A Question of Bigotry

[midcan5]

I'm sorry, but this is nothing but a deflection, consisting of a petitio principii argument among other things. In some cases you are employing red herrings to supplement your own argument, while insisting on a mild form of argumentum ad hominem in the beginning.

If you would like, please discuss the inherent bigotry both parties posses. The issue of race is a non sequitur. I know exactly what bigotry is. I know that both parties participate in it. One against Christians, the other against homosexuals. What I want to know from you is why liberals believe it is okay to be bigoted to Christians as far homosexuality is concerned? How can he say "I'm anti-Christian because Christians are anti-gay"? Does that not make him a bigot as well?

The weakest reply to a contrary position is to claim the answer is a deflection. Why? Just because you disagree. You have to explain 'inherent bigotry?' Is that genetic or is just your way of ducking the facts? I only used race as race is the most obvious place bigotry shows itself. Both sides are not bigoted, you may find that a comfortable apology for religious bigotry but it too is a useless unsupported statement. Religion eventually changes - well sometimes it does - consider the new Pope's take on abortion and homosexuality for instance. Not every religious person is a bigot. What you are claiming here, with no clear reason why, is that two different positions are the same and both amount to bigotry. You really don't know what bigotry is. Define bigotry and maybe then we can move forward.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I will also add this, because the same crowd always claim homosexuals are trying to push their agenda on others. I have just as many gay friends as Christian friends in my newsfeed on Facebook. My gay friends rarely post about gay issues and rights, while many of my Christian friends post about God, Jesus, and their religion.

Which poses an interesting question. Why is it we see all of these activists hounding and hating on Christian TV personalities for their views on homosexuality? If the goal is to garner a positive image of homosexuality, why sit back and allow things like this to happen? There are many gay people who want to be left alone, but can't be because there are gay rights activists rampaging through the political landscape snuffing out dissenting opinions. I cannot in good conscience stand for that.

 

[Luissa]

Because the vast majority of liberals and gay Americans are Christian, where liberals are correct in their criticism of the hate and ignorance that manifests among many Christians where those Christians use their faith as ‘justification’ for their hate.







To be critical of that kind of hate and ignorance is not being ‘bigoted.’







The issue therefore has nothing to do with being Christian, or Christianity, the issue has to do with those hostile toward gay Americans using their faith as a façade behind which to hide, where there are millions of Christians who do not hate gay Americans, and with whom liberals take no issue.







And the same disdain would apply to a Jew or Muslim who might use his faith as justification to hate gay Americans, having nothing to do with the religion, and everything to do with the individual propagating the hate.

I have no problem with Christianity or Christians, most of my family and friends are Christians. I was also raised Christian. I wasn't raised to use my religion to hate someone's lifestyle.

If you are a gay Basher or a racist, it does not make me a bigot if I don't tolerate your hate. It's pretty simple.



I will also add this, because the same crowd always claim homosexuals are trying to push their agenda on others. I have just as many gay friends as Christian friends in my newsfeed on Facebook. My gay friends rarely post about gay issues and rights, while many of my Christian friends post about God, Jesus, and their religion. One girl even felt the need to explain why she didn't support homosexuality, and their right to marry in a post(I didn't comment on it). Yet I have never seen my gay friends speak poorly, against, and post that they didn't support Christianity.

I don't care when they post about their religion every five minutes, and I don't claim gays have an agenda when they make a post on the subject every few weeks. See how that works?



You want to know what else I don't see, even less than posts about gay rights and religion, posts about becoming an atheist or agnostic. My non believer friends nor I never post about our views. Yet we are accused of pushing an agenda also. Just food for thought.

In reality, if you don't want to be called a bigot don't spend all day telling everyone how great your beliefs are then proceed to hate others.





Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Your intolerance DOES make you just as much a bigot as anyone else's intolerance makes them.

I wont ever apologize for not tolerating racism or gay bashing, but no it doesn't make me a bigot. That argument is tired and mostly a way for bigots to feel better about their hate. Sorry.


Thanked by Rat in the Hat

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm sorry, but this is nothing but a deflection, consisting of a petitio principii argument among other things. In some cases you are employing red herrings to supplement your own argument, while insisting on a mild form of argumentum ad hominem in the beginning.

