From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: Re: South asians and conservatism
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:03:06 GMT

(Kannan Subramanian) writes:
>(Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>If Republicans think Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson are their leaders
>>and cheer them on as they lay waste any tolerance their party has
>>had, then they must be willing to face the consequences this holy
>>association brings. 
>
>Sure. But the point is that it is only in _your_ assessment that this 
>association is harmful. It is _your_ judgement as a person with more 
>left-wing views that their shrill cries are those of intolerance. Grant
>them their premises and you will find they have their own reasons to 
>believe what they do within their frameworks.  

Oh, come now! Let us not in our discourse grant personal legitimacy
to all schools of thought. Being a liberal does not mean one has to
acknolwedge the legitimacy of all schools of thought. I am viscerally
opposed to child abuse, racist acts and religious fanaticism and
the violence that usually comes with it. I am sorry, but I cannot
grant them the premises and I find their reasoning flawed. OK, but do
I support their right to speak (an old cliche, but is required for
the flow of thought) - you bet. I will speak out against them and against
all those other 'fools' who patronize them. Are you not similarly
opposed to certain pholosophies; I bet you are not intellectually
bland to say "I like all ideas the same for I have no feelings 
myself."  
>
>You are free to condemn them but watch out for the shrillness of your own 
>voice. Invest in a shrillness measuring device and then go back and ask 
>yourself if you are any less intolerant of their views as they are of 
>yours. And while at it, ask yourself what it really means to be liberal. 
>(I am not making any presumptions about you here - I am in the middle of 
>such an introspection, myself).  
>
Yes, I am highly intolerant of certain things in life, religous
fanaticism and child abuse being two examples. Pat Robertson was
right that there is a religious war in the country. The war
between fundamentalist christians and secular thinkers. Now, from
a very high point of intellectual abstraction, both of these are
schools of thought with no intrinsic merit at all. And the 
proponents of both of these thoughts are fighting for the minds of
the countrymen. If the dialectic is framed thusly, I perhaps am
as intolerant as Pat Robertson. Extending it further, there is
nothing intrinsically good about either tolerance or intolerance;
they are just two schools of thought. It will be like a Minnesota
prairie on a December afternoon. No hue, no contrast, just endless
stretches of white.

Which is perhaps not your intent.

>This is not only unfair to sane and sensible Republicans, but a roadblock
>to your own tolerance. Two "Pats" do not a Republican Party make! It is very 
>tempting to assert one's liberal leanings by condemning the far right without 
>mercy. If, in so doing, one drives oneself to believe that these (quote) 
>fanatic idiots (unquote) must in fact be prevented from speaking their 
>minds and airing their agendas, what is the difference between you and 
>some Church in medieval Europe that condemned Galileo for airing his views? 
>
OK, do Pats have the right to free speech? Yes. Do they have the right
to address the country from the Republican convention? No. It is a
privilege bestowed upon them by Bush. Then Bush and his cronies must
face up to the reaction these fellows evoke across the land and pay
the price of this association. Galileo was not allowed to speak at all. I 
have no problems with the Pats standing on a street corner and shouting
their pious lungs off. Actually Robertson has a TV channel. I have
absolutely no problem with that nor do I call in my donation. The
analogy, dear Vikrama, is absolutely flawed. Your car will stop cold
on the highway unless you provide a confession.

Satya Prabhakr 

Satya Prabhakar