I saw Religulous last night

[Clintonista2]

In it Maher talked to one of the "ex-gay" freaks. The guy was so delusional it was frightening. As soon as Maher challenged him on the idea that being gay is a "choice," the guy flipped out and said he was going to end the interview if Maher kept criticizing his "beliefs." Why do we want to "reach out" to these people again?

[patrice]

1. Because in doing so those sitting on the sidelines see and hear the issues in ways that

Corporate Media will NEVER allow.

[Clintonista2]

2. Giving them an even bigger platform from which to spout their hate will not help

Didn't the last 8 years teach you that?

[annabanana]

4. (silence is assent)

Didn't the last 30 years teach you that? We watched the Country go off the rails starting in the Reagan years.. The media seemed just fine with that. . .

[patrice]

8. So, let us engage them. It is assumed that "reaching out" means capitulation.

Have you ever had one of these fundie religious types "pray" for you in public? I have. "I" hope to return the favor.

[bluedawg12]

13. I hope to engage them in Court.

[patrice]

17. That will be good, but something I've been wondering about . . .

Will you have to chase them all over the country? Challenge them in EVERY state? Not that you shouldn't if that is the way that it HAS to play out; it just seems very exhausting, so you'll need broad support. This is why I think it IS a good idea to go after their religious assumptions, i.e. stuff that will not be in Court.

[bertman]

37. What the last 30 years have taught me is that my gay and lesbian friends have more

legal rights than at any time in the history of this country. Gay "partners" are allowed to have benefits such as health insurance on their partner's plan. Openly gay politicians, public officials, and media personalities are accepted by the public as part of our culture. Hate crimes against gay people are prosecuted. Only slightly over 50% of the voters in California feel that gays are NOT entitled to marry; whereas, 30 years ago that percentage would have been far higher.

We have not reached the point where gay Americans are afforded the same rights as straight people, but the progress that has been made is monumental. When I was a kid gay people were hidden from public view except in the most urban areas in the country. Now, in my right-wing southern home town gay people are openly gay and accepted by most of society.

To act as if there has not been enormous progress is to deny the progress that has been made.

We certainly cannot stop pushing for equal rights now, but to deny progress is just wrong.

[patrice]

6. I think this is an over-simplification of the environment in which things will happen.

I, for one, am NOT giving them A - N - Y - T - H - I - N - G, and where I come from, the power of one is not 0.

[Clintonista2]

12. But we ARE giving them things.

We're giving them legitimacy by, for instance, letting one of their leaders give the invocation.

[patrice]

14. Apparently, I don't fit your definition of "we".

Everyone I know hears about this issue (amongst others because "it" is all one) from me.

[bluedawg12]

16. And what do they hear?

[patrice]

21. That division, bigotry, and hate hurt our country.

That our country was not founded as the agent of any religion and most especially not for a blaspheming one.

Under what conditions, in what kind of situation, whom will we exclude next? Whom will we decide does not deserve/need, or we cannot afford, the full protection of the state?

That since the deciders (religious and otherwise) have proven their incompetence on the moral issues, you should decide for yourself based on your own personal experience of the persons involved in the question. And does this not meet the high value that we place on the criterium of "Responsibility"?

.............................

I am not unrealistic enough to expect folk to "click" change into someone who suddenly sees/hears issues completely differently. This has to happen at the Grassroots level, not authoritarian and that means not even with my "authority"; that means what we need is a climate that includes alternative memes. And the more we demand without any regard to creating that climate, the less the return on our investment of time and effort. Oh there are going to be folk who demand, and so be it. I'm just saying doing that and solely that will create contrarian backlashes against force, resulting eventually in something like a 50:50 death struggle (like we have seen in the Pro-Life:Pro-Choice arena) and NO PROGRESS.

I may be mistaken, but TRYING to limit what people do to solve a problem looks kind of "fascist" to me, because I object to self-fulfilling prophecies. "Don't do this, because ____________" may be true for SOME, but it can ALSO can make the "because" true for others who were previously on the sidelines. It yeilds the field to whoever else is out there trying to get the ones who are confused or neutral. It also appears to contradict the basis upon which you are trying to claim your Rights, i.e. that INDIVIDUALS must decide about their own lives, not preachers, and as long as people are doing that without harming others, the group should accept THEIR decisions about THEIR lives, i.e. their Freedom AND Responsibility. If we can't let that happen, then, no matter the cause, we are only repeating OLD MISTAKES and, BTW, proving to the Opposition that they are quite likely right in their paranoia about us.

[Hydra]

3. We can't "reach out" because that would mean embracing their ideals

We need to be leading and letting them follow us into the 21st century.

[Clintonista2]

5. Well said.

Those who want to "reach out" to bigots are enablers.

