Q: Has everyone agreed that all religious people opposed to gays = bigots?

[sampsonblk]

It sounds like that's where everyone is lining up on this issue.

[tekisui]

1. I think ANYone "opposed to gays"= bigot.

[helderheid]

85. Well said.

[King Coal]

94. All they have to do is tolerate them, and they're off the hook.

[Richard Steele]

2. "Opposed to gays" = BIGOT, by definition. Religion is irrelevant to the equation. nm

[Karenina]

100. Religious bigotry?

That is how I've always referred to it. Works for me. :shrug:

[atreides1]

3. If the shoe fits?

Bigot:

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

[Dhalgren]

4. It really has nothing to do with religion. The bigots just use their religion

as a shield. The Nazis were anti-Gay, so are the Ku Klux Klan. Anyone who would deny human/civil/equal rights to anyone because of his/her sexuality is a bigot - regardless of the excuse the use to justify it. I know of several Christians who are strong supporters of equal rights for GLBT...

[Canuckistanian]

140. Exactly. Religion used as a smokescreen

I wouldn't be surprised if homophobes joined fundie churches solely because of their view of homosexuality.

But then again, there are other added benefits for bigots such as xenophobia, self-righteousness, misogyny and many, many career paths.

[Deep13]

159. respectfully disagree.

When I was in high school in the 1980s I was sympathetic to gays (the main issue then was employment discrimination) and to feminism. After I became increasingly interested in Christianity and the Bible I changed my mind. The NT says that homosexual men anyway are evil and that women are meant to be inferior to men socially. I made myself disregard the reasonable position in order to accept the religiously correct point of view.

I am not alone on this. Religion drills nonsensical things into people's heads all the time. This is what is meant when one says that making good people do evil things requires religion.

[soleft]

5. Opposed to gays = bigots regardless of the reason

[iconoclastic cat]

6. Is there any rational argument claiming they aren't bigots?

And where exactly are you coming from? Is "opposition" to gays anything but bigotry, ever?

[southpaw]

10. No 'Rational' agument...

but there are certainly those who would give anti-gay bigots a pass if they claim their intolerance is based on their faith.

One of many ways in which detrimental idiocy is exempt from criticism when it is claimed as a religious belief.

[ellacott]

13. The next question might be

What is your definition of intolerance?

[iconoclastic cat]

I don't know about his, but mine falls under the following standard:

If a person claims that someone else is inferior/evil/tainted based on a subjective opinion, they're intolerant.

[ellacott]

36. That's a good definition n/t

[stirlingsliver]

65. Then I'm An Intolerant Bigot

"If a person claims that someone else is inferior/evil/tainted based on a subjective opinion, they're intolerant."

I think the following people are inferior/evil/tainted. It's just my subjective opinion:

George Bush, Sr.
Barbara Bush
George Bush, Jr.
Laura Bush
Dick Cheney
Lynne Cheney
Condoleeza Rice
Rush Limbaugh
Most of the Republican Party.
Pope Benedict XVI
Most of the Catholic Cardinals
Most of the Catholc Bishops

[iconoclastic cat]

71. Well, if you actually think they're all inferior to you, etc.,

then I would submit that you are using hyperbole or simply not defining your position correctly. I would venture to guess that it is the actions and policies of those people whom you have listed which causes you to be opposed to them. I doubt you actually think that any of them are literally inferior, evil, or tainted.

[stirlingsliver]

77. I Believe (It Is Just My Own Opinion) That They ALL Are Inferior

I'll thank you not to tell me when I am using hyperbole.

I do, in fact, believe that all the people I listed are inferior to me. They are not as bright or as moral or as compassionate as I am.

I do, in fact, think that all of those people are evil. When I look at them, I see nothing but evil.

And I do, in fact, think that all of those people are tainted.

And it is, in part, their actions (along with what they say) that leads me to believe that those people are evil, inferior, and tainted. I believe they would not act they way they do or speak the way they do unless they were evil, inferior, and tainted.

I am totally intolerant about this.

[Guaranteed]

135. A subjective opinion?

Aren't all opinions subjective?

Maybe you could clarify.

[southpaw]

19. And the question after that might be...

Will spiltting hairs over the meaning of the word 'intolerance' really serve to further this discussion?


Re-read my post and replace the offending word with the word 'bigotry' and see if that feels better.

[ellacott]

35. Actually it would have

If you sincerely did want to further the discussion.

[iconoclastic cat]

14. Don't forget insanity! That's excused too. nt

[AndyA]

7. Religious people don't judge others.

They accept them, and love them for who they are.

Anyone who does not do that is not truly religious, unless their particular "religion" promotes hatred.

[iconoclastic cat]

9. Oh yeah? Well, *you're* intolerant of bigots! So there!

[Toasterlad]

29. Sorry.

Religion by nature is all about "judging". Religion sets up a code that its members are to follow in order to be "good". Anyone who does not follow that code is therefore "bad". The system is inherently judgmental. Ideology leads to superiority. That is were all the justification for every holy war that has ever been fought comes from. Any religion can have (and lots DO) a precept that "no one is better than anyone else", but that inevitably gets tossed out the window when one is confronted by someone acting contrary to their doctrine.

You can be a "good" person and be religious, but if you take your religion too seriously, it leads you to automatically devalue the creeds of others.

[SidDithers]

31. Religious people also do judge others...

and hate them for what they are.

And they are just as sure about the "correctness" of their beliefs as you are about yours.

Religious people are no better or worse than anyone else.

Sid

[AndyA]

42. There's another term for that: HYPOCRITES

I don't know of any accepted religion that promotes hatred, intolerance, bigotry, etc., of others. But I'm just talking about the big ones: Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc.

