Christian persecution paranoia

[dewdrop_world]

Just a couple of quick thoughts --

I didn't mean to suggest that we should ignore the political sphere. But our motivation matters. If we do it to stop the big, bad, scary religious fascists mainly because we're scared of them, then the people whom we now see as enemies are right -- we really are out to get them. If, on the other hand, we stand for the positive virtues of understanding those different from ourselves, respecting the rights of others to make their own decisions, and of listening before judging (or better yet, instead of), we do it not to put down a menace but to build something better than there is now.

For doom1701 -- I'm still interested to know your thoughts on Diane's question. How do you propose to reduce the tension? We all have to do our part to make peace. What is the evangelicals' part in this?

Evangelicals get a bad rap largely because of some very loud mouthed, flaky individuals who take Christianity rather far from the core of Jesus's teaching. When they claim the mantle of "defenders of the true faith," people who don't know any better (and people who have an axe to grind against religion) actually take them at their word and become convinced that all Christians, or a majority, are mentally unhinged in the same way. So, it seems to me that one thing evangelicals can do is to stop associating with these people and concentrate on being humble seekers of Christ. Let the Falwells and Robertsons become more and more desperate until the candle goes out for lack of fuel -- when they have no more attention and no more influence, that is exactly what will happen. But of course, there is no shortage of anxious people eager to hear that it is righteous to put the blame on someone else.

Sorry if this is too frank. I just don't understand why evangelicals continue to put up with these rather obviously false prophets.

James

[Diane Vera]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

I didn't mean to suggest that we should ignore the political sphere. But our motivation matters. If we do it to stop the big, bad, scary religious fascists mainly because we're scared of them, then the people whom we now see as enemies are right -- we really are out to get them.

This does not logically follow, as long as we are sufficiently precise in our definitions of who the religious fascists are. Obviously, not all Christians deserve to be considered religious fascists.

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

If, on the other hand, we stand for the positive virtues of understanding those different from ourselves, respecting the rights of others to make their own decisions, and of listening before judging (or better yet, instead of), we do it not to put down a menace but to build something better than there is now.

It seems to me that we need to do both, not one to the exclusion of the other. To build an effective political movement, it is necessary to have both a set of ideals and a scary enemy to point to. I'm afraid that's an inescapable fact of human psychology.

But we should be very careful to avoid being overly broad as to whom we describe as our enemy.

[dewdrop_world]

I do recognize that fear is the most powerful political motivator there is. But I wonder how we can justifiably condemn the political expediency of the religious fascists (by which I mean the ease with which the core of the religion slips into propaganda intended to consolidate power in the hands of certain religious leaders), while we also use fear as an expedient means to obtain an objective.

I'm totally with you that the objective is important, and I think it's a moral good, but at the same time -- using means that are slightly morally messy, even if employed toward a moral good, is not a moral good in itself. It can be a rational decision, and I respect that decision if it's made rationally and with full awareness of what one is doing. I have to question that decision if its primary motivation is, "But we have to win."

I do get concerned when I read some of these threads and have trouble distinguishing between the tone here and the tone of some of the breathless hysteria that comes from the far right. To address them in the spirit of non violence (which, after all, is what Soulforce is supposed to be about), we should think twice about becoming like them. A better way to say it is, we should recognize the ways in which we are already like them (we have no less of an instinct for fear than they), and look within ourselves to reduce the influence of that fear, so that it becomes possible to come face to face with their fear without adding our own to it.

At the same time, if you shoot the person who is about to kill your partner or children, that is "expedient" to be sure, but it might not be possible to do any better in that situation. Maybe it isn't possible here to do any better than demonize the religious right (I hate to call them that), but I definitely have a problem with accepting that as a foregone conclusion and not asking any questions about what alternatives exist. Especially on this board... Soulforce stands for something more than achieving a political goal, and I think we should take that challenge seriously.

James

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

I didn't mean to suggest that we should ignore the political sphere. But our motivation matters. If we do it to stop the big, bad, scary religious fascists mainly because we're scared of them, then the people whom we now see as enemies are right -- we really are out to get them.

They created the myth that “we are out to get them” in order to garner the support needed to “get us.”

Our defending ourselves against their attacks is what they consider to be “out to get them.” So of course we’re “out to get them,” they’re supremacists. Anyone who disagrees with their supremacy is “out to get them.”

