DEATH CAME TO CHURCH ONE DAY
Organizational violence stalks the devout
An analysis of the Brookfield, Wisconsin Church shooting
By Larry J. Chavez, BA, MPA
Updated: 3/20/2005 2:05 p.m.

On Saturday, March 12, 2005, Terry Ratzmann fired a volley of bullets into members of his congregation during a service of the Living Church of God in Brookfield, Wisconsin. He killed 7 and wounded 4 before turning the gun on himself. The entire incident was over in one minute. This very sad case was not much different than other instances of organizational violence that have occurred across the country.

It is clear from the press statements of those who knew Terry Ratzmann best say that he wanted, more than anything, to have a normal life. To Ratzmann, this meant being gainfully employed and having a family of his own. Terry Ratzmann, at age 44, had neither.

FACING LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT

Frustrating Ratzmann’s efforts toward a normal life was the loss of his job at Quest Technologies in March 2002. Being low in seniority, Ratzmann was one of the first to be laid off when the job crunch occurred following the events of September 11, 2001. Ratzmann then resorted to an employment agency, Adecco, who placed him in a computer technology job with GE Health Care. But, according to news accounts, the contract with Adecco and GE Health Care was on the verge of expiring. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/309633.asp)

NORMAL FAMILY LIFE ELUDED TERRY RATZMANN

Another source of pain in Ratzmann’s life, according to witnesses, was that he, at age 44, was without a mate therefore without the normal family life he desired. Ratzmann made every effort to seek out a mate within the strict rules of his church that, according to church members, discouraged seeking mates from outside the congregation. This was a further source of depression for Ratzmann.

“The 44-year-old Ratzmann would use the church's annual ‘Feast of Tabernacles’ in September or October to meet and possibly find a mate at different celebrations around the country, said Chandra Frazier of Milwaukee. ‘He would go from feast site to feast site to see if he could find someone interested in him,’ but apparently did not, said Frazier. ‘It was kind of sad,’ she said. ‘He was doing it to find a wife.’“ (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/309994.asp)

“Because local congregations are small - the Milwaukee-area group has about 80 members - dating other church members effectively is limited to the ‘Festival of Tabernacles,’ when singles can meet each other, she (Chandra Frazier) said. Dating non-church members is discouraged.” (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/309994.asp)

“Being single was one sore point for Ratzmann, who lacked social skills,’ Patrick said. Patrick and others said the church does not allow its members to date non-members, making its group for singles, in effect, the sole pool from which to draw prospective mates. He's a single guy. You can't date anyone out of the church, and you're in a church of 80 people where the members are 50 years and up,’ Patrick said. ‘Not a good situation.’” (Statement of acquaintance David Patrick of Versailles, Kentucky from the March 14, 2005, edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

“Ratzmann's failure to find a wife or girlfriend caused him much pain in recent years, local church members Mark and Natalie Lorenz said Tuesday. Neither could recall a time when Ratzmann was dating. "He wanted a wife in the worst way," Mark Lorenz said. That was depressing for Ratzmann, especially in a church that places so much focus on family and marriage, Mark Lorenz said,” in a statement of friends Mark and Natalie Lorenz. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/309994.asp)

RATZMANN’S DEPRESSION WAS WELL KNOWN

A number of members of the congregation knew that Ratzmann had periods of deep depression wherein he would withdraw from those closest to him cutting off communication. The church hierarchy also knew that but, with a philosophy that “people’s problems are of their own doing,” it is easy to see that little if anything was done to assist Ratzmann when he needed it the most. At the time Ratzmann needed counseling the most, it was not forthcoming. According to a witnesses in the church,

“The Living Church of God is not the kind of system where you could get counseling and get help...” (quote of David Patrick of Versailles, Kentucky, an acquaintance of Ratzmann, from the March 14, 2005, edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel).

Another church member, Chandra Frazier said in a recent article,

“It was well-known in the local congregation that Ratzmann suffered from depression, Frazier said. But she said church teachings strongly discourage members from consulting with psychiatrists or other therapists to deal with emotional problems. The church similarly frowns on the use of mood-altering medications, especially more powerful anti-psychotic drugs, said Frazier, believing they ‘weaken your mind’ and make one ‘susceptible to demons,’ she said.” (Quote of Chandra Frazier of Milwaukee, an acquaintance of Ratzmann, from the March 14, 2005, edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel).

“’I can't say that the church's teachings were the lone factor that caused the rampage, but I'm certain that it was a variable,’ said Frazier, who said she was so rattled that she has decided to leave the church. ‘The church does not allow people to seek out help with psychotherapy and psychotherapists, because they say it's the devil's work. So, we have a lot of people like Terry in the church who are denying their problems instead of getting the help they need,’” Frazier said. ("Church role in shootings questioned" Chicago Tribune, March 17, 2005)

"I submit it's a miracle this guy lasted as long as he did," the spokesman, Thomas Geiger, said in an interview…”Although Ratzmann, 44, went through what Geiger called a ‘bout’ of suicidal depression, he said church members generally felt that Ratzmann's tendency toward depression wasn't that serious.” (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/310250.asp)

THE PAINFUL WORDS OF THE FEBRUARY 26 SERMON

On February 26, in the last church service that Ratzmann attended prior to the shooting incident, he listened to a pre-recorded sermon that said, in pertinent part, that “peoples' problems are of their own doing,” Ratzmann was assigned to give the closing prayer on this occasion, an obligation he never refused.