If you would like, please discuss the inherent bigotry both parties posses. The issue of race is a non sequitur. I know exactly what bigotry is. I know that both parties participate in it. One against Christians, the other against homosexuals. What I want to know from you is why liberals believe it is okay to be bigoted to Christians as far homosexuality is concerned? How can he say "I'm anti-Christian because Christians are anti-gay"? Does that not make him a bigot as well?

The weakest reply to a contrary position is to claim the answer is a deflection. Why? Just because you disagree. You have to explain 'inherent bigotry?' Is that genetic or is just your way of ducking the facts? I only used race as race is the most obvious place bigotry shows itself. Both sides are not bigoted, you may find that a comfortable apology for religious bigotry but it too is a useless unsupported statement. Religion eventually changes - well sometimes it does - consider the new Pope's take on abortion and homosexuality for instance. What you are claiming here, with no clear reason why, is that two different positions are the same and both mounts to bigotry. You really don't know what bigotry is. Define bigotry and maybe then we can move forward.

Someone telling me to define bigotry when they themself have no clue what it is either. Do you want the dictionary definition or my definition? Because frankly they are both one in the same.

Bigotry is as a result of prejudice, hatred of anyone who has a different opinion from you. Both parties do it, and yes, I know what it is. Are you claiming that anti-Christian sentiment isn't bigoted? I am insisting that both sides are equally as bigoted for different reasons.

 

[Luissa]

I will also add this, because the same crowd always claim homosexuals are trying to push their agenda on others. I have just as many gay friends as Christian friends in my newsfeed on Facebook. My gay friends rarely post about gay issues and rights, while many of my Christian friends post about God, Jesus, and their religion.

Which poses an interesting question. Why is it we see all of these activists hounding and hating on Christian TV personalities for their views on homosexuality? If the goal is to garner a positive image of homosexuality, why sit back and allow things like this to happen? There are many gay people who want to be left alone, but can't be because there are gay rights activists rampaging through the political landscape snuffing out dissenting opinions. I cannot in good conscience stand for that.

Why don't you ask the same question of Christians? Because to you it's not an agenda, they are just expressing their beliefs and love of God.
I have two friends who speak about their religion with about five posts a day. One is actually LDS, and posts about the Women's Relief Society, scripture from the Book of Mormon, and many other LDS subjects, along with religious rights. I don't see her as pushing an agenda, nor do I think any of my other Christian friends are pushing an agenda, and they talk about God A LOT.
Why do you see gay people trying gain certain rights, or them talking about being gay as pushing an agenda? Both are doing the same thing.
Gay people should be able to post about their lifestyle without being accused of pushing agenda, just as Christians are allowed to.

As for my friend who felt the need to speak out against homosexuals. I am not Christian, and I never posted something on Facebook declaring why one shouldn't believe in God. And that's the whole point, you and others see it as an agenda because you don't agree with it. I am not gay or Christian, yet I can be objective enough to know people just enjoy talking about their life, and want the right to be happy without someone telling them they are wrong.


Thanked by Rat in the Hat

 

[Luissa]

I'm sorry, but this is nothing but a deflection, consisting of a petitio principii argument among other things. In some cases you are employing red herrings to supplement your own argument, while insisting on a mild form of argumentum ad hominem in the beginning.

If you would like, please discuss the inherent bigotry both parties posses. The issue of race is a non sequitur. I know exactly what bigotry is. I know that both parties participate in it. One against Christians, the other against homosexuals. What I want to know from you is why liberals believe it is okay to be bigoted to Christians as far homosexuality is concerned? How can he say "I'm anti-Christian because Christians are anti-gay"? Does that not make him a bigot as well?

The weakest reply to a contrary position is to claim the answer is a deflection. Why? Just because you disagree. You have to explain 'inherent bigotry?' Is that genetic or is just your way of ducking the facts? I only used race as race is the most obvious place bigotry shows itself. Both sides are not bigoted, you may find that a comfortable apology for religious bigotry but it too is a useless unsupported statement. Religion eventually changes - well sometimes it does - consider the new Pope's take on abortion and homosexuality for instance. What you are claiming here, with no clear reason why, is that two different positions are the same and both mounts to bigotry. You really don't know what bigotry is. Define bigotry and maybe then we can move forward.

