The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 3, Thread 41.

23. Real Problem: Obstacles to getting on the Ballot
Sun, Jan 24, 1999 - 4:47 PM/EST
shuar

Sully, you're 100% right that one of the biggest obstacles to effective third party organization is getting on state ballots. The laws are an outrage and were, of course, produced by the two parties. Chuck, Clinton really isn't the issue. Sure, he's a slimeball, but a lovable slimeball to millions of Americans who, despite what you on your moral high horse, might think, are not themselves slimeballs. Or maybe you think they too are slimeballs? OR maybe they're just stupid, uninformed, morally lapsed? George Bush and Ronald Reagan didn¥t inspire the same liking among ordinary Americans, because they were a bit too much like the Puritan Saints of the 17th century, a little too perfect to be real. Ordinary folks conscious of their own sinful nature are suspicious of people who come on as saints. And well they should be suspicious. Clinton gets my respect for standing up against a huge tide of repression coming from America¥s creepy, self-righteous religious right, which, God help us, if it ever gets into power, will probably do the same sorts of things the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia in the '70's or the Chinese Communists in the Cultural Revolution. I hope we never get to that unhappy day in the US.

25. Sure Shuar This Makes Sense
Mon, Jan 25, 1999 - /EST
Chuck

"America¥s creepy, self-righteous religious right, which, God help us, if it ever gets into power, will probably do the same sorts of things the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia in the '70's or the Chinese Communists in the Cultural Revolution"

You have audacity to write something like this. Your team is fond of calling others extremists, Nazis, and every other evil epithet you can dream up.

I completely resent your comments, and find them as appalling and offensive as anything I've ever heard or read in my life.

You go ahead and lower the standards as far as you want...I won't join you in the sewer...I'll be a "self-righteous" extremist who will never compromise on principle, and I don't give a #$%@#$ what you think of me. I'm the dumb sonofabitch that this country has called on over the years time and again when it needed someone to make sacrifices for the common good. I'm the sucker, as my best friend told me, who served in VietNam, and I'm the guy who wells up when he hears the Star Spangled Banner. It really angers me to think that all I believe and stand for could be so dishonored in a broad-brush, sweeping generalization that suggests I'm a blood-thirsty murderous thug. Pick your favorite, most offensive insult...go stand in front of a mirror, and say it to yourself for me. I can't use that language here

26. as appalling and offensive as anything I¥ve ever heard in my life
Mon, Jan 25, 1999 - 2:16 PM/EST
shuar

Well, Chuck, in your words I have finally heard what I thought probably lurked underneath the temperate surface of most of your postings, ie, a huge amount of anger and righteous indignation. No, Chuck, I have no intention whatsoever to look in the mirror and insult myself. Why would I want to do that? I respect myself and the process that has lead me to my present state of awareness. I suggest that you need to look at yourself more closely. Why do you harbor all this anger and loathing just under the surface? You are certainly oversensitive to think that I suggested that you are a "blood-thirsty murderous thug" Where in God's name did you get this out of my posting? From the mentioning of the Khmer Rouge and the Chinese Communists in the Cultural Revolution?

That had nothing whatsoever to do with you, but was rather a suggestion that when very self-righteous people get into power often those regimes take a very repressive turn. I in no way intended to cast aspersions on you for serving in the military during the Vietnam War. I have absolutely nothing against people who served in the military during any era. I might have done the same myself if it hadn¥t been at a time when there was a conflict I in good conscience couldn't participate in. What I am trying to express, and, admittedly have become angered about, is that I fear that if the American far right ever actually got into power a huge disaster would ensue. If you don¥t agree with that OK. But please don¥t think that I am calling you personally something like a cold-blooded murderous person when in fact I am only expressing my views of historical process. I think you are also expressing anger flowing over from what I said about normality on the Gay,Straight, bi thread. I still hold to what I said there and know that most of the scientific community backs me on that.

27. Chuck --
Mon, Jan 25, 1999 - 4:39 PM/EST
Marlyn

With all due respect, my friend --

It is difficult to adequately express the extreme fear that those of us who belong to other religious beliefs -- and even moderate Christians themselves -- have about the ascendency of an American Conservative Christian Theocracy. The really scarey part is that we who are sensitive to the issue see it arising in so many places and events and are almost unable to communicate what we perceive *to* Christians without causing the kind of kneejerk reaction that you just gave Shuar.

From my own personal perspective, let me try to explain why I, like Shuar, am deathly afraid of the Religious Right.