“In that Feb. 26 service, a taped sermon focused on how bad fortune befalls those who make ungodly choices, according to a parishioner who was there and had known Ratzmann for years.” (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/309634.asp)

"Your problem is you're not praying enough, fasting enough, serving enough," David Patrick summarized the church's message as saying.” (Statement of acquaintance David Patrick of Versailles, Kentucky from the March 14, 2005, editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
“Those closest to Ratzmann saw him abruptly and angrily storm out of the church upon hearing the words of this particular sermon on February 26.” (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/309634.asp).

Police Captain Horter said Ratzmann had given the closing prayer before and had left a service early, but witnesses said he had never walked out on his obligation to give the prayer. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/309634.asp)

MISSED CHURCH SERVICE THE FOLLOWING WEEK
“Uncharacteristic of Terry Ratzmann”

The church met every Saturday. Terry Ratzmann, uncharacteristically missed the March 5th church service, the week following the February 26 meeting in which he walked out.

“…She (Ella Frazier) found it strange when Ratzmann, who attended services conscientiously, didn't show up (for the March 5 service) …” (http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar05/309366.asp)

Unusual: “Ratzmann did not come to the March 5 service, parishioners said. He came early on Saturday, but then left, and police aren't sure why,” Police Captain Phil Horter said. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/309634.asp)

Ratzmann was so conscientious about church attendance that he actually turned down an invitation to the wedding of his neighbor Shane Colwell. "…We invited him and his mother to our wedding, and he said he couldn't make it, he had to go to church on Saturday," he said. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/309178.asp)

PRIOR TO THE SHOOTING

Terry Ratzmann received a painful reminder of the events February 26. A local spokesman for the Living Church of God, Thomas Geiger commented on something that occurred just prior to the church service on the morning of the massacre, something that appeared to adversely affect Terry Ratzmann. This was Ratzmann’s first contact with the congregation since walking out angrily on the February 26 meeting two weeks earlier. On this occasion, Thomas Geiger’s sister approached Ratzmann just prior to the March 12 service.

“Ratzmann arrived at a Brookfield hotel before his church's service Saturday, carrying a Bible in a briefcase and speaking to fellow parishioners,” (authorities revealed). (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/309634.asp)

“Geiger said Ratzmann did react inappropriately to a joking comment made by his (Geiger's) sister before Saturday's service, in which she teased him about having walked out early Feb. 26. Ratzmann's face reddened, his jaw clenched and he turned away without saying anything, Geiger said.” (Statement of Thomas Geiger, from an interview, by Steve Schultze, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 16, 2005)

“Ratzmann left for home, where he apparently exchanged his Bible for his Beretta 9mm handgun and plenty of ammunition. He returned to the hotel wearing dark sunglasses,” police revealed. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/309634.asp)

“Ratzmann was wearing black sunglasses. When Earnest (Frazier) said hello, Ratzmann grunted and brushed past him (in the hallway outside the meeting room). He didn't take a seat near the Fraziers (where he usually sat) when the service began. He (Ratzmann) didn't take any seat.” This was the statement of Ella Frazier whose husband Earnest encountered Ratzmann in the hallway. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar05/309366.asp)

THE INCIDENT

“Ratzmann walked in 20 minutes late, stood in the back of room and began firing a 9mm handgun. It was pandemonium," said Ella, 61, who dropped to the floor when she realized what was happening. "I looked back and saw the gun and the black sunglasses. The gunshots kept exploding." (http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar05/309366.asp)

“Ratzmann, who reloaded during the shooting, apparently deliberately shot at Pastor Randy Gregory, his wife and his 16-year-old son. The pastor and his son James, both of Gurnee, Ill., were killed. His wife, Marjean, was sounded.” (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/309634.asp)

A minute later, silence. After firing 21 rounds at others, Ratzmann had turned the gun on himself. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar05/309366.asp)

Tragically, the woman (Thomas Geiger’s sister) who teased Terry Ratzmann prior to the incident, lost her 15-year-old son in the shooting that followed. (Source: conversation with a JSOnline staff writer)

OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

In Ratzmann’s mind, he did everything he could to accomplish his goals in life within the limits of his church’s rules and teachings and he still continued to flounder. Ratzmann probably viewed the words of the February 26 sermon as particularly harsh, insensitive and even insulting. It was like rubbing salt in his wounds. Ratzmann left without giving the closing prayer he was assigned. It was probably at this point that Ratzmann’s depression transitioned into anger and animosity toward church officials. The teasing Ratzmann received by Thomas Gieger’s sister on the morning of the incident , served to reinforce his animosity toward church officials and their families. Ratzmann reacted to the comment with a reddened face and clenched jaw.

It does not appear that Ratzman’s impending loss of employment played the largest part in the overall circumstances. Even though the contract for his current job was due to expire, it was not unusual for the contract to be renewed. The predominant factor leading to the fatal outcome appeared to be Terry Ratzmann’s relationship with church officials.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND ISSUES
No counseling when he needed it the most

A number of members of the congregation knew that Ratzmann had periods of deep depression wherein he would withdraw from those closest to him and cut off communication. The church hierarchy also knew that but, with a philosophy that “people’s problems are of their own doing,” it is easy to see that little if anything was done to assist Ratzmann when he needed it the most. At the time Ratzmann needed counseling the most, it was not forthcoming. According to a witness in the church,

“The Living Church of God is not the kind of system where you could get counseling and get help...” (quote of David Patrick of Versailles, Kentucky, an acquaintance of Ratzmann, from the March 14, 2005, edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel).