They can all believe what they want, but the words they are supposed to be guided by are there for them to see in black and white, so if they ignore them and make exceptions for themselves, they are hypocrites.

The problem is with the hypocrites, not the ones who try to do as they've been taught by their faith, whatever it may be.

[SidDithers]

151. But the ones that do hate and are intolerant...

like Phelps and Robertson and Swaggart and Dobson are just as convinced that they're correct as you are. And they sure as hell think that you're the false christian for not believing as they do.

And as far as I'm concerned, you're all christians. Some of you might be good people, and others not so much.

Sid

[gollygee]

34. "No True Scotsman" fallacy

which always comes up in these threads.

Certainly not all religious people are bigots. But some are.

[yardwork]

8. What does religion have to do with this?

Are you suggesting that bigotry isn't really bigotry if the bigot claims to find justification for their bigotry somewhere in a text?

People justified slavery and Jim Crow on the basis of Biblical passages. People justified the Holocaust on the basis of Biblical passages.

[NC_Nurse]

11. Opposed to gays = bigots.

Period, no matter what the reason.

Religion can be used to justify ANYTHING. In fact, lots of pedophiles, wife-beaters,
and terrorists base their CRIMES on their religious beliefs. They are still criminals.

[libnnc]

20. The Southern planter elite used religion to justify slavery

way back when.

You're right. Ain't no rocket science to it. Opposed to gays = bigots.

[The Traveler]

12. There is nothing in Christianity

that requires "opposition to gays". Like usery (lending money for interest), homosexuality is regarded as a sin in the scriptures, but just as Jesus redeems bankers we may presume Jesus redeems also gays. Of course, the New Testament spends relatively little time on these matters and as near as I can determine mentions abortion not at all. On the other hand, it dwells mightily on subjects like taking care of the poor, living a loving life, mental discipline, stuff like that. The "religious right" might find themselves well served by pondering the above observations.

Opposition to gays is bigotry. The Christian path requires no particular response to another's homosexuality and cannot be used to justify the outrage of so-called Christians.

[msongs]

16. first you must presume the fairy tales and myths of the jesus cult are true at all nt

[The Traveler]

26. That is a seperate matter

The question seemed to be more a matter of "does religion (I presumed specifically Christianity) require people to oppose gays or are they just bigoted?"

I try not to insult atheists or theists. Manners go far, when congregating with folk of diverse backgrounds, beliefs, and experiences, and in the final analysis none of us can claim to be able to prove their answers on your preferred topic.

[Lex]

15. Claiming it's a part of one's religion doesn't mean it isn't bigotry.

Sorry.

[SacredCow]

17. Religion is just being used as a means to their end.....

Pick a topic, and someone who knows the bible well can probably find a passage or 2 to "prove" that said topic is an abomination unto the Lord....

A bigot is a bigot- no matter how he spins it. Anyone who uses the excuse, "I can't help it- God TOLD me to hate you," is not only a bigot, but a chickenshit to boot.

[Skinner]

18. if anyone -- religious or not -- is "opposed to gays"...

...then that person is, pretty much by definition, a bigot.

[Karenina]

103. Please edit the "pretty much."

;-)

[bryant69]

21. I think it would depend on what you meant by opposed to gays

If you mean you think it's ok to take away their civil rights, deny them jobs, persecute them, forbid them to marry, and so on, than that is the definition of bigotry.

If you believe that homosexual sex is a sin, but don't persecute them as above, that's where you get into a gray area for some. Particularly those who belong to a religion that teaches Homosexual sex is a sin, I suppose.

Bryant

[Kingshakabobo]

41. It's not a gray area. Call me a sinner for how I was born and I'll call you a bigot.

[renie408]

44. That might be a personal choice on your part.

But being bigoted means being intolerant based on sex, race, creed or sexual orientation, blah blah blah. If someone thought, based on their interpretation of the Bible, that homosexuality was a sin BUT they didn't view it any differently from any other sin, didn't discriminate against gays and didn't act intolerantly towards them, they aren't a bigot.

[Kingshakabobo]

46. If someone can't discern between how someone is born and choices.....

.....they make then they are an anti-science idiot AND a bigot.

[renie408]

52. Honestly, I am not arguing with you here.

I am going more from a straight, literal definition of 'bigot'.

I tend to think it is a tad crazy to base your beliefs about people (about ANYTHING) on a book written more than two thousand years ago when stoning was the punishment du jour.

[Karenina]

106. The King is missing your point

with which I very much agree. Many people, particularly those who have to do the multi-culti dance with the "immutables" have incredible "compartmentalization skills." If someone views homosexuality as a "sin" as they scarf down shellfish, wear mixed fibers and give those "sins" the same emozional investment, supporting CIVIL RIGHTS with a "live and let live" attitude, that person is no bigot. There ARE such.

And THIS is the reason that allowing McCloset to parade across the stage, testifying to his "persecution" during the final half-hour was SUCH an affront. It was NEVER NECESSARY to go there. Obama facilitated it and will pay the price.

[Clintonista2]

47. "I don't differentiate between sin"

Hmm, that sounds oddly familiar.

[renie408]

54. whoosh...that went right over my head.

Sorry, it doesn't sound familiar to me. Who said it?

(BTW...I don't even believe in sin. I was just going strictly by the dictionary definition of 'bigot'.)

[Clintonista2]

58. Bush said it

The impression I got from your post was, so long as we don't differentiate between "sin", it's not bigoted. IMO, that's basically giving so-called "religious" people a pass for being bigoted.

[renie408]

63. The definition of 'bigot' is:

"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

It would be possible for someone to think that homosexuality is a sin without being utterly intolerant of it. In that case, they wouldn't be a bigot. I am not giving religious people a pass. But if they feel that homosexuality is a sin based on their understanding of the Bible, that doesn't automatically make them bigots. Misguided...maybe. Bigoted...not necessarily.

