Now those may be pretty glib definitions, but they basically hit the point. So, when someone automatically dismisses Americans as "ignorant", "arrogant" or "imperialistic", that would be a bigoted statement, right?

I'm starting to feel like that third one is a shot at me...

The thing is, I have no problem with Americans in general. However, the foreign policy of America over the last 60 years in particular has been imperialistic. It's like saying Nazi Germany committed war crimes. It's a part of history. You can't whitewash it or ignore it. The only difference is that the imperialism in still going on.

I don't fault the general American population. I blame the leaders, both Democrat and Republican. It is just so easy for the elite to get people to believe the Bright Shining Lie and shun the ugly truth, and so easy for them to use it to their advantage.

So by criticizing US foreign policy, am I some sort of bigot?

"Why is it right for a black man to be upset when someone says "I hate niggers", but not reasonable for a fundamentalist Christian to take umbrage with the statement that "I hate fundamentalist Christians"?"

Let me see if I can explain this. Do you consider being called a fundamentalist Christian derogatory? I would imagine that most black people do when called "nigger".

Besides...it's not you we hate....just your ideology....just as you hate ours.

Let me see if I can explain this. Do you consider being called a fundamentalist Christian derogatory? I would imagine that most black people do when called "nigger". Besides...it's not you we hate....just your ideology....just as you hate ours.

Oh, ok, so all the klansmen need to do is say "I hate people of color" rather than "Nigger", and it's no longer prejudice? Sorry, jay, don't buy it.

And no, I do not hate your ideology. I differ with it, I respect it, but I do not hate it. And the respondent in question did NOT say he hated "the IDEOLOGY" of fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and Jews, but that he hated Christians, Muslims and Jews. HUGE difference.

I'm starting to feel like that third one is a shot at me...

Not at all, latour. You're hardly the only one levelling that charge.

And yes, much of the label falls on the right as well. But there's a big difference. The left clamors for acceptance of every pet cause of theirs while expressing absolute intolerance for the right. When someone publicly expresses a universal hatred for fundamentalist Jews, Muslims and Christians without knowing the individual while seeking tolerance for homosexuals, etc, that's bigotry, plain and simple.

 

When someone publicly expresses a universal hatred for fundamentalist Jews, Muslims and Christians without knowing the individual while seeking tolerance for homosexuals, etc, that's bigotry, plain and simple.

Fundamentalist religious people don't have much tolerance for homosexuals.

When a lot of religious people stop believing that a burn on a taco shell is the image of Jesus, or that a stain on the wall of a freeway underpass is the image of the Virgin Mary, or when religious parents stop allowing their terminally ill children to die because the only thing they did for the child was pray instead of taking him or her to a doctor or hospital, I'll stop hating them.

When a lot of religious people stop believing that a burn on a taco shell is the image of Jesus, or that a stain on the wall of a freeway underpass is the image of the Virgin Mary, or when religious parents stop allowing their terminally ill children to die because the only thing they did for the child was pray instead of taking him or her to a doctor or hospital, I'll stop hating them.

Funny, I'm a conservative Christian and did neither of those things. So you hate me because of a well crafted stereotype that actually only fits a MINORITY of fundamentalist Christians (OK, so 5,000 Catholics flock to see the Jesus piss stain...what about the millions who didn't...as for denying medical treatment, one, you usually don't have the whole story, tow, only a SMALL MINORITY of Christian sects believe in denying routine medical treatment...again, your allegations against conservative Christians don't stand up to the facts).

Hatred is hatred, and bigotry is bigotry, and it will never end when the group advocating for the end of bigotry is guilty of perpetrating bigotry themselves. Perhaps a better solution would be to realize that we all have areas of prejudice and bigotry, as myrr's article (linked in response #1) points out, and to do the best we can to not allow our prejudices to color our actions towards others.

Example: I do not condone or accept the homosexual lifestyle. But I think what happened to Matthew Shepard was appalling and would never support, implicitly, or otherwise, actions against homosexuals for living life as they choose.

I did say A LOT OF religious people.

it will never end

Exactly. Nobody's perfect.

Do you really think Davis would have just packed up and gone home after defeating and securing the North? Possibly. Also, didn't Davis attack first

--Davis was a lunatic in a sane mans body,IMO, if you read about him, i mean really read about him, you can see that he was and could've been an american "hitler"...the only fact was that he was restrained by possible revolt...and politics in the south...

when religious parents stop allowing their terminally ill children to die because the only thing they did for the child was pray instead of taking him or her to a doctor or hospital, I'll stop hating them

--I really don't care if a "miracle" image,etc...appeared...as for the parents, arn't you being intolerant of their beliefs...hmmm?

as for the parents, arn't you being intolerant of their beliefs...hmmm?

Yes. I would rather the children be helped every way possible. Refusing them medical treatment is stupid and cruel.