Another church member, Chandra Frazier said in a recent article,

“It was well-known in the local congregation that Ratzmann suffered from depression, Frazier said. But she said church teachings strongly discourage members from consulting with psychiatrists or other therapists to deal with emotional problems. The church similarly frowns on the use of mood-altering medications, especially more powerful anti-psychotic drugs, said Frazier, believing they ‘weaken your mind’ and make one ‘susceptible to demons,’ she said.” (Quote of Chandra Frazier of Milwaukee, an acquaintance of Ratzmann, from the March 14, 2005, edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel).

“’I can't say that the church's teachings were the lone factor that caused the rampage, but I'm certain that it was a variable,’ said Frazier, who said she was so rattled that she has decided to leave the church. ‘The church does not allow people to seek out help with psychotherapy and psychotherapists, because they say it's the devil's work. So, we have a lot of people like Terry in the church who are denying their problems instead of getting the help they need,’” Frazier said. ("Church role in shootings questioned" Chicago Tribune, March 17, 2005)

"I submit it's a miracle this guy lasted as long as he did," the spokesman, Thomas Geiger, said in an interview…”Although Ratzmann, 44, went through what Geiger called a ‘bout’ of suicidal depression, he said church members generally felt that Ratzmann's tendency toward depression wasn't that serious.” (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/310250.asp)

THE CHURCH’S VIEW

Could Terry Ratzman have looked to his church and its leadership for direction and proper counsel?
The leadership of The Living Church of God did not view the Ratzmann’s rampage as caused event, the product of depression brought about by Ratzmann’s impending loss of employment coupled with frustration due to his inability to find a life partner within the confines of church norms. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar05/310560.asp)
“A Living Church of God leader said in Milwaukee Thursday that Terry Ratzmann's killing spree was a satanic act performed by a normally friendly man…. Walking in and blindly shooting people - is that satanic? Is that evil? Of course, it is," said John Ogwyn, a minister and spokesman for the 7,000-member church.” “He said the church believes in the existence of God, angels, Satan and demons.” (http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar05/310560.asp)
Outspoken church members Chandra Frazier and David Patrick, spoke with reason when they commented that Terry Ratzmann could not get help within the confines of the Living Church of God. They would not agree with their church hierarchy that Ratzmann was possessed by deamons. Instead, they would likely attribute Ratzmann’s act to the result of chronic depression and anger brought about by years of unresolved personal problems
“Ogwyn used Thursday's appearance to counter comments from some local members of the church (Frazier and Patrick) who said members were discouraged from seeking secular treatment for emotional problems. Psychiatric counseling ‘certainly has its place,’ Ogwyn said, and is not banned by the church. The church also has no ban on medication,” he said. “Local members have said those with emotional problems are told to consult first with the local pastor.” (http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar05/310560.asp) Ogwyn’s comments appear to be “damage control” in the wake of the incident and poor damage control at that.

.RATZMANN’S REVENGE

Ratzman clearly viewed the leaders of his congregation as those most responsible for his plight. It probably caused him pain to see the church hierarchy enjoying “normal” lives with their own families while at the same time conveying to him, through the February 26 sermon, that he (Ratzmann) was the source of his own problems. Ratzmann chose to get even and chose to kill the congregation’s leaders and their family members before turning the gun on himself. Ratzmann sought out those specific church officials for execution although stray bullets killed and wounded other individuals. This targeting of individuals is characteristic of most organizational violence cases that have occurred across the country discounting any contention that this is “random violence.”

THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR KILLING RESTS WITH THE KILLER
BUT SOMETIMES THERE ARE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

No one doubts that Terry Ratzmann bears the ultimate responsibility for the carnage that occurred that day. It was he who made the conscious decision to deliver death to the congregation instead of the final prayer that he was assigned to recite. But in the mind of the very depressed Terry Ratzmann, it was the church leaders who were obstacles to his happiness as well as being the source of his problems. We know that because Ratzmann chose to target those individuals as well as their families. In essence, if Terry Ratzmann was going to be deprived of a happy life, so were they.

What could Terry Ratzmann have done differently? He could have chosen a course of action other than violence. It is very likely that there were other members of the congregation who suffered from extreme depression but who chose to deal with it in way that did not involve violence.

· Had Ratzmann ignored the rules of his church and sought professional counseling for his depression, he would have been better off, but he might have had to face negative sanctions from the church hierarchy. Apparently Ratzmann was not willing to do that.

· If Ratzmann would have ignored church rules and gone outside the congregation to find a spouse, he would have satisfied that aspect of his life, but again, he may have had to face negative sanctions of the church hierarchy. Ratzmann made the conscious choice to adhere to the strict and perhaps unreasonable rules of his church. Why? Because Ratzmann, being a member of this congregation for thirty years beginning at the impressionable age of fourteen, probably found it impossible to abandon the teachings of the only faith he knew.