[goodgd_yall]

82. I understand what you're saying, but the problem is

"Homosexuality" is not just an act, and that is why I feel very uncomfortable with those Christians who say "hate the sin, love the sinner" when it comes to gayness. I can't separate my self from my sexuality, so to condemn homosexuality is to reject and despise an important part of me.

[bryant69]

92. Yeah but throwing out a tenent of their faith is just as much a problem for them

I would think. I mean if you believe the Bible or the Old Testament or the Koran to be the word of God and you believe it teaches that Homosexuality is a sin, than abandoning that belief, well they might feel it as a betrayal of who they are.

Bryant

[Kingshakabobo]

116. Ok, show me a Christian that follows ALL the tenents EXACTLY.......

.........and MAYBE I won't call them a bigot.


I say MAYBE because I still believe you shouldn't condemn people based on a book written 2000 years ago.........but I don't think we'll get that far,.

[bryant69]

120. You should read some more on Christianity

Of course no Christian is perfect, one of the tenets of the faith is that nobody is perfect, save Jesus Christ. And in this context exactly is a synonym for perfectly.

Am I a hypocrite for believing people shouldn't lie and yet lying occasionally?

Bryant

[mondo joe]

128. If your religion tells you to believe things that are wrong and you do it, am I to

blame the religion or you?

[mondo joe]

83. I don't think that's an adequate definition.

Here's Webster's:

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

87. FWIW

From the Princeton Wordnet: Blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others. I added the bolding for emphasis. The definition clearly requires an active component.

I think the key here is how one defines "intolerant." For some people, simply holding the wrong opinion on the subject makes other people intolerant. For others, and I include myself in this group, being intolerant to gays means trying to deny basic rights -- or supporting politicians who would do so. I might not agree with your lifestyle (and I mean even be morally opposed to it), but I'm certainly not a bigot if a tolerate your lifestyle and make no effort to deny your civil rights.

I'm a true libertarian when it comes to free speech and political discourse. When it comes to people and their ideas, I'm loathe to hurl incendiary language because it causes civil debate to come to a screeching halt. If you hold a belief different from my own, I'm not likely to brand you as a bigot because you could, in turn, do the same to me. And then we both stop talking about the issue at hand and concentrate of proving that we're not bigots.

Not very productive or englightening.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

89. At the risk of being redundant...

All christian theology that I know of shares in the concept of original sin. So if you were born a human (gay or straight) then you are, in fact, a sinner for how you were born.

[Kingshakabobo]

101. But that has nothing to do with SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATING a person.....

.......as a sinner for HOW they were born. Your sentence makes more sense if you change it to how it should read - "for being born." Not "how" you were born. Otherwise, it appears you are trying to shoehorn the two definitions in to the same box. They are completely different.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

105. Elsewhere on this thread...

I noted that my beef with conservative Christians is that they act as though being gay is somehow a worse sin than any other. The Bible has some pretty horrid things to say about divorce, but nobody among the fundies is pushing a "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would prohibit divorcees from getting remarried.

So you're correct that it's a purely semantic quibble. Born gay or born straight -- you're a sinner. If you still living and you're gay or you're straight, you're still a sinner. But being gay is not a sin qualitatively worse than any other.

That being said, let me say that I don't believe that gayness is a sin at all. Taken in their socio-historical context, the Bible's teaching about homosexuality is somewhat less-than-conclusive. And as a pastor of mine once pointed out, Jesus makes literally hundreds of statements about the Christian's reponsiblity to the weak and the helpless, but not a single word on the subject of gays.

Priorities, people! Priorities!

[Bluerthanblue]

144. doesn't the bible say that ALL are sinners??? ALL have sinned and

fall short of the glory of god?

There is no singling out anyone- simply existing makes people sinners according to the bible-

I fully understand the hatred and oppression that some 'religious' groups direct towards LGBT people. And it is not acceptable or defensible.

There is no 'sin-scale' in the bible.

I agree with your understanding on how people are using the bible to push personal agendas. I don't believe that being gay is in any way a 'sin'-

And I agree with your pastor who wisely points out the many people who claim a desire to be 'good christians' can walk the talk- not by telling others how to live their lives, but by actually helping others- in tangible ways. Food, clothing, shelter- equality etc.

peace~

[bryant69]

91. Fair enough - I will note that I mentioned the act rather than the state though

Heterosexual sex outside of marriage or even masturbation are considered sins by many religions.

But I guess that's a fine distinction.

Bryant

[LanternWaste]

22. I may have missed a previous thread...

I may have missed a previous thread, but it seems to me the question, "Has everyone agreed that all religious people opposed to gays = bigots?" would be more apt, more encompassing and more pointed if worded, "Has everyone agreed that people opposed to gays = bigots?"

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

23. Define the term "opposed to gays"

You might believe that homosexuality is not normal or natural or whatever. But at the same time you might have a live and let live attitude on the subject. In other words, a person might believe, "It's not normal, but it's no skin off my nose. Do what you want."

Is that "opposed to gays?" because I can see someone with libertarian leanings holding that belief.

[sampsonblk]

30. 'Believes gay sex is a sin, but doesn't support discrimination'-nt

[renie408]

38. In that case, then no, they probably aren't a bigot. My understanding of the definition

is that a bigot is someone who is intolerant of others based on...blah blah blah.

If a person felt that homosexuality was a sin and chose personally not to engage in it, but did not view homosexuals negatively and did not discriminate against them, they are not a bigot.

[iconoclastic cat]

49. But once you decide a behavior is "sin," you treat those who do it as tainted and wrong.

The problem with the OP's point, if I understand it, is that once a person has decided that his or her interpretation of their own religion dictates that another person is inferior or evil, the discrimination has begun.

