Team Obama rolls out the welcome mat for Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America

[ccharles000]

http://www.pamshouseblend.com

Well, folks -- the gloves are off. Right Wing Watch reports that Joshua DuBois, head of the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, will welcome representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, two organizations being monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center for their anti-gay, womb-controlling activities, into the Obama White House to discuss policy.
Wendy Wright, the president of CWA reached out to the Obama administration and they responded by inviting CWA and some of these other conservative Evangelical groups to The White House. The meeting plans to focus on the need to reduce abortions in the country and on responsible fatherhood programs. Also present at the meeting will be Tom McClusky, Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council as well as representatives from the Christian Medical Association and Care Net, a pro-life Evangelical pregnancy crisis group.
Wendy Wright from CWA sends the following via email to The Brody File:

"The Obama administration says they want to be inclusive and represent all Americans. The White House faith-based office is now tasked with reducing the number of abortions - something that pro-life groups have very good experience in accomplishing. Pregnancy resource centers and regulations on abortion have a terrific track record in helping women choose alternatives to abortion. Funding abortion or abortion providers is one of the worst things that could be done. What the government funds, we get more of. We hope to begin a dialogue that results in policies which actually work, not just financially benefit certain interest groups like abortion providers."

I agree 100% with Kyle of RWW:
If the Obama administration thinks that it is going to win support for anything that it does on this issue from groups like CWA and FRC, it is sorely mistaken ... which is something they will presumably learn once this meeting takes place.
These are not moderate, open-minded groups looking for common ground - they are militant, anti-choice groups committed to, above all, making abortion illegal everywhere and for everyone, with no exceptions.

It is hard to understand what the administration expects to gain by meeting with such groups to discuss efforts to reduce abortion considering that the only option such groups support is to outlaw them entirely.

Do you think anything else might come up while those two organizations have the Obama administration's ear, oh, say -- the Homosexual Agenda?

[msongs]

1. obama believes in tax payer money for religious groups who discriminate, what's new here? nt

[babylonsister]

2. Got a link, or are you just doing your usual stuff? nt

[nichomachus]

89. Apparently, you haven't been paying attention

Obama is strengthening the religious office within government. This is funded with taxpayer money. The official policy is that these groups are allowed to discriminate against people such as gays and lesbians, women, etc. Ergo: your tax money is supporting discrimination.

Don't be fooled by the "faith-based" euphemism. It's the "Office of Government Sponsored Religious Activity."

Here's a link for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-burk/obamas-faith-based-office_b_164567.html

Please try to keep up.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

57. i for one am glad you are miserable that Obama won.

cause all you do is stick up this board with your pouts...
:rofl:

[nichomachus]

90. So, it's all or nothing -- for us or against us

very Freeperish attitude. It used to be that the Freepers argued that any criticism of Bush meant you hated Bush.

Now, that attitude has moved onto DU. No one is allowed to criticize Obama for anything. Sheesh.

Perhaps they should just rename this the "Obama Fan Club" site -- then it would be clear what was going on.

[dionysus]

99. hardly. you read DU long enough and you can spot the people who *never* have anything positive to

say

for instance, if that rumour from a few days ago about Obama taxing health benefits is true, that's a piss poor decision.

the most oft response to people who notice the constant criticizers is to accuse them of blindly supporting anything the president does.

if someone spends all their time criticizing, i tend to take their comments with a boulder of salt

:hi:

[roguevalley]

103. give them a rope and let them hang themselves. You can always

said you tried and not have to defend how you didn't extend your hand. smart tactics. I doubt they believe anything will change but these groups ability to whine they weren't listened to.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. I don't like Obama's pick to head head of the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Well..actually I don't like Faith Based organizations in the government at all.

[leftstreet]

4. IT'S ONLY A TWO MINUTE PRAYER!!!!!!!!

:puke:

[Chovexani]

30. Only one song!!

[slay]

92. great pic

Methos and Duncan from the good ol days. :) Just whatever you do, don't watch Highlander 5. It really is that bad.