There’s no comparison of motives, it’s victim and oppressor. The oppressor in this case just happens to be claiming that they are victims of their victims!

If, on the other hand, we stand for the positive virtues of understanding those different from ourselves, respecting the rights of others to make their own decisions, and of listening before judging (or better yet, instead of), we do it not to put down a menace but to build something better than there is now.

The threat of their menace is IMO, the biggest thing that prevents us from building something better, and that goes for all issues, not just GLBT.

Evangelicals get a bad rap largely because of some very loud mouthed, flaky individuals who take Christianity rather far from the core of Jesus's teaching.....Let the Falwells and Robertsons become more and more desperate until the candle goes out for lack of fuel -- when they have no more attention and no more influence, that is exactly what will happen. But of course, there is no shortage of anxious people eager to hear that it is righteous to put the blame on someone else.

I think it’s unfortunate that the masses of followers of Dobson and ilk have to take the bad rap with their leaders, but they are responsible for their decisions, and thus for the consequences of them. If they decide to feel “persecuted” because I voice my opposition to them persecuting me, so be it.

The point is, they won’t stop until they have total domination, because they will do WHATEVER their leaders tell them to. That MUST be understood at the outset. No matter how gentle, no matter how loving, no matter how understanding we are, ANY resistence to this goal will be considered persecution.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be all those things in pointing this out, but I am saying that it needs to be pointed out in no-uncertain-terms. If that’s offensive to them, too bad, it’s the truth.

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

... But I wonder how we can justifiably condemn the political expediency of the religious fascists (by which I mean the ease with which the core of the religion slips into propaganda intended to consolidate power in the hands of certain religious leaders), while we also use fear as an expedient means to obtain an objective.

...using means that are slightly morally messy, even if employed toward a moral good, is not a moral good in itself. It can be a rational decision, and I respect that decision if it's made rationally and with full awareness of what one is doing. I have to question that decision if its primary motivation is, "But we have to win."

How is it “using” fear to say that these religious fascists want to rule the world and will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to do it? Saying so may be motivated by fear and anger on my part, but it’s a fact, not a tactic. My point is, there’s no way to dress it up, it’s THAT ugly.

I can possibly add that the followers are just going along with and spreading around and practicing that ugliness as opposed to creating it, but as far as I can see, that’s about it.

The motivation of "but we have to win" is their game. I rarely see that on this side of the issue. I almost want to say that dishonesty and deception is THE distinguishing factor that "our side" makes, whether glbt or liberal altogether.

I do get concerned when I read some of these threads and have trouble distinguishing between the tone here and the tone of some of the breathless hysteria that comes from the far right. To address them in the spirit of non violence (which, after all, is what Soulforce is supposed to be about), we should think twice about becoming like them.

I plead guilty when it comes to the tone you speak of, but there’s a big difference between what that tone is in regard to.

One is based on lies and is designed to incite panic to gain power OVER others.

One is based on truth of-that-fact, and is designed to alert of the dangers of-that-fact, for the purpose retaining and gaining power over our-own lives.

The persecution argument is based on their idea that in order to have control over their own lives, they need to have control over ours.

In the words of Margaret Thatcher, "You don't negotiate with a madman."
(re Sadam, 1st gulf war)

That said, there is still the need to determine whether an individual is truly mad before defining them as such. As I see it, once someone has been alerted to, and understands the gravity of their lies and illogic, and they continue to spread them, that determination has then been made.

At the same time, if you shoot the person who is about to kill your partner or children, that is "expedient" to be sure, but it might not be possible to do any better in that situation. Maybe it isn't possible here to do any better than demonize the religious right (I hate to call them that), but I definitely have a problem with accepting that as a foregone conclusion and not asking any questions about what alternatives exist. Especially on this board... Soulforce stands for something more than achieving a political goal, and I think we should take that challenge seriously.

Maybe I’m not seeing things the way you meant them James, if that’s the case I could use some clarifications. When it comes to getting the point across without sacrificing non-violent tone, you’re a master, and I know you’ve been around enough to know the score in regard to authoritarian hypocrisy and dishonesty, so I’m not trying to justify my sometimes often 'violent' tone.

