Never, EVER, reach out to bigots! They NEVER change. Right? No? Maybe?

Civil rights leaders never, ever would "reach out" to a Klan member, right? That's "history" right? So why should we have to reach out to Rick Warren and his constituency, right?










Q (Juan Williams): In 1937 Hugo Black was appointed to the Supreme Court. Were you aware of those things back then? <Williams is referring to Justice Hugo Black's membership in the Ku Klux Klan, which was hushed up when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1937. Black became one of the strongest supporters of civil liberties ever to sit on the Supreme Court and voted in favor of civil rights in Brown v. Board of Education and other civil rights cases.>

A (Justice Thurgood Marshall): I was. I remember Hugo Black as a senator. I remembered on one occasion there was the HarrisonBlackFletcher bill which was a bill to get federal funds for public education. The southerners so worded it that we knew that Negroes weren't going to get that money. So Charlie Houston and I said, let's go over and talk to Sen. Black and Walter White.

So Charlie and I went over there and talked to him and he said, you don't know how right you are. And he had his brother there, Hollis, who was his aide and he said, you know, we've got to get around this so I'll propose an amendment. Is that what you want? And we said, yessir. And he said you don't have to worry. And we said you know we've got one drafted here. So we showed it to him and he said, no, this won't do. The southerners won't buy this. Hollis you go draft one that the southerners will buy.

Now I remember that the man did that, why should we fight him…But Hugo's a good man. I don't know where he got because he was brought up in the Klan. You had to have a Klan sign in your window in Alabama. Any place in Alabama. He's from Alabama.

Who won, again? Who should be making concessions here?

Justice Marshall is saying that even though he knew that Black had been in the Klan, he had not "spilled the beans" when FDR was trying to get Black confirmed. Isn't a Supreme Court position, "prominent"?

I understand the backlash that could have occurred if his previous membership in the KKK came to light, but was he an active member spouting racist belief's when picked for the Court?

I think that's the commonality. I don't think anyone could change Jerry Falwell's mind or Pat Robertson's mind. But when you are dealing with people who are mildly or severely opportunistic, then you can with skill lure them to provide the political goodies you need.

As bad as Warren's statements have been, it's clear he's more of an opportunist than an ideologue. That's why his statements are all over the place, and why he is proposing to use Obama while being used by Obama.

As another poster put it, Obama is playing chess, while most DUers are thinking in terms of checkers.

Are you saying that Black wasn't really a bigot? Are you saying that you don't think Warren is really anti-gay, anti-women? If so, where do you see reaching out as something that will change bigots or racists?

If Warren is just opportunistic, wouldn't asking him to help chair a conference or inviting him to a meeting on issues have been a better choice? Why invite to the inauguration to perform the invocation, especially if such a move would be so polarizing within your own party? If Obama didn't realize that impact how come you can't admit it was a mistake?

Well, he certainly has no problem sacrificing his most loyal pawns.

weeks of dialog on their intolerance is damn smart. This abject moral dogmatism short sells our position politically.

OK for you[]/i].

Ask the pawns being sacrificed.

Uhhhhhh....nope.

So "reaching out" to him didn't change him, did it?

As Warren is doing almost daily. As your own OP says:

"Black became one of the strongest supporters of civil liberties ever to sit on the Supreme Court" and that was the man Marshall stood by. Not the Klansman.

I fully understand your argument that people can change, but the change must come before the person is lauded. We do not elevate bigots in hopes that the elevation will raise their consiousness. But of course we welcome those who change. But they have to change.

The man who wrote Amazing Grace, John Newton had been a slave trader. He changed. . This does not mean that a slave trader could have written Amazing Grace. It means a transformed and changed slave trader can become a better man. If you read the words, it is clear that his redemption was not easy for him, and in fact grace amazing was required to move him. From his first 'awakening' it took 40 years of Slave Trading before that grace changed Newton. 40 years of selling human cargo, and pondering on the Grace o' Christ. Slaving, praying, pondering. 40 years to say ' this is very wrong'. Makes the Grace look a tad less amazing, those 40 years from conversion to ceasation of the traffic in human beings. He was praying to Jesus during 40 years of selling humans beings as slaves.

The argument you wish to make for Warren would work if Warren was a few years into his transformed life, but he is still the old bigot, unrepentant and unchanged. In fact, he says clearly he will never change. To forgive the transformed person is divine. To forgive rather than intervene while one person harms many is to be an accomplice to the act.

I once read a draft biography of a famous white South African activist and communist, Bram Fischer. Fischer wasn't just a white South African, he was an Afrikaner.

I remember reading one passage that said that even after Fischer became intellectually that segregation was wrong, even after he became a fearless lawyer and activist for black South Africans, he had difficulty shaking hands with blacks, because it gave him a visceral sense that he was touching something dirty.

Newton is an example of a conversion experience. By contrast, I think that Warren is an opportunist. But that can be a good thing. I don't care what he "really feels" but if he can be manipulated in a way that begins to peel off evangelicals from their Jerry Falwell-esque political commitments because of the maneuvering of Warren, that would be a good thing.