[renie408]

56. You are probably right. It would take a saint

to believe something is a sin, but not to form a negative viewpoint of the people who engage in said sin.


And from what I can tell, saints are pretty thin on the ground.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

67. If you're a Christian...

You believe that everyone is a sinner. Churches are full of them. So it doesn't follow that you treat people "differently" because they're gay.

That's been my long-standing beef with conservative Christians -- they act as though homosexuality is some kind of "special" sin that is far worse than any other. The same people who allow children to go without health care (what would the Good Samaritan say?) think that they're somehow more righteous than somebody who is gay.

So in other words, it doesn't take a saint to be tolerant of other people. We enlightened sinners are good enough.

[renie408]

68. Whaddya know?? I am NOT a Christian and I have the same beef!!

It never fails to astonish me how fundies can decide that some sins are WORSE than others. Especially since the Bible specifically says that is not the case. Where is the guy bombing divorce courts??

Christianity is the buffet religion. People wander through and fill their plates with that which suits them.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

73. I love the "buffet" analogy!

I think you're absolutely correct -- You can use the Bible to justify any sort of anti-social behavior. Slavery and bigamy, anyone? Even if you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, you have to acknowledge that it's often vague and contradictory.

Fundies believe that the Bible is some sort of Arthur Murray step-by-step guide to how they should live their lives. Even a slight degree of sophisitication in one's religious beliefs shows that their literalist views are woefully inadequate.

And if you're under fifty, I apoligize for the cryptic Arthur Murray reference.

[ellacott]

74. I have the same motto

I've often said people treat Christianity like they're at a buffet.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

40. My take on that definition...

I wouldn't necessarily call that being "opposed to gays" without further context.

If you paint me into a corner, I might say that casual sex with multiple partners (gay or straight) is a sin, but that doesn't mean that I would discriminate against a person with that lifestyle. More specifically, I would classify Bill Clinton's personal behavior (circa 1997) as sinful, but I still love the Big Dawg and thought he did a reasonably good job as President. And if it weren't for that pesky 22nd Amendment, I'd probably vote for him again.

I think a person could hold the belief that homosexuality is sinful without being bigoted against gays. And just to be clear, this isn't one of those "Doctor, I have this friend..." scenarios. I personally make no distinction between gay or straight sexuality and I fully support gay marriage. Others don't, but they respect other people's lifestyles.

[renie408]

64. What he said. n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

45. If one believes homosexuality is not "natural" they are an idiot AND a bigot.

I don't think bigotry requires an overt act....does it? They may be harmless but it doesn't make them any less of a bigot.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

69. I think part of the discussion here...

is whether a "bigot" is merely someone who holds an opinion or whether it requires an action.

And understand that you're treading on thin ice with your definition.

If anybody who believes "X" is an idiot and a bigot, then everybody is a bigot on some level or another because we all have innate prejudices of some sort and to one degree or another. And even on that level, your definition is highly subjective. Another person could accuse you of being a bigot for holding a particular belief. And then political discourse collapses into an orgy of finger-pointing because nobody wants to be labeled as a bigot.

Beyond that, if anybody and everybody is a bigot, then what do we call the guys who beat Matthew Shepard to death? Ultra-Bigots?

Obviously, my definition of a "bigot" would include a behavioral component...

[spoony]

72. I think we'd be right to call them hate criminals

Once someone acts on bigotry to hurt someone they're still a bigot--from their opinions--but also something more. There's probably a better term but I'd use hate criminal.

Just my take.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

76. What if it's not technically a crime?

What if I purposely avoid the homeless because I'm afraid of them? And I don't assist people and organizations trying to ease the problem because I believe most of them are homeless because of their own actions and irresponsibility?

Ill-informed? Definitely.
Hard-Hearted? Yeah, I'd go with that.
Criminal? Not until we start arresting people who use those return labels from Amnesty International without making a donation!

[spoony]

79. Well, I was specifically talking

about actions intended to hurt someone, but you're right that there is a range of actions based on negative opinions that aren't crimes. I'd still call it bigotry though. But I'd also agree in calling it hard-hearted and ill-informed.

Thankfully, all of those are reversible conditions.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

81. It's why I watch "A Christmas Carol" every year...

But only the 1951 Alistair Sim version.

I'm prejudiced against all the others ;)

[spoony]

86. Cheers to that :-)

[Kingshakabobo]

84. If I told you I thought less of black people, due to my religion, would I be a bigot?

I don't see where an overt action is required to call someone a bigot. A harmless bigot is still a bigot. Their ability to cause harm or not cause harm doesn't matter.

Btw, I believe that, in the real world, those opinions get acted upon - in one way or another.

The guys who killed Matthew were criminals AND bigots.

We all have our prejudices based on ignorance and inexperience. The bigot is the person who refuses to change their mind based on, among other things, "deeply held religious beliefs."

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

88. Interesting Point...

I'm thinking of the character of Archie Bunker in "All in the Family." He was prejudiced, to be sure. But was he genuinely a bigot? He managed to live next door to an African-American family without forming a lynch mob to burn them out. Despite all of his talk, he never actually did anything.

Was Archie a bigot, or was he merely prejudiced?

Or are we just wasting bandwidth on a purely semantic issue? :)

As I said in a post up-thread. I tend to be pretty live-and-let-live about people and their ideas. You want to be a racist? Go ahead and be a racist. The minute you act on your racism -- specifically to the extent that you harm somebody -- then I think your opinions become my business.

[mondo joe]

90. If you think it takes lynching someone to be a bigot, you are quite

mistaken.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

95. No, it might be something far less drastic...

If I'm a hiring manager at the local Quikie-Mart and I won't hire someone because they're not white, that's far less severe than lynching, but it's a harmful action nonetheless.