[Renew Deal]

36. It was

And 99.5% of people couldn't name who gave the invocation today. Also, the people around me at the inauguration were praying and giving amen's when it was over. I know this little truth doesn't reconcile with the world view of some here, but that's reality.

[FreeState]

93. Its remembered by Gay Christian youth who are being terrorized by their

faith. Dont fool yourself - as a gay man who grew up in a conservative religion - discounting Warren inflicts much pain and unneeded stress in the lives of many children. GLBT Youth that are involved in Ex-gay ministries will still be reminded of Warren for years to come,

[QC]

94. Issues are only important if the straight people say they are important.

:sarcasm:

[babylonsister]

5. PAM said this?

"It is hard to understand what the administration expects to gain by meeting with such groups"

Please. Get real, everyone.

[masuki bance]

7. Here's the real link, blogs are like that, individual posts have their own link.

If you just link to the home page, eventually the post that you want to share will be pushed far down and off the front page. Welcome to 2009.

http://pamshouse.notlong.com/

Obama promised this strategy, he is implementing it in Afghanistan, talking to the moderate Taliban.

[4lbs]

8. President Obama said he would listen to ALL sides on every issue.

Yes, that includes viewpoints that you or I may vehemently disagree with in general.

We've already had 8 years of an idiot-run administration that operated on a single viewpoint, and ignored all others.

[Marrah_G]

23. Really? All sides on all issues?

So the leaders of the Neo-Nazi's and KKK will be coming to tea at the WH to discuss policies on racism and hate crimes?

[stillcool]

27. they already have..

it's called the Republican party, and these people are no different.

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. It would appear that Obama doesn't equate these groups with the KKK and neo-Nazis

[Jakes Progress]

69. If listening were al that were done.

But is isn't. If you support that idea, then you must want him to confer with the gallery of portraits you include in you sig. Just how many hours of his time should he give to your four dimwits? They have viewpoints. Should he spend time and political will sitting down and listening to them?

That's the crux. You don't have to spend any more time listening to a jerk like O'Reilly. What will he say that would be a surprise? Do you think you will change his "mind"? Same with the womb-league and with the gay-haters. They have had their say. A day in the white house only embellishes their credentials and lets them tell their slack-jawed followers that they gave Obama a good talking to.

We all like Obama. You don't have to proclaim your love by complete capitulation of all values and logic. These meetings are a dumb move and send all the wrong messages. I still love Obama. But this is just dumb and naive.

[liberalsince1968]

96. Bigots HAVE no side! WTF is wrong with Obama!

[Critters2]

9. So he didn't learn anything from the Warren mistake, huh?

Disappointing.

[KitchenWitch]

10. Hate to say this but his choice for the Invocation really foreshadowed this.

And again, I find myself deeply disappointed.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Marrah_G]

22. Yes it did

The pandering to the Religious Extremists makes me want to vomit.

[sampsonblk]

11. I agree with Obama on this one

There is an opportunity to work together here. Finding ways to decrease abortions is a good common sense middle ground. The right-wing groups have been trying to ban abortion for decades, and they are not any closer now than when they started. Its time for this issue to go away.

[LostinVA]

17. It's called "birth control" and "sex education" -- neither advocated by either group

I'm not surprised you agree with President Obama on this.

[sampsonblk]

24. Its called meeting halfway when you have common interests

Its common sense.

Or do you favor the Bush approach, of only talking to people who agree with you 100% ?

[LostinVA]

25. I favor not trying to find "common ground" with groups against equal civil rights

There is NO room for compromise on this.

