As much as I am uncomfortable with it, our big tent will need to accomodate the RR

[Taverner]

The Republicans have lost the Religious Right. The Kuo book just solidified this - the RR knows the the GOP doesn't really represent them, and they are looking for a new home. Enter the Kathleen Blancos and Harold Ford Jr's of the world - they are poised perfectly to take the RR into the Big Tent of the Democrats.

The RR knows the Dem's wont all support them, but instead will exist in the party much like the Progressives do - knowing that although the party as a whole won't support them, specific reps will so they can vote their conscience.

Now, as a Realist - this disturbs me and I'm a bit uncomfortable with this. However, many RR's do share a lot with me and other Progressives. For example, the Suburban Soccermom RR is just as against racism as I. They may be clueless to the reality of life for the average African American in the US, but in theory they are against racism and are just as disturbed by the anti-Harold Ford ads as we are. The RR also like social programs, albeit with a religious twist.

So I guess what I am saying is that I and the progressive community shouldn't be so quick to judge the RR that is homeless now and looking for a new tent to move into. We share a lot of the same values and goals, and if we work together, we could see a resurgence of Great Society-esque programs.

Of course this is all predicated on us hammering to our RR friends and acquaintences that the GOP does not speak for them, and that our party is much better of a home for them than the elitist GOP.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. But don't forget to some extent, the RR will need to modify

their needs and demands in order to have some political clout. And that's democracy: compromise.

[Taverner]

3. Exactly

The GOP promised them everything and delivered nothing.

The Democrats can promise that they will be heard, but we can't promise we will take up their causes fully. There are already a bunch of classically "leftish" issues that the RR is starting to comprimise on. The environment is one of them and I expect social programs to be another.

[gorfle]

59. Exactly!

>The GOP promised them everything and delivered nothing.

This is why I have abandoned the GOP after voting GOP/Libertarian for some 17 years.

[davidinalameda]

108. as a progressive Christian

and a gay man, I'm not a big fan of the religious right

they've made their bed with the Repukes so let them lie (or lay) in it

social programs? most of the hard-core RRers don't want any social programs except for faith based programs-they want our tax dollars to go to them so they can promote their narrow brand of Christianity

what else do you want to compromise on-women's right to choose, gay right (I've seen plenty of people ready to sell the GLBT community down the river to get a few more votes), the war in Iraq?

what are you willing to give up to get these votes

[LonelyLRLiberal]

112. I agree with you 100%.

Why would you get involved with a bunch of bigoted, ignorant, uninformed idiots? Why feed their stupid agenda of discrimination and attacks on the US Constitution (especially separation of church and state)?

[Subdivisions]

13. I saw a segment on this on CNN yesterday. Basically,

the RR was indicating that they have been let down and, rather than focusing on issues such as abortion and gay rights, conceded that they had other issues that are more "liberal" in their context, such as Global Warming and poverty.

In other words, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I believe that although abortion and gay rights and similar "moral" issues will still be an important part of the RR's agenda, they do see some benefit in working with the liberal machine on things like poverty and the environment.

I believe also that if we nurture this new interest in "liberal" causes by the RR, we just may be able to eliminate them as political foes, if not at least make friends with them.

[gorfle]

61. That, and more

>In other words, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I believe that although abortion and gay rights
>and similar "moral" issues will still be an important part of the RR's agenda, they do see some
>benefit in working with the liberal machine on things like poverty and the environment.

Absolutely. Moreover, a lot of us are wising up to the billions that are being spent on this failed attempt at imperialism. And we figure, "Hey, if we are going to spend $340 billion anwyay, why not spend that on Americans?" I mean even the most anti-welfare Republican can look at Iraq and think, "Gee, I can spend a trillion dollars gambling that I might turn Iraq into a modern democracy, or I could have some social programs for Americans..."

Really, what it boils down to is I think a lot of us are waking up to the fact that the "wedge issues" were used to get us on their side, but not much was done about the wedge issues and blew the rest of governance.

My biggest wedge issue is firearms. But I'm comfortable enough with the gains made in recent years (expiration of Assault Weapon Ban) and the acknowlegement by the Democrats on how it cost them seats before that I'm willing to give the Democrats a shot to run a better government overall.

[Warpy]

37. Compromise shouldn't include throwing

women and gays under the bus, if that's what you're getting at.

I know I'm sick of men who cavalierly toss everybody else's rights down the toilet to get and keep power. That's why I despise the GOP.

I won't EVER vote for a candidate who is antigay or antiwoman. That means I won't vote for any religious lunatic no matter what the initial behind his name says.

Some things are simply non negotiable. Civil rights for all of us is one of those things.

If the RR want to shelter under our tent, they're going to have to come to terms with the fact that the rest of us live here, too, and they're going to have to learn some MANNERS.

[Taverner]

40. Not at all

Like I said in an earlier post, the Evangelicals will have to adjust to sharing the tent with Feminists and Gays. They will have to learn tolerance, but this I think will be easier for them than you might think.

[Sapphocrat]

80. OK.....

...if, and only if, THEY have to do the adjusting -- and their first order will be to shut the fuck up, and like it.

