Bigotry towards Christians? Here's the thing

[jpgray]

Bigotry is always wrong. It's prejudice based on stereotype, and assumes a general negative view for all people who fall under a broad ethnic or cultural class definition. It's all bad, so all bigotry is equal, then? Well not quite. Various types of bigotry have different effects, depending on their scope. The act of bigotry is always wrong, but the damage caused by various instances of bigotry can vary greatly.

On an individual level, most types of bigotry can be equally dangerous, no matter the status of the group it is applied to. Yet on a societal level, the effect of bigotry may be maximized or minimized depending on the status of its target. Examples?

First let's take the individual level. An employer who fires an employee for being white/male/Christian is in isolation as bigoted as an employer who fires an employee for being black/female/Muslim. The act of discrimination is equally wrong, and the effect is equal.

On the societal level it gets a bit trickier. Let's talk about derogatory terms. When a group enjoys powerful status in society, derogatory terms are relatively toothless compared to those directed at those who have far less status. Would you agree? Well, there is no derogatory term for Caucasian equivalent to "nigger," for example. Yes, we have "honky," "cracker," "whitebread," etc., but despite being similar in design (race-based pejorative), it is widely accepted that the n-word is more offensive and more damaging than any epithet for Caucasian you care to name.

Why? Because it's backed up by societal discrimination, and because the class in question is socially disadvantaged as compared to whites. With whites, it's the opposite. While individual discrimination may cut as deep, on a societal level discrimination towards white is essentially toothless due to the advantaged status which that race enjoys in our society.

So yes, bigotry towards Christians is wrong. Is it comparable to bigotry towards gays? Immigrants? Muslims? On an individual level, it absolutely can be. But on a societal level, it simply isn't.

[readmoreoften]

1. Is it bigotry when you have good reason? Or do I have to like people who hate me?

If Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists come to my house to tell me that I'm going to hell because I'm gay, am I a bigot for telling them to get the fuck off my property? No. I'm a person with self-respect. My dad and my partner's grandmother both believe in Jesus and I love them and they love me.

Are black folk bigoted against the Klan?
Am I bigoted against Republicans?

Whatever happened to plain ol' fashioned ENEMIES? I'm cool with that. These people hate me. They think I'm destroying their country and killing their children and they regularly say so on television and the internet. They deny me jobs, my partner's health insurance, tax breaks, and all sorts of stuff. If they STOPPED hating me and doing all these things, we might be pals. But they won't. So, yeah, they're my ENEMIES and I have to SURVIVE them.

[jpgray]

3. To go with the KKK example...

Considering the Klan to be a bigoted organization is not really a subjective interpretation, as the group itself has already professed its values to be just that. The organization leadership professes to speak for all its members, and exerts a form of ideological control over them. It's still not entirely justified to behave with absolute prejudice towards individuals who were members (Robert Byrd is one case), but condemning the group for what it itself claims to stand for is not bigotry, in my view. It's similar with political parties.

With religion, you have to give still more consideration to the individual, since religious practice is often a very personal thing. We can safely condemn papal policies, but we can't assume that any and all Catholics agree with all those policies, or are even very aware of them. Ted Kennedy for example does not follow church policy on stem cells or abortion, so writing off -all- Catholics would be a little extreme. Condemning the expressed policies? Not a problem at all.

Political parties are similar. I don't care for many of the Democratic leadership's decisions, yet I'm not going to hate on Dennis Kucinich by association merely because he's a Democrat--there's freedom for him to identify as a Democrat and yet not be responsible for or complicit in all that the leadership stands for.

So it's tricky. :P You can condemn an -organized- group's professed beliefs as stated by its leaders, yet not all individuals who belong to that group will necessarily adhere to those beliefs. Gender, sexuality and ethnicity are even less subject to easy general definition since there is no organized leadership that can claim to speak for all members, and membership is not a choice.

[robbedvoter]

14. Poor babies! I get to use this one a lot lately:

Who persecuted them lately? I know we try to steal Xmas from ya, all the crimes are against ya, now bigotry? Christians fired left and right by heathens?