What could the church have done differently? It would have been an act of humanity and compassion for church officials to have offered Ratzmann counseling or to at least encourage him to seek treatment outside the church if it was needed. Congregation members who knew Terry Ratzmann best said the church discouraged seeking psychological help outside the church. Church leadership says that’s not the case. The church leadership should have established an atmosphere that made this acceptable. Once established, those who had intimate knowledge of Ratzmann’s depression could have encouraged their friend Terry Ratzmann to seek counseling before his depression became overwhelming. But there was no indication that church officials offered or even encouraged Ratzmann to do so, lending credibility to the press accounts of church members Chandra Frazier and David Patrick, who commented that the church discouraged psychological treatment and the taking of medication.

Knowing that having a family is a basic human need, church officials should have allowed and even encouraged its members to go outside the church if necessary to seek out and find a life partner. Knowing that Ratzmann was concerned about this issue specifically, church officials should have counseled him and given him encouragement in seeking out a mate in the fulfillment of this basic human need. Thereafter, they should have offered their blessing and acceptance of the person with whom Ratzmann chose to share his life. That is, after all, what churches are supposed to be all about.

We know that Terry Ratzmann made the conscious choice to target and kill church officials although others were killed or wounded because they were in the line of fire. No one would question that the ultimate responsibility for killing rests with the killer. But reasonable people can see that organizations can certainly contribute to a horrifying outcome by things they do or neglect to do.

Copyright 2005, Critical Incident Associates

Rob Keeney,

Thank you for your intelligent comments!

I didn't know that the LCG did not give counseling..that is unsettling. In my church, there is plenty of counseling available, and when necessary, it is advised to seek professional help. I attend a Church of God, International congregation. I also suffer from Bipolar Disorder as well. I counsel with my minister or deacon sometimes, as well as see a doctor regularly for medication.

What really gets me, is that his own family didn't help him. He'd lived with his family all of his life, so it would be assumed that at least they would know what was going on.

I'm no fan of Herbert W., since I never really read any of his stuff. My knowledge came from God, not from a man.

I do think that Ratzmann, since apparently, he was converted, was so wrapped up in his own troubles, that he let it overwhelm him to the point that he wanted to blame everyone but himself.

It is difficult to find someone of your own faith, but I think that if he had truly trusted in the Lord, sought outside help for his problems, that he would still be alive today, and so would the others that he killed. Plus, he would have had that mate that he wanted. His mental state allowed Satan to take over, which he did unfortunately.

People tend to forget that we fight against principalities and forces in this world that are not of God, but are of Satan. Satan does not want to see any of God's children succeed and get into the Kingdom. Satan knows his time is short, therefore, he will take down as many people as he can, as often as he can. Whether it is through someone like Ratzmann, or another person who decides to leave the faith entirely.

Concerning the Feast of Tabernacles, it is a perfect time to find a mate of like mind. That is the one time a year that you get to meet people all over the world that believe the same way as you do. The Bible encourages marriage of the same beliefs, and that is what the church I go to advises, according to what the Bible says about it. We can marry whoever we wish, but we will have a lot less trouble if our spouse believes in the same way.

I have recently been married to a wonderful man that I met in church. We were baptized on the same day as well..neat, huh? I prayed to the Lord for a long time concerning a mate, and with much patience on my part, and a lot of faith, God answered my prayers. I truly believe that if Ratzmann had been more patient, and willing to talk to someone, that this whole mess would not have happened.

Agape,
Cbuser

I used to belong to the Worldwide Church of God, I now belong to the Living Church of God.
I knew Mr. Ratzman in both of these churches.
No one was ever discouraged from or told not to seek psychiatric help in either church.
Ministers do counsel members and ministers do get counsel and advice from other ministers.
I have a family member who is mentally ill and this person counseled with minister and psychiatrists and psychologists.
Tabernacles is most certainly not the only place singles can meet each other. There are several singles get-togethers at other times of the year as well as online single forums.

M. Illgen,

Thank you for clearing up the matter on LCG's stance on psychological counseling. Whatever doctrinal disagreements I may have, frankly, I was not inclined to believe LCG forbade their members from seeking counselling when needed -- and suspected this was rather a bit of a red herring.

As, indeed, it seems to have been.

Sounds like the bit about the singles was similarly off. Again, thank you for posting the correct information.

Hello,

I would like to make a correction in the information given regarding my sister's comments to Terry Ratzman. She kidded Terry about not giving the closing prayer on the day in which this occurred. He came back into the room after services were over on that same day, my sister made the comments then, not two weeks later when the murders occurred.

Thomas Geiger

Sounds to me that church has to go.

Christ died because of man's ordinance's.

Chirst died because of man's sins. A gift, and not of works. Who should judge Terry, and tell him what he can and can not do. He belonged to Christ. He was paid for with a very high price.

He never read the book of Galations apparently. To know of the Liberty he had in Christ. I only hope Christ forgave him, and I am sure he did.

Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do...

I left the worldwide church of God in 1995. I left because I realized I was in a psychologicaly abusive mind control cult. This religion and the groups that split-off the wcg have caused alot of damage to the lifes of thousands. I am convinced that the abusive nature of the Living Church of God had a major negative effect on Terry Ratzman and may have caused him to snap.

