DU is ALREADY losing Election 2008....

[Dob Bole]

Hear me out. I am a rural Southerner, an evangelical, I have held public office, I have a good political sense, and my political predictions are usually right. And I can already point out several reasons, just by looking around DU today, why we keep losing elections.

First of all, progressives aren't being very progressive. Look at the map, and you will see that Kerry won the rich states, while Bush won the poor states...supposedly our constituency. Why does this continue to happen?...maybe such simplistic thinking as this: most states are full of racist, redneck, stupid, fundamentalist knuckle-draggers. Not very liberal of you at all.

The fact of the matter is that that it's not just "the economy, stupid." Values DO matter to most Americans...some values are determined by culture, some are distinctly American, and some derive distinctly from religious belief. But if we do not address these, in a way other than "having values is STUPID, you stupid stupid-head! Vote un-stupid!" like an abusive father would, we are not going to win elections for quite a while.

For all of the rhetoric about the intolerance of Republicans (which does exist,) it is the Democrats who are having trouble respecting the beliefs and culture of others. Like the settlers attempting to "Christianize" Native Americans, DUers automatically assume that the culture of rural Americans is evil and needs to be replaced with a better one. We can garner their votes without disrespecting or changing their way of life.

If I may cite one group that receives a lot of abuse on here- evangelicals. Evangelicals were THE core constituency of Jimmy Carter- as a result he won the South (where evangelicalism is the folk religion) and the midwest. If you equate them with fundamentalists, a single subset, and berate them all the time, you're going to have some trouble.

The Democratic Party will recover, after we go through the painful process of second-guessing and reform. But intolerance and bigotry have no room in this equation.

[Dob Bole]

1. kick

[Dems Will Win]

152. THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION is in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x16099

[Fla Dem]

191. I just posted something similar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1317651

[Dob Bole]

2. kick, since I just read another thread about "racist, bigoted dumbasses"

[drdigi420]

74. lots of threads because there are lots of racist, bigoted dumbasses

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

3. Yep

.

[RogueTrooper]

4. Good Post

I agree, it is time for the left to stop denigrating religous Americans.
A question about Jimmy Carter....

Carter lost the support of evangelicals when he supported the equal rights ammendment act ( I am sure there were other reasons but this is the one that comes most readily to mind ). They transfered their support to a man, Ronald Reagan, who gave a convincing performance of lip service.

My question is: How do we reach out to these Americans and open up a dialog?

[Stuckinthebush]

93. How do we reach out to these Americans?

Pander to their bigotry. Don't tell me that the majority of fundamentalist, Southern Christians share my anti-bigotry values. They don't. They would prefer to have no homosexuals in the country, they would prefer to keep women and men in their separate places, they would prefer to stop women from having abortions while continuing to kill criminals.

Great values, huh? I'm sure dialog would be very useful.

[RogueTrooper]

139. For somebody with such contempt

for a group of Americans you certainly do a good job aping them.

[Richardson08]

203. everyone in the Northeast and on the west coast is not rich

[Bill McBlueState]

186. exactly

I do not want this country to be a place where we have to pander to bigots to get elected.

Northern secession is the best answer, but since that's unlikely, we have to keep trying to build coalitions of forward-thinking people. I'm not giving up on marriage equality because of a bunch of superstitious hicks.

[ElectroPrincess]

166. Yes, but those of us on the religious left try not to posture

or "openly" declare, posture, or in general constantly preach the values and tenets of our faith. There are many deeply spiritual and/or religious people we enjoy the company of everyday. However, the true humanitarians / pacifists / religious left activists do NOT leave large footprints.

Nope, I say we use the baseball bat approach and put the Fundy's back in their box SEPARATE from the government.

[GiovanniC]

5. I'd Have No Problem Being Tolerant

If we were talking about people who are also tolerant. But how can I be tolerant to a group that overwhelmingly believes that homosexuals should be hated pariahs?

How can I be tolerant to people who think that women should have no control over what happens to their bodies?

How can I be tolerant with segments of the population that want to restrict the rights of blacks and other minorities?

I have no problem with the south or any other region, or with religious people. But when I see election results that say that around 80% of people (in my home state of Michigan!) voted to say "We Hate Fags" or vote for a man who thinks that abortion providers should receive the death penalty, I have a problem with that as a straight, white male American who cannot tolerate intolerance.

[sangh0]

7. You have a major problem with tolerance

If we were talking about people who are also tolerant. But how can I be tolerant to a group that overwhelmingly believes that homosexuals should be hated pariahs? ....

There is no need to be tolerant of people you agree with. It's like the 1st Amend. It doesn't protect speech that everyone agrees with because such speech needs no protection.

It's the speech (and the people) that people DON'T like that needs protection (and tolerance)

[GiovanniC]

21. My Tolerance Ends

Where your (or their, rather) intolerance starts restricting the rights of my fellow Americans.

[sangh0]

26. Nice try

but I don't remember the last time I enslaved my fellow Americans.

You must be referring to my "experimental" period, which I barely remember.

[GiovanniC]

32. No, I'm Talking About the Fucking Ballot Proposals in My State and Others

Amending our constitution to refuse rights and priveledges to sam-sex couples.

[sangh0]

62. I don't remember voting for those either

Last time I checked, I was a resident of only one state - a state which did not have such ballot proposals.

[GiovanniC]

86. I Did Not Say YOU In Particular

I said that I have a hard time being tolerant of people who want to curtail the rights of others.

[sangh0]

89. Yes, it's hard work.

It takes a lot of patience and empathy.

That doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile.

[GiovanniC]

100. So I Guess

I should be tolerant of people who are intolerant of everyone else.

I should tolerate gays being discriminated against.

I should tolerate women in back alleys with coat hangers.

I should tolerate blacks being denied educational opportunities.

I should tolerate a de-facto state religion being shoved down everyone's throat.

I should tolerate the raping of the environment.

I should tolerate the shredding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the civil rights that men have died for.


And when I'm done with all that tolerance, I only have one question left for you.

What's the fucking point of being a Democrat now?

[chimp chump]

159. There's the problem...

"What's the fucking point of being a Democrat now?"

If that's all your party represents to you and to swing voters and to Red State voters, then maybe that's the problem.

The party activists are too narrowly focused on issues that major portions of the states will not support or consider irrelevant to their social and financial priorities.

If the package you're offering is considered irrelevant or even repugnant, you won't make the sale. You can talk about what's right or wrong all you want. You might even be right in every instance. But that doesn't mean people will actually care or grant your candidates enough seats to enact policy.

Some of you would do well to observe the tactics of the ACLU over the decades. Their history is quite interesting. Notice that even before the election, many organizations like MoveOn were already talking about becoming advocacy groups independent of the Democratic party, a vehicle which may have proven itself poorly designed to achieve certain specific policy goals.

[sangh0]

175. Yes, you guessed right

You should tolerate EVERY bigot who crosses your path. The alternative, is to destroy those you don't like because THAT is exactly what intolerance leads to; violence.

Furthermore, if we leave them to themselves, they will just spend their time reinforcing each other's bigotry. If we don't get involved, then we have no hope of winning anyone to our side.

[Occulus]

110. Patience and empathy begin when you're a kid

When fifteen other kids gang up on you, throw you headfirst into a garbage can while laughing and saying you deserve it, and doing it under the laughing tacit approval of the playground monitor, and your parents implying their agreement because you wouldn't be getting picked on because "you're just a little different" (yes, in those words). And you turn the other cheek and don't harm them back, but just go on peacefully doing your thing and being yourself.

It continues when five or six people regularly and simultaneously tell you to shut up when you feel you have something to say. And just letting it go so you don't cause a scene or upset someone.

It concludes when hatred and bigotry eject you from your home, your school, and the life you're trying to make for yourself (or, perhaps, because of the life you want or can't help but to have for yourself), and you take no real revenge beyond angry words- because you know taking revenge is wrong.

And, for me at least, patience and empathy end when, although doing one's level best to always treat people decently at least and helping out where you can, being polite and considerate all the while, one still gets treatment like what I described above.

I refuse to ever again smile at someone I know will ultimately kick me in the teeth. I'm through being a nice guy to end up not getting what I want.

I'll act like I'm entitled instead. It seems to be a quite successful trend indeed- look at what just happened.

[sangh0]

176. Tolerating something doesn't mean smiling at it

or approving of it, or even merely looking the other way. Toleration does not imply your silence in the face bigotry. However, it requires that you do not wish to physically destroy the bigots.

[regnaD kciN]

27. I think the point is more like:

I have a great problem being tolerant to those who are not willing to be tolerant to me!

[GiovanniC]

40. Well, The Thing Is They ARE Tolerant To Me

I'm white.

I'm male.

I'm straight.

I'm Protestant.

They have no problem with me.

But I still have a problem with those who are intolerant of non-whites, of women, of GLBTs, of other religions, et cetera.

[sangh0]

64. That has the same problem

Tolerance isn't meant for those that please you.

[GiovanniC]

94. Okay, You're Either Thick or You're Doing This on Purpose

I do not believe that God is going to send everyone to hell who works on Sunday. My neighbor does. I am tolerant of his beliefs. I do not yell at him for them. I do not tell him he's an idiot. I live and let live. I am tolerant.

However, say my neighbor wants to legislate that belief, and make a law that no one is ever allowed to work on Sunday. I have a problem with that, because he's trying to impose his beliefs on ME and restrict MY rights. He is not being tolerant of what I believe. Even though I never work on Sunday anyway, it still bothers me.

Therefore, it is possible for me to be tolerant of things that I do not personally like or agree with. And I will continue to be tolerant of those things up until the point that those people choose to restrict my rights or the rights of others. I am not tolerant of that. Do you get it now?

[Rockholm]

106. My guess is on purpose.

Another seventhson?

[sangh0]

177. Now you just switched from tolerating bigots to tolerating bigotry

Earlier, you spoke of not tolerating the people who have certain beliefs. I objected to that.

Now, you're speaking of not tolerating certain beliefs. That is different, and that I agree with. Tolerating people does not mean that you must remain silent when faced with an expression of bigotry. You can criticize the bigoted remarks/actions without being intolerant of the person.

