Random thought: Can we reach out to the other side and not reach out to "bigots"?

[phleshdef]

This just occurred to me as I have read several threads over the past week of how Obama is reaching out to the "other side", only to see several responses fall back on the whole "legitimizing bigots" talking point.

So I guess my thought is, had Obama not given the "other side" a role in his inauguration, would that somewhat invalidate his pledge to reach out and unite?

And if he/us are to reach out to the "other side", would it not be safe to say that the "other side", at least from a cultural perspective ARE indeed these overzealous religious evangelicals who follow a religiously fueled ideology that leads them to a bigoted point of view?

Now of course there are other types of bigoted fringe groups, like the white supremacists, but they don't represent a huge following on the "other side" like the evangelical movement does. Warren's movement and others that participate in it really do represent a very powerful section of the socially Conservative movement in this country. To me, they are what the "other side" is all about.

So, going back to the title of my thread, how do we reach out to the other side and still avoid reaching out to those we perceive as bigoted towards homosexuals? I'm not sure its possible.

[NJmaverick]

1. You would be hard pressed to find anyone on the "other side"

that supports abortion choice and gay marriage. You're right, it pretty much defines them, at least to some degree.

[Recursion]

2. "Lifestyle" is a hurtful word, maybe edit that?

[phleshdef]

4. It is? I'll take your word for it. Though I have gay friends that use it.

[Recursion]

5. Check a few threads. It's a codeword among anti-gay people

That said, I do agree with your point, and I wonder what some of the board thought Obama meant when he talked about reaching out.

[Maven]

27. I really, REALLY doubt that.

Next you'll be putting gay "marriage" in quotation marks like Dobson.

[phleshdef]

32. Next you will be continuing to insinuate you know a damn thing about me when you don't.

[Maven]

33. I saw your defenses of Warren in the other thread

although you claim to be agnostic. :eyes:

Now you're pushing the same bullshit "reaching out" argument we've heard 40,000 fucking times while using such RW gems as "homosexual lifestyle" and putting "bigot" in quotation marks.

If it walks like a duck...

[phleshdef]

38. I am what I say I am and I could give a shit less if you believe me or not.

I'm not going anywhere. And you still aren't answering my very valid questions. You are just moaning and bitching at my choice of words or the fact that I don't have downright hatred for misguided fools such as Rick Warren. I'm trying to see it from a different angle and have thus far been successful.

[Maven]

41. Your questions HAVE been answered and you persist, because you are here to defend Warren

and what he stands for as acceptable.

EPIC FAIL

[phleshdef]

45. Nope. Never called is acceptable and definately not here to defend him. Just Obama's choice of him.

Thats reality and you can't change it. Make your accusations all god damn day. I ain't going anywhere and you might as well accept it.

[Maven]

49. If you don't think that Rick Warren is a bigot given his views on GLBT people

If you continue to use terms like "homosexual lifestyle," indicating clearly where you're coming from on this issue, then no, you won't be here long.

[phleshdef]

54. What part of "I didn't know I edited that out" do you not fucking understand?

Seriously? Can you fucking read posts and comprehend the words in them?

[Maven]

57. Yeah, it's called someone told you your slip was showing

so you made a couple adjustments.

I notice "bigot" is still in quotation marks.

[phleshdef]

58. And will remain as such.

[KansDem]

3. no

I wanted to print up this bumper sticker for 2008:

Republicans:
We tried it your way;
It didn't work


...that about sums up the last 8-14 years.

[gaspee]

6. Homosexual lifestyle?

That kind of tells me all I need to know about you right there.

And actually, the white supremacist movement is quite large. In fact, I would wager, not cash, mind you, but I would wager that there are more white supremacists in this country than there are Jewish Americans. If you would like to investigate, you can check out the southern poverty law center.

Why isn't President Elect Obama reaching out to them? A lot of them are conservative christians, after all.

Accepting their point of view as legitimate means accepting that GLBT americans whould be second class citizens. It means that you are accepting that we should live our lives according to their religious rules. There is no middle ground with these people. They are the righteous and we are the damned. I dare you to find common ground with them.

Why haven't Democrats LEARNED ANYTHING FROM THE PAST 30 YEARS. If you give these people a podium, all they do is preach how evil you are from that podium.

That's what accepting their point of view means. There is no middle ground there.

[phleshdef]

7. No, it doesn't tell you anything about me. I never knew it was an offensive term...

Anyhow, I edited it so get over it.

Regardless, you can't sit there and tell me that the white supremacist movement has the political clout or the backing the Evangelical movement has on a cultural or politcal scale. Thats just patently false.

No one is "accepting" their point of view. Extending an olive branch is not the same thing as accepting.

So either you are telling me that you are against reaching out to the other side or you think we can do it and still avoid all the bigots that run it.

Which is it?