A local talk show host commented that the members of the Living Church of God had sqeeky clean life stiles. He was right. These are good, upright people. But what he missed completely was the fact that because of the psychological abuse of this religious system under the surface these good people are emotional basket cases. This system puts a very heavy emphasis on performance to qualify for salvation, and protection from the "soon to come horrible great tribulation". This was a constant message in the 1-2 hour sermons the membership had to sit through every week, church sponsered liturature, and letters from H.Q.. The messages that your performance better be constantly improving or you may end up in the "lake of fire" has taken a heavy toll on the psychological health of most that have been in those religions. This debillitating feeling of doom that you dont or may not measure up to Gods unmeasureable standards and the dread that your conduct, in the end, may not be good enough is very destructive to emotional health. There is a big problem with alcoholizm, child abuse, emotional problems, and suicide in the past and present worldwide church of god and the groups that split off of the wcg. The leaders of these groups just continue to sweep these problems under the rug instead of admitting the fact that there systems of abuse are a big part of the problem. It is surprising that something like the tragic shootings in the Living Church of God did not happen sooner then it did. I HOPE THAT THESE ABUSIVE LEADERS SOMEHOW GET A CONSCIENCE AND STOP ABUSING THESE GOOD PEOPLE!!!

I think that it is very UN settling to know that Thomas Geiger has to put his two senses into everything when he wasn’t even there to begin with. And now to want to write a book about it? Talk about wanting your 15 minutes of fame. I do think what has happened is a very sad thing but come on let it go already

Billy

One thing cults (and liberals) do to increase loyalty is to make sure that anyone with a differing opinion is painted as being inherantly evil for that reason.

I think I've just exceeded my recomended daily allowance of irony.

One thing cults (and liberals) do to increase loyalty is to make sure that anyone with a differing opinion is painted as being inherantly evil for that reason.

I think I've just exceeded my recommended daily allowance of irony.

Tim: One thing cults (and liberals) do to increase loyalty is to make sure that anyone with a differing opinion is painted as being inherantly evil for that reason.

Ryan: I think I've just exceeded my recommended daily allowance of irony.

I don't agree with your implied accusation, Ryan: I believe my political opponents are generally wrong, not especially evil.

But some -- you included, even? -- cannot distinguish between: "Liberals may mean well, but are misled and harmful" (standard conservative schtick), and "Right wingers hate the poor" or don't care if children go to bed hungry (Howard Dean) ... The former is an allegation of harmful results, whatever the motive, the later is a allegation of bad motives -- and let's not debate or even examine the results, please.

Look, do a search on "Bush hates" versus "Dean hates" and notice the difference. Bush is judged by his enemies to hate homosexuals, blacks, democracy, bloggers, the military, bunnies, midgets, etc. Bush's enemies have searched his heart, and find he has bad motives they are apparently not succeptable to.

But then when we do a search on Dean hates, we learn Dean hates -- in his own words -- "Republicans and everything they stand for."

Basicly, you're alleging I'm convicted by my own charge: I attempt to "increase loyalty" by depicting anyone with "a differing opinion" as "inherantly evil".

Really, Ryan? Can you produce a shred of evidence for that, as I just did for my allegation?

There's a difference between arguing your opponents are wrong (and thus perhaps also implying they're fools), and implying they're fools (or have black hearts and bad motives) as a substitute for showing they're wrong.

One is simply an effective argument; the other is the ad homen fallacy.

"Liberals may mean well, but are misled and harmful." (standard conservative schtick)

I really haven't heard that being the 'standard conservative schtick.'

I tried googling 'Bush hates' vs 'Clinton hates' to see what people were claiming George W. Bush hated vs. Bill Clinton (both two term presidents, so we're comparing apples to apples.)
Only top ten hits are listed.

For Bush I got: Bush hates homosexuals, Bush hates bloggers, Bush hates the millitary

For Clinton I got: Clinton hates women, Clinton hates the American flag

I also got some that don't seem to bear directly on this debate; Jeb Bush hates Democracy, Hillary Clinton hates freedom, Clinton hates aging (based on a direct quote from Clinton), Clinton hates 'Slick Willy' nickname, the left hates Bush the way the right hated Clinton, Clinton Hates Santa ( a parody of Clinton claiming he tried to kill Santa made up of edited news clips ), Bush hates bunnies, Bush hates midgets

I've wandered around conservative forums for a while. A fairly common charge seems to be 'traitor' for those who don't agree with conservative foreign policy and occasionally that a particular left-leaning commentator should be shot. That would seem to be a demonization of those who disagree with conservative politics, no?

Bush's enemies have searched his heart, and find he has bad motives they are apparently not succeptable to.

Likewise, those who were against the Iraq war were told that they loved Saddam, which is a straighout absurd accusation. This makes exactly as much sense as saying that Bush hates democracy. (yes, you could make an argument for both, but the two are hewn from about the same timber.)

The tactics are the same, the only difference is what's being argued for.

Basicly, you're alleging I'm convicted by my own charge

I'm saying that tactic of demonization that you attribute to 'the left' is also common among some parts of 'the right'.

Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: - if it was unclear, this quote is from Rove, not Flynn

Ryan!

Sorry for the blog outage this week. Hardware problems. I'll try to take your comment seriously, and be as honest as possible in my answers.

Partisan "Schtick"s: Well, I guess we have a difference of perception then. I generally perceive conservatives as first trying to argue and focus on facts (rightly or wrongly) or debate/prove what policy works, and only then (when it happens) move on to speculate about motives.

Again:

There's a difference between arguing your opponents are wrong (and thus perhaps also implying they're fools), and implying they're fools (or have black hearts and bad motives) as a substitute for showing they're wrong.

