Thread by @SovMichael

Here is who I associate with:

1. Those that are honest and forthright regardless of their beliefs
2. Those that I share common worldviews and convictions
3. Those that I do not share a common worldview but are honestly seeking understanding and dialoge

(1)

4. Those that we literally have nothing in agreement in just about anything but that are willing to talk and listen without creating straw men
5. Politicians that are so dishonest that I have to hold my nose when speaking to or deaing with

(2)

6. Dishonest Pastors and theologians that I have to hold my nose when working with them.

Now when I say "associate" at times I do not have a choice. But those that attack my friends or out of the gate deal in dishonesty - no thanks.

(3)

Of course this can change if there are those that wish to meet in good faith, understanding to be understood, and then great and wonderful things happen, like this:

Or this:

or this:

I understand that there are those that will disagree with me in regards to the width of the umbrella that I open for dialogue (yes, I did misspell this in my first post) and for association. I get it. But as someone who is in many ways the *bridge* for both

sides of opposing views to meet, I really don't have a choice. I have to get along with as many folks as I can with a "wide" definition of association.

But I will continue to try and bring folks together in good faith, debate and talk through our differences, and

hopefully move past the now popular "repressive" tolerance into actual true toleration.

In particular, I am hoping always to avoid being "anti" anything - even those things such as radical subjectivity that are destructive to our society. I want to be in the "pro" camp of

Dialogue, debate, and even argumentation.

But when we descend into ad hominem, I will politely bow out - - as you should as well if I were to, in turn, argue "against the man" with you.

But there is a reason that I can call Christians, Muslims, Jews, Zen Buddhists, atheists, progressives, Mormons, and even...politicians... my friends.

And there is a reason why I am against ideologies that seek to burn and destroy.

And here is the rub...

Those who have ideologies that seek to burn and destroy were my clients at one time as well.

And I made a decision to oppose the grand charade. I actually tried to extend the opportunity to discuss and debate early on - like I have with

Muslims, Roman Catholics, atheists, progressives etc through the years.

But an honest and respectful conversation is not what they were seeking.