I agree with you: practice of religion is a very personal thing - or it should be.
The moment it stops, this speaks for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R_5khaVFeg

[frogmarch]

35. Great image!

I'm going to send it to my husband's fundie relatives the next time they start whining about Xians being persecuted and oppressed and all that.

[Arugula Latte]

56. It's a funny thing about the "War on Xmas" ...Christians waged the War on Solstice.

This made-up "War on Xmas" crap is projection. Solstice is the original Reason for the Season, not Jesus. The Solstice is real, and comes back every year ... Jesus was supposed to return within a short period of time. What's his deal? What's he waiting for?

Just sayin'. :)

[stray cat]

5. Enemies you never even met? Sounds like the basis of any hate crime

Hate crimes are aimed at an individual because of a hatred of a faceless group. Gooks, Atheists, Christians, Jews, Blacks, Gays. Masses you hate can be victims of hate crimes and not just masses you think you like.

[rAVES]

10. What is Gook?

n/m google knows all.. :/

[bryant69]

7. Yeah like i got robbed by a black guy once so fuck those guys

I mean I totally know where you are coming from. Black people are my enemies - i didn't go up and mug them - they came and mugged me. So screw 'em.

Unless of course all black people aren't exactly the same. But that's crazy talk.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. Yep. That's it exactly

[roguevalley]

12. I believe it is the wholesale inclusion of all Christians that is the

awful sticking point here. Blaming all Christians for the nutwads is like blaming all men because of rapists.

[Chulanowa]

17. Well, we see so many cases of exactly that that are applauded on DU...

So I dunno how valid the comparison really is, with context.

The problem with the nutwads is that they're the spokesmen of the religion. The nutwads are the ones who are loud, in your face, and making proclamations left and right. They're the ones in the news, on the television, and on the blogs. I fully accept that not all Christians are like these knuckle-draggers... but I have to say they really need to find some new representation.

Of course, even the "moderate" christians feel a compulsive need to tell me that they'll pray for me in hopes that I'll one day find Jesus. And act offended that I have no real interest in a god that is in competition with Waldo.

[Clark2008]

75. "Find" some new representation?

We don't exactly caucus to do that. Unfortunately, the loud, brash, in-your-face bigots are the people who get the attention from the "news" media because they are loud, brash, in-your-face bigots who drive up ratings.

Don't blame the vast majority of peace-loving, tolerant Christians because we don't make good bleeding leads for the media.

[roguevalley]

76. I don't care of no one finds Jesus. I want people to be kind and

help each other. In doing that, we help all.

Waldo ... SNICKER!

[LittleClarkie]

45. No, you're not. But if you go around saying fuck Christians, they all insane and hate me

then that's where the problem comes in. Telling someone who bothers you to fuck off is not bigotry. Blacks are not bigotted against the KKK. But not all white people are KKK. And not all Christians are assholes.

[Clark2008]

74. I'm a Christian and I don't hate you...

I think that's the point. You shouldn't hate all Christians because they all don't hate you.

[kestrel91316]

2. Bigotry against fundie whackjobs who want to enslave women,

RW Christofascists, and others of their ilk is ENTIRELY justified.

Mainstream well-mannered Christians who respect the rights of others don't bother me in the least. They USED to be in the majority. They may yet be.

Seems like the squeaky wheel gets the grease - everybody notices the noisy whining whacko fringe types.

[stray cat]

4. Blind hatred and depersonlization is not a virtue.

Hate crimes are ok as long as you don't like the victim. A new progressive ideal?

[The Straight Story]

8. Kicking for your reply

Sums it up nicely :)

[JuniperLea]

6. And Christian bigots are the worst by far...

Because they are going against everything Jesus taught, and hating groups of their brothers and sisters in the name of God. That, I believe, is the true meaning of using the Lord's name in vain.