If I had to pick just one person to make an offensive message as palatable as dessert, it would be you. I think your work with you know who on the UMC should go in the Soulforce archives.

Maybe you’re trying to say that in our quest not to be like them, we also shouldn’t sound like them. I support that, but I do get concerned when the message comes across so “nice” that the point of it is either easily forgotten, or dismissed altogether.

And like I said, you're an expert at maintaining 'nice' without watering down the message. It's a very important, yet tenuous balance, so I'm all ears for suggestions as to how to maintain it.

[Emproph]

Violence of mind is going to happen, and I don't mean in the "foregone conclusion" sense. More like, Life is like a box of decisions between worse and worser, or sinful and more sinful, the lesser of two evils, etc.

It's a fact, and I think that as the adage goes, knowing the problem is half the solution. The real focus necessary seems to be the willing acknowledgment of the magnitude of the challenge at hand. The "out love them" part, the actual "speaking truth in love" part (on our part).

It's insidiously ironic how equally matched we are, I think this is what you were hinting at as far as the need for respect goes.

We are their test by God to ensure that when they face judgement, there will be no doubt as to the responsibility for their deeds. We are the "least of these," yet they can't grasp even the "least" of this concept.

Likewise, they are our test. In that we already know what their test is, yet can't seem to do anything about it – and more importantly – we-don't-know-why!

But the onus is on us, especially us, because not only do we know better, we know that we know better.

This is the difference, and the distinction, and the certitude of which I sometimes speak.

To see Love is to see God. To see how to see Love is to see how God sees us.

That's the fear dissolving understanding that provides us with the certitude that we need to expose the ugliness of their truth – in love.

But seeing as I'm already "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore," somebody is going to have to help me to see the appeal of being nice about my expression of that.

[dewdrop_world]

Hi Emproph -- much to chew on in your posts. Unfortunately I'm going to be pretty busy in the next few days, but I will definitely mull your points over.

I don't consider my views to be complete or finished... I'm just expressing where I am but of course that is open to change where needed.

Thanks!
James

[ladyinred]

I think the problem and the reason why so many people are offended and enraged by the religious right, is that they don't compromise, it is all or nothing with them.You either see things our way or you are going to hell. This is particularly a sensitive issue with GLBT people because again according to the right's interpretation we are going to hell if we don't change our ways.. Again this is often a no -win situation with GLBT people who are often frustrated because you cannot bargain with these people.

They won't settle for anything less than denying us our basic human rights. They won't just be satisfied to deny us the right to marry , they want to undermine legislation that would protect us and would deny us basically everything. They won't settle for a live and let live attitude, and just accept GLBT people , they are dogged in trying to convert us into a heterosexual lifestyle, to mold us into their image and make us into what they want us to be.

You can't dialogue or reason alot of times with these people because again they take,"the it's my way or the highway approach."We just know you need to be saved. And they assume like God they are in the position to "save". What choice do GLBT people have other than to stand up and try to protect their rights?

Who wants to be in a we win you lose situation? No one wants to be bullied and intimidated. Would there be a issue about homosexuality if the right had not decided to go to war with those in the GLBT community?Would it be such a big deal?

But what do you do when people accuse you of everything conceivably wrong and claim that homosexuals are out to threaten their way of life and their families even if it is not true? What course of action do you choose? How can there be any solutions or compromise when another side simply does not want to work through disagreements and try to break down the barriers or see the other side's perspective.

What if no matter what you do to try to break down those barriers and try to communicate to them, they do not want to see the other side and they've already made up their mind that we are wrong and they are right.Perhaps it is better to take our appeal to the public instead of hoping that those in leadership of the masses will change and see the "light".

I don't think an offensive would work against those in the right, it would make them more determined to fight back and would just confirm to them that there is an gay agenda and that they are "victims." They seem to relish the victim role ,it makes them look like they are so put upon and maligned.They are the modern day martyrs and crusaders so to speak..and basically launched their own holy war on America as a whole..

If it's not abortion, it's gay rights, if it's not gay rights, it's those "militant" feminists who want equal rights for women, if it's not that ,it's single moms, working mothers , separation of church and state, another religion or other Christians who don't share their world view; some other "threat" they see to their sense of idenity. Everyone who does not join them or agree with them is the "enemy" and they as they have so often said are in a war with the "enemy" and will stop at nothing to defeat those real or perceived enemies in anyway they can.