It starts with simple delarative statements from Presidents, such as George Bush's statement that "atheists can't be true patriots". Its added to every time one attends a governmental function, which is invariably opened by a Christian prayer. Its added to every year as Christmas is made into a National holiday, but Ramadan, Yom Kippur, Hanamatsuri, Beltane, and the holidays of other religions are not equally honored. We see it evidenced in the amount of money funnelled by the Rutheford Foundation into what otherwise would have been a very short-lived case of sex discrimination that has mushroomed into the "trial of the century" -- and the way in which the ever-pious Ken Starr abuses and obstructs justice in the cause of convicting the President of abusing authority and obstructing justice.

And finally, we have the examples of present-day theocracies to add a touch of horror to the mix: we see the adminstration of Islamic justice in Saudi Arabia and the sexual discrimination and subjugation of women under the Taliban regime.

It culminates, on a personal basis, in the kind of verbal abuse that has my children and so many others like them scared spitless to speak of *their* faith -- and/or almost blindly furious at Christian theology and its adherents/proclaimers for their thoughtless and cruel mistreatment. Now, I do not blame you personally for what harm has been done my children -- no doubt you, like other Christian friends, would be outraged at some of the things my kids have had to live through. However, I too feel my own anger that a religion that ostensibly teaches its followers to "love thy neighbor" could have been used to cause so much hurt -- and terror that this same treatment might become institutionalized if the separation of Church and State narrows any further. I don't wear saffron robes or pretend to be enlightened -- and I am attached to causes the affect the welfare of my children and my children's children.

We who fear the apparent upswelling of the Religious Right in our country's politics look to all of these things -- of which even the most personal elements tend to be shared to one degree or another -- and we fear what might come when absolute power is wielded absolutely by those who would use religion as both a spiritual and social weapon.

Do not take our fear of a Christian Theocracy as lashing out at you personally as a stand-forward Christian. Please.

Namaste!

Marlyn

28. I have tons of tolerance, but there is such a thing as just anger
Mon, Jan 25, 1999 - 7:01 PM/EST
Chuck

Shuar wrote"America¥s creepy, self-righteous religious right, which, God help us, if it ever gets into power, will probably do the same sorts of things the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia in the '70's or the Chinese Communists in the Cultural Revolution"

Shuar wrote: "Why do you harbor all this anger and loathing just under the surface? You are certainly oversensitive to think that I suggested that you are a "blood-thirsty murderous thug" Where in God's name did you get this out of my posting?"

I'm religious, I'm on the right, so how can I be excluded from the statement above.

This statement is insulting to any Christian conservative. Some things are not exusable.

You cannot, Shuar, justify this crap by lecturing me about rage...I'm not a hypocrite, here to turn a blind eye to extreme injustice. When you make statements like that, you're no better than someone calling another human being Nigger, or Kike, or Whop. You're just a more politically correct Bigot...Christians are fast becoming the only group you're allowed to hate in the US.

If you delude yourself into the belief that such rhetoric is fair, justifiable and honestly represents a legitimate judgement of the Christian right, then I stick to my original comments.

Marlyn, I have the utmost respect for you, and I would have written the same thing had it been your beliefs, or those of any other faith characterized in such ugly terms. The Khmer Rouge may be the only group in history to be so bloodthirsty and brutal as to make the Nazis look meek by comparison.

To equate any group of people with such ghoulish and horrid behavior is absolutely unacceptable to me. I will tolerate a great deal in the interest of reasoned discourse, but I'm against preaching hatred...and will always react to it the same way. To you Marlyn, in all sincerity, Namaste!

29. Shuar and Chuck et al
Tue, Jan 26, 1999 - 8:45 AM/EST
Dom

Wow, this is getting heated!!

My unsophisticated tuppence worth is as follows :

Shuar : I think you overstated your case somewhat. I doubt very strongly that the American Conservative right would begin wholesale slaughter of non-Christians/non-conformists, in the same vein that the Khmer Rouge and the Chinese revolutinarys did to their opposition. To suggest so is really rather silly.

Chuck : With all due respect (and there is much of it) I am surprised at the vehemence of your reply. I really thought that after the way you played me in the population control thread, you would not rise quite so vehemently to a statement such as Shuars.