Once you've shown someone is wrong on the facts, it's an interesting (and legitimate) question to ask how that happened -- especially in cases where facts seem obvious, like: "History shows socialism doesn't work. So why is it still being taught in universities? What motivates that?"

On the other hand, it my perceptions that most "liberals" frequently begin with the ad homen attacks, skipping over the part where you debate what policy works best, etc.

"Conservatives don't care about the poor." "Right wingers hate gays." "Right wing 'hate' radio..." "Bush hates _____" "Islamophobia" "Homophobia" "Sexist" "Heterosexist" "Racist" ...

I perceive these as common terms frequently applied to the "right wing". Each is focused on primarily on the imputed bad motives of the target, rather than debating the policy in question.

Your perceptions may be different. Okay, then, not a problem. We simply see things differently, can note that respectfully, and move on.

"Apples to apples": For Bush I got: Bush hates homosexuals, Bush hates bloggers, Bush hates the millitary... For Clinton I got: Clinton hates women, Clinton hates the American flag

You seemed to have missed something there Ryan. I don't know your exact search terms, but using (in quotes) "Bush hates" versus "Clinton hates" one gets...

Looking only at the first ten hits, and ignoring irrelevancies (i.e. obvious jokes and places where the terms are in different clauses):

Continuing...

"Traitor": First, I want to be clear that I don't believe in using this word lightly, as some do. But regardless, let's look at what the word means: "One who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty; one who commits treason."

That's not an accusation of motive Ryan, it's an accusation of behavior.

That would seem to be a demonization of those who disagree with conservative politics, no?

Ryan, anything which makes your opponent look wrong or (particularly) unhelpful to the common good can be accused of being "demonization". The only way to avoid that is not to hold nor argue for any positions!

But again, I'm trying to draw your attention between the vast difference between (a) first attempting to show your opponent is wrong on facts or policy, and then discussing what that implies, and (b) skipping the discussion of the facts in favor accusations of bad motive.

This exact accustion you use, of "demonization", is a very common example of (b). It's what I call a "thought-stopper". If you say the argument "demonizes" someone, you can skip the part where we examine if it's true, or at least justified, or false.

Let me give you an example:

Adam: "The terrorists want us to pull out of Iraq, and so do Democrats! Therefore, Democrats are effectively siding with our sworn enemies, helping their cause at our expense! Such people are acting treasonously!"

Burt: "You're demonizing Democrats!"

Well, Burt is basicly right. Adam's argument, if true, will make Democrats look bad. But Burt doesn't want to think about whether Democrats are doing harm. To Burt, it is simply wrong to imply Democrats are acting against the national interest. Adam helped him a bit, by being too over the top, but Burt is essentially avoiding serious thought about what Adam is saying.

Now, this can certainly happen the other way around, too. But, once again, my point is that we simply can't boil everything down: "If your point is true, someone will look bad. Therefore, you're engaged in ad homen argumnent!" which you again seem to be doing here.

To repeat myself yet again:

There's a difference between arguing your opponents are wrong (and thus perhaps also implying they're fools [or traitors, or any other bad thing]), and implying they're fools (or have black hearts and bad motives) as a substitute for showing they're wrong.

The charge of "demonization!" is just one such thought-stopper.

And yes, this can go the other way around too. But I personally see it far more often in liberal circles.

"Loving Saddam"?:

Ryan: Likewise, those who were against the Iraq war were told that they loved Saddam, which is a straighout absurd accusation.

Really? I've never levelled the charge to my knowledge. Please produced some evidence this happened -- or even (as your position requires) that it was prevalent.

"Irony":

Tim: Basicly, you're alleging I'm convicted by my own charge...

Ryan: I'm saying that tactic of demonization that you attribute to 'the left' is also common among some parts of 'the right'.

Straw man: I've never raised an issue of "demonizing" anyone -- that's your paradigm, not mine.

The phrase you objected to and called "ironic" was:

One thing cults (and liberals) do to increase loyalty is to make sure that anyone with a differing opinion is painted as being inherantly evil for that reason.

Again, I've never said there's anything wrong with saying people are wrong, or that they do unhelpful things -- and then, once you've done that (or tried), potentially also questioning the motives.

But the phrase you objected to describes the exact opposite: these groups FIRST say that all disagreement can only come from bad motives -- this offered as a way of short-circuiting debate on the policy or position itself.

Let me give you another example, since I suspect it will take many repetitions. It has not been uncommon, recently, for liberal-leaning celebrities to threaten that if their candidate didn't win the election, they would leave the country.

Some have called this position "unpatriotic". I don't think that's helpful, but I can understand the view: If saying you will abandon your country if you don't get your way isn't an "unpatriotic" position, then what would the word even mean?

But look what's going on: The conservative has considered the Hollywood liberal's statement. She has found it to be harmful to the country's interest. She has considered that the person making it appears to only love their country on a very conditional basis. And thus she has, on that basis, classified it as an "unpatriotic" stance to hold.

That's not an ad homen argument, Ryan. It might be unpleasant for the poor Hollywood star to hear people react, but it isn't because their critics were initially disposed to think ill of him or her. It wasn't prejudice that motivated the response.

The opposite would be if someone said: "All people who are in Hollywood are unpatriotic. Bob Hollywood said Bush is wrong for doing X, and has given reason Y. Therefore, since Bob Hollywood is unpatriotic, I don't have to consider whether reason Y applies."