I personally cannot fathom a world such as this. It seems there is no room for tolerance, understanding, open mindedness and dialogue.I can't imagine setting the world stage in my mind where everyone else is the enemy and wrong no matter what, and I can't see another perspective or another's view other than my own as correct.People come from different backgrounds and often have a unique perspective of their own.Mine might seem correct to me, but what seems correct from my view point might be seen differently from another perspective. And I feel I have alot to learn from other people too. They can share their personal experiences and their ideas and insights as well.

[revtj]

Radical activists are continuing to force their destructive agenda upon America.
This is why AFM's broad-based movement - now expanding to through our Marriage
Protection Caucus (tm) to state legislators in every state - is so critically
necessary. Thanks to generous friends like you, AFM's mission to preserve the
common-sense definition of marriage for all Americans couldn't be stronger.
Thank you for your continuing support.

Matt Daniels, J.D., Ph.D.

Founder and President, Alliance For Marriage

http://www.afmusa.org

I rec'd this email signature from someone who wanted me to see another example of how the right sees themselves as "being forced" and the left has abandoned "common sense."

So, asking for equality under the law is tantamount to "forcing" our destructive agenda and abandoning common sense?

Who is the real victim here?

[Daniel]

James- your earlier post on this thread reminded me of a phrase a counselor friend introduced me to years ago.

What you resist persists.

That's what I hear you saying. The idea being that the more one attacks or resists a foe or enemy, the more one empowers them. At first blush, this sounds like something out of the Tao of War or Ko Imani's The Shirt of Flame. I think it's hard for our Western minds to wrap around concepts like this: we're so used to thinking in dualistic terms. And that's where the 'argument' seems trapped. Two sides fighting for the same air which everyone is breathing.

The phrase above also echoes a similar one in A Course in Miracles.

Truth needs no Defense.

Now there's a kicker! It's engineered to turn one's head inside out, that's for sure. To me, it encapsulates the whole idea of 'out loving' one's adversaries, because, if one has nothing to defend (a great reason to come out btw), there is nothing to do but love.

I think this takes great inner strength and self-love. A real know-thy-self moment.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Truth needs no Defense.

Now there's a kicker! It's engineered to turn one's head inside out, that's for sure. To me, it encapsulates the whole idea of 'out loving' one's adversaries, because, if one has nothing to defend (a great reason to come out btw), there is nothing to do but love.

I think this takes great inner strength and self-love. A real know-thy-self moment.

this is an excellent reason to come out. I hid in my closet for years, I'm telling you, YEARS. When I finally came out, owned up to who I really am, and then claimed it, there was nothing left but love. Love for myself and others. I had given the fear too much power, and most of that power was over me. There were a few people who wanted to use this fear against me, and they tried to discredit me by outting me to everyone they talked to; instead, that "truth" about me freed me, and ended up discrediting those who wanted to injure me. Truth does not need defense. I've lived that one in my own life.

[ladyinred]

Wouldn't it be "nice if people could coexist peacefully? Ok, what I'm reading on some of these anti-gay sites is they have the impression that the homosexual lifestyle is being force fed to them like bad medicine ,that those in the GLBT community want to come in and force the acceptance of the Gay lifestyle.. Come into the schools and force others to accept homosexuality as a norm. And they in turn are shouting they don't want to be forced to accept anything.I personally want to say that we can't force people to do anything.

But I don't know what the solutions are, perhaps a calm dialogue and more rational heads should prevail to help disolve the fears that there is some conspiracy against them to undermine their rights and way of life.

I also think that those in the GLBT community may take a defensive stance because in alot of ways they have legitimate concerns about violence ,hate and discrimination being directed at them. They too also feel that a heterosexual agenda is being forced down their throats and again force fed to them like bitter medicine. On top of that being told over and over they will go to hell (Ad nauseum as Kara put it) Do they do this to straight people who divorce , or commit adultery, or have premarital sex I wonder? I think in many ways GLBT people see hypocrisy and a double standard here as well. Some "sins" seem more acceptable and even conveniently overlooked and excused.While others like homosexuality (In the opposition's view, is a sure ticket to hell) Personally I think they should focus on their own relationships and families and stop worrying about ours (My opinion)

But what do we do?
Perhaps some words I've read in a buddhist book might provide some insight," Force begets resistance while dialogue begets assistance" I don't know if we can always change others minds, but what about a dialogue that would address the concerns and fears of the other side? Perhaps this has already been tried, I don't know..

