Subject: Re: Gritz - Mormon officials warn against his teachings

From: [email-masked] (Steve Crocker)
Date: 5 Dec 1992 10:16:36 GMT

[email-masked] (Seth Bradley) writes:

>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] 
>(Steve Crocker) writes:

>>groups having racist and/or anti-semetic views. In fact its opening 
>>lines provide a summary of the analytical method applied throughout.
>>"Lie down with dogs - get up with fleas". In other words, guilt by
>>association.
>>Do you have anything better than this to support your claim?

>Gritz is a politician - not some John Doe off of the street.  If you
>feel that the nature of the organizations he has associated himself
>with have no bearing whatsoever on his own views, then the only

The organiztions one associates with may or may not indicate one's
views. By themselves, they are certainly not valid evidence of these
views.

>other explanation that makes sense is that he knows nothing of the
>nature of those organizations, and also that he is tremendously naive
>politically.  A politician is known by the company he keeps.  Would
>a conservative republican have much credibility if he was known 
>to associate with the American Communist Party?  To deny that Gritz
>favors the policies of the extremist groups he has associated himself
>with smacks of apologetics, IMHO.

Seth, all that you are really saying here is that guilt by association 
is a commonly accepted standard within politics today. Sad but true. 
However that doesn't make it right. The fact of the matter is that a 
politician or political activist, by reason of the necessity to form
alliances and build coalitions, is MORE likely, not less, than the rest
of us to find themself in association with those whose views they do 
not share. ("Politics make strange bedfellows") In the anti-war movement, 
for example, liberals marched alongside Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, 
and Anarchists with a common purpose. How many of the young radicals who 
went "Clean for Gene" really supported Gene McCarthy's brand of liberalism?
Rather, they worked for him as the way they saw to get a job done - the 
job of stopping the war. Now Col. Gritz is trying to get a job done - the
restoration of Constitutional government and "Christian" (more accurately
Judeao-Christian) values in the U.S. To do this he is going to have to
mobilize support from diverse constituencies, who may hold racist views
as well as endorsing Gritz's agenda. 

To give a personal example, I endorse the work of the Christic Institute
in exposing the "secret government" and deplore the manner in which a 
corrupt court has used excessive fines to silence them. Christic also 
happens to oppose the spread of nuclear power. My own view is that 
opposition to nuclear power is the practical equivalent of advocating 
genocide, given the pressing need for this and related technologies to 
help alleviate the plight of the third world. Should anyone assume that 
because I speak well of Christic and support their activities in certain 
areas that I must therefore share their anti-nuclear views? How dumb! 
But this is EXACTLY the kind of argument the P.A.R.T. brief makes with 
respect to Gritz and HIS alliances.

-Steve

---

From: [email-masked] (Brad Pierce)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 92 15:51:50 GMT

>as well as endorsing Gritz's agenda. 

Why do you think "Judeo-Christian" is more accurate than "Christian"
in the context of Bo Gritz?

-- Brad Pierce --