The "feminists and the gays" have taken far too many hits for the team, and there is NO WAY we can bend to their vile, virulent homophobic and misogynistic bullshit just for a few lousy votes from a small, vocal minority of mental cases.

Remember what Tevye says in "Fiddler on the Roof": "If I bend that far, I will break."

[LostinVA]

84. I like you, Taverner, but if you think they'll "adjust," you'll sadly mistaken

And don't really know what many -- if not even most -- of these people are like.

I agree with Sapph -- once again, we're being thrown under the bus...

[no_hypocrisy]

42. Compromise means the RR understands that they are welcome

to knock themselves out using their own private funds and media to get their message out, but they can't expect the government to be their sponsor and protector for their goals as they violate fundamental rights and civil rights protected in the Constitution. That's all. They won't be prosecuted by the government for seeking to advance their agenda on their own time with their own dime, and don't interfere with others seeking the diametric opposite of their goals.

I just want dems to promote coexistence with respect. It has to be done.

[spoony]

126. I like that.

I hope it comes to pass, it'd be nice to have some unity in the country after all this mess.

[liberaldemocrat7]

122. Speaking of Kathleen Blanco we should boycott Louisiana

because Kathleen Blanco signed that abortion ban in Louisiana and also boycott South Dakota until the Citizens or the legislature removes their abortion ban.

[Totallybushed]

2. You must be joking.

The RR may sit it out. I doubt it. But they are not just religious, they are "right". They will never join in a party that is "left".

Look at it from their point of view. Would you vote for "Stalin" because "Hitler" was worse? The best that can be hoped for is that they sit it out. But I wouldn't bet any serious money on it. Do you think any of them actually read Kou's book?

[Taverner]

5. Oh I don't think Dobson will ever join ranks with us

Nor will Pat Robertson or Foulwill...

But half of Evangelical Xians call themselves Democrats already. They feel shafted by the GOP, and many are willing to comprimise.

[Totallybushed]

50. I don't think so.

Maybe. But the left stands for everything they despise, just as they stand for everything the left despises. So The GOP is not perfect for them? So they are going to go over to the enemy, or let the enemy win just because they are disappointed?

Would that it were so. Tell me. If the Dems win and fail to impeach Bush, Cheney, et al, are you going to vote Republican next time out of disappointment?

[Tansy_Gold]

106. If half of "Evangelical Xians" call themselves Dems already

then they aren't the Religious Right.

The Religious Right, after all, is that core constituency that is rabidly anti-left. They are anti-abortion, anti-women (and I mean that very literally), anti-gay, anti-science, anti-immigration (never mind that they themselves are immigrants or the descendants therefrom), anti-minority, in fact anti-virtually everything the Left holds dear. (Please note that I did not say "sacred.")

Yes, there are religious people who see the environment and poverty as important issues, but those issues have been there for a very, very, very long time and have never been important enough to override the RR's passionate crusade (both puns intended) to halt abortion, outlaw contraception, and force gays into covenant heterosexual marriages.

There's a reason why these wedge issues have worked so well to keep these people in the GOP fold -- these are the issues these people believe most fervently in. Have you ever talked to a devout Southern Baptist Arizona cotton farmer who curses the EPA for banning the "best" pesticide ever invented, DDT? I have. Lots of 'em. They don't give a rat's ass for the bald eagles or the red-tailed hawks; they only care about their highly profitable crop, profitable through the (big)government subsidies they get. And they praise themselves for their "rugged individualism" while they drive their Cadillac Escalades (you won't catch them driving anything "furrin") using untaxed farm gasoline.

Yes, it's a big tent, but it's still a Dem tent. And I want nothing to do with "welcoming" those who don't want it to remain a Dem tent.

Tansy Gold

[BootinUp]

24. Sure if we are limiting the discussion to RR's...

but there are people who go to Protestant churches every Sunday who do not consider themselves in the same group of thought as some of the true nutbags and are open to voting for Democrats that share some of their concerns and would limit the power of the Republican party.

[Taverner]

31. But these guys are already with us

The Religious Left has always been a part of our base.

[BootinUp]

44. so there isn't a middle?

I think we are arguing over lables only... :)

[Zhade]

95. Where's the middle between authoritarianism and democracy?

Leftie believers don't insist on forcing others to live as they deem ideal.

Righties do.

What's the middle - only half-controlling others' lives?

[More Than A Feeling]

117. Bingo. You've nailed the dividing line between the religious right and left

and between the right and the left in general as well.

[BootinUp]

118. Its all black and white to you?

good luck in politics.

[Zhade]

121. It IS black-and-white, in this case.

Fundamentalists, by definition, believe in ONE way to live (THEIR way).

Liberal believers honor lots of paths, or no religious path at all.

Again, it comes down to believing in an authoritarian god that dictates their lives - fundies - and those who believe there are lots of ways to live good lives, and that it's up to each individual to decide which course is theirs - liberal believers.

I can't make the stark difference between the two groups any clearer, and if you refuse to acknowledge the authoritarianism mindset prevalent in fundamentalists, I simply can't help you.

Authoritarianism drives fundamentalism. This is absolutely undeniable. It's what MAKES fundamentalism fundamentalism.

