any outlooks that *don't* belong in the big tent?

[ulysses]

Even if their holders are avowed Democrats?

[peacebird]

1. homophobia cloaked in "christian beliefs", racism thinly velied by concern over our borders

... oh and denial of science in favor of intelligent design.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

4. Right on Target

Agree completely.

[ulysses]

7. not everybody would agree.

Not saying I wouldn't.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. It can be taken different ways

Some Democratic politicians have cited their own relgious beliefs to explain why they personally are opposed to abortion but still think that it is not appropriate for the State to impose a religious doctrine that is not accepted by many through law. I assume it is possible for a Democrat to say that s/he would oppose their own religion blessing the marriage between two women or two men, while opposing legislation that would define marriage as the union of a man and a women. Would that fit inside a big tent?

[peacebird]

16. I believe that the legal union defined as "marriage" in the US should be open to any two consenting

adults. IF a religious group chooses not to "sanctify" such a union based on religious doctrine, that is fine. It is NOT however, okay for the government to define marriage based on religious doctrines, and use such to deny it to same sex couples.

The legal protections, and the emotional comfort, of marriage belong to any two consenting adults.

I still recall when inter-faith marriage was going to be the end of the world as we know it. And then when the world kept spinning, it was inter-racial marriages that would destroy the sanctity of marriage. They didn't.

This is just the latest attempt to deny marriage to loving couples based on fear. This too will pass - hopefully SOON.

Same sex marriage will do nothing to harm the "sanctity of the institution", any more than interfaith, or inter-racial marriage did.

I personally would prefer a Dem leader willing to come out on the side of equal rights for all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. I agree. I was just commenting that it is possible for one to hold personal religous views

without attempting to impose them on others. So it is possible for a Democrat to personally believe marriage is meant by God to only be between a woman and a man, while still supporting the right of Gays and Lesbians to legally be married outside of his or her religion.

[JerseygirlCT]

37. Me too! nt

[Ian David]

15. I agree with you there. We're a Big Tent, not a Big Pre-Neolithic Cave. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

36. I'd add misogyny disquised as

a "right to life".

[cuke]

2. Don't understand the question

I've always assumed that the "Big Tent" meme referred to people and not ideas. That is, that our "big tent" could include people who don't agree with us on all the issues (unlike the doctrinal repukes) so long as they work with us on the issues that we do agree with

[ulysses]

6. doesn't that assume that they'll be happy to shut up about the disagreements?

Obviously we're not going to agree on everything (thus DU), but are there any issues that a person could hold (because people come attached to ideas) that might make them unwelcome in the big tent?

[cuke]

9. Did someone say they should be happy? I know I didn't

and as I implied in my prior response, I don't think anyone is barred from entering the big tent on the basis on one position. IOW, I don't think there is any one issue that should keep someone from being a part of the big tent as long as they are willing and able to work with us on issues we do agree with.

To put it another way, if my understanding of what "big tent" means is correct, then your question makes no sense. Basically, I am questioning the premise of your question, which seems to use a different definition of "big tent" than the one I am familiar with

[ulysses]

18. the question makes perfect sense. your answer is just "no".

Thanks. :)

[cuke]

23. unsurprising

Your avoiding the issue that is. I'm not the only one here who thinks my definition was accurate, but can't even defend your own notion.

And if you read your own thread, you'd see there is at least one reason to limit entry to the big tent that even I would support.

[ulysses]

24. hmmm.

I don't think anyone is barred from entering the big tent on the basis on one position

then comes...

you'd see there is at least one reason to limit entry to the big tent that even I would support.

So which is it?

[cuke]

26. More avoidance

It's the latter. If you paid attention, you'd realize that people change their minds. One poster actually managed to do that. Unlike you, I'm willing to acknowledge when I was wrong.

But I noticed that you avoided any discussion with that poster who, like me, is hesitant to limit the big tent in any substantial manner as you seem to support. Funny how you avoid discussing the issues after I've read so many posts from you arguing that centrists don't want to discuss the issues

[ulysses]

27. LOL!

Unlike you, I'm willing to acknowledge when I was wrong.

Would you like to post the contents of my last PM to you or shall I?

[ulysses]

29. here, allow me.

Your comments redacted. Emphasis added.

Re: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: cuke
Date: Nov-14-07 07:41 PM
>xxxxxxxxx
>
>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...

I'll bet you do. I don't see the point in resurrecting that thread, however, so you'll have to do with this. You're free to post this publicly if you wish.

I am a liberal Democrat. I was raised such and have remained so. I'm fine with a "big tent" in moderation, but I believe strongly that the DLC is destroying the party and, by extension, the country.

I went overboard the other night, and for that I apologize. I really didn't remember that conversation on NAFTA, and yes, I overreacted to your post. I am sorry.

But, to be honest, after six years and more, I see less and less reason to even try to engage with centrists on DU. There's little point - you folks control the party and you know it. Have fun.

As I say, feel free to repost this on the public boards if you wish. I just ask that you quote me accurately.

[cuke]

I was referring to your public behavior

I'm not surprised it took you so long to publically post that and just surprised you think your PM makes you look good when you still are unwilling to discuss the assumption your OP was based on

[ulysses]

33. let's recap - "Unlike you, I'm willing to acknowledge when I was wrong."

Nice attempt to move the goalposts, ace, but no dice. :D

[cuke]

39. Let's recap

You are still unwilling to even discuss the meaning of "big tent"

[ulysses]

40. huh? when did you ask?

To me, a "big tent" means a group of *relatively* like-minded people organized to achieve common goals. That was simple.