[sampsonblk]

26. If they are willing to come to the table, that's a start - nt

[martymar64]

98. I agree with your principle but I think Obama is right to meet with them.

My reading of this meeting is to give them a chance to have their hateful say about the issues they hold dear. Obama will politely listen to them and promise to look into it. And that's about as far as it will go.
I don't see him implementing one iota of their policy suggestions. The direction in civil rights policy is turning against them and there is nothing they can do to change it, on the larger cultural or political venues. They will continue to make noise but they will not be able to claim that the Obama Administration didn't hear them out. The legitimacy claimed that these groups will gain from meeting with Obama will be minimal at best. Their worldview is sadly out of step with the times and irrelevancy is staring them in the face and becoming more apparent every day.

All that being said, I'm still not crazy about the whole "faith-based" thing. I hate my tax dollars going to fund discrimination.

[sampsonblk]

100. I agree on the faith-based thing

Obama is busy reversing some of Bush's worst policies. This is one of them that needs to be reversed immediately.

On the abortion issue, I think Obama said that he is committed to decreasing the number of abortions. If so, that makes perfect sense for these groups to want to work with him on it. Who else can they go to? The GOP is a disastrous failure.

[Iris]

70. condoms don't work is common ground? Tell that to Washington, DC with its 3% HIV infection rate

What we don't need is more pandering to the abstinence only crowd.

[jberryhill]

33. Pres. Obama is against birth control and sex education?

I hadn't heard that.

[Chovexani]

32. Oh my god please put the koolaid down. Please.

1) Somehow abortions went down under President Clinton without him meeting with members of the Forced Birthers Society

2) Abortions actually went up under the Cokehead, when the Forced Birthers Society had the greatest influence over public policy--as they always do under anti-woman presidents

3) The Forced Birthers Society does not need to have abortion outlawed or Roe overturned, they have successfully been chipping away at it for decades to the point where in many places it is impossible for a woman to obtain one. Either because doctors have been forced out of business or so many restrictions or conditions have been placed on the procedure (waiting periods, parental notification, ad nauseum). The right to choose is largely a myth in places other than blue areas

There is no common sense middle ground to be had with these assclowns. They are not looking for compromise. They will settle for nothing less than the complete subjugation of women in some kind of whack ass Handmaid's Tale fantasy.

It's like inviting militant vegans to a Memphis BBQ and trying to find compromise.

[Bunny]

61. +1

:thumbsup:

[Lord Helmet]

67. What flavor of kool-aid are you drinking? Bill Clinton institutionalized faith based programs.

Your selective memory is revealing and exposes you for somebody with an ax to grind in going after Pres Obama while fudging the facts on Clinton.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton started down the slippery slope toward a constitutionally questionable form of faith-based aid when he signed a welfare reform bill that included a “charitable choice” provision allowing religious groups to compete for grants. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01jacoby.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

...federal changes have opened the way for government funding of faith-based groups since 1996, when President Bill Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, whose so-called Charitable Choice provisions encouraged the inclusion of religious groups in delivering services to welfare recipients. http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=3616

[Vanje]

73. Dude!

The primaries are OVER!

[Lord Helmet]

74. ridiculous non sequitur

[Vanje]

76. Not for anyone

familiar with your posting history.

[Lord Helmet]

79. I understand your aversion to the truth when it comes to these matters.

However the nonstop revisionist history around this place when it comes to the Clintons deserves to be set straight especially when it is used to batter the new president.

[Vanje]

85. blah blah blah

Bill Clinton is gone!
Hillary Clinton works for Obama.

Get over it already!

[Lord Helmet]

102. Suggesting Bill Clinton didn't meet with the Religious Right is straight-up bullshit.

Somehow abortions went down under President Clinton without him meeting with members of the Forced Birthers Society. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8266258&mesg_id=8266641

Nobody should ever "get over" telling the truth. You might want to ask yourself why the "activism" of some here has less to do with glbt issues and more to do with revising and protecting the Clinton legacy.

Not only did Bill Clinton meet with the so-called Religious Right, he signed into law the so-called "charitable choice" provision that allowed them to get federal funding for their bullshit.

Get over the truth already!

[Starry Messenger]

78. !!

