When is it okay to call someone a bigot or accuse them of hating?

[Jon Miller]

I have time and again addressed the "reasoning" that you have proffered. I have addressed it specifically. I have not ignored it or claimed it doesn't exist. Then you claim I am simply ignoring it or that I have said it isn't their reasoning at all. You have failed to support your lies, but continue to expound upon them.

I actually do understand their reasoning, and simply still think it's bigoted when they oppose gay/interracial marriage. We disagree on whether it is bigoted or not. That is all. Yet in your eyes that makes me a bigot, which in my eyes makes you a hypocrite.

No you haven't addressed their reasoning. Not since the "children would be discriminated against", so not once in this thread. And you completely ignored that it was their reasoning and said they were bigoted!

You did not address it, you did not address it specifically. You did not acknowledge it as something that someone could consider valid.

Their reasoning being wrong or their reasoning not be well developed has nothing to do with whether or not that is their reason and not them being racists/bigots/etc.

You are a bigot because you fulfill the definition of bigotry.

Whether it is my definition or Oxfords.

JM

[kentonio]

Please read psychological textbooks/discussions.

Why were the europeans so anti-jewish. It isn't because of some inherent anti-jewness in Christianity. American Christianity is very pro-jews.

Wow, your ignorance of European history is impressive. The entire Jewish hatred is purely a result of Christian oppression based on the 'Jews killed Jesus' crap. American Christianity liking the Jews is a recent phenomena, and even now anti-semitism is still very much alive and kicking in the US, especially in the south where Christianity is still such a major influence.

And I am not singling out europeans. Those were Aeson's examples and so that is what I referred to.

Aeson mention a couple of singificant instances, you started making generalizations about europeans in general.

As I said, it is something that is common to all humans, of every culture.

You can see this in Japan, Uganda, China, US, South America... every race, culture, and people.

Bigotry? No **** Sherlock, so lets recognize it wherever it occurs, including in religious bigotry towards gays.

Please, you are ignorant. You don't understand or appreciate the academic study into the root causes of human interaction.

Ignorant is rich coming from the guy who just tried to whitewash over christian bigotry by redefining the meaning of the word.

[Barnabas]

The most religious Christians in the USA are very pro Jewish because they think that the modern existence of the State of Israel is the result of a biblical prophecy coming true, and that Israel is heavily linked to the "end of times" events, that is why they used to imagine the Soviet Union attacking Israel, and now that the USSR doesn't exist anymore they have other scenarios.
They also believe that the covenant between G-d and Jews still works, that it has not been superceded, and that Jews are still the Chosen People, so if you help Jews G-d blesses you, and if you are against Jews G-d punishes you, because they are his Chosen people.
And many also believe that Jews will convert to Christianity before the end of times.

The Assemblies of God, which is one of the largest evangelical groups, holds those beliefs, and their missionaries in Latin America too. That is why in Latin America many of the American evangelical missionaries were accused of being sent by the CIA. All converts become very Pro Israel and pro USA.

[Hauldren Collider]

anti-semitism is still very much alive and kicking in the US, especially in the south where Christianity is still such a major influence.

No.

Jewish stereotypes, maybe. Anti-semitism, no.

[kentonio]

No.

Jewish stereotypes, maybe. Anti-semitism, no.

Once again HC grabs the ball and immediately drops it again..

The 2005 Survey of American Attitudes Towards Jews in America, a national poll of 1,600 American adults conducted in March 2005, found that 14% of Americans - or nearly 35 million adults - hold views about Jews that are "unquestionably anti-Semitic," compared to 17% in 2002, Previous ADL surveys over the last decade had indicated that anti-Semitism was in decline. In 1998, the number of Americans with hardcore anti-Semitic beliefs had dropped to 12% from 20 % in 1992.

[Jon Miller]

Ignorant is rich coming from the guy who just tried to whitewash over christian bigotry by redefining the meaning of the word.

Boy do you have a chip on your shoulder.

Where have I ever said that Christians are not bigots (sometimes).

There has been many examples of Christians being bigots towards homosexuals and towards Jews.