If I hold an opinion, but take no action against the target of my prejudice, am I a bigot or merely prejudiced?

[mondo joe]

96. A bigot.

Not that I see much difference.

For the record, I'm not into thought crime. I do agree that you can FEEL any way you want, but your actions are a different story.

That asid, it's not only illegal actions that constitute bigotry.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

97. I might agree with that...

My point throughout here is that beliefs might be prejudiced, but beliefs + actions are bigotry. And those actions don't have to be illegal.

Example:
If I believe that homosexuality is a sin, that's a belief. If I believe it's a sin AND attempt to curtail the civil rights of gays and lesbians, even in an entirely legal manner (i.e., passing anti-gay marriage legislation) then I've combined beliefs and actions. And I'm a bigot.

What I assume spawned this discussion is the appearance by an "anti-gay" gospel singer at a Barak Obama event. I put "anti-gay" in quotes because I don't know enough about the individual to know if he's actively opposed to gays (beliefs + actions = bigot) or if his opposition to gays is purely a matter of belief.

[Kingshakabobo]

110. So, are you saying one can HATE gay people and not be a bigot?

AS long as they don't act on it?

It's a simple question.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

138. As long as we're splitting semantic hairs...

I would say that person you described is prejudiced. Every definition of bigotry that I've seen involves a prejudiced person who acts upon his prejudice.

Prejudice: I don't trust black people. (Belief)
Bigotry: I won't hire/promote a black person at my work. (Action)

Prejudice: Homosexuality is sinful. (Belief)
Bigotry: I voted for Rick Santorum. (Action)

Whether this distinction make a dime's bit of difference in the real world could be the subject of another (equally esoteric) debate!

[Kingshakabobo]

143. What do you make of this???

Prejudice: I don't trust black people. (Belief)
?????????: I tell my kids that I don't trust black people (Action)

Prejudice: Homosexuality is sinful. (Belief)
?????????: I teach my children that homosexuality is sinful. (Action)


Unless the people you describe are deaf, mute and living on a deserted island, I don't see how people IN THE REAL WORLD don't act on their beliefs in one way or another? ESPECIALLY, people that believe gays are sinners.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

146. Yet they do all the time...

Not everybody who believes homosexuality is sinful goes out and attempts to harm gays (either directly or indirectly). I have several homophobic uncles who live in small towns across the midwest. They don't like gays and think it's sinful. But they don't do anything about it.

Here's the thin ice that you're skating on. If expressing a belief is considered an "action" that harms another person, then you've opened the door to people who want to criminalize all the wrong sorts of thinking. You're supporting the argument of the right-wingers who say that people protesting the war are "aiding and abetting" our enemies. If that's literally the case and expressing my beliefs in an "action," then opposing the war is literally and legally treasonous.

Given the behavior of the current administration, I don't think they need any help down this path.

[Kingshakabobo]

147. Nobody is talking about criminalizing anything.

We're talking about calling a bigot a bigot.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

153. You're not advocating that...

But it's a small leap -- one that some people in this county (on both the left and the right) would be all-to-willing to make. Once we establish that certain beliefs are, in and of themselves, injurious to others, then we raise the possibility of legislation that could prevent further harm.

As I've said before, maybe this is a semantic quibble not worth debating. But I would simply reserve the use of the word "bigot" for those people who have hatred in their heart AND who cause harm to those they hate.

* The landlord who won't rent to an immigrant family is a bigot.
* A manager who won't hire gays or lesbians is a bigot.
* A school superintendent who fires a teacher for his/her political beliefs is a bigot.
* The minister who fires the church secretary because she got divorced is a bigot.

If a person wants to be prejudiced, I'm willing to let that person stew in his/her fetid belief system. But when that person starts engaging in actions that cause real harm to others, then it becomes my business -- and the business of every other fair-minded person in our society.

[Kingshakabobo]

155. Don't you see you are making my argument for me?

"Once we establish that certain beliefs are, in and of themselves, injurious to others, then we raise the possibility of legislation that could prevent further harm."

Change "certain beliefs" and insert "gay lifestyle"..........and then ask yourself: WHO is trying to push legislation outlawing other people's "life style" based on religious arguments?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

160. Interesting point...

but I'm not sure if it's your argument (but to be honest, these threads get so long sometimes I'm not sure what MY argument is anymore!) ;)

Let me say that if it's wrong to legislate a lifestyle, then it would be equally wrong to legislate certain beliefs. Both restrictions would be odious, regardless of the extent to which either one is inborn or chosen.

The whole idea that being gay is not worthy of protection because it's a "choice" is ridiculous on its face. If we were a better society, the idea that homosexuality is a "choice" would be greeted with the rejoinder of "So what?" I also chose to vote Democratic in the last election, does that mean the right to my political opinions aren't protected by law?

Since when don't we have a right to make choices? Pretty ironic in a democratic society, eh?

And let's face it -- some of the people "pushing" this legislation are people like Larry Craig and Mark Foley and (probably) Mitch McConnell who are simply doing it for the sake of their own power and influence. Compared to them, I can almost respect the honest-but-horribly-misguided opinions of the religious right.

[0007]

162. Your right by the way I think. Its all in the use of language and the meaning.

linguistically speaking.

[Kingshakabobo]

114. Archie "preached" his "prejudice" to his friends, family and co-workers.

Sure, it's a TV show but surely can you see how it is virtually impossible to be "prejudiced" without acting on it in one way or another.