Dan Flynn: I've never heard of him before. But nonetheless, let's again examine what he says to see which pattern it fits. Does he say that most or all disagreement with conservative policies can only come from bad motive? Or does he attempt to first show the policies are bad, and then, perhaps, get into motive?

Sorry for the blog outage this week.

It was horrible! I was forced to do actual work.

You seemed to have missed something there Ryan.

Lets edit out where an individual says "I hate" since we can assume they know their own motives. We're looking for questionable attributions of motivation, right?. Or were you just aiming to prove that
Conservatives didn't claim to hate people and (social?) liberals did?

So we have three attempts to assign motives to Republicans by the opposition from the first search. Two for GWB and one for GHWB.

For Clinton we have; hates freedom (complaint by a liberal about Bill Clinton's anti-flag-burning stance)

A liberal? From the APC's website;

APC’s approach to establishing free market policy is rooted in the conviction that a well-informed American public is the best guarantee that U.S. policy will be guided by a keen awareness of the complexity of world politics and America’s role in it.

Why did you say that they were a liberal organization? Perhaps
they're classic liberals. But correct me if I'm wrong, you use "liberal" as shorthand for "social liberal."

..hates women (claim from Debra Saunders, a conservative), and complaint by a video game affictionado (partisanship unknown) that
Hillary "hates videogames" (not a person).

Here we have one attempt to attribute motive from a conservative (if Suanders is accurately represented) and one against someone on the left from a person of ambiguous political affiliation.
(Hillary Clinton is the one having motives imputed to her. Motives were being attributed to her, not to the video games.)

The "Clinton hates" search yeilded similar results as the "Bush hates" search, but by commentators of more ambiguous backgrounds in two instances.

"History shows socialism doesn't work." Well, a command economy has been shown to be less
efficient than a free market, if that's what you mean by 'works.' (I'm also not totally clear what 'taught in schools' refers to, exactly)
Marxist Leninism is, I agree, mostly based on false assumptions.
But I agree with your argument that if you can show that someone was wrong it's worth asking where their error originated.
However people are going to disagree with what history proves. I'm not being a relativist here, but what's definitive for you
might not be definitive for others. And vise versa.

"Right wingers hate gays." Well, if you being with the assumption that heterosexual and gay relationships should be
equal before the law (as some liberals believe), the conclusion that many Right Wingers are anti-gay or 'heterosexist' (i.e. assuming normative heterosexuality)
is pretty much a given based on the policies being advocated. The term 'heterosexist' is about discrimination based on sex. The
question isn't whether many conservatives want this, it seems pretty obvious the majority, at least, do. Gay marriage ban amendments drew more Republicans than Democrats to the poles.
The question is whether labeling someone's stance heterosexist should be considered a perjorative.
I'm not sure how you'd convince someone that people should discriminate based on sex if their starting assumption is that such discrimination is inherantly wrong.

I'll agree that the term 'racist' has been over-applied by liberals to those who oppose them,
and under-applied to them. (Though how are we grouping Nation of Islam? They're religious. Does that make them Conservative? But
they also tend to get more support from the Democrats than Republicans. This is one more part of my disagreement with the whole 'Right v. Left' divide. I
know there are a few other posts on the topic. I'll address them when I have a block of time to do that.)
Likewise, I'll agree that the "conservatives don't care about the poor" line has been overapplied.

In the same vein, I think the "liberals don't care about defending our country" line has been overapplied.

I'll agree that threats to move to Canada by a few over-fed celebrities based on election results are fairly labeled as unpatriotic.

However I maintain that calling someone a traitor implies an assignment of motivation. If a person accidentally does harm to their country, say, by sleeping at their post
we might accuse them of derelection of duty. But to call someone a traitor implies some measure of intent. It's one thing to claim that Bush's
actions have strengthened al qaeda while weakening more liberal Muslim institutions. (true or not.) It's another thing entirely to say that Bush has sided with
our enemies and is a traitor. The second implies motive and intent.

Each is focused on primarily on the imputed bad motives of the target, rather than debating the policy in question.
To use the case of sexuality, I don't see how a person could honestly say "gay relationships are the same as heterosexual ones, but
we should handle them differently from a legal standpoint." It is the underlying assumptions that are being rejected here.

On the other hand, it my perceptions that most "liberals" frequently begin with the ad homen attacks, skipping over the part where you debate what policy works best, etc.

That would seem to be a demonization of those who disagree with conservative politics, no?
I should clarify. By demonization, I meant 'attribution of bad motive.'

And no admissions of conservatives actually hating Clinton personally.
I'll agree that Bush's opponents are more likely to express outright hatred of him (though
a lot of this spiked after the second gulf war.) Prior to Bush's election, the Democratic line seemed to be that Bush was stupid
rather than evil. (Closer to your 'misguided' characterization.) While Bush was going to "restore dignity and morality to the White House"
implying Gore was less moral.

"Clinton hates:" 559 hits
"Bush hates:" 142,000 hits

Ummmm... shouldn't that tell you something?

More recent figures will have more comparable numbers of hits, if that's what we're interested in.

"Hillary Clinton hates"
Results 1 - 10 of about 78

"John McCain hates"
Results 1 - 10 of about 82 for "John McCain hates"

I haven't had a chance to read your second response yet. I will when I get another block of time

Cheers!