Moreover, some people start out as opportunists, but get changed by the opportunistic positions they put themselves in. Wasn't that what happened to Oscar Schindler?

when he was appointed.

is that Warren is still totally active in his bigotry, fully committed to it, and just had a huge political victory for his prejudice. So to embrace and elevate him is not the same as accepting a repentant and altered person, who is no longer attackng minorities. And you OP's point was that Black and Warren are similar stories. Such a thing could happen, sure. But it has not happened yet, and to assist Warren as he is now, is to assit Warren as he is. It is that simple.
And let's be clear about the subject. The subject is secular legal standing and equality. If Warren is skeeved out by gay people, like Fishcer was toward blacks, I do not care if that changes. That is about Warren. If he, like Fishcer, became an activist in my favor, what remains in his heart is simply not my business. Sure it would be wonderful to see the haters become lovers, but all that matters to me is that they cease the active hate. Warren can think I have cooties for the rest of his days, no law can change that. And no man can know what is in any other's heart. That is why only actions matter.
An opprotunist is one who has no principle but his own advantage. For a person to claim to be 'holy' and yet be an opportunist means he is a liar, a cheat, a con man, and his own should rightly call him blasphemer. To use the divine for the agenda of your own power is what some call 'taking the name of God in vain."

just on blind hope.

...though the analogy is imperfect. Rick Warren's prayer is not arguably a necessity, and nearly any other clergy could have substituted. Compared to a Supreme Court appointment, it's nearly gratuitous.

And I doubt a recent member of the Klan could get any such appointment today.

Reaching out, yes. But do not give the bigots a national platform at the most important, most watched media event of this century or the last, until after they have renounced their bigotry.

most of you all do better hiding it.

of an honor or giving more "prominence" to Ahmadinejad a two minute prayer?

If you can't see that, too bad. But at least any other rational person can detect what your problem really is.

It's okay to reach out to opponents unless it's someone goring YOUR ox.

out".
Maybe you've never heard of persuasion? Talking in private? Making a former opponent the SoS?

"Like having a Peace Summit is more
of an honor or giving more "prominence" to Ahmadinejad a two minute prayer?"

If you're implying with that that I am anti-Semitic, that would be a huge surprise to anyone who knows me. I am a die-hard Zionist, FWIW.

And for another FYI: I'm all for gay marriage. I don't give a rat's arse who marries whom, if they're non-related adults. Let people marry, let them divorce, let them procreate or adopt or whatever.

In conclusion, my post meant that I DISAGREE WITH OBAMA'S DECISION.

a VERY prominent role. If *YOU* can't see that, too bad.

But NEVER FOR ONE SINGLE INSTANT, let him EVER forget that to we "enlightened ones", he's lower than pond scum! That will show the world that "we" mean business! You betcha!

January Twenty First of next year, can't come too soon enough for me! How about the rest of you? No? Inauguration Day will be just like the movie, "Groundhog Day" to some of you? Hmmmm; makes one wonder!

pnorman

out, let him invite this guy to the WH for a meeting. But giving this bigot a place of prominence is just a bullshit thing to do.

Only, it turned out, he wasn't an enemy after all. Because they chose to talk to him in a hospitable manner.

Once a bigot, fascist pig, goddamn right-wing asshole always a bigot, fascist pig, goddamn right-wing asshole!

You've got an awful lot of spitting and throwing to do. Best get started.

It's too bad we have a sarcasm smilie, but not an irony smilie.

:hi:

What a complete jerk you have been being.

You think you are being clever, but all you are doing is hurting a good sized chunk of the DU community with your posts.

If you think that presenting actual facts about history makes me a "jerk" in your eyes, I suggest the problem is in your eyes. Historical facts are what they are.

I've seen many comparisons between the current issue and the civil rights era. The problem is that almost all those comparisons get the history of the civil rights era spectacularly wrong, and it is distressing how little historical knowledge an otherwise well informed community actually possesses.

If you're going to use the civil rights era as a comparison, don't you think you should know what actually happened? Or is it better to rely on historical fantasies about the civil rights era?

is it to inform people? really?

or to chide and publicly shame them?

That said, I do find the lack of knowledge distressing. Moreover, I find it bizarre that presenting historical facts get's one labeled a "homophobe."

Bayard Rustin in your next educational outing, why don't you? Look him up.

I just wondered at your intent.

from what I can tell, its to stir the pot of already sizzling flames.

Moreover, my intention is not to stir flames but allow the truth to be stated without that act causing such proponent of historical truth to be called a "jerk" or "homophobe."

There is a huge amount of misinformation and historical illiteracy about these issues. The civil rights movement is constantly being invoked as an historical precedent for tactics (or absence of tactics) in a way that is perfectly counter-factual, as a way of justifying the idea that any non-outrage at Obama's tactics is both homophobic and out of line with the precedents set by the civil rights movement.

As Skinner wrote, Obama's tactical decision on Warren is an issue over which reasonable people can disagree. Some people are trying to define the issue as being not one over which reasonable people can disagree.

I insist that it is acceptable on DemocraticUnderground to support the Democratic President-Elect.

If supporting the Democratic President-Elect on a Democratic website is stirring the pot, well, then the definition of stirring the pot is insane.

...some people need to wake up!

and unwillingness to reach out to opponents?

It isn't easy or convenient. But being the grown up never is.

And after pretty much not reading or posting much on DU for a few days now, it is even MORE obvious that there is a select few number of DU'ers stirring the pot and stoking the hate on an ongoing hourly basis.

and utilize my ignore function and I'll probably take a break from DU while all this blows over. There's something more going on here and it became evident to me what the poster thinks when in wndycty's thread he/she wrote:



Yeup, hate crimes against the gay community is just random acts of murder. And of course it only counts if it happened in the US; that thing the pink triangle is all about? Doesn't count because it didn't happen here. :eyes:

they usually change because something dramatic/traumatic happens in their life that impacts their belief system directly and their bigotry can't account for or rationalize it away.