Back to the original subthread, though - tell me again how I never apologize when I'm wrong. It's my favorite story. :D

[99th_Monkey]

3. Pro-war, pro-torture Constitution trashers be gone please.

The "Democratic" Lieberman factor does NOTHING for the party or the nation ... well, except sell out the core values of the party by
siding with Rethugs on pivotal issues deliniating whether the USA will remain "the Home of the Free" or continue it's slide
into fascism and tyranny.

These DINO's need to be escorted to the door IMHO.

[yourout]

5. Illegal Immigration is probably the most divisive issue on the Dem side.

Hell I even flip flop hourly on my stance.

[LoZoccolo]

10. The one that considers Ron Paul a suitable VP candidate. n/t

[dsc]

11. There is a massive difference between voters and office holders

in my opinion. If an ordinary voter votes for us I honestly don't particularly care if she feels gays are going to hell or if he favors school vouchers. Thus I don't think homophobes, who refrain from spamming the board and or calling names should be free to post here. But when it comes to office holders, especially federal ones, I do expect some discipline. Casey shouldn't be on the Judiciary Committee or anywhere else where his pro life views could be corrosive to party unity. Those seem to be reasonable steps. Here I don't think a moderator of the LGBT forum should be a homophobe to fit that example.

[Basileus Basileon]

12. Only one.

That which leads people to believe they have the sole, unalienable, and unimpeachable right to determine who does and who does not belong in the Democratic party.

[cuke]

14. I'm impressed

You found what may be the only limit to the big tent that I could agree with

[ulysses]

19. thanks for your input.

:hi:

[jefferson_dem]

13. Anti-religious bigots...

who justify their exclusivist attitudes with sanctimonious, misguided outrage...

Should be confronted...but still belong in the "big tent" while they/we are working it out.

[dsc]

17. Oh please

When you can produce Christians who got the shit beat out of them daily in school then we can talk. When you can produce Christians who lose jobs for being Christian then we can talk. When you can produce Christians who get beaten up and left to die on a fence, then we can talk. Until then give me an ever loving break.

[jefferson_dem]

20. Those acts are deplorable and should be roundly condemned, whether the victim is Christian or not.

Bigotry and discrimination sucks. Period. I would think we can agree on that.

For the record: I am not a Christian nor did I single out Christians as victims in my post.

[dsc]

22. At least have the guts to own your message

No one with an IQ above room temperature believes your post was about anything aside from the recent shellacking Obama took over McClurkin.

[jefferson_dem]

25. Actually, your wrong.

1. I have never defended McClurkin, especially not in the name of "faith."
2. I have been challenging what I see as anti-religious bigotry since long before the McClurkin incident.

Whatever. Thanks for telling me what I think.

[Basileus Basileon]

21. .

[TankLV]

31. Godd one.

The religious nazi's condemn and do things to make life impossible for all who don't believe exactly like THEY do, and when everyone else complains, we're called "religious bigots".

The poster can stuff his phoney and misquided "outrage"...

Hating the haters is not wrong.

Fighting the haters is not wrong.

Standing up to the religious self-righteous bigoted bastards who will not stop until they FORCE THEIR beiliefs on ME is not wrong - I will proudly and strongly condemn all such attemps at every instance...

[blondeatlast]

32. Exactly--and I call myself a Christian (albeit a strictly secular one). nt

[TankLV]

30. Racism, bigoty, homophobia, sexism, to name a few.

Any one of these is reason for disqualification or to be booted out and roundly disparaged and ridiculed till they go back under their rocks...

No compromises ever...

[blondeatlast]

34. I've yellow dog relatives that are somwhat racist and homophobic--

but in a sort of "secular" way. They applauded the civil rights movement and turned the other cheek when a gay cousin got married.

One can have a repugnant ideaology (racist, homophobic, "pro-life") but as long as one isn't looking to the government to act on it, I think they belong here.

But if that ideaology leads to policy, they have no reason whatsoever to even call themselves Democrats.

[ulysses]

35. that's the point on which the whole idea turns.

There are plenty of versions of your relatives running around in the party, and I'm not suggesting that we kick them out wholesale. On the other hand, plenty of them *do* want government action on the part of their issues that may not jibe with what a lot of us consider the Dems to stand for.

[cali]

38. yes, lots.

not supporting habeas corpus for one thing. homophobia, racism, not supporting a social safety net, privitizing social security, etc.

Of course, my OP in GD that I believe you're referencing explicitly stated that not all outlooks should be acceptable in the "big tent".

[ulysses]

44. your thread wasn't the only inspiration.

I wasn't trying to call you out either, for the record. Just floating the balloon. :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. Any Form Of Bigotry

My only post of the day...

[jefferson_dem]

43. Best "only post of the day" ever.

:thumbsup:

[blondeatlast]

42. We have to remember that this is a political party and we offer ONLY a political agenda.

It's when repugnant ideas creep into our platform and agenda that we have to be concerned. Unfortunately, we see that influence more and more (just as the RRRs saw with the radical religionists).

As more and more disaffected Republicans (especially Goldwater types) consider our party as the only viable alternative for them--and let's face it, there still are only two viable parties on the national level--this is going to become a VERY serious issue.

For instance, it would be very easy to say "no 'pro-lifers'" because of their opposition to abortion and blastocyst stem-cell research but what if they are truly pro-life as in anti-abortion and anti-war/death penalty?

I think it's important to build a strong, permanent platform from which to direct our political agendas and let those that are attracted come to us. It's the lack of any core policy that has allowed so many to look the other way--and that is a serious and very long term failure on the national party's part.

[blm]

45. CLOSED GOVERNMENT that protects the secrecy and privilege of the powerful.

Anyone who claims to be a Democrat and STILL protects the powerful and their secrecy over the citizens' right to open and accountable government is NO DEMOCRAT our party needs.

In fact - the protection of secrecy and privilege has come back to hurt our party, our nation and the world more than any other action in history.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Do Democrats want to do it again?