Debate= attempt to win. Debate can incidentally lead to undertanding, but it's not required.
Discussion= attempt to come to an understanding (of the other or a topic)

Buckley listened only with his debate-tuned ear and he heard only enough to find points of difference..
If we're going to look for resolution, then we'll need to listen as a means of understanding the other, not as a means for beating him. .

That's why it's so easy for me to understand the Obamases of the world listening to Wright for years on end.
There is a need to understand others before a truly independent opinion can be made.
As I understand from their mutual friends, Obama both listened and debated Wright. That sounds darn good to me.

PS What we call disussions on blogs, seldom are. Often thy're bared-teeth debates, with very litle listening involved.

I don't even get your point of disagreement, but not sure it's worth digging into. I don't see why all of Wright's ministry has to be considered wrong for some of it to be worth criticizing. And on the basis of Dennis' criteria about racial discussions, and yours as well, I find Wright's rhetoric lacking, that's all I'm saying. That doesn't mean that there weren't other parts of his ministry that were very positive, and it doesn't mean that Obama couldn't possibly have judged the whole to be better than the one part that dealt with race relations- but my own judgment is that the racial divisiveness is important enough that it should have been addressed in something other than a passive manner.

As for Buckley- I disagree about not listening but it does go to the fact that we all mean different things by listening. I think that anyone who is as great of a debater as he was has to be an acute listener- to hear the arguments that his opponents use to discredit his own views, and then to use his own intellect to show a different logical basis for coming to a different conclusion.

That's what I think is they type of listening that Buckley did- not listening with an open mind to different viewpoints, but listening for the challlenges that he needed to address to support his own views. And frankly, I think that's exactly the kind of listening that Obama does as well- not being open to adopting any of the approaches of conservatives (because there's no evidence in his history of him doing that) but listening so that he can formulate a response to tell conservatives why he thinks we're wrong.

Close, but no cigar.

Your point of 'tacitly supporitng” by Obama is prejudicial, because it assumes, a pre-discussion, that all of Wright's ministry is wrong.
That, in fact, should be an important part of the discussion, not a precondition.

Playing by the rules (preconditions) of one side is a deal killer before the negotiations begin. Then it's only a power struggle, not worthy of being called discussions.

I loved Firing Line,and Buckley's language and intellect, but no one can claim he was a great listener, He wasn't there to resolve anything. He wanted to wint! That's quite a different thing.

I'd also say that I don't always think the 'shouting' is counterproductive. A bit of that, done properly and sticking to the topic, no ad hominem, real listening to both sides, can be cathartic. I'm thinking of the types of heated but intellectual exchanges of the past, eg Buckley's Firing Line.

Wow, looks like we've found another point of agreement on this general concept though!

Discussing in the wrong format can be worse thant not discussing at all. It can produce more divisiveness than what there was earlier.
Two talking heads screaming at each other on cable news never produce much in the way of progess in understanding the issues, do they?

Wright chose the wrong format (regardless of whether he is right or wrong about racce) leaving Obama only two choices:
1) Join the fray and become a media talking head, or
2) Bow out of the format and discuss the issue of race in his own, non-confrotnational manner.

Wright and the reaction to Wright have equally made public discussion (with any true meaning or depth) of race currently impossible.
Obama made the only rational choice open to him.

Wright made a tragic error on the HOW, making the WHAT impossible..

So although I agree with you that Obama's speech struck the right chord in calling for a dialogue, it was obviously just an opening rather than a dialogue in itself. What I don't see is Obama then leading in that direction- how will that discussion take place, and what form will it take? I think the political reality for Obama is that he really can't lead it- because he can't be seen as taking sides one way or another. I would hope that he could find a way to lead others into having the actual debates though, because I don't think we move beyond these issues until we air them out.

I really think a lot dpends on the manner in which workshops like you describe are conducted. There has to be good working formant, not just a bunch of people competing for which direction the talks should take. The discussions need a knowldgeable leader.

I've read transcripts of some church groups hosting intra-faith (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) discussions among women, and in my (non-professional) view, the results depended a lot on having good ground rules and an adept leader.

First off, not too much can be expected from a single meeting. In order to achieve a development, a progression, in ideas, this has to be a long term project.

Keeping current political topics off-limits (at tleast until after a considerable comfort level among the partiticipants is achieved) also seems critical.

The most fruitful results seemed to come from the getting-to-know-each-other personal stories related to the topic that are shared. As the themes of common worries (safety, jobs, families) emerged, so did a sense of what the women have in common rather than a focus on where they differed.

IMHO, establishing the 'what we have in common' atmosphere is absolutlely necessary if the more important discussion about points of conflict is to be prevented from becoming even more divisive.than it was to begin with.

Conversely, a local Jewish/Arab working group failed. They started right in with current events and the major points of conflict without developing personal ties of commonality first. I am not a professional, and I can't swear what caused the failure. I point out what I see as a major difference in approach.