[phleshdef]

8. Oh and "If you give these people a podium, all they do is preach how evil you are from that podium."

How do you suggest we remedy that? Stonewall and shut them out the same way they would/have done to us? Should we become more like them in that sense?

I'm not sure thats what I want to see Democrats become, to be perfectly honest. Regardless, Warren isn't being given a podium to preach against liberals with this inauguration bit. And if he goes out after the fact and starts slamming Obama and the Democrats, they will have a lot of political ammo to fire back at him for being a hypocrite. After all, he will be giving the new administration his supposed blessing.

[alwysdrunk]

9. Obama is a bigot himself

I learned that from DU. Actually, the vast majority of Democrats in office are bigots too.

So no, you can't reach out to the other side and avoid bigots. You can't even reach out to your own side. Wipe out more than half the country, then you might end up with two sides with enough non-bigots to have productive outreach.

[glitch]

10. Are there any conservative preachers who aren't bigots?

I am going to assume that there are, and if so isn't choosing a bigot to represent conservatives when there were unbigoted candidates available insulting to conservatives in general?

Of course if my assumption is incorrect and there are in fact no unbigoted conservative preachers anymore please ignore this post.

[phleshdef]

14. I doubt there are any that aren't anti-choice and anti-gay marriage for the same reasons Warren is.

We are talking "social conservatives" here and I don't think you would be much of one without those very point of views.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. The talking point for the next few weeks is that Obama is "reaching out" precisely

because the folks that he's reaching out to are center-right and therefore reflect mainstream American views. Why does 'reaching out' constitute capitulation to the right wing agenda? If Obama is the centrist that he claims to be, why not 'reach out' to the left? He has done anything BUT that.

[alwysdrunk]

13. It's not a talking point. It's a political strategy

It's a strategy that Obama said that he would follow all during the campaign. The Warren inauguration invite is outreach. There is no capitulation in sight.

[phleshdef]

15. When did HE claim to be a centrist? Aside from that, many of his policies are in fact quite liberal.

...at least by current American standards of what a liberal is. But I'm sure you all ready know this.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. He may not himself claim to be a centrist, but a review of his voting record in IL

and the U.S. Senate would indicate that he is not a liberal. In fact, a reading of "Audacity" would lay to rest the right wing talking point that he is the most liberal member of the Senate, as he goes into great detail about his policy positions, and admonishes the reader that his stands will anger both left and right. For instance, he didn't support all fair trade agreements that the unions wanted. He is pro-gun rights, though he supports 'sensible gun control' measures. He also fought for welfare reform in the IL state senate. His views on war and conflict is little different than that of Hillary Clinton with his, "It's not that I don't support war, I don't support stupid wars."

[phleshdef]

20. You are somewhat cherry picking. Maybe I put too much stock into ontheissues.org...

They place him here.



For a more complete picture of his record.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

Now I'll agree he wasn't the most liberal member of the senate, but he is still fairly liberal.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. I hardly agree, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps because I checked his record

which seems pretty moderate to me, I have my doubts. We'll see... :)

[mondo joe]

12. You can reach out without kissing ass. NT

[phleshdef]

17. Kissing ass would be changing your policies to appease the other side.

I don't see Obama trying to combat state efforts to legalize gay marriage nor has he ever insinuated he would lift a finger to get rid of abortion.

[mondo joe]

60. No, that would be rimming. Kissing ass is honoring their darling bigots. NT

[IndianaJones]

16. you can reach out with a courageous leader and the national guard. nt.

[Solon]

18. Why is bigots in quotes, do you think people like Warren aren't bigots? n/t

[phleshdef]

21. OMFG. Are you really concerned about my use of quotes?

I'm not even going to dignify that with an explanation.

[IndianaJones]

23. thats an "honorable" explanation. i am sure you "care" nt.

[phleshdef]

30. I quote words that I myself haven't used in a literal sense. Make sense now?

[IndianaJones]

31. I am sure you "support" gay civil rights. "peace" nt.

[phleshdef]

34. Okay. Now that thats done, do you have an answer to my question(s)?

[IndianaJones]

39. #16. nt.

[Solon]

35. Literal sense? So what words have you used to describe "bigots"? n/t

[phleshdef]

40. I haven't literally called Warren a bigot myself. I'm sure you will want to crucify me for that too

[Maven]

43. You don't why his views are bigoted? You don't see why comparing being gay to being a pedophile

is bigoted?

Really?

[phleshdef]

48. Oh I definately think his views are. I just haven't used that language in regards to him personally.

[Solon]

44. First, I never crucify anyone, frankly that's too much work, I get splinters easily...

but I do have a question. Are you saying you don't consider Warren a bigot?

[phleshdef]

53. Its really complicated and I don't think many would accept my reasoning on it...

I totally disagree with Warren's views on gays and abortion. That kind of thing is part of the reason I stepped away from Christianity altogether. But I also know first hand the kind of innocently seeming brain washing the evironment people like that are raised in promotes. Its another case of root cause that people here obviously don't want to consider or talk about. Its different than being taught to straight up hate. Maybe its something even worse.