You example doesn't prove anything. To me, it sounds like Hugo Black may have already gotten over his bigotry, if he ever was one and I don't know that since my knowledge of Black is nil, by the time Marshall had his interaction with him. You can grow up in an environment and not become a product of that environment. Maybe that was the case for Black. I don't know. I don't think Marshall going to visit him (reaching out) and making a case for their bill somehow changed Black from a bigot to not a bigot. There is probably much more to it than that.

Warren has just made his anti-gay political poition worse with his new video.

bigotry when I was young. They talked to me, they showed me with actions what it means to be a good person.

I stated this in my post way down below.

because hello! that is what's happening here.

archives there is footage of him from the 90's on the Senate floor, clutching the bible and raging about the evils of homosexuality while debating DOMA. I vividly remember watching it.

Warren is not showing up to the inauguration for a discussion for changing minds. he is being legitimized by being showcased as a featured speaker.

now to hide this thread since I am no mood for apologist bullshit today. your boy fucked up, why can't you all just admit it. I won't be checking for responses.

As someone from the South, I know many people like Robert Byrd. Repentant about past racist acts in public, but still seethes with hatred in private.

I will never understand how the Democratic party could elevate this dinosaur to a post of this power.

I will never accept Robert Byrd or any of his apologies. Much like the current Pope's nazi past...some crimes cannot be forgiven. 1000s of black people (obviously making up figures here) suffered in WVA for years due to the activities of Byrd and his cronies.

So...Fuck Robert Byrd and all of his revisionist bullshit.

Funny you should be calling him out; I'm seeing ignorance, and it's not his.

that you do know what he does in private.

Do you believe that he has changed his attitudes about black folk? What evidence do you have?

Like I said...I know enough people that are old and wise enough to know that prevailing attitudes have changes and altered their public persona. They remain the same behind closed doors.

I would love it if I was wrong. I like it when I am wrong about such things.

but have been in Va most summers of my childhood.

I have no idea what Byrd thinks in private. Even if he is still a closet racist, do you think his public stance helps make racism less acceptable in W.Va.?

On the other hand, if he supports policies that are de facto harmful to minorities, then his apologies would indeed be empty.

The thing I've never understood about racism in W. Va. is: who is there to be racist at? Isn't it a very, very white state, unlike Va? I suppose the same could be said for southern Indiana and places like that.

...The reason that it is a white state is that the klan (and other groups) worked hard enough in the early days.

Also, racism (and any 'ism' for that matter) seems to be at its most potent when you do not have to worry about dissenting opinion.

Regardless...some crimes of youth cannot be forgiven.

I grew up in southern Indiana and came to recognize this in so many of my childhood friends and neighbors. I never knew any of them to ever dislike an African-American they met. They had no problem with me marrying a Black woman. We had literally hundreds of people show up at our wedding armed to support us in case anyone tried to cause trouble (the community is Catholic so there were a few historical gun battles against the Klan).

But show an African-American face on TV, or start a conversation about anything racial, and the hatred spews out of them.

In my country it's the same: survey after survey shows racism is strongest in small villages and communities where (almost) no people of color live. Racism is at its lowest in big cities and areas where many people of color live. It simply shows people hate and fear what they don't know.

Our "boy"? First, I am pretty sure this is Democratic Underground so he is, for everyone here, our President and certainly not our "boy".

An invocation is not a "featured speaker" gig, it is saying a prayer that might last 2 minutes. I've asked others and I will ask you, what do you recall of the invocations at other inaugurations? How did they affect the policy of the admin?

And please note, this is not meant as a defense of Warren, I just grow weary of the exaggerations that elevate Warren while complaining about the elevation of Warren.

The opposition to Warren is understandable. I resent that he has been made a part of the program, I think Obama has made a huge mistake and his choice is offensive to women as well as the GLBT community. In addition, I personally don't think prayers should be a part of our government and that prayers should be personal. When I hear the words of the likes of the Warrens of this world I think of the gospel verse "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." He is but a clanging cymbal, he is truly a symbol of hate.

Have there been any type of organization of activities to protest Warren? Are there any planned protests? What about shoes with Warren written on them gathered and sent to the transition office? Is there a letter writing campaign - do you have the addresses of the transition team members that are members of the GLBT and/or that are responsible for the GLBT concerns that we can use to write them letters?

Yeah, I know, it was just a story, not a documentary. But Dickens believed it was possible.

I do too.

He changed because something dramatic/traumatic happened to him that shook his core beliefs, that was the effect of the ghosts of winter past, present and future.

:shrug:

nor your apparent intent.


face it: bigotry only changes from within, through self-enlightenment. Reaching out unconditionally to bigots does not in fact do anything but enable the existing bad behavior.

c'mon, you're really twisting into a pretzel to try to make the choice of Warren an ok thing. It's not. Its a horrible choice and I regret it on Obama's behalf, even if he doesn't.

The only thing at this point is to try to heal the rift, and OPs like this one do not do that.

at me as well and I think it's very unfair. I seriously doubt ANY member of DU supports Warren or thinks that Obama's choice in picking him is an "OK thing"... That being said, looking for the positives in this situation and being realistic is NOT an endorsement of the guy.

IMO, Warren's digging his own grave the the more public appearances he makes. Meanwhile, he's unwittingly calling attention to equal rights issues and exposing the dark and ugly bigotry that people like him endorse.