Yes. I would rather the children be helped every way possible. Refusing them medical treatment is stupid and cruel

--Well then, i guess it means that to believe what you beleive in, means that you'll be intolerant to what some others beleive in...(in some cases)

When a lot of religious people stop believing that a burn on a taco shell is the image of Jesus, or that a stain on the wall of a freeway underpass is the image of the Virgin Mary, or when religious parents stop allowing their terminally ill children to die because the only thing they did for the child was pray instead of taking him or her to a doctor or hospital, I'll stop hating them.

And therein lies the difference. While I do not believe homosexuality is moral or correct, I don't hate homosexuals. While you hold these obviously intolerant and hate-filled views of me, I don't hate you.
Who is really the intolerant one here? The liberal who espouses tolerance, or the Christian?
You dislike the idea of religion and religious people. Fine, that's your right. But instead of accepting it as a fact of life for many people, you must go beyond that and spew venomous hatred toward them (and me since I'm a Christian). That steps far beyond the bounds of tolerance, don't you think? Kinda takes away any credibility when you say people should tolerate someone else.

you are just another brick in the liberal wall.

Is it partisan to point out that there are failures on both sides of the aisle? Mr. Mod, you pointed out religious intolerance of one side. I brought attention to the other.

There is something far more simple here, which is that neither political side is free of party faithful who are bigots of one sort or another. Our discussions shouldn't be finger pointing matches where each side points out the shared flaws of the opponent.

We should be looking at the shared problem itself and what we can do to fix the problem.

Well then, i guess it means that to believe what you beleive in, means that you'll be intolerant to what some others beleive in...(in some cases)

If their beliefs worked and the children were saved (physically, not spiritually), that would be different.

You dislike the idea of religion and religious people. Fine, that's your right. But instead of accepting it as a fact of life for many people, you must go beyond that and spew venomous hatred toward them (and me since I'm a Christian). That steps far beyond the bounds of tolerance, don't you think? Kinda takes away any credibility when you say people should tolerate someone else.

If you're saying there's nothing wrong with people having faith in those so-called "visions" because it helps them, I think you're missing an important point. Those "visions" are not authentic. They have rational, scientific explanations, but the people who believe them refuse to hear those explanations. They are not the same as the visions at Fatima, Lourdes, etc. I think they could be called false idols. I'm fed up with the stupidity and blindness of many religious people. If you're not one of them, fine.

Our discussions shouldn't be finger pointing matches where each side points out the shared flaws of the opponent.

--IMO they are not...both sides (some more...seriously than others) are pointing out to the other that there are those type on the other side,to make them realize it...unfortunatlry ,realizing, isn't part of polotics...

If you're saying there's nothing wrong with people having faith in those so-called "visions" because it helps them, I think you're missing an important point. Those "visions" are not authentic. They have rational, scientific explanations, but the people who believe them refuse to hear those explanations. They are not the same as the visions at Fatima, Lourdes, etc. I think they could be called false idols. I'm fed up with the stupidity and blindness of many religious people. If you're not one of them, fine

--"They" as in the scientists, because what do you do about those scientifically unexplained things, what about those people on their deathbeds who miracuously are cured/healthy...and yet doctors can't explain it...hmmm? Just wondering...

Why is it right for a black man to be upset

no matter how intrinsic you may feel your beliefs to be, unless you wear some special garments identified with your religion or display a symbol that's so visible people see it before they see your features, theres a distinct difference. especially since you can remove your garb and the symbols.

... but not reasonable for a fundamentalist Christian to take umbrage with the statement that "I hate fundamentalist Christians"?

It's not a question of 'reasonable', it's a question of what their faith calls them to do.

You see, western culture for better or worse (a bit of both) has been moulded by Christian beliefs (other beliefs to, but Christian beliefs most of all). This means that there are some for whom Christianity is their religion, (their spiritual path, guide to good living and moral compass) and then there are 'cultural christians' (ie those who make no serious attempt to follow the message of Jesus, but simply identify from a conservative standpoint with the western heritage of which Christianity is so big a part.

For the religious Christian the answer is clear: very hard, but very clear. "Bless those who curse you, do good to those you hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you that you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 5:44-45).

However, what the cultural christian can do about the problem I have no idea. It seems a very odd thing to me to try to distill a faith's moral teaching for a political purpose while ignoring its mystical dimension.

no matter how intrinsic you may feel your beliefs to be, unless you wear some special garments identified with your religion or display a symbol that's so visible people see it before they see your features, theres a distinct difference. especially since you can remove your garb and the symbols.

Kingbee,

I hate to say it, but this answer is pretty full of shit. The question is rhetorical; a fundamentalist Christian IS just as justified as a black man in taking offense when someone states an outright hatred for their faith.