[BootinUp]

123. There will always be

authorities in a governed society. What they are authorized to control changes based on complex series of events and influences both internal and external. People do not line up neatly on each issue like you imagine it. You seem to suggest that people who vote in past years based on how their church pressured them to vote, is exactly how they will vote this year. It ignores that some of those people may decide that one party control of DC is not a good thing. It ignores a whole host of possible reasons they would consider changing a vote.

There are even recent examples of defectors.

No, its not a black and white world. There is some gray.

[Zhade]

124. All I can say is that I hope you're right, but their track record does not show it will happen.

In any case, I do not agree with others who say there will have to be some accommodation from our side. They can either join us and support our principles, or they are not welcome.

[spoony]

127. Not necessarily

They may not be RR or religious left, and they may not vote Dem currently. Many have fallen for--and more and more are regretting--the rah rah war chants and 'smaller gubmint' lies they've been fed. I think this is the bunch that will really seal the Democratic generation of holding Congress and the White House for years to come.

[SteppingRazor]

4. I think the RR will have to accomodate US, not the other way around...

at least if they want a political voice.

They're more than welcome to join the Democratic tent, but they need to refocus on the real message of Jesus in the Bible -- helping the poor and needy and standing up to greed and hypocrisy. Bullshit anti-gay agendas need to take a back seat.

[bpeale]

54. as much as i don't believe in the bible...

i cannot argue with the part about abiding by what's in their own religious book that they like to beat people over the head with. i am an aetheist. i don't believe everyone should believe as i do, but i don't want to discuss it with any "christian" either. i do however believe in doing the right thing for everyone not just some misguided wingnut. nor do i want to be drawn into some conversation about "why" i believe what i believe so that they can try to convert me. i am a good person. i try to do the right thing always, but not out of some misguided sense of religiosity. it goes against my grain to think only of myself.

[eleny]

6. They can start their own political party

[Dhalgren]

17. That's just what I was thinking. It would be good for them. They

could vote their conscience every time. And if they never win, well, that's where a little Christian humility can come into play...

[roamer65]

86. YEAH! EXACTLY!

I don't want these freaks sullying the Democratic party.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

110. We need the tobacco chewers and the sprout eaters - Jim Hightower

I don't want these freaks sullying the Democratic party.

I'm not anti religious, even though Falwell and Robertson are a real test of my tolerance.

There was already a movement within the evangelical christians to look beyond abortion and gays rights.

There are already evangelical leaders saying "What good does it do to save the child and lose the planet?" These people may not be the pure progressives you would like in "your" democratic party, but if they agree with us more than they disagree, why shouldn't they be welcomed?

It doesn't mean we start gay bashing and promoting anti-choice terrorism, just that we live and let live where religious beliefs are concerned.

[gully]

7. I think it's more about educating them than accomodating them.

http://beliefnet.com/story/185/story_18562_1.html

I recommended your threat b/c I think you raise an important point about "the big tent." Indeed we need to welcome all people who want a political party in power who represents 'THE PEOPLE.'

[Cleita]

8. Back in the fifties they were Democrats because

fundies were basically working class and still are. I went to Catholic schools and most of my classmate's parents voted Democratic and belonged to unions.

[porphyrian]

9. We can play nice if they can.

The problem is that they feel the need to control others instead of themselves. If THEY could be tolerant of us, they're welcome. But, if their support is dependent on our unilateral tolerance, fuck them.

[Taverner]

15. It's going to mean ALOT of comprimising on both ends

They will have to get used to the fact that the party also represents gays and lesbians. THEY MUST accept this.

We will also have to get used to the Harold Fords and Kathleen Blancos out there. I detest their opinions on abortion, and am VERY UNCOMFORTABLE with this. I really don't know what the solution will come to be on this issue, but politics is about comprimise.

[porphyrian]

26. I'm not just talking about sexual categories.

I'm talking about EVERYTHING different from their way. No proselytizing, period, or it's just going to be a fight, and I don't think they can do it.

I can accept and respect people believing and practicing anything they want. I can't accept or respect people who won't do the same for me, whether that's because of who I find attractive or what I choose to believe.

[LostinVA]

85. self delete

[Zhade]

89. NO. We do not need to give them ONE FUCKING INCH.

These people have been trying to ensure people like me NEVER get my due equal rights. FUCK THEM if they think we're giving ANYTHING to them.

And it's not just about GLBT equal rights. It's about abortion. It's about science (we will NOT give any sort of sop to the laughable bullshit that is "Intelligent Design"). It's about their hatred of unions, and liberals, and women's rights, and their puritanical desire to ban everything their mythical god decries.

NO. I cannot stress this enough, NO. They get NO CHANGES from our stances - we're on the right side of history, and they can either accept what we already stand for or go away.

Your post makes me so angry and so frightened I'm literally shaking. If THIS is where the party goes, never count on my support, ever.

[lcordero2]

10. at first, I was against the faith-based initiative

But I got to realizing that it may not be a bad idea because it puts money in an existing infrastructure rather than going through the expense of putting in new infrastructure.