Someone telling me to define bigotry when they themself have no clue what it is either. Do you want the dictionary definition or my definition? Because frankly they are both one in the same.

Bigotry is as a result of prejudice, hatred of anyone who has a different opinion from you. Both parties do it, and yes, I know what it is. Are you claiming that anti-Christian sentiment isn't bigoted? I am insisting that both sides are equally as bigoted for different reasons.

Not tolerating hate is not bigotry. I don't care what the Webster definition is. If I do not tolerate racists or the denial of rights based on race, that does not make me a bigot.
Not tolerating someone bashing my friends, calling them such things as fags, *******, or whores does not make me a bigot.
I am completely tolerant of the Christian religion, I do not tolerate someone using their religion to tell someone what is wrong with them, that their lifestyle is wrong, and that they should not have certain right due to that religion. That does not make me a bigot.
I don't care if you don't think the way I do, but if you decide to tell me I am not a bigot for not tolerating your hate. And I am not a bigot if I don't agree that your beliefs should decide what rights others have.
If I hated and was intolerant of Christians based on their religion alone and not by their personal actions then you would have a point. See the difference?
When you judge black people, Muslims, homosexuals, and or Christians by the actions of others and just because they are one of those things you are a bigot. When you want to deny them a right that you freely have, you are a bigot.

With your argument, one could say MLK jr was a bigot because he didn't tolerate racism. Think about how stupid that sounds.


Thanked by Rat in the Hat

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=11865]Luissa[/MENTION]

Why don't you ask the same question of Christians?

I do.

Because to you it's not an agenda, they are just expressing their beliefs and love of God.

Truthfully, both sides have an agenda. Religion and faith aren't supposed to be driven by agendas, but by devotion.

And that's the whole point, you and others see it as an agenda because you don't agree with it.

I see it as an agenda, simply because actions speak louder than words, Luissa.

Why do you see gay people trying gain certain rights, or them talking about being gay as pushing an agenda?

First of all, that is a mischaracterization of my position. Nobody said that all those who are gay have an agenda. I'm saying that all of those who fight for rights and stature politically are making a bad name for those who want to be left out of the discussion, purely by trying to silence others into submission.

I am not gay or Christian, yet I can be objective enough to know people just enjoy talking about their life, and want the right to be happy without someone telling them they are wrong.

But as I can tell, when a Christian speaks out against homosexuality, it all of a sudden makes him wrong. Is that objective?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not tolerating hate is not bigotry. I don't care what the Webster definition is.

I honestly can't debate with someone who thinks the dictionary is wrong. Case in point.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The weakest reply to a contrary position is to claim the answer is a deflection. Why? Just because you disagree. You have to explain 'inherent bigotry?' Is that genetic or is just your way of ducking the facts? I only used race as race is the most obvious place bigotry shows itself. Both sides are not bigoted, you may find that a comfortable apology for religious bigotry but it too is a useless unsupported statement. Religion eventually changes - well sometimes it does - consider the new Pope's take on abortion and homosexuality for instance. What you are claiming here, with no clear reason why, is that two different positions are the same and both mounts to bigotry. You really don't know what bigotry is. Define bigotry and maybe then we can move forward.

Someone telling me to define bigotry when they themself have no clue what it is either. Do you want the dictionary definition or my definition? Because frankly they are both one in the same.

Bigotry is as a result of prejudice, hatred of anyone who has a different opinion from you. Both parties do it, and yes, I know what it is. Are you claiming that anti-Christian sentiment isn't bigoted? I am insisting that both sides are equally as bigoted for different reasons.

