Progressives are NEVER against finding common ground or expecting fellow men to evolve.

[KittyWampus]

Being a Progressive doesn't mean finding Common Ground only when it's comfortable or convenient or when we don't have a personal ax to grind.

Being a Progressive doesn't mean lumping huge numbers of people into one group and consigning them to the waste heap as lost causes.

Progressives EXPECT the POTUS to engage our enemies and constantly attempt to find diplomatic ways to solve problems. Even when those enemies are personally the most loathsome to us. Allowing someone a two-minute speech on a momentous occasion is as much an honor as inviting them to a Peace Summmit- so save us the attempts to fend off that expose of hypocrisy that's been attempted here lately. Frankly, the notion that giving someone an opportunity to speak for two minutes is somehow GREATER than sitting down with them to hammer out a Middle East Peace accord is so absurd it barely warrants a reply.

Progressives EXPECT our country's leadership to believe in evolution and to constantly try and shed some light in the darkest of minds. Progressives on DU advocate for rehabilitation and treating even the most heinous of criminals with basic human dignity and respect. One would think they'd at some point realize that a basic level of respect is due to even the narrowest of minds who live among us.

The fact is, America has made huge strides in Civil Rights and Social Justice.

I would agree that while Race may be less of an issue for many Americans in the year 2009, Gender Bias still has a stronger grip on more people.

But history does show that Americans are growing and evolving. Example, Evangelical youth is less swayed by politicians/hate-mongering pastors who use demonization of Gay people to drum up support and MONEY.

And while my post may be poorly worded...

Thanks to Mopinko for posting these quotes last night:

It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business.
Mohandas Gandhi

Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Zynx]

1. A lot of people here forgot it was not just Bush's policies, but also his style that was bad.

Bush was a great divider. He played groups off against eachother. He was also confrontational at all times, using every organ of the presidency against his opponents. All of these things were equally bad compared to his policies. He abused that office and conducted himself poorly. DUers seem to want a Democratic Bush. I don't.

[Political Tiger]

10. That's a really good point!

n/t

[WeDidIt]

2. I am not Buddhist or Christian

When I am shown hatred and violence, I respond in kind.

[KittyWampus]

6. that just means you are a Reactionary and thus doomed to having others dictate your behavior

[WeDidIt]

8. Self preservation is the basest human response. n/t

[KittyWampus]

11. self preservation is the sole focus of the Reptilian Mind. Humans alone possess the capacity

to control and harness that aspect of our selves. We have a Higher Brain that gives us Rational Thought and Empathy.

[WeDidIt]

18. And it usually results in death

thus remioving that capability from the genetic pool.

[Zynx]

28. That is absolutely not true.

Rationality and empathy are not disadvantageous.

[WeDidIt]

37. Try to be empathetic

when a group of people are grabbing you so they can put you to death for not believing in their religion.

Because, Zynx, that's what Dominionism is all about. Dominionists seek to take dominion over the government and instill biblical law. the penalty for being a non-believer under their interpretation of bioblical law is death.

So don't ask me to be empathetic with this gang of thugs. The rational act is to BLOW THEM AWAY.

[Zynx]

44. They are nowhere near obtaining power. As such I am not worried about it.

[Fovea]

33. Consider Maslow.

I do.

When there are fewer hungry, unemployed, and sick Americans, my sense of collegiality will improve markedly.
Far more cooperative policies will result then.

Right now, as we are, even reasonable people can make an argument for coming to a formal
truth finding - reconciliation before re-inclusion.

[Political Tiger]

12. Does that not make one no better

than the one they are responding to?

[WeDidIt]

16. That makes ione a survivor n/t

[KittyWampus]

19. it makes someone whose only goal is survival.

[WeDidIt]

20. That is the primary function of life.

If one's survival is threatened, everything else goes ou the window.

[Political Tiger]

23. Not necessarily

I mean, if hate and violence begets hate and violence, eventually someone is going to lose....likely by ending up dead.....just look at the Middle East.

(Please understand I am making a distinction from defending oneself. That's different.)

[WeDidIt]

38. I a m speaking solely in terms of self defense.

If Dominionists (like Warren) realize their ultimate aim, they will put me to death.

I have no choice but to defend myself.

[Zynx]

14. Then this world will always remain in conflict. It will always be driven by revenge.

[WeDidIt]

17. Yes n/t

[countingbluecars]

3. Good post.

K&R

[LeftCoast]

4. I simply do not believe people would feel this way if Obama had invited a racist to fill this role

Somehow it's always ok to come together with anti-gay bigots, but no other type.

Funny that...

[KittyWampus]

7. perhaps he would have invited a Racist If RACE WAS AS MUCH AN ISSUE in modern America

and as much progress had not been made and the Far Right were riding the race hobbyhorse to the polls every couple of years.

But the fact is, Race progress has been made and the Far Right does now focus more on Gender.

If this was 1965, maybe Obama would have invited a hate-mongering pastor who liked to harp on Gender.

The problem with this point you try to make is you assume Obama simply wanted to invite someone who was offensive.

[LeftCoast]

15. I don't know why he would invite someone like this

Perhaps it was some lame attempt to Sister Soulja us. I don't know. I do know that inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation was incredibly hurtful and is in my opinion directly counter to the kind of president he said he would be.

Of course it's symbolic and lasts only a few minutes but for me this was a complete slap in the face after the disgraceful role he played in destroying my marriage.

Substantively, it also raises Rick Warren's status to that of "America's Pastor." I'm sorry so many people here don't understand or care about our anger.