[warren pease]

9. I'm not "bigoted" against fundies. I loathe them for very precise reasons...

I hate irrational belief systems being pushed as science. I hate smarmy, self-satisfied little shits who consign me to hell because I'm not into their gawd game. I hate pests who come to my house to push fairy tales. I hate idiots who think that gawd gave humans the earth to rape, trash, exploit and ultimately destroy because the bible tells them it's OK. I hate simpletons who consign all the vagaries of life to "gawd's will" and therefore exempt themselves from the consequences of their own actions. I hate morons who believe the fossil record was put here by gawd to test their faith. I hate mean bastards who subscribe to the systematized oppression and demonization of any group that doesn't look, behave and believe exactly as they do. I hate rubes who venerate a dull-witted fool such as George W. Bush. I hate loud, obnoxious, rude, intrusive, superior dimwits who intone biblical passages as if they were five-year-olds reciting nursery rhymes. I hate binary imbeciles who see everything in black and white, good and evil, heaven and hell, us and them. I hate vengeful misogynists who believe life begins at conception and ends at birth. I hate pro-life murderers.

And I really, really hate the manipulative swine -- our present administration being the all-time reference model -- who twist the gospels into justifications for massive bloodshed, unending war and ill-disguised resource grabs because "what's all our oil doing under their sand anyway." These people are no more christian than I am a sheet of plywood.

And so many, many more vile attributes that seem to be shared by the kinds of people who can be conned into revival tents and mass baptisms and childlike fantasies of the rapture or the end times -- and then have the gall to feel safe and smug because gawd likes them more than the competition.

My biases aren't limited to fundies, btw. I'm an equal opportunity tormentor of frauds, phonies, hucksters, pimps for the lord, hypocrites and other such revolting excuses for humanity. It's just that the wacky world of fundie land seems to attract an inordinate number of these creeps, and so for once the generalization fits the movement like a pair of custom-made shoes.

If that's bigotry, so be it. I prefer to think of it as being selective about the company I keep combined with an aversion to a particularly toxic sub-species.


wp

[salinen]

15. And I love your responce

binary imbeciles. I'm stealing that line.

[warren pease]

16. Public domain; steal at will. n/t

[knitter4democracy]

61. And how many of those kinds of Christian have you run into here?

I totally get your anger at what people have said and done to you. Completely. Could sit down with a nice cup of tea and some of my chocolate chip cookies and swap stories. :)

Still, I think some post here acting like the people they're mad at read the posts here and are here--when they're not. There are few fundies here (I've run into only a couple and haven't seen them lately) and a handful of evangelicals. The rest of the Christians here are moderate or liberal Christians of all denominations. We're not the ones trying to convert or change you. I'd rather sit and have a chat and share some cookies and hear more about your experiences than try to convince you that my faith is right and everyone else is wrong. My faith is just that--personal. If someone asks, that's one thing, but most of the time I leave it personal or just post an explanation or two. That's it.

[warren pease]

64. None that I'm aware of...

That's why I specified "fundies" and not "christians." I have no problem with anyone practicing any religion they choose, as long as they recognize my Constitutional right to freedom FROM religion and keep it the hell out of my face.

I'd honestly prefer that people gravitated toward pagan traditions that honor the earth and all creatures on it (cockroaches and scorpions being my personal exceptions) rather than toward this very weird idea of a gawd in the sky who demands respect and obedience without ever having earned either one. But that's a matter of personal choice and I'm not a fascist, so they can do whatever the hell they want with their free time.

And nobody's ever "said and done" anything snide or threatening to me about religion that didn't earn them my fury and the potential for a serious ass-kicking, watchtower pushers excepted since I'm not going to assault someone on my own front porch.

I've been around religion since I was a young kid. I did 15 years in catholic school, including kindergarten, before I finally transferred to SJ State and then went on to UC Berkeley. I was even an altar boy in grammar school. This doesn't make me a theologian, but it does give me a certain insight into the mechanisms the catholic church, through its surrogates in the convent and the rectory, uses for social and political control.

I'm guessing that they'd prefer it if the Inquisition's methods were still OK, but those are reserved for our taxpayer subsidized official torturers so the church has to be a bit more subtle nowadays.

Anyway, I've always been partial to chocolate chip cookies and a nice cup of tea sounds good, too. I'll be glad to take you up on the offer next time you're in Portland.