Not tolerating hate is not bigotry. I don't care what the Webster definition is. If I do not tolerate racists or the denial of rights based on race, that does not make me a bigot.
Not tolerating someone bashing my friends, calling them such things as fags, *******, or whores does not make me a bigot.
I am completely tolerant of the Christian religion, I do not tolerate someone using their religion to tell someone what is wrong with them, that their lifestyle is wrong, and that they should not have certain right due to that religion. That does not make me a bigot.
I don't care if you don't think the way I do, but if you decide to tell me I am not a bigot for not tolerating your hate. And I am not a bigot if I don't agree that your beliefs should decide what rights others have.
If I hated and was intolerant of Christians based on their religion alone and not by their personal actions then you would have a point. See the difference?
When you judge black people, Muslims, homosexuals, and or Christians by the actions of others and just because they are one of those things you are a bigot. When you want to deny them a right that you freely have, you are a bigot.

With your argument, one could say MLK jr was a bigot because he didn't tolerate racism. Think about how stupid that sounds.


Thanked by Rat in the Hat

If I do not tolerate racists or the denial of rights based on race, that does not make me a bigot.
Not tolerating someone bashing my friends, calling them such things as fags, *******, or whores does not make me a bigot.

Luissa. It is how you define hatred that makes it bigoted. If you see Christians as hateful, and attach a negative connotation to them, that is bigoted. To automatically label dissent as hateful is also bigoted.

I am completely tolerant of the Christian religion, I do not tolerate someone using their religion to tell someone what is wrong with them, that their lifestyle is wrong, and that they should not have certain right due to that religion. That does not make me a bigot.

I am completely tolerant of homosexuals having rights in this society, I simply don't condone it as a matter of practice. I do not tolerate someone using their worldviews to justify telling someone of faith their views are wrong or that their faith is wrong or that they aren't allowed to speak out without being automatically labeled as hateful.

If I hated and was intolerant of Christians based on their religion alone and not by their personal actions then you would have a point. See the difference?

As this campaign against hate has already demonstrated, there need not be a simple intolerance of faith, but of overall opinion. So frankly I don't see one.

When you want to deny them a right that you freely have, you are a bigot.

When you want to dissuade others from expressing their beliefs against a certain lifestyle due to their faith, that's bigoted. When one tries to legislate their morals onto another, that's bigoted. See the difference?

 

[TemplarKormac]

With your argument, one could say MLK jr was a bigot because he didn't tolerate racism. Think about how stupid that sounds.

And that is quite the elementary interpretation of my argument. It is bigoted to label one opinion as hateful and another as supportive, simply due to the biases of the observer.

 

[Care4all]

How can one sit there and accuse the other of being bigoted, while not acknowledging their own bigotry in return?

Because the vast majority of liberals and gay Americans aren't Christian, where liberals are correct in their criticism of the hate and ignorance that manifests among many Christians where those Christians use their faith as ‘justification’ for their hate.

To be critical of that kind of hate and ignorance is not being ‘bigoted.’

The issue therefore has nothing to do with being Christian, or Christianity, the issue has to do with those hostile toward gay Americans using their faith as a façade behind which to hide, where there are millions of Christians who do not hate gay Americans, and with whom liberals take no issue.

And the same disdain would apply to a Jew or Muslim who might use his faith as justification to hate gay Americans, having nothing to do with the religion, and everything to do with the individual propagating the hate.

That's a faulty premise. Liberals use their so-called 'tolerance' of others to justify theirs. When will you acknowledge that?



I'm one of those Christians who believes homosexuality is sinful. But I also believe they have the same rights as I do. Does that mean I'm hateful? The issue of Christianity is at the forefront of this issue. From what I can tell, liberals will never allow a man to be against something they believe in. Why is it people like Brendan Eich, Phil Robertson, or those two brothers on HGTV are attacked and eschewed from their livelihoods and reputations for stating their beliefs? Carl Demiao is a Gay Republican but he is treated just the same.

I don't think you can justify taking away the freedom of expression from someone just because you think they are hateful. Which is another thing. Dissenting opinions are just that. Do they make that individual person hateful? No. This is nothing but a guilt by association fallacy.

CHANGING a Quote of another member breaks the rules here Templar...at least it used to...you should edit your post where you changed in C_Clayton's quoted post 'are' to 'aren't' before you get in trouble for it!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because the vast majority of liberals and gay Americans are Christian, where liberals are correct in their criticism of the hate and ignorance that manifests among many Christians where those Christians use their faith as ‘justification’ for their hate.