It was horrible! I was forced to do actual work.

:-) Funny! I have strict no-blogging-at-work rule.

Lets edit out where an individual says "I hate" since we can assume they know their own motives.

I agree they people can usually (not always) admit their own motives. But "I hate person X" can be a frank admission of ad homen-ism.

We're looking for questionable attributions of motivation, right?

We're looking for cases where people use an imputation of bad motivation as a substitute for debating what policies work or are helpful. Where disagreement itself is wrongly treated as proof of bad intent.

If you're confused, go read the sentence you claimed was "ironic" to see what you objected to.

Or were you just aiming to prove that Conservatives didn't claim to hate people and (social?) liberals did?

Of course conservatives can hate people. Don't be silly. Where did I say that? How do you misread me so badly?

I'll quote the paragraph again, since you still seem to have missed it, still:

There's a difference between arguing your opponents are wrong (and thus perhaps also implying they're fools), and implying they're fools (or have black hearts and bad motives) as a substitute for showing they're wrong.

The former is legitimate debate, the later is an ad homen fallacy.

If this isn't somehow clear yet, please explain where I'm failing to be lucid.

Haven't read through your replies yet. I will when I have more time. Just a quick note; It seems that the "Bush hates" tag is applied to Bush disproportionately compared to the number of hits returned. The same applies to Cheney. I'm not sure about other conservatives.

It seems that the "Bush hates" tag is applied to Bush disproportionately compared to the number of hits returned.

Disproportionately how? Are you saying "Bush hates" is used far less -- or more -- than the number of hits returned would imply? And how would you even discover such a thing?

I don't understand, please clarify.

Re-reading my response, I want to add something regarding this:

I'm not sure how you'd convince someone that people should discriminate based on sex if their starting assumption is that such discrimination is inherantly wrong.

It sounds like you're saying that if a person assumes X is inherantly wrong there's no way to change their mind. Well, sadly, yes, sometimes there are people who are incapable of challenging their assumptions.

You can't, by definition, change such people. But they can serve as a useful foil for interested onlookers, who will notice the lengths they go to to avoid answering simple questions, or responding to simple points.

But the truth is that most people don't start life with a hard-wired assumption like: "sex discrimination is wrong." People discriminate all the time based on sex: every time they walk into a restroom, for example. And gays discriminate based on sex (i.e. they consistently choose same-gendered partners) as often as straights do.

But your whole question seems odd here: Who wants to pervasively "discriminate" based on sex? Why are you talking as though someone favors this? (Please answer me, this is not rhetorical)

The charge of "sexist" is alleged for favoring policies which might have a differing outcome, even if the rules are "fair" in the traditional sense. Or in a case like Lawerence Summers, where he was called "sexist", and forced to resign, for merely suggesting there might be differences between men and women. Need I say, again, that the charge is typically employed as a thought-blocker, to stop from debating the actual point being offered.

You seem to think I'm advocating sexism here, Ryan. No: My entire point is that the charge is continually construed (and even you seem to be doing it at this point) where it is nonexistent.

Disproportionately how? Are you saying "Bush hates" is used far less -- or more -- than the number of hits returned would imply?

Far more. I compared "George W. Bush hates" to hits returned for "George W. Bush" and compared it to some other figures; George HW Bush, "Bill Clinton", "John McCain", Ronald Reagan, Hillary Clinton.

The ratio of hates to total hits was higher for George W. Bush and Cheney. I didn't show all the results because I wanted to do some more fact checking and don't have time now. Sorry for the delay.

And gays discriminate based on sex (i.e. they consistently choose same-gendered partners) as often as straights do. To clarify, I mean discrimination via the law or established authorities. The one argument against gay marriage that I'm sympathetic to is that employers might be forced by the courts to give spousal benefits to gay couples simply because heterosexual couples get this.

And yes, there are legitimate questions of what equal means in response to biological differences. Do you provide the same number of stalls in a restroom, or more in the ladies stalls, since women have been demonstrated to require more time.

I'm trying to find an example to illustrate my point where you'd disagree with a view because of the assumptions the view is based on and where the view is not inherantly self refuting. Granted, you're dramatically less ideological than a good number of people on both sides of the political spectrum. If you've ever hung out on, say Yahoo discussion boards ( I don't recomend it. They're modifying it soon, thank God. ) you get a different slice of people.

The charge of "sexist" is alleged for favoring policies which might have a differing outcome, even if the rules are "fair" in the traditional sense I agree with you here. ( I was called a derogatory term at one point for arguing against "differing outcomes=sexism" regarding the summers case on a listserv from my my alma mater that I'm still subscribed to. Not that it was any skin off my back, but I realize that Summers took a serious hit for the debacle.)

But it's a terribly long thread and my replies are going to start getting more disconnected from earlier arguments if I don't have time to reread things. Which I don't have time for now. My apologies. But I hope that clears some things up in the short term.

The ratio of hates to total hits was higher for George W. Bush and Cheney...

"hates" = Hits for "George Bush hates" (etc.) ?
"hits" = Hits for "George Bush" ?

If so, how do you interepret this? It would seem to confirm what I'm saying: that George Bush's enemies often seem to need to presume to know his inner thoughts and motivations, and find them bad.

If you've ever hung out on, say Yahoo discussion boards ( I don't recomend it. They're modifying it soon, thank God. ) you get a different slice of people.