[Solon]

59. Does that same reasoning hold for racists?

Many, if not most racists were raised that way, brain washed even. Some of those very racist beliefs they will even claim came from their religion.

[phleshdef]

64. Oh the same reasoning does. I'm glad we seem to be making a lot more advances away from that though.

We have came a really long way as far as getting away from that kind of ingrained racist thinking. And it will take more time for us to get to the same kind of place with homosexuality. But we aren't there yet. Every generation is an improvement and I think we need to keep our eye on the ball. But we still need to stop an recognize where our society is at and it just isn't there yet.

[Maven]

22. "Legitimizing bigots" isn't a talking point, it's a reality

Rick Warren gets more mainstream credibility from this honor. Not to mention a media tour in which he's introducing himself to the country as the next Billy Graham.

Obama didn't need to do this. You can start a dialogue with someone without giving them a symbolic honor. And his excuse--that we can "disagree" on the issue of hate--only makes it worse by elevating bigotry to a legitimate "viewpoint."

[alwysdrunk]

25. You're missing the point. Almost everyone is a bigot.

For a conservative evangelical, any other choice would have had the same issue.

[Maven]

26. He didn't need to choose a conservative evangelical to give his invocation

did he?

Especially since he isn't one.

[alwysdrunk]

28. Wow. You really ARE missing the point. It's the OTHER side.

That's who the other side is.

[Maven]

37. The other side HURTS people. They shouldn't be put on a PEDESTAL for it.

Get the point?

You can talk to them and engage without giving them a DIGNITARY role that legitimizes what they stand for. Get it?

[alwysdrunk]

51. You may not like the tactic, but a tactic is what it is.

And it is a smart one. Giving the invocation may go very far with the followers of Warren. He will accomplish more in 3 minutes than he would is years of just 'talking' to the guy on the phone.

It's not about Warren himslef. It's about his followers.

[Maven]

52. And his followers will turn their backs as soon as Obama does something remotely pro-gay

Of course, I'm guessing you don't give a shit whether he ever does anything to help my community, so I'm sure that's not a concern for you.

[alwysdrunk]

66. Or maybe the reluctantly accept it, and focus on the other good things they agree on

Maybe they reluctantly accept it. May be they complain about it but Obama still doesn't change his mind. Just like this.


I am confident that Obama will be the most pro-gay president in history. And I think that is a good thing. You're wrong to this I don't give a shit. It's not on the top of my list as far as priorities, but that doesn't mean I don't give a shit.

[phleshdef]

29. Thats the whole point about "reaching out to the other side". So you are saying he shouldn't?

Even though he said the whole campaign that is exactly what he would do.

[Maven]

36. REACHING OUT DOES NOT MEAN HONORING SOMEONE WHO ESPOUSES HATE

JESUS CHRIST ON A CRACKER, is it that hard to understand???

[phleshdef]

42. Still missing the point. Leaving them out of the inauguration would be snubbing them.

So then your answer is, no you think they shouldn't reach out.

[Maven]

47. OMG, you are so dishonest it's unbelieveable.

Not giving Rick Warren the invocation would have been snubbing the other side?

There was no other way to include evangelicals in the inauguration than to give the invocation to Warren?

Where are GLBT people, the people Rick Warren attacks politically, honored in the ceremony?

Oh right, we're the entertainment.

[phleshdef]

50. GLBT isn't the other side in my opinion.

[Maven]

55. Well, your opinion shows a staggering level of blindness and insensitivity

Tell Rick Warren that. He's the one who defames my community in the media and to his followers and works to take away my rights.

[phleshdef]

56. Or a staggering level of reason and level headedness. Tomato, Tomoto

[mondo joe]

61. Yeah. Very "level headed".

[Maven]

62. Such smugness, arrogance and lack of self-awareness.

You are a cliche of heterosexual male privilege.

[phleshdef]

65. You were the one that started the "how smug can I be" piss fight.

[Maven]

67. I'm standing up for what's right

A concept that's foreign to you, I'm sure.

[mondo joe]

63. Why are the racists left out?

[alwysdrunk]

68. Because racists have very little political influence as a group

Evangelicals have very substantial influence. They make up a large percentage of the population. It really is that simple.

[Starry Messenger]

46. Evidently.

I mean voters got Prop 8 to pass. Many people were unwise and cruel enough to vote for it. Something is not getting through.

[Starry Messenger]

69. Can we reach out to the "other side" and not reach out to "grifters"?

This guy is a huge fraud. I'm going to laugh when he is exposed.

[HamdenRice]

70. I doubt it. But grown up clear thinking is not prized on DU right now.Thanks for the observation!

Your question answers itself in the most obvious way! But just for those who can't or won't read analysis, maybe pictures will help with comprehension.