To be critical of that kind of hate and ignorance is not being ‘bigoted.’



The issue therefore has nothing to do with being Christian, or Christianity, the issue has to do with those hostile toward gay Americans using their faith as a façade behind which to hide, where there are millions of Christians who do not hate gay Americans, and with whom liberals take no issue.



And the same disdain would apply to a Jew or Muslim who might use his faith as justification to hate gay Americans, having nothing to do with the religion, and everything to do with the individual propagating the hate.

I have no problem with Christianity or Christians, most of my family and friends are Christians. I was also raised Christian. I wasn't raised to use my religion to hate someone's lifestyle.
If you are a gay Basher or a racist, it does not make me a bigot if I don't tolerate your hate. It's pretty simple.

I will also add this, because the same crowd always claim homosexuals are trying to push their agenda on others. I have just as many gay friends as Christian friends in my newsfeed on Facebook. My gay friends rarely post about gay issues and rights, while many of my Christian friends post about God, Jesus, and their religion. One girl even felt the need to explain why she didn't support homosexuality, and their right to marry in a post(I didn't comment on it). Yet I have never seen my gay friends speak poorly, against, and post that they didn't support Christianity.
I don't care when they post about their religion every five minutes, and I don't claim gays have an agenda when they make a post on the subject every few weeks. See how that works?

You want to know what else I don't see, even less than posts about gay rights and religion, posts about becoming an atheist or agnostic. My non believer friends nor I never post about our views. Yet we are accused of pushing an agenda also. Just food for thought.
In reality, if you don't want to be called a bigot don't spend all day telling everyone how great your beliefs are then proceed to hate others.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Your intolerance DOES make you just as much a bigot as anyone else's intolerance makes them.

Where exactly did Luissa exhibit any ‘intolerance’ in her post?

Again, the OP’s premise fails because he makes the mistake of comparing two different issues: where conservatives, for the most part, advocate laws, amendments, and other measures that have the effect of denying Americans their civil liberties as a consequence of their bigotry, such as Utah’s Amendment 3 seeking to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights, with that of those who defend the civil rights of gay Americans opposing a republican candidate because of the candidate’s position on the issues, having nothing to do with the candidate’s race.

This seems to be a mistake made by most on the right, or an effort by most conservatives to contrive a controversy where none exists.

We see examples of this in the current thread about Allen West, an African-American republican politician, where conservatives in that thread incorrectly perceive liberal opposition to West as ‘racism,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth – liberals oppose West because of his failed and errant conservative policy positions, again, having nothing to do with race.

Conservatives exhibit their bigotry and racism when they seek to codify that ignorance and hate, such as enacting laws designed to deny gay Americans access to marriage law, or to deny women their right to privacy, or ‘voter ID’ laws devoid of any evidence that any election result was changed as a result of ‘ID fraud,’ when such measures clearly adversely effect minority populations. And the bigotry and racism by many on the right is further confirmed by the fact that such measures have been struck down as un-Constitutional by Federal courts.

By contrast, there are no examples of liberals advocating for laws or measures that would violate the rights of gay Americans, African-Americans, or women – in fact, for over 60 years liberals have been at the forefront of defending the rights of all Americans from unwarranted government intrusion and excess.

We therefore see the bigotry and racism practiced by many conservatives as they seek to use the power and authority of the state to promote that bigotry and racism, where liberals fight against such measures being enacted, or challenge these laws in Federal court when they become law.

 

[mamooth]

It is bigoted to label one opinion as hateful and another as supportive, simply due to the biases of the observer.

That's a very politically correct redefinition of "bigoted". Too bad everyone else will just continue using standard English. If you have to redefine the language to win, you've clearly lost.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because the vast majority of liberals and gay Americans aren't Christian, where liberals are correct in their criticism of the hate and ignorance that manifests among many Christians where those Christians use their faith as ‘justification’ for their hate.

To be critical of that kind of hate and ignorance is not being ‘bigoted.’