[Emproph]

Joe just turned me on to this.

It was a worthy read:

The nonviolent life has many dimensions and steps. Four of these steps are:

• Centering ourselves;
• Articulating and sharing our piece of the truth;
• Receiving the other’s piece of the truth; and
• Agreeing on a new way.

Center, Articulate, Receive, and Agree – CARA, for short – is a process for engaging the world and its inhabitants nonviolently.

This is not always easy. That is why we need to learn and consciously choose to use this process, over and over.

That pretty much covers the 'magnitude' of the challenge, and I know you've mentioned that before James, at least the part in bold.

In addition to that, I just love how this covers all bases/contexts:

Putting each of the following steps into practice can be simple or complex. It will often require ingenuity and persistence and allies, especially where no level playing field exists – that is, where there are power differences between the parties. It can be carried out in a moment, or it can take years. It can be used in interpersonal conflicts, and it can be used in the process of arduous social change.

And that was just part of the intro. Given the intensity of its message I think it's a pretty easy read.

I have work to do...

[Daniel]

Patrick- Thanks for your post as well as the insight and infor. Great stuff!

[ladyinred]

Let's look at nonviolence , again I brought up the question how to address the fears and concerns of the other side. I think we will have to appeal to public opinion rather than the leaders of the church, because so far, there seems to be little success in changing their minds.Unfortunately people are being spoon fed propaganda by their leaders that the main agenda of GLBT people is trying to destroy their marriages and families and wanting special rights for themselves.How do we counter this?

This is where I think we have a role in helping people see that we are not trying to undermine the institution of marriage between a man and wife and that we respect their families and decisions,and by stating however, we want the same respect and consideration for ours. How do we do this without appearing to demonize them?

How do we present our case without being perceived as attacking their families and their way of life? Some questions I thought I might bring up and thought you might want to think about.The less people have to fear about us the better.They then may be able to change their minds and perhaps say,"Hey,let's take a second look at this."

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by ladyinred

Let's look at nonviolence , again I brought up the question how to address the fears and concerns of the other side. I think we will have to appeal to public opinion rather than the leaders of the church, because so far, there seems to be little success in changing their minds.Unfortunately people are being spoon fed propaganda by their leaders that the main agenda of GLBT people is trying to destroy their marriages and families and wanting special rights for themselves.How do we counter this?

This is where I think we have a role in helping people see that we are not trying to undermine the institution of marriage between a man and wife and that we respect their families and decisions,and by stating however, we want the same respect and consideration for ours. How do we do this without appearing to demonize them?

How do we present our case without being perceived as attacking their families and their way of life? Some questions I thought I might bring up and thought you might want to think about.The less people have to fear about us the better.They then may be able to change their minds and perhaps say,"Hey,let's take a second look at this."

How? Very carefully. . . , I guess??

I worked the polls on election day (the day we defeated the marriage amendment here.) A woman came out after voting and screamed at me incessantly for a while. In between her shouting I would begin to explain again what the proposition would do, and she was utterly convinced it would NOT do the (malicious) things it would have done.
I was writing her off for nothing but a lunatic, since there is no way that after reading the amendment anyone wouldn't know that it said right in the proposition that it would have those effects, and it was only as she got into her car across the parking lot (still screaming invective at me from across the parking lot) that it finally dawned on me: She never read the amendment. She didn't know what it said. Someone she trusted, like a pastor perhaps, lied to her and TOLD her the amendment wouldn't do all those nasty things, and she believed him automatically. Which explains why she thought *I* was lying, and unfortunately, her belief that I was lying "proved" to me that she was a raving lunatic. All thanks to whoever LIED TO HER.

Taking what I learned from that exchange, I see two things necessary:
1. we have to acknowledge that many of those opposing us have been lied to by someone they trust and that they don't have the appropriate information
and
2. They need to be willing to stop screaming long enough to listen to us and/or research the information objectively for themselves.

We can control #1 but obviously not #2.

[Emproph]

Are we really asking whether or not we should tell them, point blank, that they are wrong?