+1000

[ensho]

41. yes, and perhaps some sunshine might enter a few religious nut brains

and at least all the other people at the meeting can prove to the nuts that abstinence doesn't work.

and that sex education is good.

[Vanje]

43. CWA and FRC dont need or want sunshine

These organizations exist to make a butt-load of money.
Selling anti-choice rhetoric, and keeping their constituents frightened of "the gays" enriches their bank accounts.
Money-generating is their purpose. It works! They've found what sells. Finding solutions is NOT in their interest.

These organizations are not the least bit interested in families, or America, solving social problems, or getting along.

[TheWraith]

12. Really? I think it's blindingly obvious what the Obama team stands to gain.

By having someone sit down and talk to them, they simultaneously get credit for being bipartisan while undercutting any complaining the wingnuts would do that Team Obama wouldn't listen to them, without being obligated in the slightest to actually give a free falling fuck about what these groups have to say. And by smiling, nodding, and giving some attention to things they were already planning on that would reduce abortions, they blunt any incoming attacks from the right.

In other words, FRC and CWA are pawns, and moreover too stupid to realize they're pawns. They'd really get far more political capital out of it if the Obama administration refused to talk with them.

[treestar]

63. Besides, you can't know your opponent without ever speaking to them

Ignoring them won't make them go away - it will give them the chance to claim victim status because no one would listen to them.

Treating them like they are of no signficance would be to act like the Bush Administration.

[Vanje]

65. Ignoring them wont make them go away

...but stripping their tax-exempt status will!

[damonm]

71. Likely not, for these fanatics...

Obama's just gonna make them push themselves further away from the mainstream - just as he's done with Congressional rethugs.

[Vanje]

75. The organizers are not fanatics

They are rich people.
They have an effective scam going.

[damonm]

64. DING DING DING

[FreeState]

15. These groups have been instrumental in taking away civil rights from citizens

I do not want them involved in anyway with policy.

[QC]

18. Sure, they are theocratic fascist bigots determined to destroy our democracy, but

that doesn't mean we shouldn't reach out to them! :sarcasm:

[stillcool]

29. they already are..

and have been for a very long time.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/

[mtnester]

16. It is a vicious cycle of the turtle and the scorpion

over and over and over and over again

Dangerous but apparently predictable loop.

[PBS Poll-435]

20. Doesn't the White House have more important things to be doing

Than pandering to groups that will never support the President anyway?

I mean seriously, why legitimize them?

[stillcool]

28. Because they are a legitimate..

power player in our country, and have been for a very long time. Deal with them, or just let them deal with you.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/

[PBS Poll-435]

31. FRC/CWA = FRINGE

If having an audience with the President has any effect on national policy, then we are f**ked.

[jberryhill]

34. They are meeting with the president?

I got the impression from the OP that they were meeting with officials other than the president.

They asked for a meeting, they got one. I don't see how this is the end of the world.

[stillcool]

44. You think Right-wing Foundations are 'fringe'?

http://www.truthwinsout.org/tag/family-research-council/

FOUNDATION & EMPIRE 3 : PILLARS OF CHURCH & STATE
DONORS

http://oddlots.digitalspace.net/ARX/downloads/foundations3.html#GREWCOCK


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Family_Research_Council

In 1983, the Family Research Council incorporated as a nonprofit educational institution in the District of Columbia; its founding board included Dobson and two noted psychiatrists, Armand Nicholoi. Jr. of Harvard University and George Rekers of the University of South Carolina," it states.

"Under the leadership of Gerry Regier, a former Reagan Administration official at the Department of Health and Human Services, FRC began to link policy makers with researchers and professionals from a variety of disciplines. Gary Bauer, a domestic policy advisor to President Reagan, succeeded Regier in 1988 and by the mid-1990s the organization had grown into a $10 million operation with a nationwide network of support...", it states.<1>

The FRC is associated with James Dobson's Focus on the Family and William J. Bennett.