BTW, he also negotiated with block busters and actively campaigned to not have African Americans move in to his neighborhood - but the show always ended with a laugh track and his bigotry being thwarted so I guess that makes him just a lovable lout.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

139. Not impossible...

Everybody is prejudiced to some degree or another. I fucking hate Republicans. HATE THEM. Have I keyed the car of a neighborhood Republican? Left threatening phone messages? Beat one to a bloody pulp?

No. Although it crosses my mind occasionally.

You have prejudices, too, as does everybody reading this thread. We just don't act on them in ways that harm other people. Beliefs and actions are two different things.

[Kingshakabobo]

142. Is there anyone you HATE for their natural/genetic characteristics?

People on your side of the debate (people who think it's ok to designate gays as sinners) keep producing examples of "actions."

I think your argument would seem silly, as silly as it does to me, if you provided examples of people you hate for their genetic their characteristics.......OR for purposes of this discussion, provide examples of other people who are "sinners" for their genetic characteristics. I know it's not YOUR belief but you keep defending people's rights to point a finger at ME and call me a sinner because I won the genetic lottery. If you can sell me on how it's not bigotry to call black people "sinners" I'll believe you.



(for purposes of this discussion I am assuming homosexuality is genetic......keeping in mind other studies of, say, the mother's reaction to male hormones in her body etc. etc.)


BTW, I'm enjoying this discussion .......I hope I don't come across as accusatory or anything like that...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

149. I hate thin people who can eat anything they want

Just kidding. But not really...

Look, people hold any number of misguided, wrong-headed, and just plain stupid beliefs. And I'm sure if you scratched around long enough, you WOULD find people who think African-Americans are inherently sinful. Look at the conservatives who believe that minorities are genetically prone to criminal behavior (read Charles Murray's "The Bell Curve" for a full-length treatise on that odious subject). Just substitute the more secular-sounding "criminal" for the more theological "criminal" and there you are.

People who hold these beliefs should be confronted in a very public manner, so that their beliefs cab be held up to public scrutiny.

To bring this back to the subject at hand, that being Obama's gospel event the other night. The more I read about this McClurkin fellow, the more I believe that he's absolutely prejudiced in his views of gays. Now I don't know enough about him to say just how bad or how deep this runs, but he clearly buys into the belief that homosexuality is a choice -- which would logically lead a misguided Christian to believe that it's also sin.

Sin is all about making choices that cause us to be estranged from God.

But if gender identification is not a choice -- if you're simply born gay -- then it couldn't possibly be a sin because that's the way God made you. Perhaps rather than worry about the "sinfulness" rhetoric of conservative christians, maybe we would be better served by confronting the belief that gender identification is a choice.

[Kingshakabobo]

154. "maybe we would be better served by confronting the belief that gender identification is a choice."

I thought that's what I was doing.

Saying it's a sin or a moral failing IS saying it's a choice.

When you say people that "believe African-Americans are inherently sinful" should "be confronted in a very public manner, so that their beliefs cab be held up to public scrutiny".........do you feel the same way about people that believe gays are inherently sinful?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

156. Yes but...

You're one step ahead of yourself. As long as people believe that sexual orientation is a choice, then it follows that they'll believe it's a sin. Attacking the "sinful" angle won't be effective until they're willing to believe that it's not first a choice. One you wean them from that believe, the sin dies on the vine.

It's like changing the washers on your leaky faucet when the real problem is a burst pipe in the basement. That's not the best analogy in the world, but I think you get what I mean.

[Bluerthanblue]

161. If Mcclurken really believes that being gay is a choice-

then he can't really claim that he was "healed by God"-

Because god wouldn't be able to take away his 'free-will'- that would be something donnie would have to make his own choice to do- (if indeed it were possible).

I think he's a very sad mixed up man, who is looking to find a place where he belongs. I don't think he's found it yet. I hope he does, someday soon.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

163. I think you're right

I know that in the African American community, homophobia is a huge problem. A few years back, I was living in Cincinnati, which at the time had a human rights ordinance that specifically excluded protection for gays and lesbians. In the fight to overturn this ordinance (which was eventually successful) the anti-gay crowd was able to recruit the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth to appear in their campaign advertisements.

Rev. Shuttlesworth was one of the lions of the civil rights movement. He marched with Martin Luther King Jr. and survived at least two attempts on his life. Shuttlesworth vowed to either "kill segregation or be killed by it." He had been a tireless advocate for social justice since taking a position at Revelation Baptist Church in Cincinnati in 1961. He is a man to be admired by anyone who believes in what America ought to be.

So you can imagine how crushingly disappointed I was to see the Rev. Shuttlesworth openly advocating discrimination against gays and lesbians. But that's how powerful homophobia can be.

[IA_Seth]

24. M-W Definition:

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

-----------

One could make the argument that if someone doesn't react with hatred or intolerance they aren't - by definition - a bigot, I guess. That would probably be stretching the benefit of the doubt though, wouldn't it?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

27. A Fair Point...

As with my post above, perhaps both ends of this equation are not entirely precise.

I dislike conservatives. But I'm not about to stifle their free speech, suspend their voting rights, or burn down their houses.

[TygrBright]

25. What about NON-religious people opposed to gays? Also bigots? n/t

[sampsonblk]

28. Now THAT's an easy one-nt

[mondo joe]

53. It's the same question as yours. Religious or not is irrelevant.

[Hekate]

32. "All" is too sweeping.In many cases they are misguided people who don't yet know a loved one who is

I am a great believer in the inherent goodness of the average person (especially on a morning when I have not yet read the headlines), and in their ability to eventually change their minds when led by their hearts.

Consider the members of PFLAG, to whom "Dear Abby" refers parents who are still reeling from the coming-out of a beloved son or daughter. Consider the San Diego politician (whoever he is, can't remember just now) who although a Republican finally acknowledged the inherent right of gays to wed each other because someone he actually knew and cared about is gay.