30. Still deathly afraid of the anger of the right
Tue, Jan 26, 1999 - 12:38 PM/EST
shuar

Okay, my use of the Khmer Rouge as an example of a repressive regime may have been extreme, but in this century we have so many examples, beginning I suppose with the Turkish genocide of the Aremenians, of one people doing away with another. I have no desire to do away with the American religious right. I just don't want them imposing their beliefs on me in, as Marlyn stated, a theocratic state. Why would a far-right religious state in the US be any different from, say, the regime of the mullas in Iran?

Chuck, I still think you are mad at me for picking out your remark about the abnormality of homosexuality. I feel your obviously strong feelings about that issue flowed over into this thread and I evidently touched a button with my expression of my fears of a right wing religious state in the US. I'm issuing a call for a winding down of the anger here. Yes, I feel a lot of anger at people like Ken Starr for abusing his office. I¥m also not convinced that Clinton is in the ranks with George Washington or Lincoln, far from it in fact. I believe in my heart that Clinton was unjustly pursued by the right to find anything whatsoever they could find on him to turn into an impeachable offense. I think he was a fool to have played around with Monica off the oval office and to have tried to cover it up, but, my God, Chuck, a slimeball? Where is the balance here?
The people down here in Ecuador simply can't believe what is going on in the US Congress, and I'm with them.I know you and Sully don't care what people outside the US think about the country, but maybe that says something that you don't care about the opinion of tens of millions of people who are saying: "My God, what are the Americans doing to themselves now" There's a retired cop from the deep south, a good old boy if there ever was one, who lives and does business down here and also uses this net cafe where I am now. He just said the US is probably headed for another civil war if this sort of nonsense and abuse of power continues and I have to agree. It is appears that civil discussion is no longer possible between you and I, Chuck. Is this a harbinger of a new civil war lurking in the American future as my retired cop friend, a person of great common sense, indicated?

32. Whither repression -- to Chuck
Tue, Jan 26, 1999 - 1:50 PM/EST
Marlyn

To Chuck --

I appreciate that you would have sprung to the defense of any faith so negatively portrayed as Shuar did the Christian Religious Right. And, to be honest, the use of the Khmer Rouge as an example may have gone a bit to the extreme to make the point -- however valid the point may have been.

To be honest, I would like to believe that the Religious Right would not fall to the depths that the Khmer Rouge or Chinese Cultural Revolution did in exterminating the theological/ideological competition. However, I'm pragmatic enough (and I'm willing to consider it perhaps a mild form of paranoia...) to know that this simple expectation of restraint doesn't mean that we who would be the theological/ideological competition WOULD have *nothing* to fear from a Conservative Christian Theocracy Movement here in the States.

I'm not going to go into specifics here -- for one thing, it would be off the thread topic entirely -- but the potential for violence is just a little too imminent for folks like me to ignore, and imminent for what I feel are VERY good reasons. Hard and painful personal and anecdotal experience has taught me that it doesn't take and environment of "wholesale" violence for everyday people to start being injured or dying, or property to be destroyed, or rights to be subjugated, you know... all it takes is one crazy person to get the idea that "I have the right/responsibility to..." or "Because I believe this way -- and of course *I'm* right -- YOU *should*...that is, if you know what's good for you..." Moreover, all I need to support my possibly paranoid perception is to look to the examples of all the other recent autocratic/theocratic movements around the globe and realize that when absolutism rules -- regardless of whether that absolutism is Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Communist or Buddhist -- there is no more flexibility in the system toward diversity of thought/belief.

I think, however, that reasonable people on both sides need to step back from the knee-jerk and rhetoric evidenced by the initial give and take between you and Shuar and consider that the other guy MAY have fairly decent reasons for their position -- and then be willing to at least listen to them and give them due consideration...

So, I invite you to tell me why I *shouldn't* be afraid of a narrowing of the separation between Church and State? Also (now scrambling madly to climb completely back on-topic...) how would a political party controlled by those wishing theocratic standards be enacted into law be able to tolerate functioning within a pluralistic society like ours without setting aside many of the rights given all in the Constitution to get that legislation enforced? Would the evolution of such a party be of benefit to America, do you think?

Namaste!

Marlyn

34. Shuar, Dom and the balance of my critics
Tue, Jan 26, 1999 - 2:11 PM/EST
Chuck

It is quite ironic you raise the issue of the Armenian slaughter. I am of Armenian descent, and have an Armenian name. I am aware, at a very personal level of that event. My Grandfather watched his entire family be slaughtered by the Turks.