Personnel

* Tony Perkins, President
* Chuck Donovan, Executive Vice President
* Tom McClusky, Vice President for Government Affairs
* Charmaine Yoest, Vice President for Communications
* Robert Morrison, Vice President for Academic Affairs
* Peter Sprigg, Vice President for Policy
* J. Kenneth Blackwell, Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment
* David Prentice, Senior Fellow for Life Sciences, Center for Human Life and Bioethics
* Patrick F. Fagan, Senior Fellow and Director for Marriage and Religion Center
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation


Concerned Women for America: A Case Study
http://feminism.eserver.org/cw-of-a.txt

Background and contact information for Concerned Women for America, the largest Christian Right organization targeted at women.

Founded in 1979 by Beverly LaHaye, the wife of fundamentalist Baptist minister and Moral Majority co-founder Tim LaHaye, Concerned Women for America (CWA) is the largest Christian Right organization targeted at women. CWA representatives claim that it is the largest women's organization in the country. Membership estimates vary widely, from 350,000 to 750,000--depending on who's counting--but with a monthly newsletter (Family Voice) that is mailed to 200,000 subscribers, a daily syndicated radio show ("Beverly LaHaye Live") that reaches upwards of 350,000 people on twenty-eight stations nationwide, an annual budget of $10 million and what may be the most effective multi-issue, grassroots lobbying network in existence, Concerned Women for America is a force to be reckoned with.

[Starry Messenger]

80. These are not just any right-wing organizations, though.

These are Dominionists and very entrenched (and are well-funded). I thought everyone knew this. They don't need further legitimizing by this administration.

[stillcool]

83. Obviously everyone doesn't..

if people consider these right-wing foundations to be 'fringe' groups.

[Starry Messenger]

91. Their belief system is "fringe"--

They themselves are not.

[Marrah_G]

21. ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG



This is the crap that I am REALLY disappointed in Obama about.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. DuBois welcomes his fellow bigots

no big suprise. This administration needs to understand that you can not fight discrimination against one group while supporting it against another. Those who clamour for tax money and demand to be allowed to discriminate should be shown the door, unless one is happy about discrimination in general.

[Renew Deal]

37. This is a non-issue

Obama has shown that he can think for himself. He's very good at neutering his opponents.

[Vanje]

38. The ultra- rights were already neutered

They lost a huge election.

[Renew Deal]

39. Yes

But they are noise makers. It's Obama's MO, but he hasn't compromised on his beliefs yet.

[Vanje]

40. If noise-making works...

We need LOUDER GAYS!

[Renew Deal]

42. Some people have figured that out the last few months.

People have figured out that they need to fight (harder) for themselves.

[Vanje]

45. Yes. That is clear

We gays are on our own.

[Runcible Spoon]

47. Sick, sick, SICK

that this message is going out on DU. I'm not surprised, though.

[Renew Deal]

49. Everyone is on their own.

Not just gays. We come together for the betterment of everyone.

[Runcible Spoon]

51. Whatever that means.

:shrug:

[Vanje]

56. Apparently , CWA and FRC are not "on their own".

They are being heard in the White House.

This does not bode well for "the betterment" of gays.

[Runcible Spoon]

46. Maybe "some people" need a few fucking allies

I dunno, maybe a few of the kind of Democrat who value CIVIL RIGHTS. It's not very heartening that there don't seem to be an overwhelming majority of these on DU, let alone Obama's administration.

[Renew Deal]

48. I don't agree

I think DU is very concerned about these issues. DU isn't monolithic. There are people that don't support marriage equality, but that's a very very small minority. There are so many issues that need attention (civil rights, war, health-care, infrastructure, financial wellbeing, much more, and everything that falls under all of those). Different people prioritize these issues as they see fit. It's up to the people that care about these issues to stand up. Though this all goes back to the core problem with the Democratic party. The party is a group of factions and interests all competing for attention instead of the common goals.