Bigots are people who refuse to change (I don't say incapable of change) their minds or their hearts in the face of all evidence that the persons they fear and hate are as human as themselves. This transcends religion -- religion is merely a useful guise.

People can be transformed for the good through their religious beliefs and practices. Don't write all of the ignorant off in this fashion, or you become as blind as they.

Hekate

[Toasterlad]

33. As Many Others Have Said, You Don't Need to Be Religious to Be Opposed to Gays.

And ANYONE opposed to gays is a bigot. I'd like to think you already knew that. I think your REAL question is, are all religious people opposed to gays? And the answer is no. Only the fanatical ones incapable of thinking on their own.

[renie408]

37. Isn't that pretty much the definition of 'bigot'? An intolerance for someone based on race

creed or, in this case, sexual orientation?

It isn't that people here are choosing to define religious people who are intolerant of gays as bigots, the religious people themselves are doing it.

[kestrel91316]

39. It's no different than being "opposed to" lefthanders, IMHO.

Gayness does not, in ANY way, warrant persecution, discrimination, or judgementalism. Period. It is merely happenstance.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

43. One noun too many...

Persecution? Wrong. Definitely.
Discrimination? Wrong. Definitely.
Judgementalism? Huh?

People judge all the time, but that doesn't mean they're guilty of persecution and discrimination. I might be walking down the street and decide that the guy coming toward me looks like a criminal. That's judging him. If I allow him to walk on past without taking any action, he hasn't been persecuted or discriminated against and is blissfully unaware of my opinion.

Holding a negative opinion of a person (or group of people) BY ITSELF does no harm to that person. It's only when I act on that opinion that I become a problem.

[kestrel91316]

51. Ask yourself THIS: do you "hold a negative opinion" of lefthanders?

[renie408]

59. Holding a negative opinion of someone and being bigoted are two different things.

The definition of a bigot is: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion". So, it is within the realm of possibility that you could hold a negative view of something without being utterly intolerant of it. I hold a negative view of gun ownership. I am tolerant of it. In fact, when you think about it, that is sort of what 'tolerance' is. Allowing for things that you either aren't or don't agree with.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

61. Left-Handers are all assholes...

Full Disclosure: I'm Left-Handed!

But just for the sake of argument, let's say that I hold negative opinions about Right-Handers...

[cgrindley]

99. Maybe not assholes, but certainly sinister (nt)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

111. Speak for yourself!!

:evilgrin:

[McCamy Taylor]

48. Anyone opposed to anyone else is guility of dualistic thinking.

Actions can be objectionable. People can not.

[Xithras]

75. Anyone opposed to lifestyles other than their own are bigoted. Technically, everyone is a bigot.

When people here rail against big families, chastity balls, and megachurches, they are demonstrating bigotry. The only way to NOT be a bigot is to NOT hold a strong opinion on ANYTHING.

The definition of bigot: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

[Bluerthanblue]

145. WORD-

[renie408]

78. Semantics. People are opposed to others BASED on their actions. n/t

[sampsonblk]

104. Not so fast.

With black people, it was never about any actions. And we always understood that. It was always about what we are.

Same for Jews.

For gays, its not that simple.

[Bjorn Against]

124. So what actions did gays commit that warrant discrimination?

I am sorry to say this but your post comes off as very bigoted.

[sampsonblk]

130. No, I think its the way you took it

The prev post said its "Semantics. People are opposed to others BASED on their actions." But that's not true at all. The propoganda against blacks and Jews does not focus on any specific type of action. It focuses on who we are pretty much exclusively. (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/forumdisplay.php)

With gays and lesbians, the christian community seems to have generally decided that its only the specific acts that are evil, not the individuals. That's why many religious groups advocate inviting gays to church to cure them of their 'evil' urges.

You don't see white supremacist churches trying to invite & cure blacks or jews. 'Love the sinner but hate the sin' apparently never applied to us. :(

[mondo joe]

125. Same for gays. Bigots might say otherwise.

[sampsonblk]

131. You are definitely consistent!-nt

[sampsonblk]

98. I should have been more clear in my title

How about 'Believes gay sex is a sin, but doesn't support discrimination'

[Bjorn Against]

127. That is not possible, if you believe being gay is a sin you are discriminating.

[sampsonblk]

132. Well we all do that

I mean policy or employment discrimination.

[mondo joe]

50. If they are opposed to gays, they are bigots. I don't know what the inclusion

of religion has to do with it.

[Kingshakabobo]

62. Because the religious seem to get a pass out of "respect for their faith."

You haven't noticed that line of discussion from our "leaders" and some DUers?

I'll let you know when the notorious religious-bigot-apologist DUer shows up in this thread.

[iconoclastic cat]

55. How about this: Worry about your own damn business.

You think homosexuality is wrong according to your beliefs? Then don't have any homosexual sex. Stay the hell out of anyone else's business unless they are actually literally trying to pork you.

[regularguy]

57. If you think gays are immoral or should be denied any rights that

others have then you are a bigot. And a dumb fuck. Not sure why you included religion in the question.

[stirlingsliver]

60. "Opposed To Gays"??

What does "opposed to gays" mean, exactly?

I am opposed to right wingers who are gay.

I hope that does not make me a bigot.

[mondo joe]

66. Have we agreed that religious opposition to equality for blacks and whites = bigotry?

Just wondering.

[renie408]

70. No, religious opposition to equality for blacks and whites = crazy. n/t

[mondo joe]

80. But not bigoted?

[Kingshakabobo]

112. Is it or is it not bigoted?

[terrya]

93. Not all. But there are very powerful religious groups who are.

I would say, for instance, that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church are bigots.