And no, I can't link. That is against the rules.

in this debate. BUT... being on a progressive message board, I can't help but believe that EVERYONE HERE should support equal rights initiatives like gay marriage. I really hope you aren't questioning that.

I believe the firestorm of protest was foreseen. It is putting Warren "through the mill."

--IMM

which provides more moral weight to our position and greater public consideration of theirs.

that more are added to this list within the next month. The need is great.

However......we aren't there now.

Moral absolutism is it's own worst enemy.

Historical perspective gets lost around here...

WOuld be interesting for people to dive into FDR's relationship with southern racists as well....to the point where he opposed an anti-lynching law to avoid having the coalition he had put together to pass New Deal programs from falling apart...

Rick Warren represents his religion and his church.

Byrd was never really a Klansman and is hardly a paragon of tolerance (he hates gays for instance) while Black had thoroughly changed well before FDR named him to the Court.

"Byrd was never really a Klansman"

LOLWUT? They do not hand out titles like 'Kleagle' or 'Grand Cyclops' to people that are not 'really a klansman'

Byrd is a disgrace and I will never understand how he got to the position that he has achieved. I understand why WVA keeps electing him - but why the Democratic Party continues to elevate this little racist is beyond me.

Why do you think that his hatred would stop at gay folk?

:eyes:

was indeed the transforming moment of his life. At the time he was an outspoken champion of white supremacy. Soon thereafter he was transformed into a progressive supporter of integration. Bringing him into the tent like a bad little lieberman was the trick, the straw that broke the camel's hump.

It was a master stroke of political chess-jitsu. We progressive left commie atheist faggot bastards, all brolluxed up in our ideological soup, denounced this move unthinkingly and have since erased it from our memories. This is why we cannot understand the genius of the Warren move. We is an ignorant bunch of twits.


:head explodes:

Me neither.

toward the end of his career. He did indeed have a transformative experience, and in his last term as governor of Alabama appointed more African American officials than any governor had in history up to that point.

Part of the reason, many believe, was that Wallace was both opportunistic and bitter about certain particular grievances about how his career had been stymied earlier by his relative liberalism. Your quip belies ignorance of Wallace's early relationship with the NAACP. Forgive the crude language, but here is a summary from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

... At the time, he was considered a moderate on racial issues. As a delegate to the 1948 Democratic National Convention, he did not join the Southern walkout at the convention, despite his opposition to President Harry S. Truman's proposed civil rights program, which he considered an infringement on states' rights. The dissenting Democrats, known as Dixiecrats, supported then-Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina for the presidency. In his 1963 inauguration as governor, Wallace excused this action on political grounds.

In 1953, he was elected judge in the Third Judicial Circuit Court. Here he became known as "the little fightin' judge," a reference to his boxing days.<2> A black lawyer recalls, "Judge George Wallace was the most liberal judge that I had ever practiced law in front of. He was the first judge in Alabama to call me 'Mister' in a courtroom."<2>

Failed run for governor

He was defeated by John Patterson in Alabama's Democratic gubernatorial primary election in 1958, which at the time was the decisive election, the general election still almost always being a mere formality. This was a political crossroads for Wallace. Patterson ran with the support of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization Wallace had spoken against, while Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP.<2> After the election, aide Seymore Trammell recalled Wallace saying, "Seymore, you know why I lost that governor's race?... I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again."<2><3> In the wake of his defeat, Wallace adopted hard-line segregationism, and used this stand to court the white vote in the next gubernatorial election. When a supporter asked why he started using racist messages, Wallace replied, "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor."<4>

We expect a progress report of when they stop thinking of you as less than human.

As an African American living in the US, I've always had racist friends. This may be something you can't grasp, but it's the reality of most of our lives. We tend to be very realistic about it. How could any of us work in mostly white institutions without befriending racists?

In South Africa, I befriended racist policemen, farmers, and others, in order to understand their point of view and give them mine.

It's also terribly sad statement about yourself if you've never been friends with a racist person. How would you know how they think and how to change their views?

So your comment belies an utter inability to grasp racial realities in this country.

But even that isn't the point. It isn't about befriending any old racist. It's about politically seducing an important racist who has political goodies you need. Most racists, like most people in general, are powerless and have nothing that we, as a political movement need. Some, however, do. So you befriend a Hugo Black, or a Lyndon Johnson, or a George Wallace, or a Robert Byrd, because putting aside ideological purity, that's how you get important things done.

This entire debate here on DU is not between GLBT people and non-GLBT people. It's a debate between people who are realistic, pragmatic and who want our side to be effective so we can address a whole range of very serious, almost terrifying issues (like the economy), many of whom are GLBT, on the one hand; and on the other hand, immature, ideological purists who don't really want to see our side exercise power effectively.

Someone who holds racist thoughts isn't worthy of befriending, and someone who voluntarily befriends them is a fool.

Also, I'm not sure why you focus on white racists. Racism isn't limited to only one group.

But even that isn't the point. It isn't about befriending any racist. It's about politically seducing an important racist who has political goodies you need. Most racists like most people in general are powerless and have nothing that we, as a political movement need. Some, however, do. So you befriend a Hugo Black, or a Lyndon Johnson, or a Robert Byrd, because putting aside ideological purity, that's how you get important things done.

So out of countless racists, you found three examples of "reformed" ones, which still leaves many active racists out there. And what does Rick Warren have that we "need"? Millions of followers who would never vote for us, anyway?

This entire debate is not between GLBT people and non-GLBT people. It's a debate between people who are realistic, pragmatic and who want our side to be effective so we can address a whole range of very serious, almost terrifying issues (like the economy), on the one hand; and on the other hand, immature, ideological purists who don't really want to see our side exercise power effectively.