[Cleita]

19. I'm not against it as long as it isn't used as bait for proselytizing.

For instance if the money is given to the Salvation Army for their homeless shelters, it needs to be spelled out that if they have prayer services, that attending it by the homeless must be voluntary, not a requirement before they get fed or housed. If they choose to do it the other way, then funding should be cut off.

[Lars39]

52. There's virtually no oversight to the money diverted to faith-based

programs. And not all that receive funds already had a comparable program in operation.
It amounts to pay-offs to bush's base. Bush went around Congress to accomplish this.

[immoderate]

11. Why not?

As long as they can go along with freedom of choice, teaching evolution, seperation of church and state, stem cell research, and gay rights, they're welcome.

--IMM

[Cleita]

38. These may not be impossible goals.

All it will take is their fork-tongued preachers telling them that they spoke to Gawd and the lord now says all those things are fine with him now. Considering the Bible speaks only to the separation of church and state it shouldn't be hard to do a flip flop.

[immoderate]

47. I agree. That's the beauty of authoritarianism.

I consider those points to be pretty much non-negotiable for progressives. But wing nuts will do as they're told. However, I'm not holding my breath.

--IMM

[DURHAM D]

12. The Religious RIght has many different levels of faith followers.

Many, far too many, will continue to be lead to the voting booth by anyone who claims to "love Jesus". Actions don't matter to them - they will continue to believe in the personality. David Kuo is one of them.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. thing is they will not support feminist or gay rights...this is a huge problem for a lot of us

[Taverner]

18. It's a huge problem for me

And I could never, in good conscience, ever vote for a Kathleen Blanco or Harold Ford Jr.

But in the strategic big picture, if Ford wins, this is a good thing.

I just know we are going to have to have a lot of comprimising to do. Unfortunately, the US may never be an enlightened state like EU nations are - but that's just reality.

[StraightDope]

21. "...but that's just reality."

No, that's what I like to call a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Fifty years ago, many people would have expressed a similar sentiment:

America will probably never have whites and blacks living and working together, side by side-that's just reality.

Wasn't true then, and it ain't true now.

[Taverner]

29. I'm a realist

Logically I'm a Secular Socialist - but I am at home with the fact that the US will never be an enlightened state like those in Europe. So I push for what is best for the most people, with the harm done to the least.

[Zhade]

91. With attitudes like yours holding us back, you're right.

You're not a "realist" in this regard, for one simple reason: you can't see the future. No one can.

[Zhade]

90. At what point does this "strategy" yield ill results?

I'd argue it already has, but tell me, what percentage of districts, of the population, should we sacrifice to elected officials who oppose (e.g.) equal rights and a woman's right to choose before it tips toward conservatism?

How many snakes do we allow into the tent before we discover we've been bitten fatally?

[Taverner]

114. Thing is: we don't sacrifice anything

The Evangies will never have a majority in this party, and the Dems know better than to cave into any of their demands, other than those we reciprocate.

[Sapphocrat]

79. You took the words right out of my head.

Bottom line is, if the "big tent" makes room for the Radical Right, somebody's going to get tossed out -- and we all know who that will be.

[dysfunctional press]

16. bullshit. the religious right is neither-

and they can remain as the core of the repuke minority.

[StraightDope]

20. NOPE.

I don't WANT the RR to have a voice in my party, I don't NEED the RR to have a voice in my party.

They are a cancer on the United States, they can't or won't keep their beliefs to themselves, they stand for bigotry, hatred, intolerance, and everything that I WILL NOT stand for.

Fuck the Religious Right. If accommodating those insane assholes is what it takes to win elections, then I'd prefer to lose elections. We've been fed this myth of "values voters" for so goddamn long that some of us are actually starting to believe that claptrap. The Democratic party can get all the votes it needs from sane, reality-based people. The working class. People of color. Youth. TRUE Christians whose lives involve more than just wearing "Jay-sus" on your sleeve.

Flame away. StraightDope can take it!

[Taverner]

23. Not a flame, but a counter

I have just as much of a bad taste in my mouth from the RR as you do. Perhaps even more so. And by taking them in, I do not mean giving them an agenda setting place. I see them taking a seat along the lines of the Progressives in the Democratic Party. We progressives NEVER set the agenda, we just form alliances with those in the party who share our values. This is where the RR will come into play - on issues we share. The RR is starting to pick up the green torch and expect this to be a new addition to the green alliance. The blue collar types who want the sustainable jobs that green initiatives produce, the progressives who want a clean environment and now the evangelicals who are inspired by the "Creation Care" and Environmental Stewardship initiatives.

All I'm saying is find common ground, but make sure we set realistic expectations,

As the old saying goes, keep your allies close, and your enemies closer.

[Zhade]

92. And when we discover the RR pushing bullshit like creationism...

...alongside their alleged desire to protect the environment, how do we counter the damage they'll try to inflict on rational thinking and understanding of science?

These people are dangerously uninformed about reality. I'm not about to sit in a room with some moron who claims the earth is six thousand years old and that we have to protect it...just so Jesus can come back for the Rapture.

Why suffer fools gladly?