Best,

wp

[knitter4democracy]

67. And I entirely agree.

:hug: Please just make sure you don't include all of us here when you start getting mad at those kinds of so-called Christians.

I could PM you my recipe. I've been tweaking it for years and think it's almost right. :)

[warren pease]

70. "I could PM you my recipe..."

Really? That would be great. Thanks a lot.

And I hope it's very descriptive because I'm a pretty lousy cook and so the recipe has to be very detailed. For example, I once got hung up for an hour or so trying to find a working definition of "brown," as in "bake until brown..." There's a lot of different browns and I didn't want to get "tan" when it actually meant "almost black."

I forget the outcome, but I mention this so you know exactly what kind of idiot you're dealing with...


And thanks again,

wp

[knitter4democracy]

72. Check your inbox!

I wrote it all out the way I do it, instead of just listing and then explaining. I hope that helps. :hug:

[warren pease]

73. Got it... check yours... and thanks a ton n/t

[bobbolink]

11. I'm fed up with bigotry against poor and homeless people and that cuts across polical and

economic lines.

I've gotten so tired of answering the same old ignorant questions, that I mostly just turn away anymore.

And liberals are just as much part of it as conservatives.

[kineneb]

65. hear, hear!

And I get tired of explaining the f***ed up system that forces the ill and disabled to stay poor to get needed medical services.

My (disabled) friend's food budget is $10/week, after she pays her bills.

I shall refrain from a rant...

[bobbolink]

66. Don't refrain--Rant ON!!

MOre and more I'm coming to understand the deep denial and ignorance of 'Murkins (and that includes "liberals") to poverty.

I've become DISGUSTED with repeating the same points, over and over and over and ......

The apathy makes me want to find a cliff....

[kineneb]

69. They won't understand until they, too, are poor...

which may not be too far off, given what is happening in the economic realm. The memory of the Great Depression has disappeared along with the generations which lived through it. Now few can relate to the grinding poverty which was common then.

The US has had it too easy for long enough to become complacent and apathetic. Until enough of the Middle Class hit the bottom, there will continue to be a lack of understanding.

I was raised by my grandparents, who survived the Depression. They knew what extreme poverty really looked like; they lived for a year in a tent-house because that is all they could afford. And they felt lucky to have even canvas over their heads. Others had far less. They were always generous to and forgiving of the down-and-out, even though they themselves were not very well off. They were true "Christians", even though they weren't really Christian (especially that part about helping the poor and sick...).

[bobbolink]

78. You're soooo very right! That's why I don't bemoan the "fall of the middleclass".

Sad that that's the only way they'll see the light, but as far as I'm concerned, it can't happen too soon now. I've had waaay too many experiences that tell me that MOST people can't get it until they've suffered.

Your grandparents would be horrified at how people treat others nowdays! I've had this conversation with so many who say that generation had nothing, but they helped each other.

Now, MOST people have so much, and they can't be bothered. I was just listening to a conversation this morning with women who have EVERYTHING... and they're SCARED TO DEATH of poor people. Can't get close to them. I guess we're all going to steal their silverware.

GAK!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Christianity is an institution. Like the Congress or the military. Like Capitalism or Socialism.

Attacking, questioning, berating, the institution is not the same as attacking en-masse the individuals who are part of the institution.

And, note that Jesus devoted his life to "bashing" the institution of religion.

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. Yes, but this is not an homogeneous thing here. There really isn't one flavor

of Christianity, as can be seen by all the nice Christian DUers who clearly are not hateful bigoted fundy theocrats.

[jpgray]

36. I agree. But only the critic knows to whom the general language is meant to apply

In other words someone saying "Christianity needs to stop bitching about being oppressed" doesn't really mean the whole of Christianity. That's obvious to the person making the statement. But someone from Georgia can hear that statement and ask "So I should just shut up about the burning of black churches in my community?" Of course that's not the intent behind the original statement, but some specificity is helpful for avoiding such misinterpretations. Now, it's not fair to ask for an extremely constraining standard of specificity, but both the person making the argument and the person hearing it should in most cases meet halfway in trying to understand each other. In other words "I hate Christians" is simply not acceptable, and at the same time "I hate Christians, insofar as I dislike these discrete policies espoused by the leadership of such-and-such a sect, excluding from blame any and all members of said sect that disagree or are unaware" should not be necessary. :D

[knitter4democracy]

62. Which institution?

There are over three thousand Christian denominations in the US alone. Which one are you attacking?