[PhuLoi]

194. Bugger tolerance.

Tolerance was what got the pagans murdered to the point of extinction. I am right off tolerance for the foreseeable future. Now I am into fighting, literal and metaphorical. Now I'd rather fight than fuck. Tolerance only works when you are in power.

[Roland99]

33. We're not talking freedom of speech here, though!!! Damnit!!!

We're talking persecution, bigotry, discrimination and breaking the separate of church and state.

[sangh0]

68. No, we're not

We're talking about how to win votes back from the people who should be voting for us because we best represent their interests.

And "intolerance" towards them is not going to do it.

[GiovanniC]

82. Help Me Out Here

I don't think our positions are too far apart on this issue.... I just want to hear what you think is the most tolerant way to reply to the following statement in a way that is likely to win us votes in the future:

"Thank god we voted to ban fags from marrying each other."

[sangh0]

90. "I don't remember Jesus ever saying ANYTHING like that"

"Could you point me to the Chapter and Verse?"

[Roland99]

104. EXACTLY THE POINT!! Jesus NEVER said anything like that!

But that's what these zealots believe. They have distorted the Bible and their faith. They are no better in terms of being true to their faith than is bin Laden.

It is *THEY* that much change and be informed than for the Democratic Party to pander to those zealots.


Do you honestly want a pseudo-theocracy here?

[Occulus]

125. they don't CARE about that because it says so in Leviticus.

[sangh0]

178. So ask them about Leviticus

Instead of instantly going on the attack, ask lots of questions. Make them think. It sows doubt.

Remember, these are people who are deeply committed to their point of view. You are not going to convert them in one fell swoop with some particularly brilliant review of the facts. With these people, the goal is to introduce a little crack in their mental framework. Their beliefs are so interdependent on each other, and so unforgiving of any discrepancy, that even minor faults can lead to major shifts over time.

[Occulus]

124. Suppose their religion calls on them to

preach to or "save" "sinners". Do I have to tolerate them taking action toward me because they see me as a "sinner"?

Do I have to tolerate them knocking on my door weekly and telling me I'll go to hell if I don't stop being who I am?

Oh, my bad- they view me as a "what", a homosexual, first. Also a sinner, and bound for hell. Well, I'm very flattered that they think so highly of me- is that how I'm expected to answer?

What if they believe that so strongly that they feel I'm an abomination? They are incapable of separating the person from the "sin". It's sad, but there it is. So- what if I end up feeling as though I must be constantly "on the watch", so to speak?

Do I have to tolerate people who are more likely because of their religion to take a baseball bat to my head? And how do I, as a gay man, reach out to one such person and get them to lay aside their religious beliefs in the interest of mutual peace?

Can I trust them to disregard their interpretation of their religion when they might actually want me dead because of that interpretation? Should I direct them to their priest to explain why they should "cool it"? Because it might be their priest who is encouraging those same beliefs.

Do I call the police if I feel threatened? He needs to do something to me first, or leave some indication, some sign or evidence he means me harm. Should I tolerate getting swung at once or twice in the interest of "reaching out" to people with other beliefs, no matter how repugnant they might be?

I guess my problem is, I can't do any such thing for the Talibornagain. They won't even tolerate discussing the topic with the likes of me. Doing so would, in their minds, only confirm part of what they erroneously believe in the first place: that I want to "convert" them into a "fag/queer/homo".

(edit: I think what we may need is for our straight friends to stand up and defend us from the fundies. If those friends are themselves married, even better. I don't think the fundies will listen to anything but "one of their kind", so to speak.)

I can't effectively discuss "letting" me be who I am next door to them if they have that mindset, because for them, the topic is Not. Up. For. Discussion. Nor will I ever be able to prove to them that I have worth exactly as I am. Were I to save their drowning child, they wouldn't want my filthy faggot mouth giving their kid CPR; some of these people might even let their child live or die before an ambulance came, and call it God's will that he only one there couldn't save him/her, as it would have been somehow profane.

Before you say I'm going overboard, this is a big part of *'s apparent base. Look at all the constitutional amendments in the various states that were just passed banning gay marriage. They thought I wanted a "special right", while at the same time calling it a "lifestyle choice". That they get a tax credit when they themselves get married or have a child or children- both also, I may add, lifestyle choices- the fact never ever once enters their minds that they are benefiting from the exact same thing they're denying people like me.

[sangh0]

179. No, toleration of people does not mean you must tolerate their bad acts

One can tolerate a person without condoning their bad acts. When my friends do something I consider wrong, I tell them and I tell them why. It doesn't mean I can no longer tolerate them. If I couldn't tolerate people who did wrong things, I'd have no one to talk to.

Toleration is not approval.

[Dob Bole]

9. Understandable. But...

Public opinion about homosexuals is not going to change overnight. It will be slow. But we can solve this while working within people's culture.

If we can get people to start asking "why do we have to have a license to get married? This isn't driving..." then the problem will solve itself.

[RogueTrooper]

31. We need nattatives that provide people with a path

away from bigotry?

It is well known that Howard Dean did not welcome the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling on same sex couples. After all, he was an ambitous man planning a Presidential run. Yet he choose to do the right thing rather than the easy thing.

Some people think that, in the fight for equality, the most important thing Howard Dean did was sign the civil unions bill. I don't. I think the most important thing he did was fight, and win an election, after signing the bill. Dean did not condem people for their intolerent views, rather, he fought to win them over; and he used his own conversion story to sell his bill.

I think by condemning, and shunning people for their beliefs we leave them to the company of people who's motives are less than honest. We need a new way of thinking.

[GiovanniC]

48. What New Way Do You Propose?

I'm all for anything that will reverse the uneasy trend I have seen this country on. This isn't a north/south thing for me. I live in Michigan... this is a husband/wife thing, a friend/neighbor thing, a father/son thing here.

I want people to come around to the idea that all people are created equal. That America stands for the rights not just of the majority but also the minority, not just the priveledged but also the oppressed. I just don't know how to get them there if they aren't already, and my patience wears incredibly thin as I see values this nation was founded on erode more very day.

[RogueTrooper]

69. I am not sure

It is something I am giving the matter a lot of thought at the moment.

however, some rough thoughts

1. We need to differentiate between their leaders and the followers.
2. We need to, by trial and error, find ways to reach out to the followers.
3. We need to, by trial and error, find ways to destroy their leadership.

For too long we have shrugged away the outrages of the religous right; hoping that, if we ignore them, they will go away. That is wrong. We need to fight them, the same way Howard Dean fought them.

[sangh0]

71. I suggest reading some George Lakoff

who has been writing stuff about how to speak about the issues in a way that "frames" our positions in values such as family, community, mutual support, compassion, etc.

He has a new book out. I think the title is something like "Don't think about an Elephant"

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

119. I haven't read Lakoff yet but I've heard him on AAR and he's EXCELLENT

He talks about reframing liberal language in the same way that the GOP has been successfully doing for decades. As someone who's worked in marketing for almost three decades, I find his ideas to be very pragmatic and invaluable to rebuilding dialog.

I was just commiserating with a colleague about how hard it is to find common ground with people we don't understand. If we can sell them shampoo and dog food, why can't we sell them ideas? Thanks for bringing up Lakoff's name - I'm going to start reading him right away.

[RogueTrooper]

140. Indeed

In my opinion the most important thing Howard Dean did was to read George Lakoff.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

70. As another white american male, I couldn't agree more.

[Rockholm]

101. Giovanni, I know what you are trying to say (I Think)

I am tolerant towards most people. I lose my tolerance when they cross me. Example. If you are a religious person, a fundie or whatever, I don't care. I support your right to your have the religious beliefs that you have (even if they are opposite of my beliefs). That is tolerance. Issues arise when one person's religious values are used to supress my freedom. Same-sex marriage is one example. Stay out of my life. I lose my tolerance when you inject your lack of tolerance on me; by voting against me, by legislating against me, by taking away my rights.
This is extremely clear.

[GiovanniC]

130. Yes, That is 100% Exactly What I'm Saying

[Rockholm]

154. I'm gay and that's how I feel.

Thanks for being there for us! Watch out for that Sangh0 person. I smell a rat.

[American Tragedy]

180. Personally, I dont mind them coming to my door to tell me the end is near

or whatever. What pisses us off to the point of distraction is that they want to use temporal government to enforce spiritual laws, and that is not the role of the government. Anybody who thinks that it is can fuck off.

[Bunny]

6. So, we should acknowledge, no embrace,

racism, sexism, homophobia, intolerance, and bigotry?

Not this liberal. I've been around way too long to acknowledge and embrace this garbage.

[StopTheMorans]

8. Exactly, to the fundies out there, let me make it clear: VALUES ARE SHIT

[Taverner]

16. Fuck values

Allow me to quote someone who actually thought, rather than let some TV minister do his thinking for him..."Morality is a disease of the mind." Arthur Rimbaud, French Poet.

FUCK MORALITY

FUCK VALUES

AND ABOVE ALL FUCK EVANGELICAL CULTS!!!!!

[Roland99]

41. THEIR values are FRAUDS!

They are charlatans! Each and every one of them.

They are the mindless sheep that will listen to NO reason whatsoever. They are obstinate, arrogant, and prejudiced.

[sangh0]

12. And there ya go again

Not all southerners are racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant bigots, but your characterizing them that way might be a sign of some bigotry on your part.

[K-W]

24. So Kerry won the south?

Thats funny, I thought the South went overwhelmingly for the party that supports racism, sexism, homophobia and intolerance.

Did I read the map wrong?

[sangh0]

28. No, but you read the map wrong

Plenty of Dems in the south.

[K-W]

39. Not enough to win a single state.

Are you arguing that the South isnt strongly republican right now?

[sangh0]

72. I am arguing

that it will STAY republican if you treat them all with disdain and contempt.

[Rockholm]

103. Sangh0, you argue WAY too much!

It seems every thread you are on, you are fighting with people. Lighten up.

[Ripley]

132. It's not fighting, it's

disrupting.