And I have news for you. While the "garb" of fundamentalist Christians may not have a label denoting it as such, I can pick "fundies" out of almost ANY crowd by their manner of dress, etc. So yes, they ARE pretty readily identifiable.

Myrrander elaborated nicely on this piece in his thread, linked in the first response (Because he can't respond directly, I have no problem "promoting" the article here), when he pointed out we're basically all bigots. My point is the ones decrying the bigotry of others are outright hypocrites because they're denying others the rights to actions they themselves commit.

a fundamentalist Christian IS just as justified as a black man in taking offense when someone states an outright hatred for their faith.

So being black is a faith?

lol...poor grammar, sorry icono...but I KNOW you get my point, so I won't fix it.

this answer is pretty full of shit

in keeping with the assumptions upon which the article is based. 

your definition of bigotry is glib indeed, and seriously erodes the weight of the word.  bigotry is not merely dislike nor is it any part of disagreement with a philosophic concept.  it is extreme and irrational hatred rooted in the unwarranted assumption of prejudice. prejudice, however, is potentially refutable thru argument, bigotry persists in spite of evidence.

furthermore, you also seem to be trivializing hatred in your comparison.  fundamentalist christians have never been legally classified as subhumans in this country...nor have they been relegated to second-class citizenship.  there is no comparitive anti-christian slur.  there are black fundamentalists who are reviled by white fundamentalists as well as white non-believers not for their faith but for their parentage.  

while you may feel yourself able to discern members of a particular faith by some sort of 'fundie' uniform, i've got no idea what you're talking about nor do i believe most people share that talent.  if i were to grow a full beard and don the kind of clothing worn by mennonites or the amish, i might be able to pass myself off as a member of their community and any white fundamentalist can merely change clothes (if youre correct) as well. i doubt many black people could do something equally simple and be welcomed to worship at the world church of the creator or any other white supremacist congregation.

despite the title and the argument you put forth in this article, your issue isn't left-wing bigotry but what you perceive as greater support of your christian belief by those on the right.  there is no monolithic right nor left.  there is no left-wing cabal of christian haters.  nor is there anything about american right wing politics that makes the right essentially any more faith-friendly than the left.  at the moment there is an alliance between fundamentalists and republicans but it's a union of quid pro quo & convenience rather than ideology.  the closest analog would be democrats and blue collar union members.

the political voice which comes closest to expressing my personal view on religion's role in politics belonged to barry goldwater.

a fundamentalist Christian IS just as justified as a black man in taking offense when someone states an outright hatred for their faith.

Not according to Jesus. But a cultural christian does have that right.

fundamentalist christians have never been legally classified as subhumans in this country...nor have they been relegated to second-class citizenship.

kingbee,

Actually, it's seriously headed in that direction. Churches are being closely monitored as to what is said from the pulpit...if the wrong words are uttered, there's a push to remove their tax exempt status (personally, I think churches should surrender their tax exempt status over the whole "God/mammon" thing, but that's another article and a fight I can't win). School districts are allowing the teaching of new age philosophies and in some districts the religion of Islam, but the minute any serious discussion of Christianity is perceived to be "converting", you have a whole lot of pissed off people. Frankly, I stand with you in agreeing that religion shouldn't be taught in public schools, but there's a big difference in teaching it and discussing it, or allowing open expression of it by students in the school (and, yes, I don't give a shit if it's a pentagram...if that's the student's faith, they have the right to wear it in the school building or otherwise).

And yes, we have also been relegated to second class citizenship. Christians who homeschool their children, for instance, are subject to a disproportionate amount of CPS scrutiny, and newsmagazine shows have introduced shows that insinuate that Christians homeschool to hide child abuse. As a person who's been on the receiving end of these allegations, I can assure you, we ARE treated as second class citizens.

Call for a Disney, Kraft, or Ford boycott because they support causes contrary to your values? Watch the articles fly branding you a bigot and alleging that you're a part of the KKK. Argue against a sex ed course that strongly pushes homosexual values? Sit back and watch the fur fly. I don't mind open discussion, king, but it's headed in one direction, and repeatedly refuses to respect the Constitutional rights of fundamentalist Christians.

To go further; ever read stories about Christian Scientists being setnenced to prison for murder because they dared believe that faith could heal their child? What about the Texas family whose daughter was removed because the parents differed with the doctor over cancer treatment? Or how about levelling Koresh's compound in Waco with incendiary devices and posthumously accusing him of burning his own people? Or shooting Randy Weaver's son IN THE BACK because Weaver wouldn't rat out his sources for his illegal firearms shipments? While many of these are extreme examples, and not groups I would personally be a part of, they nonetheless held a form of Christian belief...and the persecution that followed from the government was a direct result of that belief.

So don't tell me Christians aren't second class citizens. I can read the news and see otherwise.