[Bjorn Against]

18. We also have to recognize that thinking certain beliefs are stupid is not bigotry

Bigotry would be treating someone differently just because they are a Christian, but thinking certain beliefs held by Christians are stupid is not bigotry. No ideas should be beyond criticism, especially when they have no empirical evidence to back them up.

A lot of people try to pretend that pointing out the flaws in an ideology is bigotry, but that undermines the whole notion of what bigotry actually is and prevents us from having a real discussion on basic truths. There is a difference between bigotry and pointing out flaws in a person's logic no matter how much some people may want to claim otherwise.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. So where do the terms "sky daddy faerie tale nonsense" come into play in this? Are they

a legitimate critique or bigotry?

[Bjorn Against]

25. It certainly could be a legitimate critique

The Bible is not based on empirical evidence, and thus it is as open to criticism as anything else. If I said I worshiped a giant cockroach in the sky as my religion I assume most people would say I was absolutely nuts, and I don't think Christianity should be treated special just because it has more followers. All religious beliefs should be up for debate, I don't think there is anything wrong with criticising a belief as long as you don't infringe on a person's right to hold that belief or treat them differently than you would other groups of people.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. I have no problem with someone saying "I don't believe & here's why". But the words above offend

me just as if someone came up to me and called me a fat lazy slob.

To me one is a personal attack and the other is making a reasonable rational case against something.

[Bjorn Against]

31. True, and that is why poor arguments are so easily dismissed

If the substance of their argument is no more than what you quoted and you have shelves of theological literature to back you up then you are probably going to win the debate. I am not saying Christianity is either right or wrong, I am an agnostic and I admit fully that I don't know the truth. Christianity may be correct in certain areas, but my assumption would be it is not correct in all areas.

The point is though that debate is not a form of a bigotry unless it personally demeans the group of people for who they are. "All Christians are stupid" would be a bigoted statement, "The Bible is a fairy tale" is not a bigoted statement though because it does not aim at a group of people it aims at the belief. Beliefs are always up for debate. You may find certain statements offensive if they put down your beliefs, but the fact is that if someone were to decide to worship the cockroach god I mentioned they would probably have their beliefs slammed pretty quickly as well. I would oppose it if that person were denied employment because of their beliefs though. Bigotry involves treating one group of people differently than another, it does not involve being silent about a belief system. Sometimes you will be offended by debate, but that does not necessarily mean the person debating you is bigoted.

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. I'm not even interested in _having_ the debate. I don't own the "truth" nor do I insist on

forcing it on anyone else. But it really does bug me when someone says I am stupid and childish for what I believe.

But as you say, sometimes we're just going to be offended. :)

[Bjorn Against]

37. And so you know I am not calling your beliefs stupid...

I am merely arguing that beliefs are up for debate. I don't know what your beliefs are exactly so I have no basis for arguing against them. I actually think there are many good things in the Christian religion, and certain interpretations of the Bible are very respectable. There are many other interpretations of the Bible, that yes I would say are stupid. I have read and agreed with enough of your posts before to assume you would probably feel the same way. My assumption from everything I have read from you tells me that you probably would probably not be too keen on the way Pat Robertson interprets the Bible for example.

We probably agree on this issue more than we disagree.

[GreenPartyVoter]

38. No, no. I wasn't feeling bothered by your posts at all. *hugs* As I said, thoughtful

statements aren't the problem for me so much as name-calling.

[smoogatz]

26. Yep. "Intellectual bigotry" is an oxymoron; all ideas are not created equal.

In fact, many ideas are inherently stupid and destructive. Learning to articulate the difference between good ideas and bad ideas (i.e., critical thinking) is a vital human skill, and one that's currently in hideously short supply. In fact, I got called a bigot right here on DU today for questioning one of the tenets of high Dworkianism: i.e., that thong underwear make women stupid. Or something.