[Ron Green]

32. No flames, but I suggest that personal growth, forgiveness and transformation

are all part of a spiritual and/or religious life, or ought to be. Rather than reject evangelicals out of hand, I would offer an olive branch. Education is the key, and God's tent ought to be at least as big as that of the Democratic Party.

[Zhade]

93. They have to make the first moves, then.

They have to prove that they won't try to push their beliefs on others. Their track record on that is nonexistent.

They are not trustworthy. How do you propose we trust them? I'm not even TALKING to them until they can hold a conversation without bringing up how much they hate "fags/feminazis/libruls/unions".

This is ridiculous. They represent a tiny minority who stands AGAINST what we stand for. What makes anyone think they WANT to change?

[TankLV]

22. Equating progressives with these assholes - great!

If these RR's are willing to SURRENDER to our UNMOVEABLE policies of EQUALITY FOR ALL PERSONS, GBLT INCLUDED, CHOICE, LIVEABLE WAGE, etc, then I have no problem with that.

WE will NEVER accept anybody who is BIGOTED, HATEFUL, AND HYPOCRITICAL!!!

[BIG Sean]

25. Can't we all just get along?

Hi,

My views are very much inline with Harold Ford Jr's. I am very progressive on just about every issue, however, I don't believe in abortion. Yeah, I know, I am hated on the DU because of this, sorry, its how I feel. There often seems to be no place for me in our party.

Just watch the flames I get for just making post like this on the DU.

[Taverner]

33. Abortion is a hot button issue

It stirs fires on either side.

If this were an enlightened state, it would be taken off the table until cooler heads could prevail.

[Zhade]

97. Cooler heads prevailed in 1973.

Choice is the right stance; controlling others' bodies and personal medical decisions is NOT.

You're really starting to scare me.

[Taverner]

119. Choice is the right stance

And choice is close to where it is now...

I'm saying no new laws restricting abortion....buy some time

However, the way we sell this is by telling the Evangelicals that Abortion is being "tabled"

[Zhade]

125. I'm confused - are you suggesting we lie to them, or mislead them?

I don't support that, either - one, it's dishonest, and two, I'm not about to go along with anything that suggests in any way that choice is the least bit wrong.

Saying we'd 'table' it makes it sound like we're undecided and might sway. We're not, and we won't.

[Taverner]

128. No we need to play like they (the Repubs) do

They keep their base by speaking vaguely on issues that are hot button, so later they can't be nailed one way or another.

It's dishonest, but after playing nice against Rove for 8 years I'm sick of playing nice.

Fuck nice.

[LostinVA]

46. Nobody "believes in abortion," we just believe in being pro-choice

There is no wriggle room on this most basic of rights for women. Period.

[Taverner]

60. Well I actually believe in abortion

In that I think the world is already overpopulated, and any technology that can assuage that is a good thing. I also believe a woman has the right to an abortion, as her body is hers alone.

[Sapphocrat]

81. What cracks me up...

...is that those of us who are pro-choice (regardless of our reasons) are more in agreement (than are anti-choice Christians) with ancient Hebrew law -- which, as we all know, is the very basis of the Old Testament, without which Christianity wouldn't exist.

There's lots of interesting reading out there about abortion in Jewish law to befuddle (and piss off) anti-choice Christians -- here's just one of many:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

[Change has come]

57. Depends.

Do you want to force your ideals on everybody else?

[BIG Sean]

66. Not at all.

Who I am to tell people what to do with their body?

This is "my" personal belief.

[annabanana]

94. A good and sensible reply for ANY man to make!

You, then, are pro-choice. No one is "pro-abortion".

[Zhade]

96. You're not hated - UNLESS you desire to control women's bodies.

Then you would be, and rightfully so - you have no right to control others.

And fyi, you can be against abortion and for choice. Lots of people are. (Not me, but then I'm not coming from a religious stance on the matter.)

[eallen]

27. It will never happen. Which is good: they are the enemy.

The problem with Kuo's book is that it fails to recognize that two religious right wingnuts can see each other as wingnuts, even while each thinks that their own views, only slightly different from the other's, is God's Own Truth. The religious right is Bush's base, and they recognize correctly that he is one of them, even if some of his staff has sometimes poked fun at other members of the religious right. That just doesn't matter.

As to politics, religious fundamentalism is inherently the enemy of liberal democracy. That is as true for fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Judaism as it is for fundamentalist Christianity. We have to welcome the religious liberal. But the religious right? Never. They are what we are fighting against. Never, never, never, never, never.

[eallen]

30. "..as true for fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism as for fundamentalist Islam."

Damn typos.

[Zhade]

98. We're for democracy and equality, and we should accept authoritarians?

Never, indeed!

[bpeale]

28. no voice

if they are unwilling to compromise with the democratic platform, then they would best be served by either starting their own party or being part of the permanent minority republicans. either way they will have no voice. is that what they really want? i don't think so. but we have had no voice for 6 years, i think its time for them to have no voice for awhile. i am unwilling to compromise if it means that i have to listen to them spouting their jesus crap ad nauseum. being welcomed to the "big tent" doesn't give them free license to come on in a proselytize and try to "save" us. that would be bullshit.