[sffreeways]

162. And the arguments

are usually simple minded circular meaningless bullshit. This one enjoys the opportunity to be defensive and obnoxious without ever making a point other than pointing out that others are pointing out the ignorance of religious zealots and that upsets the zealots so they won't vote for democrats. Yawn...

[sangh0]

181. One must be pretty simple minded to not understand

that elections aren't won by writing off millions of it's members.

[QC]

136. So you think that alienating southern Democrats

is the answer to the problem of there being too few southern Democrats?

And since the Jesse Helms types do not read DU, but the southern liberals do, attacking southerners here does alienate southern liberals. If you feel the need to attack freepers, then try free republic--you won't find many of them here.

[MUSTANG_2004]

187. Of course it is strongly Republican now

But Clinton did well in it (winning about half the states) and the right candidate in 2004 could have done so as well.

The way the DNC sped up the primary process so that effectively the Southern states had no say was a mistake.

[Bunny]

42. Bullshit.

And you know it. Reread the OP. I'm supposed to embrace people whose religiously held beliefs are in direct contrast to mine? If all these people, these fundies, are against human righs, civil rights, women's rights, and embrace everything else that represents their "values", then what in the world am I SUPPOSED to think about them? THEY VOTED FOR THIS SHIT - are you going to tell me they are NOT racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted and intolerant?

These fundies need to re-examine what they think THEIR God teaches.

[KitSileya]

54. I have no problem embracing them....if they don't rescind my rights.

I'm supposed to embrace people whose religiously held beliefs are in direct contrast to mine?

Yes, as liberals, we are supposed to embrace those that hold directly contrasting religious beliefs. What we are not supposed to embrace is them using those beliefs to restrict our rights. When these beliefs go against universally accepted human rights, we are not suposed to embrace them. When these beliefs go against the Constitution, we are not supposed to embrace them. They are allowed to think, and say, what ever they feel and believe, but when they act upon them to the detriment of the rights of others who do not agree with them, I refuse to embrace them.

[Bunny]

60. Well, don't you think that's exactly what's going on?

I don't know what else TO think, after yesterday.

[KitSileya]

78. I agree with you.

That was what my post was trying to show. We liberals do embrace diversity, and go with Voltaire, but we do not condone attempts to deny civil rights, and human rights, in the name of religion.

[sangh0]

75. No one said you should "embrace" them

You should "convert" them, which is hard to do if you can't even tolerate their presence.

These fundies need to re-examine what they think THEIR God teaches.

And that's NOT going to happen if we don't engage with them, and we can't engage with them if we can't even tolerate them. If we don't engage with them, then the only things they will hear will be the things their right-wing leaders tell them.

[Dob Bole]

19. Yeah, that's what I said.... *rolls eyes*

Look, the problem is not racism, sexism, homophobia, intolerance and bigotry. The problem is that you think that most states in the country are so stupid that they are consumed with racism, sexism, homophobia, intolerance, and bigotry.

Liberals lose because of their condescending attitude. The only liberal that I have seen get even close to getting it right is Jim Hightower.

[K-W]

34. No liberals lose because you and others believe LIES.

Liberals dont have a condescending attitude. That is propaganda. The liberal strawman is not the fault of the liberals, it is the fault of the lying republicans.

But fine, if you think it is ok for people to vote this country to destruction because they dont like the percieved attitude of democrats, have fun with the Bush administration.

But please dont come here and argue that the problem here is that the liberals dont embrace lies and empty rhetoric about values.

[Dob Bole]

43. Ok. You're right. Teach me what I should believe...

you're not condescending at all.

[K-W]

46. Since when is being right a disadvantage?

I am not being condescending, you are posting things that are false. It is not condescending of me to point out that fact.

Clearly you are more interested in being reactionary than you are in being right, I think perhaps that might be something of a problem in the country right now.

[sangh0]

95. You are being condescending

You're speaking as if being right on the facts means you are right all around.

You claim that the problem is that people believe lies. It's obvious that you don't believe the lies, but you still aren't right.

The problem isn't that people believe lies, because people have ALWAYS believed lies, but Dems have won anyway. The real problem deals with WHY so many people believed THEIR lies.

It has to do with the way they tell them, and the way we have failed to deal with it. Instead, we cite facts and recite statistics, and lose while proclaiming it's someone else's fault because THEY were too stupid to realize the truth.

No, that's not TOO condescending.

[Bunny]

47. Horseshit again, Dob.

In your OP, you told us we needed to accept that these people's religious beliefs were to be tolerated. Their religious beliefs include removing human rights, civil rights, women's rights, etc. I will never accept that, and in the absence of any sort of encouraging changes coming from those DEEP RED states, I'll continue to hold the same low opinion of those people who earn it.

Not all Southerners are like this, I know that. But you made your case for the fundies, that's who I'm discussing.

[Dob Bole]

52. I didn't make my case for ANY fundamentalists...

Fundamentalists view the "decay of morality" as the number one public policy crisis, so they are not going to vote for Democrats no matter what.

I referred to evangelicals, who voted for Clinton but who Bush is winning by default just by paying attention to them, and to rural Americans, who have a certain sense of values that are ignored by Democrats who think they're all stupid rednecks.

[Bunny]

67. I don't think they're stupid rednecks.

And I've stated many times in this thread what "values" of theirs I oppose, and will NEVER embrace. If I've misunderstood some fundamental difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals, then I apologize for tarring with a broad brush.

Somehow, I don't think there are going to be significant differences between the two.

[sangh0]

79. You are distorting Dob Bole's remarks

Go read the OP and you'll see that DB said nothing about "accepting" their values or approving them, or even merely condoning them.

What he said is we're not going to persuade any of them to join our side if we treat them with contempt

[Bunny]

193. There is little other way I can treat them,if this is what they embrace.

[sangh0]

197. Treat their ideas with contempt

but you shouldn't treat them with contempt, even if they do deserve it.

[Bunny]

202. Okay - I can agree with that.

There is great difficulty at times in distinguishing the two, though.

[southlandshari]

196. Excellent distinction.

There are plenty of evangelicals who will vote for a liberal and/or Democratic candidate (remember Jimmy Carter, folks?).

[southlandshari]

192. Amen! n/t

[ZR2]

After living in both the north and the south

I will assure you there is more racism, sexism, and bigotry in New York than there is in Georgia.

[Tomee450]

150. I strongly disagree.

I have lived in both north and south and never was more fearful than when living in the south. Many white Southerners had terrible attitudes towards black people. They were very condescending and thought nothing of calling a black person a n---er. African Americans waiting at stop lights had to endure that slur as it was hurled at them from a car window. The rural areas were especially bad for black folks.

[hexola]

10. WIll it recover?

The Democratic Party will recover, after we go through the painful process of second-guessing and reform. But intolerance and bigotry have no room in this equation.

Will it...? I may have cast my last vote for The Democrats...This party can't be "reabilitated" - Time to start over...IMO.

[DaveofCali]

11. If that was the case then the campaign ended before it even started

Kerry was NOT the man to appeal to Southerners, so thus Kerry had no chance of winning....

[sangh0]

13. Read the OP again

It doesn't single out Southerners. It also speaks of Evangelicals and about Republicans in general.

[nyhuskyfan]

25. If we won Ohio...

We would have won the election, and you could have flipped that around and said that the right-wing approach doesn't fly in the North.

[ArkDem]

65. The dog would have caught the rabbit if it had not stopped

to pee.

[Walt Starr]

14. I am no Christian, but you make good sense here

Kick

[BurtWorm]

15. Excellent points, Dob Bole.

After we lick our wounds, we have to focus like a laser beam on the working people's vote. That means building an organization in those states and areas and among the populations so many of us are cursing now. It doesn't mean becoming Republicans. It means making our cause and party inviting to all.

[K-W]

17. You couldnt be more wrong.

This board is not the democratic party. The party has been perfectly and completely respectful to religious beliefs.

If anyone votes against Kerry, who is religious himself, because of what people are saying on an online forum, it is thier problem, not ours. It is not our fault that there are alot of people in this country who believe lies about the left.

[Orlandodem]

18. Good post but there are only a handful on our "bench" who

could run and carry a couple Southern states. We don't need the whole South. But we can't lose the whole south. FL is not nearly as red as people think, despite going red in 2000, 2004, and electing Jeb twice. A moderate can win this state (after Jeb leaves)!!!!

Right now our "bench" is so depleted. Face it. Senators do not win the presidency. By 2008 it will have been 48 years since a Senator last won. We must pick a governor. Mark Warner? Evan Bayh would be a good VP. Vilsack of IA? Midwesterners are similar to Southerners.

[Blue Wally]

145. Gov Mark Warner of VA

That man will seriously cut into the Republican vote and is a damned good administrator as well.

[HughBeaumont]

20. Values like killing 100,000 Iraqis and Afghans for nothing?

Continuing to bathe the Middle Eastern sand with blood because you want their natural resources and markets?

Supporting the exploitation of cheap labor at the expense of American families and the overall economy?

Those kind of "VALUES"?

But hey, they weren't white, fetal or American, so . . . collateral damage for the big picture.:eyes: :eyes:

[sangh0]

35. Keep arguing the facts

That's worked so well for us so far.

It may not win any elections, but you'll feel better for it, and oh-so-much-superior

[HughBeaumont]

113. So the message here is unite with people who AGREE with that shit?

Sorry, not here.

[sangh0]

182. NO

which is why NO ONE has said that.

It's not about us uniting with them. It's about persuading them to move towards us and away from their bigoted policies.

[Dob Bole]

36. No, values like Robert Byrd and Bob Graham opposing those actions...

and still being able to have swag in rural states.

[KittyWampus]

22. I'm A Far Leftie Who Agrees 100% & Said Exact Same Thing

exactly the same way.

It is NOT just the economy stupid.

People care about VALUES.

Wesley Clark got that right and Kerry under utilized that message.

[K-W]

44. Nobody underused any messages, Bush and the Media lied.

They framed the election, they framed Kerry, they lied about him. They portrayed Kerry as something other than he was, and most people in this country dont know enough to not buy at least some of the lies.