GLBT rights ARE a very serious issue, and the big issues you harp on about equally affect GLBT people, and in many cases, more so than the average straight person.

That means you've never converted a racist to more open minded thinking. Imagine if King or Ghandi or Mandela had taken that position.

I've tried in my minor way to follow the lead of these three heroes when interacting with racists, and not only has it given me great insight into how the "other side" thinks, but I think that in some cases I've reduced the number of people on the "other side."

How sad that you've never had that experience or even think it's worthwhile. How sad that you disparage the path of Ghandi, King and Mandela -- that you think they are fools, because each of them advocated reaching out to racists.

I suppose you would like to just have the world locked into eternal racialist grid lock.

But you display exactly the point of view I was talking about -- the anti-pragmatic one. You seem to be reveling in the fact that you've accomplished nothing in the racial field on a personal level.

Why the hell would I even want to "convert" someone already so far gone? It's not like racists and I have a difference on tax policy -- they literally think anyone who doesn't look like them is subhuman.

I suppose you would like to just have the world locked into eternal racialist grid lock.

Fucking hilarious. Oh, and comparing yourself, even in a remote way, to Ghandi, King and Mandela is even funnier.

By your logic, GLBTs should come in peace when some homophobic asshole with a bat heads their way. I'm sure the "polite racists" you encounter don't bother you, but I think you'd be singing a very different tune to people like James Byrd.

So no one should read, study and follow "the ways" of Ghandi, King or Mandela, because that would cause us to "compare" ourselves to them? So what would you have us do with their teachings?

One of the main points that all three of them made was that such people are not so "far gone" that they can't be reasoned with. Many are fearful of the future. Many are ignorant. Many need a hand crossing the bridge to a better way of thinking. I found in my personal life, that the observations of all three were true.

If either of these three men believed that racists were too far gone, none of them would have launched their struggles. One of the lesser known facts about South Africa's democratization, is that it really was given a boost by Mandela's long talks with his racist jailers and warders, whom he converted to his point of view, and who became the most important advocates for change (ie a lot of pressure for change within the government came from the Department of Prisons).

As for homophobes, while I wouldn't expect anyone to try to talk with a bat wielding batterer, I fail to see why you find it beyond the pale to reason with someone who may have lots of false ideas or fear.

But hey, we're just different that way. As Skinner has pronounced, there are issues over which reasonable people can disagree. Some of you seem to think these are not issues over which reasonable people can disagree.

So, you stay in your comfort zone, protected from racists and homophobes, surrounded by exactly like minded individuals.

That way you can leave the real work to us grownups.

Go stay in YOUR naive bubble where every form of hate and ugliness can be "reasoned" with, where civil rights are spit upon, where people are killed partly because naive fools like you think some ideas aren't so dangerous that they can't be reasoned with.

So keep on enabling these dangerous people, keep on running out the clock and just praying that things will get better instead of actually accomplishing something.

Pish tosh.

"I fail to see why you find it beyond the pale to reason with someone who may have lots of false ideas or fear."-HamdenRice

Probably because you are not gay.

I am and I have tried to reason with homophobes, those who knew me, those whom I had reached out to.

When it came to frank discussions about gays they reverted to old hateful arguments and still patted themselves on the back for tolerance, "because they have many gay friends and lowe them dearly, but homosexuality is..."

Fill in the blank:

immoral

unnatural

disgusting

a threat to our nation

some of us were lucky enough to grow up in a much more enlightened and intergrated enviornment.. where we really could not waste our time with people who choose ignorance and hatred. i feel sorry that you were forced to put up with that shit as a kid, i'm afraid it;s fucked up your outlook to the point that you think it was a good thing.
this is called the stockholm syndrome.

After all, it was up to her to reason with the racists. :crazy:

And they were not fools in the least. They were good people who thought me worthy of spending time with, of talking to, of arguing with. But mostly thank goodness that they showed me with their actions that I had been DEAD WRONG.

Was there any way your black or minority acquaintances could have known your thoughts about them? If they didn't know about your prejudice and befriended you, it's a moot point.

and said back then.

wouldn't I? That is how I was brought up. And my family is STILL like that. It's awful. It's embarrassing. It's excruciating to listen to them. I'm sure it was excruciating listening to ME back then.

But the OP is cherrypicking examples to support his "point."

Rick Warren and his ilk, fresh off a Prop 8 victory, won't be changing their minds anytime soon, and it sickens me that some people think we have to engage them in order to create equality for GLBTs.

uh yeah.

we'd be some lonely, unemployed, never leaving the house, no money having, BET-all day watching suckers.

We tend to be very realistic about it. How could any of us work in mostly white institutions without befriending racists?

Exactly...

If I felt about white people at 32 the same way that I did at 22, then I would have missed my husband -- the best thing that's happened to me in a very long time.

Huge difference, again.

Only through exposure to the very folks that I was bigoted against did I change my mind.

It's like our world view from experience is considered insane. We'd be insane NOT to deal with racists!

Thanks!

While at conservatory, I fell into the most remarkable circle of Texans. My two best friends among them remained so until their deaths decades later. M. was a die-hard hippie and an extraordinary creative spirit who was born into old oil money on Mother's side. Her long-deceased dad had been a musician. She was drowning in stuff (I'm talking shit that had to be appraised, insured, properly stored... Only leaving her body got her out from under it), wanted me to come down and take a gander so I could see and experience what she was talking about.