[jpgray]

40. The problem is you can't reliably tie all members of a diverse group to one set of ideas

Unless the group is very small and membership is tightly and centrally regulated. All major religions fall under that exception. Ethnic/gender groups absolutely do, as no one has any choice in their membership. As far as the professed ideas of diverse groups like major religions, you can attack the ideas, and attack those who espouse them either singly or all at once. You can't however attack all members of the group without some qualification, or you will be misunderstood and will likely offend.

[ulysses]

21. fair enough. my concern is practical.

I'm not concerned about Christianity at the societal level. It can take care of itself or not, I'm not especially worried. I worry about two things.

1. The alienation of progressives who happen to be Christians, and who often as not engage in activism on important issues *because of* their faith.

2. The dilution of progressive attention and activism in a quixotic effort to destroy Christianity. We just don't have the strength to do both what's needed and end adherence to a 2,000 year old religion both.

[jpgray]

29. People tend to allow their beefs to become overly generalized

Granted being overly specific is anathema to the marketing of ideas. "Republicans are scum" in a perfect world needs a lot of qualification. Olympia Snowe is not scum on the same level as someone like Dick Cheney, for example. Yet in that case the meaning is generally understood. When people here say something like "the Democrats are complicit traitors," that pisses me off, because I don't view someone like Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich to be particularly traitorous or complicit. Yet pointing that out will net responses like "well of course I don't mean -those- Democrats." To your concerns, similarly, someone would say "well of course I don't mean -those- Christians." People who make such broad brush condemnations of diverse groups tend to take that a little too much for granted, I think.

I'm not saying people have to be ridiculously specific, but leveling invective against such a broad, diverse group without any qualification is just not acceptable. It will piss off everyone who doesn't already think like the person making the argument, and what good does that do if you're trying to get your idea out there? Controversy is a valid tool of activism, up to the point it actively alienates the very people you aim to convince.

[ulysses]

34. the problem as I see it

is that this:

Yet pointing that out will net responses like "well of course I don't mean -those- Democrats."

doesn't usually happen when liberal or mainstream Christians are included in the broad brush. The flip side of what *does* seem to usually happen is that it would be demanded of Feingold that he take back the Democratic party from those who *are* traitorous/complicit or renounce his party affiliation.

[jpgray]

41. That's an unrealistic expectation. Dogmatic adherence or renunciation aren't the only options

But internet debates tend to make these sorts of things absolute.

[LaurenG]

22. I think you're talking about fanatics.

Religiosity is hard to stand but most Christians I know aren't whack job fanatics.

[windoe]

24. 'Christian oppression' meme

seems to have been created so that this religion can dominate the public arena even further than it has already. They are not oppressed! Anyone who complains about bible study requirements in public schools, in the military, or in the White House, or praying at sports events may as well be declaring themselves a communist.
The most fundamentalist interpretations of all religions have been artificially created to be used as tools of control. By getting caught up in this artificially created indignation is to allow ourselves to be manipulated.
First the schools have been dumbed down, vast amounts of federal funds have been channelled into these conservative values organizations, the economy is ready to tank, so what will happen---inevitably more end times nuts will be on the loose, bringing along the most intolerant and ignorant ideas.
Progressives must push for more education, more philosophy, arts and humanities, history and cultural studies, not just math & science. We need a well rounded education to start with. Work to open some minds!!

[knitter4democracy]

58. We're not the ones crying oppression.

In the last few days, there have been a lot of nasty posts, so that's what we're a bit flustered about. Overall, though, I've never met a liberal Christian who feels oppressed in society or by court rulings or anything like that.

[Cha]

27. It's not the Christianity..

it's the hypocricy. I know lots of Christians who are real and don't support the bushites or their nasty War On Iraq..we get along.

The ones who preach Christ but also condone bloodshed and worshipping a monkey..not so much.