[dewdrop_world]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Are we really asking whether or not we should tell them, point blank, that they are wrong?

Well, I certainly don't mean to suggest that. But I think you also have to consider the focus of your energy.

I don't know about you, but if somebody comes up to me and says, no, you're totally wrong, my immediate reaction is, "Well, who do you think you are?" And then the conversation is over.

That isn't what I want to accomplish when I talk with conservative Christians. So, the goal of "proving them wrong" has to go way to the back burner. In fact, I feel for myself that I have to forget about it altogether. It is more important to me to share of myself, present another viewpoint, regardless of the outcome I can see (which may be only the immediate, surface impact). If I feel the conversation is successful only if I can convince the other person of my views, well, that isn't going to happen very often in the short term, so I'm only setting myself up to get discouraged. If, on the other hand, I see it as successful merely to humiliate the other person and belittle her views, that's pretty easy to do but it accomplishes nothing of value in the long term. I would be setting the bar too low.

For me, to confront the "opposition" doesn't mean trying to expose the falsehood in their beliefs. That might happen indirectly as a result of the conversation, but it isn't what I actively set out to do. My ideal is Socratic (although I fall short of that more often than I care to admit) -- to lead, slowly, gently, through non-aggressive questions, to the conclusion that would be hard (or impossible) for the other person to accept if I just asserted it without preparation.

It has a shadow side, of course. If undertaken with the wrong mindset, the Socratic method can be duplicitous and manipulative -- which is why I see it as fundamentally a process of spiritual growth, not a forensic or political objective. It doesn't work if you don't mean exactly what you're saying -- if the questions are not honestly meant to encourage the other to grow.

Emproph, I also learn a lot from your posts. You've identified a lot of aspects of the decadent form of modern conservatism that I wouldn't have thought of -- valuable knowledge to have! I feel my task is to apply that knowledge in a different form.

James

[revtj]

This is shocking

"It's only going to get worse against Christians. We're going to get persecuted more and more. But those who stand to the end: God is going to save them."

~ campus protestor

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

For me, to confront the "opposition" doesn't mean trying to expose the falsehood in their beliefs. That might happen indirectly as a result of the conversation, but it isn't what I actively set out to do. My ideal is Socratic (although I fall short of that more often than I care to admit) -- to lead, slowly, gently, through non-aggressive questions, to the conclusion that would be hard (or impossible) for the other person to accept if I just asserted it without preparation.

It has a shadow side, of course. If undertaken with the wrong mindset, the Socratic method can be duplicitous and manipulative -- which is why I see it as fundamentally a process of spiritual growth, not a forensic or political objective. It doesn't work if you don't mean exactly what you're saying -- if the questions are not honestly meant to encourage the other to grow.\

James- thanks for this post. I'm sorry I missed it yesterday. Your thoughts are extremely helpful as well as illuminating. Your words- and those of Patrick and Joe- are making for an interesting 'review', one well worth having.

[Alecto]

I think it's worth recognizing (and, I'll admit, Soulforce as an organization does not and disagrees with me, so this is just my worldview) that there ARE a great many people who are reasonable people, and will listen to reason. Especially if it's presented to them gently (as soulforce tries to do; though I'm sure some people have issues with their definition of "gentle"; I do not). Through respectful dialogue, and not pounding out the studies etc. But there's these OTHER people who will not see reason. Because they do not WANT to have to question their views (and who does?). The problem is, though, while I completely recognize the insecurity involved, I don't know how to talk to people like that reasonably (so I usually don't). There's other people, I'm sure, who are theoretically reasonable but dishonest (I have no doubts that some of the big names take on homophobic views not because they care all that much, but because they can get other people to care. This gets them access to money and power, put bluntly). I'm sure there's other reasons people won't hear rational arguments, but that only proves my point more: there are some people for whom the ONLY view I want to convince them of is to "agree to disagree"; live and let live. Maybe I'm in the wrong for seeing that as uncompromisable, but the alternative is someone else dictating and legislating and dehumanizing my life, and I'm not ok with that.

I think that the work Soulforce does is unbelievably important, because I think it's pretty much the only way to reach the reasonable people. And I DO think it's important to assume that people are reasonable until they prove otherwise. But some people aren't, and I guess I'm just saying I don't know how to deal with that. (I swear this started out as related to the thread).