The issue therefore has nothing to do with being Christian, or Christianity, the issue has to do with those hostile toward gay Americans using their faith as a façade behind which to hide, where there are millions of Christians who do not hate gay Americans, and with whom liberals take no issue.

And the same disdain would apply to a Jew or Muslim who might use his faith as justification to hate gay Americans, having nothing to do with the religion, and everything to do with the individual propagating the hate.

That's a faulty premise. Liberals use their so-called 'tolerance' of others to justify theirs. When will you acknowledge that?



I'm one of those Christians who believes homosexuality is sinful. But I also believe they have the same rights as I do. Does that mean I'm hateful? The issue of Christianity is at the forefront of this issue. From what I can tell, liberals will never allow a man to be against something they believe in. Why is it people like Brendan Eich, Phil Robertson, or those two brothers on HGTV are attacked and eschewed from their livelihoods and reputations for stating their beliefs? Carl Demiao is a Gay Republican but he is treated just the same.

I don't think you can justify taking away the freedom of expression from someone just because you think they are hateful. Which is another thing. Dissenting opinions are just that. Do they make that individual person hateful? No. This is nothing but a guilt by association fallacy.

CHANGING a Quote of another member breaks the rules here Templar...at least it used to...you should edit your post where you changed in C_Clayton's quoted post 'are' to 'aren't' before you get in trouble for it!

Changing quotes certainly doesn’t comport with the spirit of the CDZ, but no matter – such antics only further undermine the OP’s position.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is bigoted to label one opinion as hateful and another as supportive, simply due to the biases of the observer.

That's a very politically correct redefinition of "bigoted". Too bad everyone else will just continue using standard English. If you have to redefine the language to win, you've clearly lost.

True.

And to be critical of those bigoted, racist, or intolerant is to not be oneself ‘bigoted,’ ‘racist,’ or ‘intolerant.’

 

[Luissa]

Not tolerating hate is not bigotry. I don't care what the Webster definition is.

I honestly can't debate with someone who thinks the dictionary is wrong. Case in point.

It isn't that it's wrong, you are just using the definition to fit your point. If you don't tolerate hate and racism, that doesn't make you a bigot. No getting around it.


Thanked by Rat in the Hat

 

[Asclepias]

I've heard many times that Christians or Conservative individuals are bigots. I've heard the counterclaim that Liberals and Homosexuals are as such themselves. But I simply wish to pose a couple of questions: Using the logic that a Christian or Conservative is bigoted and anti-gay, would the Liberals be just as bigoted and anti-Christian? How can one sit there and accuse the other of being bigoted, while not acknowledging their own bigotry in return?

Yes, I know, someone in this thread is bound to say, "Well Christians and Conservatives are inherently bigoted! We are tolerant!" Well, that poses another question. Are you really? If a Christian can be accosted for speaking his mind on homosexuality, namely people like Phil Robertson or Brendan Eich, but a homosexual can be praised for shoving it in his face; is that not intolerant, or bigoted? And likewise, another will say, "No! Liberals and homosexuals are inherently bigoted! We are tolerant!" The same I ask, are you really? How can you be tolerant when you wish to deny someone equal protection under the same laws that govern you and I, simply because they are gay? Is that not intolerant or bigoted as well?

One side wishes for equality and tolerance, as does the other. Both sides say the are tolerant, but in reality they are not. Both sides want equality, but in reality they only want a society more favorable to their worldviews or religious beliefs. From my vantage point, neither side has any room to maneuver. Both sides are just as bigoted as one another. The views each side holds does not justify the behavior they exhibit towards one another. Tolerance is a two way street. You can't demand tolerance, you must earn it. So, it is a matter of: are you a bigot or not?

Its pretty simple and easy to explain. The aggressor is in the wrong. Everything after that is collateral damage. If you as a Christian take it upon yourself to discriminate against someone because they do not conform to your belief, not only are you being a hypocrite you are indeed being intolerant. You have no one to blame but yourself when the other side comes back at you with intolerance as indeed they should for having a backwards way of thinking and showing your intolerance. Mind your own business, respect other peoples rights and no one will come after you.