We dressed for dinner, then gathered in the drawing room. I noticed Mother had this KICK-ASS butterfly collection. After the ritual Q&A and before she got too deeply into her routine, I gushed, "M. never told me you're also a lepidopterist!" Well Mother Thang lit up like a Christmas tree and after dinner (having checked my knowledge of silverware usage) showed me all her goodies. FUCKING IMPRESSIVE!

Here she thought she would be forced to endure another stray feline dragged in by her errant offspring. (SHE HATED CATS. M. had about 9 at that time patrolling her suite. :rofl: )

When Stella came in to pick up glasses Mother commanded, "Please make up my guest room for Karenina." THAT made the rounds in the domestic help quarters in a NY nanosecond...

The heads of M. and her brother spun around so fast I thought they'd take flight and the looks on their faces cannot be described in words. Safely ensconced in M.'s space after Mother retired, bro rolled a big one as I played with the kittens. M. said, "Well THAT was certainly entertaining." I countered, "I'm NOT your ordinary Negro." :rofl::rofl::rofl: We drank Dr. Pepper, munched on Lay's chips, and :rofl::rofl::rofl: till the wee hours. I slept in a most beautifully decorated, comfortable room.

Mother held some pretty repugnant views. I'd been forewarned but just by being observant (and fortunately having a common interest) I was equipped to head her off at the pass. I did manage a breakfast alone with Stella, who raised M. and seconded Mother's appraisal of me as "a most gracious guest." Lemme tell all ya'll who appreciate my trial by egshell, I wouldn't trade the experience or connexion for ANYTHING.

Last I spoke to Mother was after M.'s death. She's in her 90's now. Two of her three children have pre-deceased her. She said, "I know how dearly M. loved you, as we all in this family do." Yeah, she's a fucking racist. I love her anyway.

Ya know HR, I don't get it. How many threads over the years have we seen about our white members dealing with bigoted family? THEY are not considered insane. FAMILY is sacrosanct until one defines abuse. Everyone's mileage may vary.

Does that mean you think we should shoot Warren rendering him crippled so he can learn what is like to be treated as a second class citizen first hand?

It's the only thing that finally worked for Wallace!

He was a much more complicated person than most people realize.

"He (Wallace) became popular with African Americans toward the end of his career." -HamdenRice

Warren is not a changed man and remains an active flaming, hater.

He is the one doing damage to PE Obama. The Obama team has lost control of this story, Warren has the control and is workng it.

He has attached himself like a leach and riding on Obama's coat tails, Warren is now the center of the story with his daily PR stunts.

If I see real change from the homophobe "Christians" over the next few years, I'll publicly announce here in capital letters that I was wrong. I don't mean "civil unions are okay, after all" and "maybe gayness isn't the same thing as pedophilia" but real movement toward total equality, including marriage. A good start would be for them to stop saying sexual orientation is a choice that can be cured.

And saw the error of his ways?

It CAN happen.

Maybe not often enough, but it can.

AND on top of that, he's a really smart interesting person.

none.

I may have an answer. Instead, I think I'll just laugh at how foolish you sound...

i noticed that. Doh
the idiocy is astounding.

Or did he come to DU AFTER he shed his past?

If DU = the Inauguration and the ex-skinhead DUer = Rick Warren, then the ex-skinhead DUer would have displayed racist behavior while on DU and would have shed his behavior at a later date.

Since DU doesn't allow racism, the ex-skinhead DUer wouldn't have been allowed to post ("the inauguration"), and that's why the OP's analogy doesn't stand.

The desperate, tortured logic you're trying to create in reply to my simple "Yes, that poster is really interesting" post is hilariously ridiculous.

The OP's entire point was that bigots change when they begin to interact with other folks. The above poster said "yes, that is true and there is a member of DU who was once a skinhead but is not anymore" and I agreed with that. I've had conversations with the DU'er who is an ex-skinhead and he has said REPEATEDLY that it was his narrow environment of only being around like minded folks that fostered his hatred of minorities, gays etc. But once he had a change of heart through exposure to the very folks he was conditioned to hate and fear, he changed.

Not so hard to understand, really...

And did the DUer in question seek out minorities to befriend, or did the minorities reach out to him, knowing his beliefs?

The OP's entire point was that bigots change when they begin to interact with other folks.

No, the OP was really about how the targeted group should reach out to the people targeting them, which is quite different.

So it only matters NOW if the bigot reaches out to the non-bigots?? Do you have any idea how STUPID that sounds??

What the hell difference does it make who reaches out to who?? In MLK's instance, he was the non-bigot who reached out to bigots. In millions of other cases, it was the bigot who realized his error and reached out to others. I have no idea which category Ghost in the Machine falls under and I TRULY could not care less. I am just happy that he has changed his life and his mind, and I think that he is too.

meeting with someone and handing them a huge national audoence is not the same at all. that is a huge difference.... let him get exposed to gays and stop bing a bigot before given the platform. or hey- maybe we can get a practicing skinhead to sit next to obama and speak to america too! according to you it;s all the same.

The whole point of the OP was that the non-bigots should reach out to the bigots, and not an either/or proposition.

I genuinely believe that the point of the thread is to educate people that throughout history, people have reached out to those with whom they have disagreed. That this is the only way that change has come about. And that means whether you are the bigot, or whether you're reaching out to the bigot.

The issue is communication, and in that case, it really doesn't matter who reaches out to whom first.

It's a direct statement that we should reach out to the Rick Warrens of the world and not the other way around.