[smoogatz]

30. I have no problem with people who practice the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

It's Paullian-Leviticans I can't stand. I also dislike theocrats of any stripe. Millenialists scare the crap out of me, and violent fundamentalists in all flavors ought to be stranded on desert islands whenever possible.

[jpgray]

32. There are no Paullian-Leviticans either, unless they're very selective

But you're right, and that's the whole point. Some specificity is required in these condemnations when they are targeting such a broad group. "Are you including Desmond Tutu when you say Christians are bigots?" is a common question when people say Christians are bigoted. Usually the answer is "of course not," because it is obvious to the person making the attack, but to those who hear it the meaning is rarely so obvious. Particularly when so many people with wildly different ideologies identify as Christian.

[smoogatz]

48. Sure there are. Most people who identify as "Christian conservatives"

are actually Paullian-Leviticans. They're interested in the life of Christ (the crucifixion makes their nipples hard), but they despise his teachings—all that commie love they enemy and sell they belongings stuff. They follow the stern, misanthropic teachings of Paul instead; and where Paul offers no criticism of people they don't like they fall back on the Old Testament. Because it's all the literally true Word of God, except for the parts that aren't anymore.

[jpgray]

49. What I mean is they still wear poly-blends, have a shrimp or two, etc.

It's -still- a matter of personal interpretation and is not as wholly dogmatic as such a definition would make it appear. Even among such conservatives, I imagine you'd find some variation that would surprise you.

[smoogatz]

51. What always surprises me is the uniformity of belief, to be honest.

There are specific verses from Paul and Leviticus that are more gospel to Christian conservatives than the Gospels. You never catch them quoting from the beatitudes, hardly—but that business about homosexuality being an abomination? They can all recite it chapter and verse. Seriously, I've known a lot of fundie whackos (had a fundie girlfriend for six years, back in the day); there's some variation, sure, but in general their beliefs are stunningly similar.

[jpgray]

52. They can't even hold effectively to the ten commandments. Let alone all Leviticus or Paul doctrine

I guess what I'm saying is it's always good to be aware of the exceptions in a group, and not to allow oneself to rest easy in a stereotype. Now, you can't constrain yourself to the point where you have to rattle off whole paragraphs of qualifiers just to say you disagree with a group, but you can be at least a -little- bit specific. Having a problem with their weird adherence to some statutes and not others is one fair criticism, saying "all Paulian-Leviticans are scum" is less acceptable. Does that make any sense?

:dunce:

[smoogatz]

55. Sure. And you're right--they're wildly selective in the verses they tend to

focus on (though I think certain Jewish sects come pretty close to observing all of Old Testament law). And I don't think they're all scum, any more than I think all racists or anti-semites are entirely, irredeemably evil. A lot of what passes for fundie thought is really just a reaction to economic vulnerability and underclass competition mixed with a kind of enforced ignorance of the larger world.

[Deja Q]

39. Or bigotry against a person in a group by others in the same group.

[Withywindle]

42. Here's the thing about proselytizing, and why people find it offensive.

Just the act of saying "I believe my religion is superior to yours (or your lack of religion) and you should convert to mine" is a BIGOTED statement, is it not?

Well, that's what proselytizing IS, no matter how politely you phrase it. It is simply saying, "I have the truth about God and the afterlife and you don't."

There's simply no way to do this without BIGOTRY, since matters of faith cannot be proven.

So any sect, denomination, or faith that has evangelism, witnessing, or whatever they call it as a central tenet of their beliefs, IS in fact opening themselves to charges of bigotry that are not in the least bit unreasonable.

Am I bigoted against people who tell me I'm going to hell unless I convert to their reality? Yup. You betcha. Sorry, but that's not gonna change.

Consider it a clash of the bigotries, if you will. But as long as Christians are the overwhelming majority of the population and hold nearly all the political power, I'm not gonna shed tears for them.

[jpgray]

43. Hold on a moment. Comparing groups' ideas or ethics and siding with one oer the other isn't bigotry

What's bigoted in your proselytizing example is the converter assuming prima facie that the would-be convert is an adherent to all the ideology of his/her organization, has never considered the other options, or in simple terms is not a person but a stereotype, based solely on affiliation.