[bowens43]

34. ah... no.

We certainly do not need to accommodate bigots.

[tjwash]

35. Nope. They are ideologically opposite of everything that we as Dems stand for.

That's like saying that we should welcome freepers on to DU because there are 1 or 2 issues that we somehow see eye to eye about.

It is never going to work, and it never will. The RR is too emotional about their pet issues of gays, forcing religion in every classroom across the country, completely shutting down and censoring anyone who happens to be pro-choice, and tearing down the separation between Church and State.

Let them form their own party like the Green party has on the left. Maybe that will siphon off some votes that would normally go to the thieves that currently occupy the White House.

[LostinVA]

45. Bingo

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

51. Exactly. They are the polar opposites: BIG Gov't Social police

Shrinking government just small enough to fit into everyone's bedroom.

[tjwash]

64. I lived in a country that had no separation of Church and State.

They had a religious police, and a separate set of laws that only applied to those who were Islamic. It actually made me realize that Christianity and Islam while of opposite sides, where actually of the same coin. Both religions, if left unchecked and unanswered, use their respective faith as a means of eliminating freedoms that we take for granted here.

It also made me appreciate the U.S. and the fact that we do not have to endure the things like a knock on the door and a warrant-less search of my house because one of my neighbors made a phone call because they saw me bringing liquor into my house. Or whatever the religious leaders decide that we are not allowed to do.

[donco6]

82. Plus the RR doesn't believe in discussing anything anyway.

They are already right about everything - what's to debate? They only way they'd want to come into our "tent" is if we accommodate their every whim. And I, for one, am not at all willing to do that.

[Zhade]

101. Exactly. They think they have all the answers from their ancient myths.

They think their god tells them they're good, and right, and that they MUST do what he says AND make others do so too (which is so conveniently exactly what they want, which makes sense as their god is strictly in their heads).

It's like arguing with a 2-year-old.

[Zhade]

99. What's sometimes forgotten is that even when we agree...

...it's usually for wildly different reasons.

Take the port deal fiasco a while back - liberals against it were so because they didn't want our security in *anyone* else's hands.

Freepers were against it because they're total fucking racists.

Just because a freeper's broken clock is right twice a day doesn't mean I want to set my watch to it.

[Jacobin]

36. Can I have the camper instead of the tent?

I wouldn't want to sleep in a tent with a RR fundie. Sorry

[Greyhound]

39. Fundamentalist religion, whatever the flavor, is the antithesis of the

American way as well as the Democratic Party. Their dogma requires them to force their views on everybody else, hardly appropriate to the party of choice.

[Taverner]

41. I agree - hence my discomfort

But stragically thinking...

[Greyhound]

49. Strategic thinking get us a nominally Democratic administration that

counts as victories GATT, NAFTA, Welfare reform, Telecommunications Act, "Assault weapons" ban, record corporate consolidation and anti-competition legislation.

The prospect of a return to Re:puke:-lite politics leaves me completely underwhelmed, and will likely bring a repeat of 2000, and this time they may pick a front-man with a brain.

[sandnsea]

43. Religious? Yes Religious Right?? no no no

They're just going to have to flap around in their own hot air.

[Matariki]

48. No Thank you

they systematically took over the Republican party until republican politicians catered to their ass backward 'values'. You want that to happen to the Democratic party? Not me.

Let them start their own damn {lunatic fringe) party.

[ima_sinnic]

53. screw them. the superstitious holier-than-thou dumb@$$ nutbags

The Democratic Party champions OPEN-MINDED issues like freedom of choice in reproductive decisions and in right to die, stem cell research, furthering our understanding of evolutionary processes, etc. etc. People who believe that a person in a vegetative state who can't see, hear, think, speak, or feel should be treated as "disabled" and MADE to continue to occupy their bodily shell, despite the fact that no sane person on the planet would want the same fate for themselves, are NOT welcome to inflict their dumb@$$ "beliefs" on me or use the Democratic Party as their vehicle.

lest it seems hypocritical to talk about open-mindedness in the same post as saying I won't accept them, I am quite OPEN to their keeping their bullshit "theories" and religion TO THEMSELVES. I will accept them fully as long as they do that. But we've seen how the @$$-clowns do NOT want to do that, from dragging their big rock around the country like a bunch of twisted martyrish Sisyphuses to intruding on a hospice with a noisy vulgar sideshow of jugglers and jesus on a trailer hitch.

no way will I "compromise" with people driven by fantasyland images of a 6000-year-old earth, who want to make "intelligent design" into a school "subject" (like, what is there to say: the earth was "created" by a man in the sky. end of story. gee, like that's worth more than 2 seconds of brain fart), who continue to believe a fable about the son of a woman raped by "god," etc. etc. AD NAUSEUM--how does superstition "compromise" with fact? No way will I "compromise" with people who seem to think the way to get something done is to make a big stink about it and milk the system for their own twisted agenda.

They and I have NOTHING IN COMMON except that we happen to be the same species (something I even question, though) and breathe the same air.

let the 16th-century witch-burners go form their own political party.

[bpeale]

55. WOW!

you're a person after my own heart!