[Runcible Spoon]

53. You lost me at "DU is monolithic"

I dub thee Sir Oblivious. So DU is monolithic but the party is riddled with factions? I think you've got that backwards, babe.

Most of us who are actually politically active care about a wide spectrum of issues and are able to articulate how they are interrelated. If you have no civil rights, you can't fight for anything else. It is at the backbone of everything we attempt to do as activists.

[Renew Deal]

54. That was a typo!

Sorry about that. :dunce:

[Runcible Spoon]

55. hahaha it's ok

:evilgrin:

[Vanje]

60. "Factions and interests"

Factions and interests!???

Its civil rights!
Its Civil-Fucking Rights!!!!!

Gay rights is civil rights.

You think its "Factions and Interests"????

If civil rights is not a worthy goal for Democrats, what is?

[Hawaii Hiker]

50. Yeah, I don't get this at all

If they're (Family Research Council & Concerned Women of America) just coming over to the White House for coffee, pasteries, & a tour, fine...

But if Obama is seriously talking to them about social policy, well then shame on President Obama...

FRC, & CWA have absolutely ZERO fucking business in a Democratic administration...

I think I need an orange bang head here:

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[gmoney]

52. The right was right...

He IS sitting down and talking with terrrrist leaders without preconditions!

[Vanje]

62. !!

:thumbsup::applause:

[Jamastiene]

82. +1

[AlCzervik]

58. i have a major problem with this, these hate groups already have an entire network they can get face

time on.

I am extremely disappointed.

[damonm]

66. See #12.

[AlCzervik]

72. and?

i'm entitled to my opinion, post 12 did not change that.

[Runcible Spoon]

77. I would take anything from poster #12 with a boulder sized grain of salt

That one's agenda is pretty obvious.

[Jamastiene]

68. Just kill me now.

I'd rather die than live 8 more years under the rule of right wing religious nuts.

Fuck it. I'd rather die and get to Hell as soon as possible to get the fucking goddamn hell away from them.

[NMMNG]

106. Don't say that too loud

There are plenty of people who'd be more than happy to take you up on it. And Obama is sucking up to them as we speak. He doesn't give a shit about us or our rights.

Of course some of us predicted this long ago, but we were called every name in the book for doing so. Funny that.

[genna]

81. I used to be 100% behind a woman's choice in argument and in fact

Now instead of agreeing, I just want sexually active people to be responsible. I don't think men should tell a woman when and how she will bring a baby to term. I also feel queasy about a woman forcing a man to be a father of a child he doesn't want. I also don't think I have to pinpoint the date and time when a life is created.

I want the end result of talking to pro life/anti choice groups is a reduced number of abortions. If we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies down to 0, I would celebrate that as a win.

[Runcible Spoon]

84. So pro-choice groups don't already want reduced pregnancies?

I'm failing to see what the fuck anti-choice groups have to contribute to the dialogue besides intolerance and proven-failed policies.

[cap]

86. obama is a cobra

you don't want to get hugged by a cobra... Think about it. Obama will extract whatever good there is from these folks or make them look like nasties if they refuse the hug and get them isolated.

[damonm]

87. I believe you're thinking Python...

[liberalsince1968]

97. There IS no "good" to be "extracted."

[liberal1973]

88. faith-based funds should be shut down

Faith-based funding programs like this are un-American. It goes against one of our foundations as Americans.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Name removed]

101. Deleted sub-thread

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

[jenmito]

104. That is GREAT-more proof that he wasn't just talking the talk. Could you imagine BUSH meeting

with MoveOn.org, the ACLU, NOW, and others? NO. Obama is the opposite of Bush and if you think that's a BAD thing, you shouldn't have voted for Obama. He gets credit for reaching out to opposing voices. Nothing wrong with that.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

105. Sorry, but you shouldn't reach out to bigots

It only validates them.

[jenmito]

107. Sorry, but allowing your opposition to talk to you makes you look like the bigger person to

the majority of the country. Unless/until he changes any of his policies after talking to these people, this is only a positive thing for him.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

108. Why doesn't he just sit down with the KKK then?

They all spew about the same amount of hate.