And that point is one I am refuting.

It's about reaching out or being on the receiving end!! It DOES NOT MATTER.

This is such a pointless, purposeless argument! Is this REALLY something that you think needs to be discussed at so much length?? Good Lord, even the OP has posted numerous times during this thread that it's about both sides reaching out. That it's about getting people to CHANGE. And I agree with him on that.

If you think that progressives need only be on the receiving end of being reached out TO, then that is where we will have to agree to disagree. This has been easily been one of the most senseless conversations I've ever had.

Best of luck to you and merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas. :hi:

After all, it was up to her to reach out to the bigots, according to your skewed logic.

South Africa and supported the ANC during the climax of the liberation movement.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That was an example.

If anyone shows how change is possible, it's him!

It's validating them without any negotiation or even dialog at all.

but from what I have seen he seems more concerned with pushing the theories in his book that he is promoting. "Reaching out to him" in the way Obama has gives him free airtime while leaving little room for discussion with him. If he were sitting on the California Supreme Court then he would be forced to review the law and at least try to apply it to the situation. As it is, I don't want theocrats in the court system. This is what the Bush administration has been trying to achieve.

I was too young at that time to be homophobic, simply because that wasn't discussed with nice young girls in Mississippi back then. But I'm sure I would have been homophobic if it had been discussed.

To tell you the truth, I didn't even really know that homosexuality existed before I met my first gay friends in the military. I also served alongside African Americans. This was the first "real" contact I had had with blacks, in a real world sort of way. By that I mean that the way blacks and whites interacted in Mississippi then had nothing to do with the real world outside that state. It was patronizing at the very best. At worst, it was deadly.

But the military changed me. A whole new world was opened up before my eyes and it was wonderful in all its diversity. My very best friend at DLI was Ruby, an African American sergeant from Memphis. She might also have been gay, because she was one of the ones who mysteriously disappeared between DLI and the next military intelligence school we all were transferred to. We never discussed it. To me she was just Ruby - smart, funny, caring, and probably the most determined soldier I ever met. And then she was just gone. And we had no one to question about what happened to her. By that time, though, we had all learned that when people suddenly vanished then it probably meant that they had been labeled as gay, which meant no security clearance and a dishonorable discharge for most.

One caveat that I must add about the ability to change is that I always knew I was different from my friends and family in that small Mississippi town. Just something in my gut made me realize it was not the place or the society for me. So I was perhaps a bit more open to begin with. But maybe not. Who can judge that accurately? I don't think anybody can.

The bottom line is that if I changed, other people can, too. I will be forever grateful to those who didn't simply write me off as some bigotted RW nut from Mississippi, but instead talked to me and SHOWED me what it means to be a good person.

As a black person with family and friends of all colors and backgrounds in the rainbow your post speaks volumes. You will teach your children the values you have and the world will continue to become a better place.

-honorary firedupjen!


:fistbump:

it's that I brought my boys up well.  They would never in a million years be bigotted against ANYBODY.  They worked SO hard to get Obama elected and that made me proud, too.  It also surprised me, because I never expected them to devote so much time and effort to the campaign.  Together we CAN make this world a better place, person by person, family by family, and maybe, just maybe, even minister by minister. We shall see on that one, I guess. :)

:fistbump:

The scene of St. Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus has been retold many times and is symbolical of the many conversions which have been effected by the grace of the Holy Spirit from that day until the present. The following excerpt adheres closely to the well-known account in the Book of Acts and is by a famous writer who himself entered the Church by the same road (1893-1952).

Saul set out on the road to Damascus with death in his heart. He could not know that he was about to keep a rendezvous with Life itself.

To Saul's mind "Pharisaism or Jesus" was the sole issue. And Saul the Pharisee went out to battle the upstart Church with a sword in his hand, and a troop of cavalry and foot soldiers at his command to pursue the Christians who had fled Jerusalem.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/ROADDAMA.HTM

Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? - Abraham Lincoln

Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

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 K. Gandhi

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.

that is almost always the case with deeply held prejudice.

In 1955 America almost all white Americans were deeply racist and in most cases didn't even know it. It took time and a lot of encounters and interaction for that to change to the extent things have.

In 1965 America almost all Americans were deeply homophobic. Most liberals thought gay people were sick and needed to be treated. Conservatives usually thought gay people were criminals and belonged in prison. Even most gay people considered themselves to be suffering from an illness in those days.

It takes time and a lot of interaction for people to changes their deeply held prejudices. But it has to start somewhere.

poor fella grew up being forced to accept racism in south africa, and thinks it;s something that would be good for the rest of us.
i for one, ainlt having it.

any way you slice it, it isnt the same.

when they were included in the political process in the vast majority of cases.

There was a time in which large portions of white America or white South Africa genuinely had nightmares about a hellish world that would come about if "the blacks took over". When many of these people came to realize that their fears were largely unfounded and rooted more in hysteria and paranoia than reality, much of this bigotry began to dissipate.

There was no doubt a time in which most straight Americans were genuinely scared of gay people. When people came to realize that their fears were unfounded, this prejudice also began to evaporate. Even among socially conservative people there is certainly a difference between those who have had interaction with gay people and have had gay friends and those who have not.

Social conservatism like racism or other forms of bigotry cannot simply be defeated. Understanding that comes from knowing the real live "other" and realizing that the "other' be it black people, white people, gay people, Evangelicals or whoever are not necessarily such bad folks once you get to know them is as big a force, if not even a bigger force in knocking down the walls of prejudices as passing legislation.

spare me the lecturen and learn to listen

No? Okay then.