[Zhade]

102. THANK you.

That a stance like the OP's can even be contemplated speaks to the dire situation this country is in.

I think Vidal is right; the United States is insane.

[Pastiche423]

56. lol

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

No f'ing way!

[NashVegas]

58. We Don't Have to Accomodate Anything "Right"

We didn't get to the point where we are right now by bending over to Dobson or any of his friends.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

62. The "religious" right?

Thanks but no thanks.

The natural place to pull votes from is the Greens and the Independents -- the Democratic party has much more in common with them than it does with the "religious" right. And it wouldn't have to sell its soul to win.

Fuck the "religious" right - let them form their own party - I don't want them contaminating ours with their hatred and ignorance.

[Lars39]

63. I will not support the addition of trojan horse 'Democrats'

who will work to undermine gay rights and women's right to choice.

[Dob Bole]

65. The Religious Right will not move...you want evangelicals

Dobson, Falwell, etc. will always defend Republican candidates, even if they hit on teenage boys, for example. But regular evangelicals are a different story. Did you know that a majority of "born-again" Christians are Democrats? That Jimmy Carter was the first "born-again" President?

While the religious left is divided on the issue of abortion, most faithful evangelicals support the environment and care about poverty-related issues. What we need in our coalition is not the religious right (which includes Rev. Moon, right-wing Catholics, and fundamentalist Mormons), but to convince normal Christians that it's still ok to vote Democratic.

Two points:

1) The South has the highest concentration of evangelicals.

2) Evangelicals hate sex scandals.

Thus, although Clinton performed very well in the South, even though he was seen as not-as-Christian-as Carter, the Monica Lewinsky scandal drove evangelicals to Bush, who spoke of "compassionate Conservatism," hinted at a connection to Billy Graham, and openly talked about his faith.

Fast-forward to 2006, and these same people believe Bush to be corrupt, and are leaving the GOP over the Mark Foley scandal. I guarantee that you will see a higher evangelical turnout FOR DEMOCRATS next week.

DB

[Taverner]

71. You're absolutely right - I'm using the wrong terms

I mean Evangelical, not Religious Right

[MamaBear]

67. Baby beaters are not welcome in my tent. n/t

[On the Road]

68. Accommodation Has as Much to Do with Style as Substance

No political alliance is a perfect match. Democrats are notoriously fractured and use great accommodation in trying to bring in various groups under the big tent today. No reason many evangelicals can't be brought in.

The keys are to (1) take the view that evangelicals have an overlapping set on concerns with other Democrats, (2) pound the issues on which evangelicals are turned off by the GOP and may be attracted to the Democrats, (3) understand what things are lightning rods which trigger immediate rejection by evangelicals and take those into account. (Hint: don't make John McCain's "agents of evil" mistake.)

Most of this can be done without changing the platform much or at all. Even on an issue like gay marriage, which is one of the stickiest, the position of Kerry, Edwards, and Dean has been to support civil unions without supporting gay marriage. That can fly with most of the American population if it's presented correctly, and does not represent a change.

Posters who feel that all evangelicals who vote Republican are selfish hypocrites could not be more wrong. I would hate for that sentiment to represent the party and for elections to be lost unnecessarily.

[Zhade]

107. Of course, that's ignoring that civil unions are not the end goal.

Sperate but equal never was, never will be, and is not acceptable as the final result.

[KansDem]

69. F**k the RR! They refuse me my cure for diabetes!

I can "accomodate" them here:


Pick one and crawl back under it...

[Solly Mack]

70. I'm going to have to take a pass. Thanks, though.

[Jack Rabbit]

72. I agree

Many of the people we deride as religious nuts are the same people we champion as oppressed WalMart employees. Let's stop calling them religious nuts, please. Their faith is their business, not ours.

While we're not going to appeal to their religious values, we can appeal to their bread and butter values. The Democrats message should be: Vote for us and we will make life better and easier for you and your traditional family. We aren't going to turn anybody into a gay. We aren't going to force any woman to have an abortion against her will. We aren't going to ban the Bible (who on Earth came with that garbage, anyway?) We are no threat to their freedom to worship God they see fit.

Meanwhile, we will pass a national health care initiative. We will pass laws to prevent employers from busting unions and encourage employees to band together in order to seek collective bargaining. There will be a hike in the minimum wage. We will discourage large employers from exporting jobs. There again will be such a thing as occupational health and safety.

For WalMart, we shall demand that they simply pay there employees a living wage rather than encourage them to apply for public assistance. That really gives a new meaning to corporate welfare.

[bpeale]

76. i promise

if they don't try to convert me or bend my ear spouting their religious bullshit, then they can come to my party. but that's not what they are about. they are religious nuts who think it is their job to convert the whole population to jesus. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT. you can be a religious zealot all you want as long as you keep it to yourself. after what they have done to the republican party, i don't want em in my party after all.

[mmonk]

73. I don't have to do anything.

They've led the assault on the constitution and many people's civil rights.

[Odin2005]

74. First off, we need to quit equating "Evangelical" with "Religious Right"

Second, we must rememeber that the only reason the RR exists is because of the Pukes using the culture wars to thier advantage, it will slowly disapear as economic issues, peak oil, and global warming become more important issues in the mind of Joe Six-Pack.