[jenmito]

109. Because the people he IS inviting into the WH represent a LARGE minority of VOTERS...

and just LOOKING "open" to them makes him look like the bigger person-the opposite of Bush. That's a GOOD thing.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

110. He'd look like a bigger person if he took a stand and said why he wasn't meeting with them

[jenmito]

111. I disagree. So you think Bush was right to only talk to people who agreed with him?

[jberryhill]

115. I must be dense

I didn't get the impression he was meeting with them, but I may have skimmed.

It seems they wanted to meet with administration officials, and they will meet with administration officials.

The article says they are meeting with DuBois.

This is the stuff DuBois is made of:


He was just 17 years old, a freshman at Boston University, and he didn't know what else to do. A jury in New York had just acquitted the four police officers whose 41 bullets had killed an unarmed Guinean immigrant named Amadou Diallo.

So Joshua DuBois wrote "NO MORE" on a placard, planted himself on an expanse of pavement along Commonwealth Avenue, in front of a memorial to Martin Luther King Jr., and stood there - 41 hours for 41 shots.

[JackBeck]

112. SoulForce, and LGBT organization, also reaches out to the Right Wing.

Soulforce is determined to help end oppression against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people; determined to help change the minds and hearts of religious and political leaders whose words and influence lead (directly and indirectly) to that oppression; and determined to be guided in our every action by the principles of relentless nonviolent resistance as lived and taught by M.K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.. Soulforce ultimately seeks to challenge systems of injustice, not people. We are seeking a community wherein all can share health, safety, and liberty. One day we want to be in community with those in which we currently find ourselves divided. In the process of bringing hope and healing to our society, we find redirection and renewal for ourselves.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/7

[jenmito]

113. Thanks for the article...

I hope the poster above reads this. :hi:

[JackBeck]

116. Regardless if they do, unfortunately there are too many here that engage

In lots index finger wagging, instead of actually doing something to make sure that change does in fact happen.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

117. Can you post the link?

All I see is "Ignored."

[damonm]

123. I'll take a shot....

on the broad assumption I'M not on ignore...

Soulforce is determined to help end oppression against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people; determined to help change the minds and hearts of religious and political leaders whose words and influence lead (directly and indirectly) to that oppression; and determined to be guided in our every action by the principles of relentless nonviolent resistance as lived and taught by M.K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.. Soulforce ultimately seeks to challenge systems of injustice, not people. We are seeking a community wherein all can share health, safety, and liberty. One day we want to be in community with those in which we currently find ourselves divided. In the process of bringing hope and healing to our society, we find redirection and renewal for ourselves.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/7

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

127. Thank you

No, you're not on ignore. My ignore list is teeny-tiny.

[damonm]

129. Appreciate that...

after our tiff the other day. You're a bigger person than I.

[Creideiki]

118. By "reaching out" Soulforce is more about confronting

Since day one they have been walking in on religious organizations throughout the political spectrum ensuring that they understand that the LGBT people in their own communities are being hurt.

It's a subtle difference between "reaching out" and "confronting". Hopefully it isn't too hard.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

120. Oh, the article's about Soulforce

Well, yes, they are definitely more about confronting than "reaching out." When I was arrested protesting with them at West Point, it was definitely more about confronting them about DADT, than reaching out.

And, if somebody can't tell the difference between a relatively small GLBT organization and President Obama, then I can't really help them.

[jenmito]

122. First of all, if somebody can't tell the difference between

the president and a member of his administration, I can't really help them. Secondly, meeting with these RWers does NOT mean adopting their beliefs. It's good PR to appear to be willing to TALK with people they don't agree with. Or would you rather the Obama admin. be more like the BUSH admin.? Are you also against us talking to Iran?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

125. Let the administration talk to some normal conservatives if they want to "reach across the aisle"

Not the nuttiest of the nutters.