[Bluebear]

102. What a bizarre question.

[sampsonblk]

108. In what way?

[Bluebear]

113. You provide no context

[sampsonblk]

117. Fair enough

So an elderly church-going lady reads the bible and believes that gay sex between two men is evil -an abomination before God. She's gone to church all her life and believed everything in the bible all her life. Just like her parents told her.

I am asking if you believe that she is bigoted and that in every case, she is using her religion as a bogus excuse for her bigotry.

[Bluebear]

118. The term I would use for her is unenlightened.

[mondo joe]

119. She's bigoted.

She's as bigoted as any other bigot.

At some point in life you are responsible for yourself, and whatever your bigoted parents told you is not material.

[Solly Mack]

107. Anyone - opposed to gays - is a bigot

Religion is often the excuse used to justify their hate

[mudesi]

109. I certainly hope so

Because being "opposed to gays" is the definition of bigotry.

[SoCalDem]

115. Why not use religion as an affirmation, instead of a vehicle to

badmouth others? That's what religions "should" be about..

Like Momma always says.. "Keep your hands to yourself, and don"t say anything if you can't say something nice about someone else".

We worship at the Church of the "Golden Rule" at this house :)

[PassingFair]

121. So we should ignore what the bible actually SAYS?

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"(Lev. 18:22)

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Lev 20:13)

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."(1 Cor. 6:9-10)

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." (Rom. 1:26-28)

Note: I don't believe in "revealed truth" at all....

Just quoting.

[mondo joe]

122. If you believe in the bible, you are necessarily picking and choosing what parts to

believe and what to ignore.

I can't say what anyone else really SHOULD do with it because I don't think it's a good guide to begin with.

[SoCalDem]

129. Guys drank a lot of wine back then..nuff said

[SidDithers]

152. Yes, ignoring the bible is a always a good policy...nt

Sid

[PassingFair]

167. LOL n/t

[Bjorn Against]

123. Yes everyone opposed to gays is a bigot, I don't know how anyone could claim otherwise

[riderinthestorm]

126. Religious people AND non-religious people who oppose gays are bigots. nt

(I can't believe this is even something up for debate?!)

[FreeState]

133. If you believe its a sin you are a bigot

This speaking from the Christian term sin. Christ came to cast away all sin - if you believe homosexuality is a sin you by default believe gays must be purified (having the sin, homosexuality, removed). Does not matter if you are tolerant of gay people, if you believe its a sin you are a bigot.

[bliss_eternal]

134. Is religion relevant here...?

Those opposed to gay equality are bigots. But it would be nice to see less slurring of groups, and more focus on the issues at hand. The issue is bigotry. Not religion. There are relgious practitioners that do support gay equality.

Perhaps visit these links:
(regarding Rev. Flunder)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3658747#3659697

Lists other religious supporters of glbt rights:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3654119

[skyblue]

136. I see many LGBT leaders of churches and LGBT marriages absolutely encouraged within churches?

Probably the exception to the rule. Especially amongst the Catholic church community which is rather large, I am not sure if people are excommunicated (ie.. condemned to BURN IN ETERNAL HELL FIRE) because of their lifestyle. The problem is that many church TEACH intolerance. I doubt they teach that gawd allowed millions of dinosaurs to parish out of his benign neglect, nor about the Spanish Flu of 1918 for God so loved the world that he allowed 50 million plus people to die within the space of a little over a year.

[bliss_eternal]

137. Yes--some churches do teach intolerance.

But not all. Personally I'd like to see more attention paid to the church leaders (w/in some relgious sects) that teach "tolerance, love and inclusion." I know the others exist, but why give them my time or attention? I choose not to.

:)

[midlife_mo_Jo]

141. That's such an open ended question

I think there's plenty of people in the country right now who are at the point where they support gay rights in housing, jobs, etc. They support civil unions. They probably know a few gays.

They still don't want the definition of marriage changed, so they support civil unions with full rights.

What does that make them?

In other words, they're not quite there yet. I know a lot of people who believe this right now. I know people who have gay relatives who believe this. It's a bone of contention between the gay members and straight members, but I think the gays know they're not really bigots. Their family members welcome them and their partners - they don't just tolerate them. They just aren't as progressive, but that's changing with younger generations. This is my extended family I'm talking about.

To say that these people are hate-filled bigots is just plain wrong. They just aren't there yet.

[SidDithers]

148. Everyone opposed to gays is a bigot...

if they do it for religious reasons, then they're religious bigots.

Sid

[Bluerthanblue]

150. "sin" only matters to those who believe they are "sinners"- and

even then, it isn't anyones place to sit in the 'judgement seat'.



If a person who claims to be religious uses thier religion to say that someone is not their equal
based on something they "are" - that is prejudice. Acting with negative prejudice towards people because they 'are' a certian way is bigotry-
In my understanding and belief.

[TrogL]

157. anti-ex-gay resources

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/orient.html

[uriel1972]

158. To say someone is a sinner

is to say there is something wrong with them. To love the sinner but hate the sin is still to say there's something wrong with them. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality and it isn't unnatural. Original sin is a tool to keep people feeling guilty and subservient nothing more. I would say bigotry is an unreasonable intolerance or disregard. I am intolerant of people beating me up that doesn't make me a bigot because it is a reasonable intolerance

[LeftyMom]

164. Motivation is irrelavent. If you're opposed to people based on sexuality, you're a bigot.

[CyberPieHole]

165. Opposition to gays and lesbians is bigotry. Religion is inconsequential.

Religion may be used as an excuse or a way to justify one's bigotry but it's bigotry, nevertheless. In contemporary society bigotry is indefensible.

[terrya]

166. If you hate gay people, you're a bigot.

Doesn't matter whether you justify it by using religion. Hate is hate and bigotry is bigotry.