The analogy of the Christian Right to the Khmer Rouge was a gross insult to anyone who is a Christian conservative. I want you to sense the anger in my words. I still believe it was a most egregious and horrible thing to say...whether about the Christian right or any other group. You still don't seem to understand how terrible that comment was. The left thought calling Mr. Shumer a putz-head was bad enough to throw a tenured person out of the Senate...yet I hear no person on the left outraged or even slightly miffed at this incredible language.

Shuar, I believe you owe the Christian right an apology. Not me...the group you attacked.

As to the other issues raised, I don't think you folks have noticed that this country was governed and operated on the basis of Christian philosopy for most of its' history. There are no mullahs waiting to step into political leadership. Hell, the largest single Christian organization, the Catholic Church, forced its priests to get out of political offices the held quite recently. You may find many faults with individuals representing various faiths...but you face no threat from Christians, especially physical harm.

As to motive: Not one word I have written on this subject has any connection whatsoever to your views on any other subject. I think suggesting a group of people are the equivalent of the Khmer Rouge, and that they would do what was done in the killing fields of Cambodia to their fellow citizens of the US if they gained power is absolutely ugly and irresponsible. I've said about all I care to on this.

35. apologies for the Khmer Rouge reference
Tue, Jan 26, 1999 - 3:05 PM/EST
shuar

Herein I extend my apology to Chuck for the intemperate use of the Khmer Rouge experience in reference to the American Right. I would love to believe that the potential for violent acting out does not exist in the American right, but based on the extreme rhetoric (much more virulent, I think than that used on the left) about liberals and the like from Rimbough (sp?) and his sort, I do believe that the potential for violence exists. I'm also ready to admit that it exists on the left, though I think the American left has been so effectively emasculated that it would be a very poor showing. Would you deny, Chuck, that there is a lot of pent up, frustrated energy in the American people these days, which, under certain circumstances could erupt in ugliness? I certainly would prefer that that never happens. I'm all for peaceable solutions to our differences. But what I see happening in the US is that the quality of the discourse is being dictated by spokespersons forwhatever point of view, and ordinary people are not able to discuss their opinions and solutions to our problems.

In the early 90's for a while there was a lively public discussion, mostly around Perot¥s third party efforts and on radio talk programs around the country. But now there is hardly any outlet, and people must witness the outrages happening in Washington, particularly the neglect of the real business of the country, and campaign finance outrages, in silent impotence. Sure you can vote every couple of years. But for whom?

As Sully said, it is so difficult for third party people to get on the state ballots, that the only alternative is maybe libetarian (which I usually vote for) or Reform Party. Marlyn, thank you for your wise, informed, and measured words in all the threads. The same goes for Mark, who deserves his own web site or column in some paper or magazine. It is folks like you who give me some hope that somehow the US might get through its present problems and end up on the other side in reasonable shape. Chuck, you and I owe it to the other participants to try once again to find some common ground. I'm sure it exists. I'm no more capable of corruption if I were in a position of power than I think you are. I'm sure if we met each other we would probably get along alright. What we have in common is that we hold our positions with great passion. I don't think that is a sin. Sometimes the rhetoric gets a bit much. But we can learn from those lapses of rhetoric as well.

37. Religious Tolerance/Intolerance is a matter of perspective...
Tue, Jan 26, 1999 - 10:10 PM/EST
Marlyn

Shuar --

I'm glad you apologized to Chuck for the Khmer Rouge comment. I agree with you that the potential for violence in a Conservative Christian Theocracy is greater than some here might want to admit, but I also have to admit that their rejecting this view is one that I -- as a convert totally unprepared to handle what children do to each other over religion because I never did it myself "back when" -- can understand entirely. What we are saying is so VERY outide Chuck's reality as to seem to strain the bounds of reasonable possibility itself. We need to recognize this element of Chuck's reality and try to understand where he's coming from even as we try to make our points understood.

That's why when you paint an entire group of people with so very broad a brush and in such lurid and provocative examples, it doesn't make addressing the issue any easier for you *or* them. As I told Nagwan on another issue, when you speak out to Conservatives in terms that get their dander up, you accomplish nothing of real benefit -- and actually can make those you're trying to reach close down their ability to hear what you have to say.

Harsh rhetoric, my friend, rarely accomplishes anything of value -- and certainly isn't conducive to accomplishing communication between folks who believe differently. We're here to learn better, neh?

Namaste!