All it does is validate them. They are HATE groups, and nothing more.

I'm just going to ignore the last two sentences of your post, because it's just an absurd question.

[LostinVA]

126. It's also a strawman

Not wanting a Dem president to discuss social policy with Fundie bigots is NOTHING like the President, SOS, etal having talks with nations we have "interesting" relationships with.

[jenmito]

131. So you'd rather the Obama admin. be like the BUSH admin. and only

"discuss social policy" with people they agree with?

[jenmito]

130. Let them talk to the RWers who represent a large minority of voters. Are you

afraid it will make the Obama admin. reverse their policies? It makes our side look like the bigger people. Why are you going to ignore the rest of my post-because you CAN'T? ARE you for the Obama admin. talking to Iran or would you rather they be like the Bush admin. and only talk to their friends?

[LostinVA]

132. I'll answer for her and why she didn't deign to answer your strawman query

Because it is a ridiculous strawman: Not wanting a Dem president to discuss social policy with Fundie bigots is NOTHING like the President, SOS, etal having talks with nations we have "interesting" relationships with.

[jenmito]

134. Why don't you answer the question I asked YOU? n/t

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

136. Are you always this demanding?

It's just a message board. People can post and respond to what they want.

[jenmito]

137. Are you both always this evasive?

Yes, it IS "just" a message board where people post and respond to others or they don't. What are you here for if you won't/can't respond to a simple question? :shrug: And if you look back, you're the one who started this back and forth.

Why don't you let her answer the question I ask her and you answer the question I asked YOU?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

138. All these questions.

I can't take all the questions...

ARRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[jenmito]

139. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen...

and you may be being sarcastic with that post, but you still haven't answered it. Neither has the poster I was addressing. And YOU started this conversation with me. :eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

140. That's because LostinVA is my evil soul twin

[jenmito]

141. I know. And between the two of you, I can't get ONE answer.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

133. I'm ignoring it because it's a strawman

I don't feel like getting into an off-topic pissing match with you.

[jenmito]

135. No, it's not. It's about talking to people you disagree with. If you won't answer

that question, then why won't you answer this-would you rather Obama's admin. be like BUSH'S-talking only to people he agrees with? You know-he had conservative radio hosts to the WH but never had NOW or MoveOn or anyone else. Do you think he was right to be that way?

[JackBeck]

142. Actually, both need to be utilized in activism.

Maybe we're talking past each other here, but I'd prefer not getting into a conversation over parsing terminology.

The reason why I mentioned SoulForce was to show an example of an organization that does outreach (which does sometimes result in confrontations, and sometimes conversations) to those that some feel should be ignored, in order to help build a bridge between Right Wing Fundie organizations and the LGBT community.

Ever since the Rick Warren flamewars, there's been an unsettling notion that anyone who has a conversation with the theosexuals deserves to been castigated, since it legitimizes them somehow.

Well, SoulForce has been reaching out to the Right for over a decade now, therefore, shouldn't they also receive the same amount of scorn and vitriol?

Not only in the LGBT activism I've done for over 15 years, but also in my professional efforts delivering HIV/AIDS education throughout the country, I've had to open up lines of communication with the Far Right Fundy Wackos. Do you think I enjoy it? Hell no. But it's something that needs to happen in order to change misperceptions and hopefully educate the bigots. Ignoring them, instead of delivering education, would be the worst thing I could do.

[Egnever]

114. So?

You afraid of oposing veiwpoints?

Thank god the president isnt. Doesnt mean they will get anything from the meeting.

But of course as always the sky is falling.

[Creideiki]

119. Makes sense that Obama would reach out to them

They have common ground on the inferiority of LGBT Americans.

[DURHAM D]

121. Yep - and women. eom

[Waiting For Everyman]

124. How is this different from, say, offering to meet with Iran? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

128. It isn't.

And the people whining about Obama doing it aren't really any different than the people whining about Obama doing it.