You and I would have no problem arguing that the ideology of Republicans is far worse than the ideology of Democrats. Going up to a random person and belittling their party's beliefs while praising our own without any consideration of that person's individuality, however, would not be acceptable whatever the person's party affiliation. Having a problem with a diverse organization's views, as expressed by the leadership, is not bigotry. Assuming all members of that organization hold 100% to all those views is less acceptable. Your proselytizing example violates the second part of that in my estimation. What do you think?

[Withywindle]

44. Well, I see your point, but

The belief I find offensive IS "your religion is inferior to mine." Someone proselytizing to me has, by definition, expressed that belief. I don't need to know how many OTHER ideas they have that I find repulsive to want that person out of my face.

I know very well that there are many Christians who are wonderful individuals, and some whom I agree with on just about every other issue.

But if they want me to change over to their religion, and persist in trying to get me to do so, that's bigotry! No way around it. They can be a great individual otherwise, but there's no denying that flaw is there. That's all I'm saying. Just about everybody's a bigot about something, I suppose.

[jpgray]

47. In this case "inferior" as a term is a bit subjective and belligerent. It's not a word I would use

Because it's in the eye of the beholder, and can't be held up to any impartial tests. I imagine the leaders of all major religions believe their beliefs superior to any others, and obviously they can't all be objectively right. For each person, however, that probably holds true. To use a political example I'd bet Pinochet was quite sure his gov't was superior to the one that came before. And for -him- it inarguably was. :P So yes, I'd say arguing one's religion is inherently or objectively -superior- is fairly bigoted, since it's such a personal matter. Arguing that certain beliefs or practices are dangerous or damaging is much better, since that is far less subjective and personal. Confusing, but I think that's where I'm at.

[Withywindle]

53. Yeah, I agree, mostly.

I'm really not sure if my attitude is actually bigotry or just emphatic disagreement with an idea.

There are religions that don't proselytize, though. I'm Pagan and we generally believe there are many paths to the truth and there's no one religion that could be possibly be the best one for EVERYBODY. We're big into biodiversity. Jews don't proselytize and if you want to convert, you have to prove you're serious! Those are just a couple of examples.

[LittleClarkie]

46. I've met at least one person here who was actually proud of his bigotry

Guilty as charged he said, and he didn't see a problem. I've never met someone before who was proud to be a bigot.

But I see what you're saying, and appreciate your thoughtful, civil OP.

[Guaranteed]

50. Think even broader.

Acting like that plays into their ideological war. It's exactly what fundamentalists want.

Don't fan the flames.

[hyphenate]

54. I don't consider my deep seated hatred

of the religious right to be bigotry--I consider it to be a form of self-defense. If I wanted to kill a member of the religious right, because they were right and I knew it, that might be bigotry. No, I want their GOD to kill them because they're wrong. That's all. I'll be happy to sign the papers for an early rapture, even. I just want them to all go away so we can party when they're gone. :)

[Arugula Latte]

57. Then we can take their stuff ... But who wants Thomas Kinkade crap?

Not I. :)

[hyphenate]

60. I certainly don't, either

but I'm sure his agent might want them to sell on eBay or something. Lots of people out there who don't have any apparent taste in art. You know--the kind who buy velvet Elvises or poker-playing dogs. ;)

[kineneb]

68. or crocheted toilet paper roll covers?

which for some reason seem to go with the T.Kinkade pix.

[Arugula Latte]

77. Ha ha. My grandma gave us one of those when I was a kid.

It had a creepy-looking faux-Barbie doll wearing a full-skirted crocheted dress. You stuck the doll's legs down in the t.p. hole, and the skirt covered the role. :scared:

[cgrindley]

59. All religions are fucking stupid

if people think that being rigorously criticized for deliberately believing in childish bullshit is bigotry, they need to grow the fuck up. Seriously. Religion is damnably dumb and has hurt the world immeasurably with thousands and thousands of years of terrible crimes against every conceivable facet of human rights.

[ileus]

63. Preach it to 'em...that's the spirit...LOL

[CT_Progressive]

71. w0rd