[maine_raptor]

23. I hear what you are saying, but

how do we go about convincing evangelicals that "progressive" values are "Christian" ones?

The "big lies" that the Repub's have shouted for years now has soaked into the political body of those red states. Unless we can change that mindset, I fear that it will take a major disaster or scandal to make a dent.

[sangh0]

38. Study Christ's message

Jesus was a progressive.

[maine_raptor]

45. I have, and he was/is

But what I am saying is that His message has been turned on it's self and now is so identified with GOP that it will be hard to change.

[sangh0]

81. Right, but it's up to us

to change the message back around. I doubt that any religious person is going to be persuaded to change their religious beliefs on the basis of what a politician says.

[realisticphish]

144. exactly

and honestly, it is completely up to us liberal christians to change it. we need to show those who follow the tv ministers the actual teachings of christ


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[RafterMan]

29. Well put.

That disgust transmits itself to the religious South in so many ways. And for the most part, they're not asking you to share their values, just understand and respect them. Or at least not be revolted by them.

[kentuck]

30. Yep....

:shrug:

[atreides1]

37. Having Values Isn't Stupid, It's The Values That Are

There is nothing wrong with having values, I value individual freedom,
fairness, tolerance.

But when the cultural values are racism, religious intolerance, woman who cannot have control over their bodies, and the idea that minorities are less then human, these aren't values. Where I come from we call this hatred.

[msgeri55]

49. past due time

if we're set up to fight ,it's time to get religion,any religion, out of our government.corner and weed it out wherever it lurks. make them pay taxes and provide all needed social welfare to their members so that tax payers dont have to.If you are a church member ,you cannot receive welfare in any form,let the fundies deal with this and they will be so busy fund raising that they wo't have time for politics

[Chili]

50. I agree with a lot of what you say...

...and I'll take it a step further. I think one of the best ways of countering the Evangelical right is to put much MUCH more emphasis on our own religious left. There are MANY of us on the left with very strong religious beliefs that are actually much closer to what should be considered "Godly." And if we can manage to do this without pointing out the hypocrisy of their ignoring the basic tenets of Christianity (love thy neighbor, he who is without sin cast the first stone), then we could accomplish a lot. Having said that, I fully acknowledge the "elitest" aspect of that statement: it's hard to get around the certainty I feel about their religious hypocrisy. But to actually make inroads, we'd have to bite back those words and suppress those thoughts.

And more, while I fully believe that atheists and secular skeptics have every right to their belief systems, I don't think it helps at all in this particular power struggle and culture war to put so much emphasis on the secularism many of us advocate. The right to it, but not the need to emphasize it so loudly. I hope I stated that clearly, though I doubt it. I can't believe that we can't walk this tightrope without compromising our own pro-choice and gay rights stances.

[peacetalksforall]

51. Why is it moral to kill our kids for corporations?

Why is it moral to target seniors, the poor, emigrants, black and native americans with derision, superiority, and economic traps?

Why is it moral to thumb your nose at the people and countries outside the U.S.?

Why is it moral to operate a country in secrecy?

Why is ti moral to steal our rights?

We're supposed to take the high road about the values of the right wing when they operate from the sewer? We're already on the high road when it comes to values? Maybe we can't include ALL of our leaders in Washington.

[realcountrymusic]

53. Bull

I am a former Texan, professional country musician, and social scientist who works in the rural South.

From that experience, I can say that I will not support a party that finds common cause with evangelicals, period. That entails a pact with the devil. Because whatever else I believe, I believe absolutely in the separation of church and state and freedom from as well as of religion. I cannot stomach a government that institutionalizes discrimination and justifies its actions as mandated by (one particular) God. That's no better than Osama Bin Laden.

Poor people are not the same thing as evangelicals. Most of the politically active evangelical right are NOT poor people. While most working-class southerners are Christian, they are not uniformly Christian Fascists.

We can win without the south. We saw the way to do it in this election, we just couldn't pull it off QUITE. We need the industrial midwest and the southwest.

The needle we really need to thread is keeping Latino voters while taking a serious and non-bigoted stand on immigration reform. With that, we can win New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and solidify the midwest.

The south can rot in hell, as far as I am concerned. There is no salvaging what's gone wrong there short of civil war redux.

RCM

[Dob Bole]

59. Then you'll have to leave the Democratic Party...

Sad to say, you already support a party that finds common cause with evangelicals like these:

www.sojo.net

www.esa-online.org

Now if you could just manage to not tell them to rot in hell, you would get their votes. I know it's hard...but you could try.

[madrchsod]

77. i don`t think the sojo`s are who people are talking about

it`s the guy who i used to work with . i would bring up a point about Jesus and if it was slightly different than his he would shut up and keep reading his little Christian guide on how not to think. there is no way to reach the Christian brain dead. when someone bases their entire life believing a 3000 yr old history of a tribe of Semites somehow is relevant to today..well there is nothing you can do but ignore them...

[sangh0]

87. sojo's are Evangelicals, Baptists, etc

It's not up to you who is a "real" evangelical and who is not. When one criticizes "Evangelicals" one criticizes ALL Evangelicals.

when someone bases their entire life believing a 3000 yr old history of a tribe of Semites somehow is relevant to today..well there is nothing you can do but ignore them...

Most Democrats believe that the history of a 3000 year old Semitic tribe is relevant to today. I guess we should toss them all to the side.

[Dob Bole]

88. I know...my point is about broad-brushing...

that automatically loses the votes of everyone who gets brushed.

[southlandshari]

199. And don't forget

these invaluable evangelical Christians who fight on for the progressive values Jesus clearly taught his followers:

http://www.faithfulamerica.org/home.htm

http://www.habitat.org/

http://www.cmep.org/

http://www.ecapc.org/mainframe.asp

http://www.progressivechristiansuniting.org/index.shtml

Want more? Look here:

http://www.faithfulamerica.org/Links.htm


Open your mind. Bite your tongue. Realize there are millions of us Jesus freaks on your team!

[madrchsod]

61. you are right about the Latino votes

i work with alot of young Latinos here in the north. last night a kid who helped campaign for kerry was kind`a lost ..he wondered why bush won-i just said "cracker nation" he kin`a looked puzzled and got what i was talking about..unfortunalitly he`s probably going to be drafted sometime in the future...

[madrchsod]

55. fuck cracker nation

doesn`t matter where they are-north south east west-fuck them. i`ve lived with these people for alot of years and there is no way they will ever vote for a democrat. bush has lied,cheated, and stole from these people and they say fuck me harder georgie, it feels so good...

[WillyT]

57. LOL !!! - Agreed !!!

:yourock:

[meow mix]

160. lol cracker nation works for me

was wondering what to call the red portion of the former country who's name shall not be said.

ty =)

[JLaw82]

56. Let's be honest

Most people in this country are motivated by greed and/or fear. The repubs have successfully convinced the blue collar family that they have their best interests at heart. So, repubs argue we'll give you tax cuts, the dems will raise your taxes. In reality, only the very rich get any substantial tax cut, but incredibly the masses still believe. And we all know how this administration has used fear to their advantage. Ultimately, these sorts of devices only work when you have an electorate that is in large part, uninformed, and holds a myopic view of domestic and foreign policy issues. Tax cuts are ok even if they create record deficits. Giving up civil liberties is fine because we're afraid of the terrorists. Tort reform is great because I wasn't tragically injured by someone else's neglect. It's a sad day in the history of this country. Absolutely nothing about this election is positive and it reveals a truly tragic flaw in the make-up of the American people. I'm Christian, but I couldn't vote for bush for the simple reason that I find him repugnant to my values. Polluting our earth for profit. Waging war on lies. Corporate bottom line at the expense of the individual. Changing the common law limit a person's right to his or her day in court. These are not my values. They shouldn't be the values of any person who claims to abide by an inner moral compass. Just my two cents.

[demokatgurrl]

58. What really pisses me off is that such amoral

people as the right wingnuts think they have a lock on "morals" and "values". They are the HEIGHT of intolerance and bigotry. I heard more than one pundit today railing against Democrats because they were on the wrong side of such "moral" issues as gay marriage. Please!!! Give half those guys a chance to watch a porno video of two lesbians and you'd see how much they care about sexual "morals".

As for evangelicals, I, as a practicing Jew, have nothing agains evangelicals, or practitioners of any other religion, for that matter. I just don't want them having a voice in my SECULAR government. If I did want to live in a church/state, I'd pick France or Italy.

[KitSileya]

92. Actually, France is a secular state.

They haven't had a state church since the revolution, about.

And I agree with you. The erosion of the separation of church and state is frigthening.

[Blue Wally]

147. WTF are you talking about??

When I was growing up back in the fifties, everything except convienience stores was closed on Sundays. You couldn't buy a package of prophylactics in a heavily Catholic state. Jews were excluded from country clubs and hotels ("restricted"). I have never felt so free from the bonds of organized religion on my life as i do today.

[MrTriumph]

63. Will problem will take care of itself?

Hey, with all 3 branches of gov't in Rep. hands, will abortion and gay marriage be banned? Probably not- the R's have to keep at least a couple hot button issue alive.

For good or ill, once these issues are resolved then maybe the South might listen to progressives about economic issues.

[JDPriestly]

66. Nonsense

I lived in the south in the late 1950s, amongst the bigots, religious fanatics and opportunists of hate. I know the south. I was there when northern liberals had to drag southerners screaming and kicking into the a society in which African-Americans could go to the same schools, eat in the same restaurants, drink from the same drinking fountains and use the same restrooms as whites. Ignorance is ignorance. Prejudice is prejudice. Southerners are ignorant and prejudiced. I have my values too and cowtowing to ignorant, prejudiced southerners is not among them. I believe in equal justice, tolerance, loving and lifting up my neighbors. And if my neighbor wallows in hate and stupidity, it's my job to let that neighbor know what I think. The south is backward because southerners are stupid and poorly educated. I lived there long enough to know that for a fact.

Jimmy Carter was Christian, but he was a well-educated, tolerant Christian who did not use his Christian beliefs as an excuse for hating non-Christians. When we use the term "evangelical," we are not talking about true Christians. We are talking about the hateful hypocrites who use the Christian religion to browbeat, guilt-trip and hurt others. Surely you are not in that group.