[KittyWampus]

21. Where did you get the idea so many people here don't understand or care about your anger?

At any rate, I certainly never posted anything of the kind. There may be some DU'ers being heartless and saying just get over it. Which is regrettable.

And sorry about your marriage.

FYI, I married a gay man and lived with he and his partner for eight years because of the stupid system and the legal problems they were having. Although as my grandmother quipped at the time it was more of an adoption. Even though I am straight, I am pretty much as familiar as you are with that issue. On a fairly intimate level.

[LeftCoast]

25. Here's just one example

Read the post that skyrocketed to the top of the 'Greatest' page

[KittyWampus]

29. Sorry about that thread. It was insensitive. I can see where it was hurtful, for sure.

Family members do seem to know how to push each others buttons.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. What racsist is head of the 4th largest group of exploited followers in America? There is

nothing in it politically for Obama to just invite David Duke to have two minutes on the mega stage in the spotlight of the entire world at the exact same time.

[KittyWampus]

30. It seems some people think it's about Obama just wanting to have someone hateful speak

at the Inaugural.

[John Q. Citizen]

35. It's about exploiting people. Obama is willing to exploit both the gay community and the evangelical

community, just as Warren is.

And they both claim they are doing it out of 'alturistic ' motivations and that they are doing it to help both communitie

Yeah, right.

Even more amazing is how many people just buy into it, just because Warren or Obama are selling it.



I think both Obama and Warren subscribe to the "god helps those who helps themselves' school of theology.

[Evergreen Emerald]

41. I agree with you. If he invited David Duke or an anti-semite

would this post still occur? I doubt it. I hope not. I think that we have a long way to go when it comes to some forms of bigotry.

I thought we were done with the through the looking glass arguments: to invite a divisive bigot is not "reaching across party lines." It is demeaning and excluding a class of people.

[Peacetrain]

5. Wow, those quotes are wonderful..

Thank you for sharing..

[GarbagemanLB]

9. What does MLK Jr know?

:sarcasm:

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Your post is well worded, and I would say that...

more people agree with you than you might think.

They just don't post as much.

[jberryhill]

22. The part you are not getting about Gandhi

Yes, engagement and dialog is important.

So is symbolic and active exclusion - strikes, boycotts, refusal to participate, and shunning - a part of non-violent protest.

Inviting Warren to speak is not "finding common ground" and working on common interests. It is embracing and endorsing a man who refuses to let gays and lesbians in his church.

Nobody is saying "hate the guy and act violently against him".

He is simply not an acceptable person to give the invocation to his bigoted God to bless the presidency.

Explain to me how this invitation AT ALL represents passive non-participation in the mechanisms of oppression?

It doesn't, it is an affirmation of the mechanism of oppression by one of its leading representatives.

[KittyWampus]

27. Oh please. It's a symbolic gesture to Warren's followers. All of whom are not mouth-breathing

Fundies. He is using Warren and Warren is using Obama.

That is what politics is, in fact, all about. People with an agenda getting what they can from each other.

Politics is like making sausage and I think ultimately a lot of DU'ers can't stomach it when their primary issue is involved.

And no, don't expect anyone to be happy about it or celebrate it or just get over it.

Disclaimer, I sure as heck don't want to see that money-grubbing hate-mongering gas-bag speak. EVER. But then, I am not POTUS or a political leader.

As for Ghandi, his words speak for themselves. They apply quite nicely to the need to start somewheres along the road to Evolution.

What you are really saying is "Progress is fine but it can't be started when it comes to MY primary issue or at the occasion I personally don't feel like dealing with it".

[jberryhill]

32. Again, you seem to believe the universe of choices of engagement was constrained

...to this particular choice of ways to proceed.

The manner in which one engages one's enemies - with love - requires making choices.

Read the SBC's press release on the "message" they have received here. They are not interpreting this as a message of "inclusion", they have interpreted it as a message that Obama shares their "exclusion".

If the action is conveying the wrong message, it is the wrong action.

YOU might interpret it as a message of inclusion, but you also have to understand that you are not the arbiter of what the message is generally understood to be.

[dkf]

26. That is so beautiful you just made me cry.

Thanks for posting. I'm stealing the last quote for my sig line.

[Political Heretic]

31. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

[yowzayowzayowza]

34. And another. n/t

[LWolf]

36. "Progressive" is also an amiguous term.

ANYONE who wants to move ANY agenda forward is a "progressive." The desire to "make progress" towards goals makes a progressive.

The agenda, and the goals, don't have to be worthy to be "progressive," and the people who push them don't have to be worthy, either.

I'm not looking for common ground with bigotry, fascism, corporatism, religious extremism, or war-mongering, for example.

[KittyWampus]

39. pointing out hypocrisy is never popular around here. Too bad.

[No Elephants]

40. Please stop the false dichotomies. The only alternative to hating Warren is not bestowing on him

the greatest government honor a PE can possibly bestow upon a pastor.

[KittyWampus]

43. Please stop the incoherent rationalizations. Warren is being used as a symbol to reach those who

listen to him.

Face it, some people think it's laudable to reach out to our opponents but only when and how THEY think it's convenient.

That's what your statement boils down to.

[ecstatic]

42. I wonder what will happen when he keeps his promise to "pro-lifers"

He argued that "those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, 'We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.' " Obama added: "Nobody's pro-abortion."

Once he assumes office, Obama might be tempted to forget that moment, issue the pro-choice executive orders that the abortion rights movement expects and move back to the sagging economy. But doing this would be both politically foolish and a breach of faith with the pro-life progressives who came to Obama's defense during the campaign. They argued that Obama truly was committed to reducing the number of abortions. He shouldn't turn them into liars.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303364.html