Marlyn

39. Strong Rhetoric has its place
Wed, Jan 27, 1999 - 11:06 AM/EST
shuar

I stick with my apology for the Khmer Rouge reference but feel I must jump in again to stand up for the use of strong rhetoric to get a point across. If one feels strongly about something how can one not speak out in strong terms about it? Talk about political correctness!! I'll assert again what I did in a previous posting that strong words have their place: they reveal much and therefore we can learn much from them. I think I learned more about Chuck from our heated exchange than from all the more tempered exchanges. I respect now more than I did before our differences and hold nothing against him for speaking out strongly, even asking me to look in a mirror and cast aspersions on myself.

I honestly think that if Americans of various persuasions could get together face to face and do what we are doing in Reality Check dialogues we might actually be able to hash out some of our differences. I do believe that we and other twentieth century societies are caught up in a negative feedback situation in which the media and spokespersons for various movements do the talking for us and create a very negative and often hopeless attitude about bringing about positive change. I'd bet anything that people like Chuck and I could get together on any number of issues to change for the better the day to day reality of life in the US. We are all kept apart because we view to much through ideological lenses not of our own making.

42. Strong views do/don't require strong rhetoric...
Wed, Jan 27, 1999 - 3:53 PM/EST
Marlyn

Shuar --

You said: "If one feels strongly about something how can one not speak out in strong terms about it? Talk about political correctness!!"

I'm not advocating political correctness -- PLEASE don't get me wrong. I *HATE* PC!! There is nothing more blatantly hypocritical and ultimately futile, as far as I'm concerned, than attempting to curry favor for oneself by making half-hearted (and usually hypocritical) attempts to placate the self-aggrandizing, reactionary and contradictory priorities of every possible interest group on the face of the Earth. Fact is that it can't be done effectively, EVER.

However, to me, strong words to voice strong views are one thing; strong and *offensive* words to voice strong views are entirely another. I'm all for the former, because comprimise is still possible after reasoned debate and discussion between dedicated representatives of opposing views who respect both each other and the importance of the issue at hand enough to restrain from frivolous provocation. However, I'll speak out against the latter to my dying breath, because the first utterance of deliberate insult or offense closes the door to all comprimise, not to mention the possibility of reasoned debate and/or discussion, between otherwise sincere individuals or groups who simply can't bring themselves to either personal verbal restraint or minimal respect for the other guy and his/her right to think differently.
Namaste!

Marlyn

45. Good things can happen when good will exists
Wed, Jan 27, 1999 - 9:33 PM/EST
Chuck

I have read with great interest the many comments in this thread since I started yelling at Shuar. I admit to being less than temperate, and apologize to him and to the rest of you for attacking him as I did I violated a primary belief: direct ones anger at the idea, not the person.

I did, and do, find the analogy more offensive by far than he, or most of you seem to understand. Perhaps that's because I am so well aware of what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia. I offer no history lessons here, but encourage you to learn about that subject.

The encouraging aspect of this is that this small community of people did respond to the matter in a generally helpful and thoughtful way. Words have meaning, and they have great power. It is important to use them with care. The pen is as sharp an instrument as the razor...and "mightier than the sword."

Shuar...I have tried hard to stand for certain principles all of my life. I seldom have lost my temper as I did in this instance. I was exhausted, had had a difficult day...all the normal stuff that we all go through. However, that doesn't excuse my diatribe. I let myself down by failing to measure up to my own standards and beliefs. That is far more painful to me than anything else. I hope I will not, regardless of how right I feel, deal with an issue so poorly ever again.

As far as my attitude towards you, please believe that I bear you no ill will. My real reason for involvement in this group is a desire to learn, and to try to persuade others of the importance of listening to different ideas and beliefs with respect and an open mind. I was offended by what you wrote, but I believe that had I simply said that, and explained it, we would have come to an understanding without the destructive rhetoric.

Above all, that is the lesson to take from this. Another is that there are many kind-hearted people here who are sincerely trying to find ways to communicate and improve the world they live in. May God bless them all...even the Atheists!

Namaste!

46. Thanks, Chuck
Thu, Jan 28, 1999 - 11:57 AM/EST
shuar

I'm glad that we have settled things from our little on-line tiff. I kind of assumed that you had had a bad day or something when I read your message. We're both people with strong beliefs and like to express them strongly. That's a lot better ,I suppose than being apathetic. No? Yes, there are many hopeful things about this on-line discussion. If only we could translate this sort of discourse into the public sphere. That would require changing drastically the nature of the mass media in the US to allow much more interaction between media centers and the public. This could happen, I believe, but only when enough people wake up and exert pressure.

47. Broad shoulders:
Fri, Jan 29, 1999 - 1:54 AM/EST
Mark

Complements & thanks to Chuck.