[Dob Bole]

73. You again highlight the problem...

I wasn't speaking specifically of the South..but this isn't the 1950s. It isn't even 1976. If you want to use the term "evangelicals" when you bash people like Falwell, that's fine...but that's like using the term "Americans" instead of "conservatives," and saying "Man, I can't stand those damn Americans and I hope they rot in hell." Say that and see how many votes you get.

[The Magistrate]

85. You Make Some Interesting Points, Mr. Bole

It would be a pleasure to see what lines of argument you would suggest for implementing them.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Dob Bole]

114. Implementing them isn't hard at all....it's like Howard Dean said....

"I never talk down to people."

That's all that I'm asking for. Can many DUers honestly say that they don't talk down to people?

[The Magistrate]

138. That Is A Real Problem, Sir

Many on the left eagerly embrace the role of moral scold, and that is the least popular type of humanity. It is often the case that how a thing is said is far more important than the thing itself being said, and things said in certain tones and manners simply will not be listened to....

"America looked into the abyss, and fifty-one percent said: 'Hmmm...I wonder what's down there....'"

[greyfox]

76. You are correct...

however, it will fall on deaf ears right now for many on DU who just need to vent and they want to blame it all on someone or somethiing, so they pick our Sviour and we as His followers... we will survive... and so will they. BUT... perhaps they NEED to get it all out and then come back to reality and let's IMPEACH Bush or at the VERY least stay on his case about it for 4 more if we need to...

Because.....

[quaoar]

80. Dob Bole:

I'm not sure what state you are in. But from my perspective in Alabama, I agree with much of what you said.

Bush won 75% of the white vote in Alabama yesterday. He won 62 to 38, that's 10 points better than he did in 2000. That's worse than an ass-kicking. The only counties Kerry won were small black-majority counties in the middle of the state. And Amendment 2 to strip antiquated segregationist language from the state Constitution was likely defeated (it's losing by 2,500 votes).

So we have a long way to go.

But I also know why Southerners vote for Bush. It's a great big "fuck you" to Northern elites, intellectuals, Hollywood, etc. Sadly, that counts for far more than healthcare and jobs.

[Dob Bole]

83. This is true, but there are tons of rural areas within our reach...

I know that Alabama is big problem situation, simply because fundamentalism is big there...same in Mississippi.

But I used to live in South Alabama, and I can tell you that a lot of the people there are good people who would do anything for you...their religious beliefs do not automatically make them evil bigots, and we need to fight that mentality.

[Dulcinea]

98. You nailed it.

But I also know why Southerners vote for Bush. It's a great big "fuck you" to Northern elites, intellectuals, Hollywood, etc. Sadly, that counts for far more than healthcare and jobs.

A lot of Southerners are still fighting the Civil War! "We don't care how you do it up North" is still on many a bumper sticker.

[lawladyprof]

84. Maybe we should have backed away from gay marriage

And civil unions for now and focused on the employment discrimination gays still face. I am in the deepest, darkest South and I can tell you very few, if any, agree with firing/not hiring a person because of his or her sexual orientation. Flame away. I know our gay and lesbian brothers and sister, respectively, want and deserve full and equal rights now, but given the nature of the country and the power of the religious right perhaps the battle has to be won incrementally (see the legal groundwork before Brown v. Board of Education), with healthy dollops of education that heterosexuals have more in common with gays, who are, after all, your brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins, aunts, and uncles.

A heavier emphasis on the unfairness of the sodomy laws so the country would be in relatively full support of the SCt decision on that issue. Really, the religious right just took off on the marriage issue immediately after that (and the Mass. SCt. just added fuel to the fire). I think we have to tell stories, true ones and hypotheticals, to persuade and gentle people along. But how to do that work without the media on our side I surely don't know. OK. Flame away.

[chimp chump]

164. Re: Maybe we should have backed away from gay marriage

Very insightful.

Civil unions are far more doable than marriage. Even using the word marriage creates instant hostility and it will be held hostage by certain elements for years to come following yesterday's election results. Perhaps one could try to popularize a term more neutral than civil union and then try to establish that term as the framework of discussion and try to persuade interest groups and legislators to implement laws on that basis.

Granting certain types of spousal rights would be readily acceptable even in many areas of the Bible Belt. For instance, a readily implemented and routine procedure to establish a S.O. (of either sex) as your heir to joint property, as your next-of-kin for the purposes of power of attorney, etc. Of course, you can do this now with a bit of research and making certain arrangements. However, you would have to overcome the state's self-interest in creating a situation where they benefit so much when a gay person dies without an heir. It is undoubtedly a moneymaker for some states. You would need to persuade them that reducing the burdens facing homosexuals in routine purchase of property and establishing an heir and other ordinary matters is actually in the best interest of the state as they would have decreased that person's unnecessary social liabilities and created a situation in which they would rightly see themselves as a more unexceptional member of society who could then focus on productivity and income, much as any other person would.

Where it gets more thorny is in adoption. If a person has a child and dies, the family often wants to raise the orphaned child but the deceased person would prefer that the child remain with their partner. This is and will remain problematic, the grist of Oprah shows. You also have to confront the adoption shortage. There are long waiting lists to adopt young children. Many people believe that the child's best interest is in being raised in the home of a heterosexual couple, that it provides far more background in understanding other human beings and their relationships than the possibly more limited dimension of same-sex parenting. And it is quite difficult to prove them wrong. At least now. The numbers of such households are not so large or the results so compelling as to force any conclusions upon the public. Especially not on a hostile public.

I don't believe that most Christians or cultural conservatives object greatly to allowing private companies or corporations to grant benefits to the partners of their employees, provided it is done for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. However, it seems to me that implementing this for public employees in state or federal employ is far more problematic as Christians then feel that they were being forced in some way to directly subsidize a lifestyle that they consider forbidden by their religious teachings.

"A heavier emphasis on the unfairness of the sodomy laws..."

Excuse me, but I was unaware of any state which has not yet repealed its sodomy laws. If you refer to laws that are applied to lewd public behavior such as those used to prosecute men who use public restrooms and interstate rest stops and public parks as trysting locations, I do not consider those laws to be classic sodomy laws in the sense we have always thought of such laws and their enforcement. But then, I think you should just get a room 'cause I don't want to see it, don't want to see used condoms in a public restroom, don't want to encounter sexual propositions when I want to take a leak or happen to walk in during someone's passionate moment in a public area. Of course, I think the same things about straight couples. (Hey, all of you. Get a room!)

[Stuckinthebush]

91. "Values"???

I am a Southerner as well, and I don't want the Dems to have anything to do with these "values".

Anti-gay
Anti-choice
Pro-theocracy
Pro-capital punishment
Pro-paddling in schools
Sexism
Racism

Hell, we should just become Republicans if we have to adopt these screwed up "values" to win!

Face it, we have two countries. Perhaps we need to divide it and get it over with.

[Dob Bole]

96. Once Again: I DID NOT suggest that we become the DLC....

This thread is about respect for Americans and the different cultures in different parts of America. Not about respect for RW policies, or how we might co-opt them.

Hopefully you can see the difference between American voters and laws.

[Stuckinthebush]

122. Yes

and the culture of the South is homophobic, sexist and racist. I know, I live in it every day of my life.

[Dob Bole]

131. Once Again: I did not suggest that we become the culture of the South...

I'm saying not to be condescending, and not talk down to people.

[Catt03]

163. Question: Who stated they hated the evangelicals?

I don't remember any Democrat running for office that said they hated anyone. I thought both Edwards and Kerry were quite clear about their faith and belief in God.

Ed Rollings is on Hardball and he said that a Northern candidate would never win the election. He also said to Sharpton "you would NEVER win" meaning that he was black. That is just the way it is."

We, from the North, have been verbally abused by Bush, taunted and made fun of because we are educated. Our faith has been discounted and marginalized...like we were faithless. Our manners have been called "elitist" and our values have been called "communist".

I don't know what an evangelical is to tell you the truth. I don't care what they believe or how they believe. Good for them. Just don't tell me how to believe.

[noonwitch]

97. You make some good points, and it's not just about the south

1. My northern, blue state (Michigan) voted to ban gay marriage and any type of civil union. Evangelicals are part of that coalition, but obviously plenty of liberal Kerry voters also voted for it. We need to find a non-confrontational way to address this. The more the attitude is "get used to it" from us, the less likely they will get used to it.
2. I hope that Roe v Wade remains the law of the land. Our next candidate needs to emphasize that, but also talk about the good things that the other side does trying to help pregnant women who want to have their babies but are poor, or teens afraid to tell their parents, etc. As long as the organizations involved are upfront about their anti-abortion stance, then they are providing women with an alternative to abortion. Try to keep it from being such a decisive issue by giving credit to the other side when they do good things.
3. Sexual morality issues in general need to be discussed. We need to start talking about how to lower the numbers of abortions without changing the law. We need to start teaching our children that they need to have self respect, and that self-respect is not found by sleeping around.
4. We have to look at our advertising industry instead of looking at censoring entertainment. An example of a really annoying billboard I've been seeing all over Detroit is for Courvosier. It has an image of a scantily clad woman straddling an oversized bottle of the liqour. I find that kind of thing to be far more influential toward teen attitudes about sex (and alcohol, for that matter)than 3 seconds of Janet Jackson's nipple, mostly because it is specifically created to influence people to buy their product. Kids walking to school see this crap. Hard working families have no choice about this crap being put in their neighborhoods. Advertising exploits women, and it is insidious because it is subtle. Our kids internalize these messages much more than we think. This is something that has nothing to do with sexual orientation, either. We could make some real inroads on the local level with this issue. Rural voters probably see this crap on the freeway all the time, too.
5. Evangelicals and southerners are likely getting sick of being jokes on tv. Because so many hollywood people are vocal dems, the emotions get transferred from the shows to the politicians. I don't know politically what should be done about actual tv programming, but we should object to those images when they are shown.
6. Evangelicals are far more interesting to talk to than to shout at. Discuss religion with them honestly and openly, without getting angry when they disagree with you. They don't like to see people starve to death, get raped or murdered, or have bad things happen in general. Your average evangelical is not Fred Phelps, and would never have attended Matthew Shepard's funeral holding up offensive signs. They think homosexuality is wrong but don't want to kill all gays. Hostile responses to their beliefs ultimately gets gays nowhere.
7. As far as southerners go-how long can we be mad at people who make such damn good food?! It might not all be healthy, but it's good. Greens, hush puppies, bbq, cajun food-some of the best food I've ever tasted has either been prepared by a transplanted southerner or I ate when I was visiting Atlanta or other places in the South. Southerners value their reputations as hosts and hostesses, and they've lived up to those reputations. I'm sort of kidding, yet we all love good food, libs and conservatives, and eating meals together is a good way to meet and learn about other people. Except Ann Coulter, of course, who only eats lettuce.