 

[Asclepias]

The OP posits the usual equivalency counter argument, you hear it often today. 'I happen to think slavery benefits people and is good for people, you disagree with me, thus you must be a bigot.' That is the extreme point of view but it works in every debate. This is an extreme political correct argument form. But it misses the point of bigotry and it fails even to understand what bigotry is. Lots of examples exist in social science and even experience if you pay attention. I call up for an apartment and when asked my name I give the name Muhammad Williams, the person apologetically says, 'sorry, the apartment has been taken.' A neighborhood is 'deteriorating and someone says, Hispanics are moving in and others say, 'well that's the reason.' Need I give more examples? In one case the person is classified by name and in the other they are classified by ethnicity. That is bigotry. Bigotry is automatic thinking because of bias, prejudice, or ignorance. Simple huh. So here's the hard question, my religion has a negative view of gay people, how do I react? Joan is gay but she seems nice. OK, how you react would then classify you as a bigot. Think about it.

Then there is bigotry of the law and of the society, consider justifications for slavery, or separate but equal, or Jim Crow or... We can take that up next. Is religion an excuse for bigotry? Render unto Caesar.... Judge not lest ....


"Racism is not about how you look, it is about how people assign meaning to how you look." Robin D.G. Kelley

"We learn to be racist, therefore we can learn not to be racist. Racism is not genetical. It has everything to do with power." Jane Elliot

"White children, in the main, and whether they are rich or poor, grow up with a grasp of reality so feeble that they can very accurately be described as deluded--about themselves and the world they live in. White people have managed to get through their entire lifetimes in this euphoric state, but black people have not been so lucky: a black man who sees the world the way John Wayne, for example, sees it would not be an eccentric patriot, but a raving maniac." James Baldwin

I was tempted to see if I could get my rep turned back on just to give you a good rep for this post.

 

[TheIceMan]

I have no problem with Christianity or Christians, most of my family and friends are Christians. I was also raised Christian. I wasn't raised to use my religion to hate someone's lifestyle.

If you are a gay Basher or a racist, it does not make me a bigot if I don't tolerate your hate. It's pretty simple.



I will also add this, because the same crowd always claim homosexuals are trying to push their agenda on others. I have just as many gay friends as Christian friends in my newsfeed on Facebook. My gay friends rarely post about gay issues and rights, while many of my Christian friends post about God, Jesus, and their religion. One girl even felt the need to explain why she didn't support homosexuality, and their right to marry in a post(I didn't comment on it). Yet I have never seen my gay friends speak poorly, against, and post that they didn't support Christianity.

I don't care when they post about their religion every five minutes, and I don't claim gays have an agenda when they make a post on the subject every few weeks. See how that works?



You want to know what else I don't see, even less than posts about gay rights and religion, posts about becoming an atheist or agnostic. My non believer friends nor I never post about our views. Yet we are accused of pushing an agenda also. Just food for thought.

In reality, if you don't want to be called a bigot don't spend all day telling everyone how great your beliefs are then proceed to hate others.





Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Your intolerance DOES make you just as much a bigot as anyone else's intolerance makes them.

I wont ever apologize for not tolerating racism or gay bashing, but no it doesn't make me a bigot. That argument is tired and mostly a way for bigots to feel better about their hate. Sorry.


Thanked by Rat in the Hat

So don't apologize. Nothing tired about an argument that calls a spade a spade.

Your intolerance is no better, worse, nor different than anyone else's. It isn't "right-er" because of your beliefs. Bigotry is bigotry. Yours is the same as a Nazi's. Just aimed in a different direction.

 

[Asclepias]

Your intolerance DOES make you just as much a bigot as anyone else's intolerance makes them.

I wont ever apologize for not tolerating racism or gay bashing, but no it doesn't make me a bigot. That argument is tired and mostly a way for bigots to feel better about their hate. Sorry.


Thanked by Rat in the Hat

So don't apologize. Nothing tired about an argument that calls a spade a spade.

Your intolerance is no better, worse, nor different than anyone else's. It isn't "right-er" because of your beliefs. Bigotry is bigotry. Yours is the same as a Nazi's. Just aimed in a different direction.

Actually you are wrong. Being intolerant of intolerance is the greatest virtue in the world.