[donco6]

7. Got me. It makes no sense.

I'm a former fundamentalist. From age 15 to 30, spent years in ever more conservative churches trying to "pray away the gay." Finally came to my senses. But from my experience, I can definitely tell people that fundies have NO INTENTION of changing the way they view gays. EVER. They'll talk a good game. Throw out the "love the sinner, hate the sin" crap until they fool people into believing THEY'RE the rational ones, and gays are the irrational ones (sort of like they do here).

It's so utterly wrong and revolting I can hardly contain myself.

[Hydra]

10. "Lover the sinner, hate the sin..."

Who says it's a "sin?" An old musty book where a whole town wanted to rape a pair of Angels and the guy in the story offers his daughters in their place?

One of the things that pisses me off about this is that we are supposed to weight their opinions(and that's all they are) the same as our facts. In what universe???

Biden telling us to STFU and trust them was a nice cherry on top.

[Jamastiene]

28. And....later, goes to a cave, gets drunk, and has sex with is own daughters.

We should NEVER let them forget that part of the story. Lot was a nasty child molester, in reality. Yet, somehow, we are the "sinners."

[donco6]

33. There are SO many stories like that.

What about the one where the guy vows on his daughter's life that he'll do X. He doesn't do X. He comes back and sacrifices his daughter. (Wouldn't the noble thing to have been to vow on your own life?) But the point of the story is clearly A Vow is a Vow. Sickening.

The story of David and Bathsheba - people gloss over the fact that David KILLED Bathsheba's first husband by sending him into battle and purposely ordering his fellow soldiers to withdraw from him, leaving him to die. What an asshole. But he's "a man after God's own heart". WTF???

I could go on and on.

What about the guys transporting the Ark of the Covenant? The Ark was being carried by animals - against God's command. The animals stumbled, causing the Ark to tip. Some men tried to right it before it fell, and God struck them all dead on the spot - even though a) they had nothing to do with the order to carry the Ark on a cart, and b) they were trying to keep it from falling. They had to pay the price for others' sin.

In fact, God does that a LOT in the Old Testament - punishing others for the sin of another. David's first son dies because of David's sin with Bathsheba. Job's family dies because of . . . well, no reason at all, really.

Personally, I find the Bible's message to be highly overrated.

[Jamastiene]

27. Thank you.

That is EXACTLY what they are like. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is Bigotry Lite™©®, but it's still bigotry.

[HillbillyBob]

32. I am of a similar opinion. I spent a lot of time in my youth also

trying to pray away the gay. Until I realised I cannot be honest that way. I have to be me to steal a phrase.
I finally understood that Pray Away and Hate the Sin, not the Sinner were lies.
I amazes me that some folk can be so delusional.

[patrice]

9. Because 2 or more can play "their" game AND BEAT THEM at it. nt

[bluedawg12]

15. Anti-gay rhetoric opens donor wallets.

money trumps all in this game.

[Vanje]

26. Yes it does

Its a money maker

[Warpy]

11. As Maher found out, they're simply unreachable at present

The kindest thing to do is allow them their delusions until such time as it all falls apart and they ask for help to pick up the pieces.

Yes, it hurts to see other people clinging to a fantasy that limits their lives and their capacity for joy, but they don't see it that way.

Our job is to keep those people out of power and keep them from inserting their delusions into civil law.

[Hydra]

20. That's exactly it

People don't "get it" until they are ready. You can't force them to. You CAN limit access to things that they can use to hurt others, and that's what should be done.

Until they show they are capable of wielding power responsibly, keep them away from it!

[MidwestTransplant]

18. I found the part about how throughouth the Middle East preceding Jesus there were a bunch

of religions that claimed their prophet was son of God and born to a virgin mother. I hadn't known that.

[Sal Minella]

23. "Mithra" is one to look up in Wiki -- Zoroaster another, iirc.

[MidwestTransplant]

36. Thanks

[patrice]

25. Check out Sir J.G. Frazer's The Golden Bough for in depth info on this topic

Carl Gustav Jung also had quite a bit to say about universal perceptual patterns, popularly known as "Archetypes".

[MidwestTransplant]

35. Thanks

[Ian David]

19. Because they have cookies? n/t

[Jamastiene]

29. & donuts. n/t

[LeftyMom]

22. The whole thing struck me as a snarkier, Americanized "Root of All Evil"

There's a REALLY similar, equally defensive section with a then-still-closeted Ted Haggard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXJRxsnwQww&feature=related

[alwysdrunk]

24. Because there's too damn many of them

They are a huge percentage of the population and they vote in higher proportion than any other group except for senior citizens. That's really about the only reason.

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

30. because it seems like we need them to get our rights

[HillbillyBob]

31. Why do we want to "reach out" to these people again?

To try to slap some sense into them, or failing that just slap the crazy out?

[donco6]

34. There ain't no slapping the crazy out.

It's all the way through, like nougat in a Milky Way.