[southlandshari]

200. OMG, you ROCK!

I was reading your post in a hurry, need to get back to work after a quick lunch and DU check in at home. The final point, #7, totally blind-sided me - in a fantastic way!! I laughed loud and hard for the first time in far too long.

Come on down anytime, ya'll. We'll treat you so many ways you've got to like at least one of them! And noonwitch eats for free for life!

[histohoney]

205. BRAVO

Thanks. Come by the house anytime you want some chicken and dumplings.
Lets break bread together.:pals:

[Township75]

99. That may not give us the south, but it could give us a lot...

I grew up in the North,and I live in the South.

I saw MORE racism and homophobia in the north than I do down here. Yet, the northeast is considered the diverse educated utopia.

I don't think the south votes against Dems based on issues as much as they vote against a culture of southern-bashing by northeasterners, Hollywood, academics, and Ivy Leagers.

[Robbie67]

102. So no intolerance and bigotry toward the intolerant and bigoted?

Then you need another approach.

[Dob Bole]

107. Once Again: I DID NOT suggest that we become the DLC....

This thread is about respect for Americans and the different cultures in different parts of America. Not about respect for RW policies, or how we might co-opt them.

Hopefully you can see the difference between American voters with regional cultures, and laws.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

105. I will not embrace

nor will I work to unite with people who are intolerant and hateful.

Sorry.

I am intolerant of intolerance.

I hate hatred.

And those are the only two things I am intolerant or hateful of.

I have talked to and talked to fundies and rightwingers until I am blue in the face. I am patient and kind. I listen, I hear their point of view.

And it sickens me. Every time. There's just no getting around that.

I cannot tolerate bigotry. Sorry.

[telamachus]

108. Excellent post

but dissent is not something that some DU "progresives" like.

I hear so much hatred and bigotry from the atheists on this board that it make me sick (I am an agnostic UU)

[riverwalker]

109. was the nazi ideology a "value"?

should we have respected their "values" too? Fuck the Evangelicals and fuck the fundamentalists. If they cannot evolve to a level where they are not a threat to the entire human race, the answer is not to have us descend to their pathetic depths.

[Dob Bole]

111. Once Again: I DID NOT suggest that we become the DLC....

This thread is about respect for Americans and the different cultures in different parts of America. Not about respect for RW policies, or how we might co-opt them.

Hopefully you can see the difference between American voters, regional cultures, and laws.

[montana500]

112. why not? Bigotry won the election for Bush

gay ballot iniitatives.

[Dob Bole]

115. Once Again: I DID NOT suggest that we become the DLC....

This thread is about respect for Americans and the different cultures in different parts of America. Not about respect for RW policies, or how we might co-opt them.

Hopefully you can see the difference between American voters, regional cultures, and laws.

[southlandshari]

201. Don't forget

that two of the 11 states that voted down against gay marraige amendments also went "blue" and awarded all their electoral votes to Bush. I'm not saying this issue was not a factor in the election results. It is simply not accurate to say that everyone against gay marraige is for Bush.

[Redleg]

116. I think both left and right have been intolerant of values.

But the banning of gay marriage is all about imposing fundamentalist values on the country. On the other hand, supporting gay marriage doesn't force anyone to do anything against their will.

Don't you think the "evangelicals" have changed since Jimmy Carter's time?

[Dob Bole]

117. No, I don't think they've changed at all...

Fundamentalists have gotten more powerful, and that is the difference. As a result of the "religious right," Democrats have grown increasingly hostile toward all evangelicals, so they will vote for any Republican who treats them like humans.

[chimp chump]

170. an unrealistic argument

"But the banning of gay marriage is all about imposing fundamentalist values on the country."

It is not merely some odd fundamentalist value. And it is not being imposed, it already exists almost universally, at least as an ideal.

It is a virtually universal experience or at least familiarity with people growing up in homes where heterosexual parents bonded for life is the ideal.

There is no matching expectation or experience of same-sex couples. They are not on the radar yet.

You are suggesting that the principles of marriage automatically inhere to homosexual couples. You overlook the body of law and tradition that see the heterosexual couple as united by society with certain priveleges and responsibilities contingent upon the expectation that they will bear and raise offspring in their home as a natural breeding pair, united for life. And this includes generally: bearing and providing for their young during their breeding years (20-40) and solidifying their financial base by buying a home and then retiring together and caring for one another until they are separated by death.

I think there is little need to pretend that there is some historic parity between heterosexual and homosexual couples in this sense. The numbers of persons involved is too one-sided and the historical literature simply does not support such thinking.

Exclusively heterosexual marriage is an element of the old social contract with its roots in ancient societie and cultures. I simply don't connect with people who apparently pretend that it does not and never did exist.

The foundation of your argument may be convincing in certain circles, i.e. those who don't really need to be convinced anyway, but it cannot forward a same-sex marriage argument in serious discussion against well-informed opponents of the idea. The proposition simply ignores too much of our culture and history and law. And marriage is about all those things when we discuss it from a public policy standpoint.

[Redleg]

171. I'm not arguing that gay marriage has a long tradition in our society.

There are other principles relating to gay marrriage besides whether it has long acceptance in our society. Many Americans also value individual liberties and some protections from the government. Many Americans also believe that it is dangerous when religions directly influence our government and election of officials.

What the Republicans have done with their laws prohibiting gay marriage and civil unions is institutionalize their long-standing religious beliefs and thereby impose them on the rest of society. There is a difference between permitting others to engage in a behavior or relationship that ostensibly harms no other person and telling people they cannot enjoy the same benefits as "staight" people who are married. Permitting gay marriage does not force anyone to marry a gay or to have to like gay marriage. It does not force religions to grant gay marriages.

Many of us like to think of our Constitution as granting us rights and protections from government. We don't like the idea of using the Constitution to take rights away from people. That goes for state constituations as well.

I understand your point about gay marriage not being viewed as acceptable in society because it goes against what we traditionally think of as marriage. That is the primary point the opponents of gay marriage use to put a stop to it.

[chimp chump]

185. I agree except....

...for your "What the Republicans have done with their laws prohibiting gay marriage and civil unions is institutionalize their long-standing religious beliefs and thereby impose them on the rest of society."

First, these were universal assumptions throughout the country until the last ten years. Further, the culture of the South and the Bible Belt has been uniform in this matter, first under Democrat dominance for many decades, right up until the Republican takeover after 1994. It is a consistent cultural trait, not the product of either party's ideology.

It's not accurate to pretend that somehow Jerry Falwell marched in and converted them all to this way of thinking and then they voted Republican. The basic cultural and social sentiments are unaltered. It's the stance of the Democratic party which has changed. You can hardly blame them for having noticing this and indicated their preferences on the ballot.

Right or wrong, they're not blind to which party has stayed consistent with their traditional cultural and religious values.

[Redleg]

188. I agree that not just Repubs have had those same beliefs.

Our society, both Repub and Dem, has in the past been largely indifferent and even hostile to gays. I think that while many Dems may not support gay marriage, many understand that it is not simply an issue of whether being gay is right or wrong but whether it is right or wrong for us to discriminate against gays.

Speaking as a behavioral scientist, our thinking about homosexuality has changed substantially over the last 20 years or so. Many behavioral and social scientists now believe that homosexuality is less a choice than something (i.e., a trait or disposition) people are born with or develop early in life. I believe many Dems have taken this view of homosexuality rather than the more fundamentalist view that gays are gay because they choose to be so and they choose to be so because the devil has corrupted them.

I think the pro-choice issue is similar in that many Dems probably would not want to have an abortion but cannot deny that choice to other women. Repubs on the other hand don't want anyone to have that choice.

To me the real issue is the role of religion in politics. Dems and Repubs see very different roles.

[chimp chump]

189. Insightful

"To me the real issue is the role of religion in politics. Dems and Repubs see very different roles."

My comment would be that we don't have to look too far at DU to find Dems that think there is no role whatsoever for religion and that Jesus is so dangerous that He must be locked in a church at all times.

Admittedly, there are those on the Religious Right who would get excessive as well if given the chance. But I don't think that will happen any time soon. Contrary to popular belief, Bush isn't very knowledgable about Christian belief beyond the most basic doctrine and hasn't even discovered the New Testament yet. I hate to tarnish his Taliban reputation but he is a pretty lame mullah.

There needs to be something of the old virtue of civility in civil discourse, a little bit of tolerance that can go both ways on the issue of separation of church and state. And some give and take on the gay thing too. I think another court-legislated solution like Roe is exactly the wrong way to go. For everyone.

Sometimes, we need to be patient and move a little more slowly, not get captured by the extreme rhetoric often employed on both sides. We don't have to find a solution tomorrow. And you don't really win a culture war with legislation and the courts. Such victories are often short-sighted or even Pyrrhic. We can see the results in recent elections as Democrats have been forced to narrow their platform and their appeal largely to things like abortion and gay rights. Even when they have other issues that are actually more important, the baggage of gay rights and secularism and gun control and abortion are all that many in the electorate can see. And this makes it easy for the GOP to convince voter that that is *all* that Democrats stand for.

Regardless of how you feel about the actual issues, a viable party simply cannot maintain a working majority with such a narrow focus.