[Lilith Velkor]

75. Render unto Caesar, bitches.

:middle finger:

[The Stranger]

77. It will disintegrate before it joins us. And that is all for the best.

For us and for them.

[dkofos]

78. They are welcome to join, just leave their religion at the door

[NMMNG]

83. So who gets thrown under the bus to pander to them?

Gays?
Atheists?
Other non-Christians?
Pro-choicers?
Stem-cell research advocates?
All of the above?

[Zhade]

87. No.

FUCK that.

Unless, of course, they stop trying to push their myths as laws. Then we can TALK.

Just talk.

[bobbolink]

88. HELL, NO!!

BASTA!

What, you haven't yet seen enough cuts to poor folk?

How many deaths will be enough for ya?

HELL, NO!!

Besides, we've already "accomodated" them... remember the DLC??!!

[xxqqqzme]

100. the religious rong is gonna have to modify their

ideology. They will have to embrace the teachings of the person who they cling to for their every excuse and reason to exist...they are going to have to move LEFT!.....cuz Jesus was a lefty!

[sweetheart]

103. I'm from the religious right

That's my social lineage, truth be told.

I'm a buddhist first. I'm a libertarian 'cuz of that,
and a socialist because of that as well, but then to
hold one's religion as sacred and central to one's moral
politics, is a right wing view, that all people are equal,
and have an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness.

I find it offensive when secularists take it too far on their
assault on religion, no matter who or what religion they rail
about, because its all heresay, given that religion is between
a person and their private. We are alone on this earth,
for all the appearance of these paragraphs.

[JerseygirlCT]

104. Many are coming around on the environment as well

I don't think it's ever a question of us giving up our ideals, but rather finding a way to welcome them into our ideals.

Care for the poor, care for the environment -- these are central to their beliefs. And the GOP certainly doesn't give a hoot about either.

[Chomskyite]

105. Won't happen

The Religious Right is authoritarian. Their thinking does not evolve as circumstances change. They follow the behest of those they trust: Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Jerry Falwell, Randall Terry, Ralph Reed.

As long as any of these hyenas are alive, they'll be able to shift votes at will. Just as they'll never change their positions on the fetus and on men kissing, so they'll never vote for any politician who won't advance those issues. These are fanatics.

The fortunate thing for us is that they lack stomach and they are cowards. Most members of the Religious Right just dry up and stop voting altogether if they are betrayed once.

And they won't dare face down Republicans they previously supported to get changes in the party. They fear the consequences of temporary loss of power far too much.

We get to reap the dividends of this next week.

But the bad thing is they do awaken when those maggot encrusted maws I've named above begin to cast the Religious Right as persecuted minorities. So after a few years the Right eventually begins to feed on political failure, and they have to be whipped again.

[OnionPatch]

109. The hard-core RR? No way. But maybe some moderates.

Someone above said the RR is the fundamental enemy of liberalism and I agree. However, I do think there is a significant chunk of the so-called RR that aren't quite as whacko as the rest. They may be convinced that when they shout "Freedom! Freedom!" that they really have to mean it. That means they need to accept that "freedom" means the freedom for people to choose between right and wrong instead of making a law against every human behavior they disagree with. The right to "freedom" means you have to deal with the fact that your neighbor's freedom may entail something different than yours. That means everyone is allowed to marry whomever they choose, a woman is free to do as she wants with her own body and everyone is free to choose their own religion or none at all. Without that, sorry, they'll have to find their own tent.

[noamnety]

111. Better word choice: Educate, not Accomodate

We don't need to accomodate them. However, if they are in a mental crisis, of sorts, trying to sort out how their absolute loyalty to the neocons resulted in complete betrayal, they will be looking for a way to resolve that internally. Meaning they will be more receptive to another message - kind of like hitting rock bottom before seeking help with an addiction.

No accomodation. None. But education targeting their beliefs might be received on their end easier now than 5 years ago. So they are pro-life? That doesn't mean we give an inch on women's control of their own bodies. Not an inch. BUT it might mean this would be a good time to publicize how anti-poverty programs reduce unwanted pregnancies, and help them with some much needed critical thinking skills.

[RedStateShame]

113. The RR isn't that thrilled with us, either, but we'll both have to understand

Jesus was a liberal.

[joeygirl]

115. The problem with your analysis is that you forget that these are

people who are want to make abortion illegal and are freaking out at the idea of civil unions/marriage rights for gays. These are issues that they aren't willing to compromise on.

I don't see a lot of them leaving the GOP anytime soon.

[More Than A Feeling]

116. The religious right is defined by one proposition...

"The government's job is to make me feel good about being religious." Is that what you want the Democratic Party to stand for? I don't want that.

[Jamastiene]

120. But the thing about the right wing that you may be forgetting is

that they do not know the meaning of the word, "compromise." They are incapable of learning it too. I can say that from experience living amidst them in real life. I say we let them get out of politics so we can get something done. As long as they are piping in with their over the top weird demands, nothing is going to change and nothing is going to get fixed.