminism is not a bad word. Its only a bad word to ignorant people like Marla -- if thats her real name. Every woman who believes that she deserves to be treated with respect, deserves to be paid the equivalent of what any man would be paid, deserves to be valued as a woman is a feminist. I truly pity any woman that allow a man to devalue her. I find that the only men who are threatened by me are the men with weak egos who have been raised to devalue and blame women as a means of justifying their anger. On the other hand, I have met plenty of men, men who respect and admire me who are proud to be called my friend and some who wish it could be more, because they have a strong sense of who they are and they love a woman who is not afraid to stand up and protect children from abuse. If anyone doubts what I've endured they can visit my website Its time that we protect children and recognize that there are many elements of society that seek to keep the powerless powerless and dominate and control women and find justification to do so. I take my hat off to whomever is continuing to disclose the truth about schools and churches like Doug Wilsons in Moscow. My children were hurt and humiliated-- and I was threatened not to tell the truth. You're only as healthy as your secrets-- it sounds like Marla has many!!

Ruth D. said...

Yes-- aha-- I see my ex-husband Mark Stoneman-- a convicted felon-- has found this blog--- either that or he has a good cover-- this person has disclosed information about me that only he would know-- please remove these blogs and thankyou for defending me. He is a sociopath who was sentenced to two years in the state penitentury. Please contact me asap. Thanks.


Mark T. said...

Hi Ruth,

Please leave your email address in the comments and I’ll contact you, without posting your email. Thanks.

Mark T. said...

Hi Marc,

While I appreciate your sentiments and understand your point, we have a policy here to not publish personal attacks on anyone. No offense intended and I hope you can appreciate this.