Thanks for your comments.

[Redleg]

190. I agree with your last post- very well stated.

It's nice to have such civil discourse in here even though I (and many others of us) are emotionally drained. Take care.

[IrateCitizen]

118. "We need the tree-huggers and the snuff-dippers too!"

I noticed that you mentioned Jim Hightower as one of the few progressives who has come close to "getting it right". I agree wholeheartedly.

People forget that the South has its own history of progressive populism. Do people here remember the likes of Huey Long? What about Ralph Yarborough? Hell, the State of Texas was a Democratic stronghold until well after the civil rights movement.

I think that Howard Dean at least was starting to understand this. He made some pretty big gaffes in the way he said it, but he recognized that we need to LISTEN to these people if we want to be able to craft a message that tells them that we understand a lot of their concerns and want to help them by addressing them. And I'm not talking about their concerns about "God, guns and gays". I'm talking about how they're concerned about health care, employment and public safety just like people in the "enlightened" blue states are.

But the first step is LISTENING to them, reaching out to them. It's going to take a good bit of time to turn this around, because the Republican stranglehold on the South is the result of years of effort.

[TexasThoughtCriminal]

120. What's the difference between evangelicals & fundamentalists?

Educate me here please. You may be on to something we need to understand.

[Dob Bole]

123. Fundamentalists are a small group of evangelicals...

They see the "decay of morality" as the number one issue in public policy, so they vote Republican. They take what the Bible says extremely literally...a parallell example might be Hassidic Jews or Shiite Muslims.

[m berst]

149. great work

Thanks DB for this thread. I have long since given up talking about Christianity with fellow Dems because of the brutal reaction I get. Not once in a while, always. Most Dems will at best conditionally accept Christianity - providing that you justify and explain that you aren't one of THEM and that you fit the proper acceptable form of Christianity. It isn't just one's faith that becomes suspect, but everything you say including your committment to liberal and progressive ideals. And there is always at least one person on any thread who will just go off the deep end - I won't repeat the kinds of things that are said as we have all seen them. I admire you for digging in on this and being so patient and that has encouraged me to venture a few opinions.

Tolerance - I traveled in the South on the gospel circuit as a performer and there is a strange irony that I have always noticed. Politically, liberal yankees are the tolerant ones, but on a person to person level Southern evangelicals are much more tolerant and accepting. I can talk progressive politcs to evangelicals all day long calmly and quietly. Trying to talk to northern liberals about this subject though has consistently resulted in being screamed at, and I am not exaggerating.

Now, what I just said are generalizations of course and there are exceptions. But on the whole, on a personal level I find much more tolerance and friendliness and acceptance in the South than the North and among evangelicals than liberals.

Dominionism - I think that 90% of the political problem is the Doninonist doctrine - the idea that Christians are called upon to seize secular offices and install Old Testament law. many, many evangelicals - maybe most? - are open to questioning this. The problem is that the major televangelists are talking past the local preachers directly to the congregations and peddling this. For ambituous people like Falwell and Robertson there is much wealth and power to be derived from this, but I believe that it is undermining and destroying evangelical Christianity. There is no way to talk to Christians about this though, if you approach then with a "met one Christian met 'em all" mentality. This forces them back into a defensive posture and makes them more susceptible to the TV evangelists.

These are probably the strongest things that I have to say on the subject, so if non-Christians can read and consider this then it should get easier and less confrontational from there on in and I do think that there is much to be gained and nothing to lose by discussing this.

[RememberTheCoup]

121. There are a few religion-bashers on this board, BUT...

I think a lot of these people are trolls trying to push a theory that explains why Bush "won" when everyone expected him to lose. I don't buy it. Those votes were stolen. And the people saying it's because of some religious demographic are full of shit. It's a nice cover story.

[HootieMcBoob]

126. What it boils down to

In order to win the south a candidate has to have a decent enough southern accent and a folksy manner. Period.

Southerners will never ever vote for someone from the north or someone who doesn't have a southern accent or a folksy manner. Period.

Northerners are more than willing to vote for someone from the south or someone with a folksy manner.

We have to bend to them. They are not willing to bend to us.

[chimp chump]

165. succinct summary

"Southerners will never ever vote for someone from the north or someone who doesn't have a southern accent or a folksy manner. Period.

Northerners are more than willing to vote for someone from the south or someone with a folksy manner."

And this perhaps accounts for the difference between Gore's numbers and Kerry's numbers in the popular vote. In many ways, their campaigns and the ideals they fostered were not greatly dissimilar.

The South wants a Southerner. That's how we got Clinton and almost got Gore. But the future looks bleak as you try to count the number of Southern Democratic governors if you buy into this.

Interesting take on the 'culture war', making it into a specific litmus for regional culture.

[DS1]

127. As long as a state remains red, I'll be happy to piss all over it

thank you very much

[They_LIHOP]

128. These are the SAME PEOPLE you're talking about who ...

in years past, supported THESE values:

1) It is sin for people of different races to marry,
2) Blacks need to sit in the back of the bus, drink from different water fountains, attend different schools, than whites,
3) Women and minorities should NOT be allowed to vote in their country's own elections,
4) It's better for women to die in alleyways of botched abortions than to make them legal,
ETC!

and we don't even need to START on what most of these people would do to homosexual's rights if you gave them half a chance.

My friend, I must humbly disagree with you on the 'tolerance' issue here. I will NEVER adopt an attitude that's any different than this:

"To the extent that your beliefs are tantamount to racism, homophobia, and/or sexism, then your beliefs are IMMORAL AND WRONG, and I am INTOLERANT of your BELIEFS (not YOU) and I will seek to change them by shaming you into seeing the wrong-headedness of your 'values', both in the context of the message of Jesus, and the message of the forefathers who designed our great land".

We didn't earn women's rights and suffrage, the right to organize, minority rights, gay rights (such as they are), nor ANY OTHER RIGHTS by any other means than by convincing such people (even if they were motivated SOLELY to 'fit in' with what they felt the majority 'feels' about these issues) that their attitudes were WRONG and that they therefore are morally obliged to overcome whatever character or mental defect is causing their moral compass to be so out of whack.

If MLK had been TOLERANT of the US apartheid, if Susan B. Anthony had been TOLERANT of people's attitudes that women should not vote, if people in general had been TOLERANT of forcing women to have babies they don't want and can't afford ...

THEN WHERE THE F*** WOULD WE BE NOW?

Sorry, with all due respect, what you're saying is, for the lack of better words, AGAINST MY RELIGION. Not only that, it ain't gonna work.

YES we do need to 'convert' some of the people you speak of. THat much is obvious. But you misunderestimate the power of people's perception when you suggest that the means to do so is by basically acquiescing to their 'right' to think whatever they want and hope to 'win them over' with 'understanding'. I may be mistaken, but that is the angle I perceive you as suggesting here. I disagree. By not asserting confidence in the RIGHTNESS of what you believe, you undermine your own case, and nobody gets 'converted' that way.

[Dob Bole]

129. You are mistaken.

My point is, or was supposed to be, that we shouldn't talk down to people, as Howard Dean has said. We should not be condescending. Different parts of America are culturally different, but that does not mean that we should look down on them or automatically assume that are stupid hateful bigots.

At no point in this thread have I ever suggested that we support the right wing in any way.

[chimp chump]

168. Well, ...

These are the SAME PEOPLE you're talking about who in years past, supported THESE values:

1) It is sin for people of different races to marry,
2) Blacks need to sit in the back of the bus, drink from different water fountains, attend different schools, than whites,
3) Women and minorities should NOT be allowed to vote in their country's own elections,
4) It's better for women to die in alleyways of botched abortions than to make them legal,
ETC!

You mean, back when the South was overwhelmingly Democrat instead of overwhelmingly Republican after it re-aligned itself after 1994? Actually, by the time the GOP achieved majority status in the South, these practices had been gone for decades. It was the old Southern Democrat (Dixiecrat) machine which enacted such policy as Jim Crow laws and banned miscegenation.

But facts are irrelevant. So let the GOP have them and Democrats automaticallly achieve the moral high ground. Too bad you won't win national elections, appoint judges, assemble majorities in state or federal legislature.

That's okay. You have achieved your goal of having nothing to do with Them.

[robbedvoter]

134. An election? Votes counted and all that? Wow!

Or you are telling us that the 2008 results are already programmed - this makes more sense.

[noiretextatique]

135. * has no values, the republican party has no values

they just TALK a good game. a fact lost on those they keep appealing to with fear, bigotry, and the desire to control other people with religion. that is the message we need to send: stop being manipulated into voting against your own best interests.
republicans don't give a shit about YOU, or your values.

[Princess Turandot]

137. Did you read the Nicholas Kristof column in todays NYT "Living Poor..

Voting Rich"..

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html

*********************************************************

"The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social issues to get the public to stop looking at what's happening to them economically. What we once thought - that people would vote in their economic self-interest - is not true, and we Democrats haven't figured out how to deal with that."

Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge, and John Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly in denial.

To appeal to middle America, Democratic leaders don't need to carry guns to church services and shoot grizzlies on the way. But a starting point would be to shed their inhibitions about talking about faith, and to work more with religious groups.

Otherwise, the Democratic Party's efforts to improve the lives of working-class Americans in the long run will be blocked by the very people the Democrats aim to help. "

[arwalden]

141. Oh I See... We Should Be Tolerant Of The Bigots?

[Neshanic]

142. "Values DO matter to most Americans"...as long as they are yours.

Your an Evangelical? Do you believe in the Bible as absolute truth? If you do, you have alot of nerve.

I will try to remember the "one group that receives a lot of abuse on here-evangelicals" when the next homosexual is crucified on a fence in a field.

So if you do believe in the Bible as unerring and correct in all ways....go sell crazy somewhere else.

[Dob Bole]

172. I don't, but thanks anyway...

nt is deserved

[TeacherCreature]

143. Sorry, IMO Red America has no "moral" values

They pervert Christianity into an excuse for hate.

Secession seems a reasonable policy to me right now.