And Obama "gets it".

Ignoring haters does not lessen their hatred.

And while some see the choice as one that somehow rewards Warren's bigotry, that is an argument that must be weighed against the good that may come from reaching out.

That's right, reaching out to bigots.

If Obama only reaches out to progressives we can expect to make little *progress* in enlightening others.

Happy Holidays, all.

NYC_SKP

After the bloodiest war in US history. Really bad example of the good effects of reaching out to bigots. I was thinking Wallace was a bad example, but he was just a totally false example. Lincoln? What?

Whomever the best examples may be, I feel confident that there are more examples of women and men who made progress by reaching out to include those with opposing values than there are of women and men who excluded them.

Even when, or especially when, those opposing values are repulsive.

Cheers, Warren Stupidity, and Happy Holidays!

:toast:

NYC_SKP

>>At the 1964 Democratic National Convention Rustin was drawn into the imbroglio over the challenge by the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, organized by SNCC, to unseat the party regulars.

At Johnson's behest, Walter Reuther and Hubert Humphrey brokered a compromise that would have given the FDP two seats alongside white supremacists in the Mississippi delegation.


It is one thing, predictable and even pardonable, that pragmatists within the Democratic Party would seek a compromise to avoid a fissure that could bring the party down to defeat.

But it is quite another thing when Bayard Rustin -- the personification of resistance -- capitulates to Dixiecrats from a state infamous for racist violence and the murder of civil rights workers. According to Anderson, this episode "marked the virtual end of the popularity Rustin had once enjoyed among young militants of the protest movement."<<
http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue23/steinb23.htm

But not before.

Just because one ex-bigot became an advocate for civil rights is no reason to start propoting bigots. Bigots are the Problem, Not the Solution.

with him speaking at the invocation. However,the passage of Prop 8 was less than 2 months ago, and Rick Warren was a major force behind that. It had to be painful for LGBT people to watch Prop 8 pass and then to see a pro-Prop 8, anti-LGBT-rights pastor selected to give the invocation at President Elect Obama's inauguration. Some of the LGBT people I know are extremely hurt by this, and I can see why.

Obama is transformational.

all I have heard of her. Rick was a genuine fan of hers doesn't really say there is no room for change to me.

Warren is classless and an attention whore. He doesn't have the stature to equal the image that Obama portrays. He has the potential to bring Obama's image down not only because of what he stands for, but also because he's a lose cannon and a liar. In other words, I don't trust him to not make a fool out of himself and by extension, Obama. And if Obama rejects him at some point, he'll be sure to garner even more attention from that. He has no decorum and therefore cannot be trusted.

I don't really think Warren stands for anything. He just likes the attention. And his hateful statements about not only gays and lesbians, but women are not particularly original. He knows he can get away with them and garner a lot of attention and money in the process. I doubt he really believes in anything he says. Hell, he can't even remember what he has said from one day to the next.

to show that he is not controlled by the left wing of the party.

If this is true, then it's really very sad that he feels that he needs to run away from the people who help put him in office instead of stating the obvious, that they were right on a lot of issues that the right and a vast majority of the American public were very very tragically wrong on.

He should stand up and say that when he says "unity" that that includes the people on the left. That using them as a scapegoat needs to come to an end. That the media and GOP's and corporate America's persecution of people on the left's values and everything they stand for is wrong-headed and that using the left as a punching bag has done nothing to help this country move forward.

If he really is who he claims to be, if he really believes his rhetoric about unifying American that we are not red states and blue states, but that we are the United States of America, this would truly be a funny (and not funny ha ha) way of showing it. In fact, it would be profoundly hypocritical.

I am tired of being a f*cking punching bag so that the people on the right can get away with their sh*t. It's time to hold a mirror up to them. If they can begin to see the errors of their ways, and have to stop blaming everything on minorities and the poor and anti-war demonstrators and foreigners and feminists and Peta and gays and lesbians and environmentalists and atheists and Muslims, maybe, just maybe they could see what the real issues are and we could address them.

If Obama really wants this controversy for this reason it would be hypocrisy at it's worst. And that's not change I can believe in. There is certainly no reason to prove he is not "controlled" by the left wing of he party, because the left wing controlling anything is just a fantasy boogie-man put in the public's head so that corporate America can have complete control over the populous. Obama needs to spend his presidency pointing that fact out and rectifying it.

it is understandable that Obama feels he needs to do this. Republican and conservative leaders and commentators believe he is beholden to the left and will move hard left once he gets in office. Even though it is not true it hurts Obama's credibility. He will need their support to move critical legislation through congress.

bringing Warren aboard was a mistake. He's not just a bigot wrapped up in religious happy talk, he's paid very well to be that way. He has no incentive to change even if he were inclined to do so.

I understand your point of view, but disagree with this statement. Warren is not stupid (like Falwell) and his success at selling books shows that he has somehow managed to take his message outside the central core of the evangelical community.

It seems to me he has two incentives: (1) expanding his reach (and profits and influence) even further, to the Christian community that may not be comfortable with his more reactionary views and (2) being crowned by the media as the "new kind" of evangelical, and thereby supplanting the Falwells/Robertson/Dobson axis as the "face" of the evangelical movement. That means being the go to guy for politicians like Obama, but it also means rethinking his views on things like GLBT rights and abortion.

I suspect we're going to see the "Joel Osteenization" of Warren as the price of his getting these goodies.

you can give him a podium and he can publicly eat crow. Until then, don't give him any honors.