[Tafiti]

146. Here's my 2 cents...

All of these problems we see on the surface, and we try to solve them and analyze them superficially. We need to dig deeper. What is the root of hate, in general? It seems intolerance, bigotry, racism, etc. has always existed, buy why? Where did it come from? Is it simply intrinsic in human beings? I know everyone tries to plug one book or another, but I IMPLORE you all to read this one:

"The Culture of Make Believe" by Derrick Jensen.

This book is nothing short of amazing. It is the best analysis I've read of our culture, and the hate that permeates it (in its many forms). It's a bit lengthy (600 pages), but it is well worth it, I promise.

[SleepingDragon]

148. The real divide...

Another look at the electoral map is instructive. Go down one level to the county maps for each state. If you reconstruct a picture of the nation at the county level, blue states and red states disappear. The real divide is between rural and urban with suburban swing counties in the middle. The split is not between north and south or coastal states vrs flyover states.

Kerry represented urban cosmopolitan values. These are concerned with our position in the world community, tolerance for diverse cultures, and a global future.

Bush represented rural traditional values including the kind of values that Evangelical Christians are tied to. These are concerned with local community, family, and preservation of traditional values and norms.

Suburbanites are Urban sophisticates that want the best of both worlds: urban amenities in a rural setting. They cling to the values of the past but are educated, and essentially conflicted in bringing together the values of the past and the values of a global future that requires tolerance and diversity.

We need to integrate together both rual and urban values in a coherent way that can be communicated across the board.

[Kahuna]

151. Agreed. And I posted it first about "values" when it was derided..

We all vote our values over economic concerns. Our values are different than the republican values. We cannot forcefeed our values on them any more than they can force feed their values on us. We need to work on marketing our "package." We haven't done that. Until we do we will continue to lose.

[RedEarth]

153. Yep

[Walt Starr]

155. How would Mike Easley of North Carolina do in the South?

I'm thinking he's what we need.

I know for a fat, we must go to the center. After Kerry's loss, that's a given and the voters gave the Democratic Party a mandate to do it.

[dogman]

156. I think it's up to the Christian-left to stand up.

They have to quit being a doormat for the right just as liberals can't sit back and let the RW label them as commies. Why do they have to be courted? Why can't they produce leadership like the Rev. Jackson and Barack Obama? How many of these highmoraled people stood back in the Civil Rights era? How come the most of their leadership comes from the extreme? How can anyone in their right mind consider B$$$ to be a moral person?

[Doomsayer13]

157. you are right

we must shake off the preception of being "limosine liberals". We don't need to nominate conservatives, we need to nominate people who can speak to those in the heartland.

[chimp chump]

158. excellent observations.

It's a culture war. Most urban and suburban Democrats simply crap on these people's Bible's and guns. Then they wonder why they don't gratefully vote for Democrats. War in Iraq? Environment? Stolen 2000 election? Hey, they don't care that much and they don't want to hear much whining about past history because they don't like history or geography.

I'm not talking about Kerry. He obviously 'got it'. I'm talking about the rank-and-file, some of whom are just obnoxious bigot toward religious people. And it's probably going to defeat Democrats in many regions until they finally buy a clue.

Red America is voting against the Party, more than they voted against Kerry himself, I think.

Don't kick their dogs. Don't spit on their kids. Don't denigrate their religion. At least try to understand why they feel so strongly about heterosexual marriage. And do not even discuss grabbing their guns or taxing their ammo (male fetish object).

That was a great post you made. I had to read it twice. I'm pleased to see you're not the only person who is serious about addressing the problems to move forward to be successful. All this whining and wailing gets old quick and it's very unattractive to the swing voters.

[bacchant]

161. I don't really buy this

If liberals are currently showing intolerance it's a reaction to the incredible effort to force those red state values down our throats. Take a look around, we are under assault. I've never had an issue with anyone's religion or lifestyle until they made an issue of mine. The folks whose culture I'm supposed respect won't give up until we are either all like them, or GONE.

[atre]

167. Thank you for saying what needed to be said

The mood here is vapid. It is reported that the youth vote didn't turn out enough, so some people say, "Let the fuckers get drafted and die." Others are spewing other venom at Southerners (notwithstanding the fact that Southern states were actually generally fairly close, unlike two-thirds of the rest of the country).

[DuaneBidoux]

169. Sorry, I just have a problem with:

Lying about BJ=immoral. Lying about a war=moral

Lying about BJ=immoral. Poisening the environment=moral

Two people of the same sex have sex=immoral.


well, you get the idea.

[southlandshari]

173. Excellent post!

Thanks for that.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

174. Couldn't disagree more...

First off, I'm not a U.S. citizen, so I don't possess these so-called "American" values you speak of. I have lived in the south (North Carolina) for 15 years of my life prior to moving to NYC in 2002. I went to a rural high school in rural NC. The FIRST (yes, first) question I was asked was not "hi, how are you?" or "can we help with anything?" Instead it was "What church do you go to?" That question, in essence, reflects the south, where your identity is determined by whether or not you go to church and your social standing is determined by which church you attend. My brother in law, a native Californian, had the same question asked of him on his first day at work when he moved to NC barely 6 months ago from his coworkers.

In my life there, I met many people of all political stripes. The ultra religious people (which I define as people who go to church often, who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible) will never EVER vote for a Democrat who supports equal rights for all people (minorities, women, non-Christians, atheists, agnostics and homosexuals) and full separation of church and state. That is the sad truth and one we have to confront. Heck, some people are still fighting the Civil War (called the "War of Northern Aggression" in some quarters)! My in-laws, though not native NCers, are just like that. They believe what the pastors say, they read the "Left Behind" books, they believe in James Dobson and Jerry Falwell and they will never ever vote for a party that remotely talks about, say, equal pay for women or that is against religious teaching in public schools.

I believe that trying to "convert" these people to the Democrats is going to be a futile effort and a major waste of our time. In addition, there is an undercurrent, one which is not spoken of for fear of sounding "elitist," of racism (left over from the "good ole days" of the Civil War and the civil rights era), homophobia (pretty self evident by the 11 states that now have laws banning same-sex unions) and indifference (if not downright hatred) for those who are not evangelical Christians. This last one, in my opinion, is the most dangerous of all and it is the one force, which no one likes to talk about, that will NEVER convert anyone to vote for a moderate or progressive Democrat in the south and midwest.

What am I talking about? Well, just think that in many states, evolution is barely mentioned in science classes. Yes, evolution, the theory that is the foundation of modern biology, biochemistry and genetics. In short, the future class of scientists in the U.S. is being undermined by nary a mention of its most basic theory. Do you actually think that a non-Jewish or Christian could possibly be elected? Some states have laws on the book banning atheists from holding office. Even Catholics have to explain themselves to the evangelicals!

Why should the Democrats try to "convert" these people by becoming more like them (intolerant, bigoted, ignorant)? Democrats are supposed to be inclusive of people of all faiths and no-faith. We are supposed to value science and faith as separate distinct values, not as conflicting values. Instead, many southerners view their faith as more important than science. We'll never convert these people and I don't think we should try.

We should concentrate on reality, on the facts, on science. Whatever happened to faith being a private matter? Is faith the new litmus test? Am I less of a person or less worthy of political participation if I don't believe or I believe in something other than the Bible? I want my party to talk about the economy, foreign affairs, the welfare of its people, education, etc. I don't want my party to talk about faith because we live in a democracy, not a theocracy, and "faith" should not be an issue. Call me European, but I find this whole "faith" thing disgusting and divisive. You know, I am willing to take decades of Republican administration, if it means that the Democrats will not abandon the principles of inclusiveness for people regardless of religion or non-belief, without the need to mention religion. It drives me insane that religion should even come up in the political discourse and it drives me madder that we, as Democrats, should try to become more "like them" to get more votes.

[GOPFighter]

183. Sorry, the Bush/GOP values are not my values...

...and I will not compromise my values just to win an election. I was raised in a Baptist church in the 1950s and 1960s. If was up to them, we would still have segregation and Jim Crow laws, and mixed marriages (black and white) would still be illegal in many state. I would rather lose elections than sell out my values.

[leesa]

184. Sorry. But christian fundamentalists are the epitome of intolerance

I will not pander to these bigots.

[Fla Dem]

195. I don't care if someone is Evangelical, and I have my moral standards too.

I just DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT LEGISLATING MORALS. That's what we fight, not the morals themselves. Moral are taught at home and in your place of worship. I do not mind if a politicians' decisions are GUIDED by their morals, they are free to vote as they see fit. But I do not want them legislating their morals on me or anyone else, whether I agree or disagree with their moral standing. I am strong religiously, but would never impose my personal beliefs on anyone. It's none of my GD business. If I can guide someone to see a different view, fine, but I would not demand it, nor should I have the right to demand it. If parents cannot bring their kids up morally without the help of government, then it is their own fault. I am sick and tired of hearing about all the influences that impact kids today, well it's the parents responsibility to monitor those influences and screen what they do not want their children exposed to. One word comes to mind as there is more and more of an effort to legislate morals.....TALIBAN.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

198. Bigotry is the refuge of the miserable, angry, and frustrated

Your average shlub doesn't hate dark-skinned people, gays, or liberals because he's necessarily met any. They're just a target for his feelings of powerlessness and anger in a system that has screwed him for reasons that he doesn't understand.

Southern aristocrats consciously promoted racism among poor whites because it gave them a focus for their anger over their lot in life. If the white tenant farmers were out lynching black people, it dissipated the anger that might have caused them to lynch the major landowners if they had really understood the system.

It's a system of social control that goes back at least to the Middle Ages, when peasants and poor city dwellers were urged to "go get the Jews" or "go get the witches" whenever the powers that were saw them looking discontented,

Improve the economic and social climate in this country, and a lot of people will find that they're too contented to hate anyone.

That's why I believe in running on a platform of economic populism, one that meets the real, unmet needs of all Americans.

[CWebster]

204. Values schmalues

Jesus himself fraternized with the social misfits and outcasts. Imagine the disdain these pious holy rollers would have for him.

Sorry, if the vast majority of the population bought into the religious fervor of Aryan nationalism, who would recommend we curry their favor to win?