I haven't met any Christians who have so much anger towards Jews as you appear to have towards Christians though.

Were you Catholic? I am trying to imagine what could cause this.

JM
(Were Christians in India, Ethiopia, or Med East (not the ones who came in the Crusades) so anti Jew? I don't think so. It was a european thing. There have been books about this. It seems still to be a bit of a european thing.)

[notyoueither]

Here are some additional reasons:

"I think that african-americans should only marry each other because only they understand each other and have crucial shared experiences"

"I think that japanese should marry japanese because that is the only way they can raise children harmoniously as japanese"

"I think that *insert religion here* should only marry together, so that they can raise children together as *insert religion here*"

People can be wrong and you can disagree with them, and yet their motivations may be their real motivations not just a cover for fear of the other or not understanding the other.

JM

Your claimed definition of bigot is not what you or others hold as seen by the title.

The title references motivation directly "accuse them of hating".

Bigotry is a hatred or fear of the other.

You might disagree with the above ideas, but they are not bigoted. They are reasoned, and based on reasoning other than 'hatred of things different me'.

I would actually argue that there is some truth to all of those beliefs (I just named). But even if there were not, it would not make the motivation change. While you might come to different conclusions to the person who said them, that doesn't make the person who said them (who thinks differently from you) a bigot.

JM

Someone who feels that it would be best for their children if they marry into the same class, race, group as their own and then does so is quite different from someone who feels that everyone else should be forced by law to do the same.

The first person is displaying closemindedness. The second person is a flaming bigot and racist.

[kentonio]

Boy do you have a chip on your shoulder.

Where have I ever said that Christians are not bigots (sometimes).

There has been many examples of Christians being bigots towards homosexuals and towards Jews.

In this thread you tried to justify Christians being intolerant and bigoted towards homosexuals on the basis that their self justifications for their intolerance and bigotry should give them a free pass. Apparently its fine to limit peoples right to equal treatment just because some people find it a bit yucky or difficult. Do you really not see how messed up that is?

I haven't met any Christians who have so much anger towards Jews as you appear to have towards Christians though.

Funny how that coincides with an increase in the christian right becoming increasingly vocal about how they want to place their beliefs above peoples basic rights. I'll stop being angry when christians start remembering that church and state are not the same thing.

Were you Catholic? I am trying to imagine what could cause this.

No, nice try though.

[Jon Miller]

In this thread you tried to justify Christians being intolerant and bigoted towards homosexuals on the basis that their self justifications for their intolerance and bigotry should give them a free pass. Apparently its fine to limit peoples right to equal treatment just because some people find it a bit yucky or difficult. Do you really not see how messed up that is?

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

I was purely saying that some Christians (or others, it isn't just Christians and the religious) are not bigots. Even though they oppose gay marriage (or other things).

Just because they are not bigots does not mean they are not wrong.

It is perfectly possible to be wrong and not a bigot.

You are showing a lot of bigotry towards Christians in the post, but maybe I shouldn't be surprised?

Funny how that coincides with an increase in the christian right becoming increasingly vocal about how they want to place their beliefs above peoples basic rights. I'll stop being angry when christians start remembering that church and state are not the same thing.

Maybe you can stop painting all Christians (or even all Christians who oppose gay marriage) with the same paint brush.

It is the same thing as people saying "many blacks are in prison, so all blacks are criminals".

No, nice try though.

It is often former Catholics who are quite angry at Christianity, but not always.

JM

[Jon Miller]

dp

[notyoueither]

Bigotry is damaging.

Including the type you have displayed in this thread.

Which is the case whether you go by oxford's definition or mine.

JM

The bigotry that is most damaging is that which is enacted in law and enforced on others.

[kentonio]

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

I was purely saying that some Christians (or others, it isn't just Christians and the religious) are not bigots. Even though they oppose gay marriage (or other things).

Just because they are not bigots does not mean they are not wrong.

It is perfectly possible to be wrong and not a bigot.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you're excusing bigotry. If you're against granting homosexuals equal rights, then you're on the same moral ground as the people who came out against equal rights for blacks back in the sixties. There's no justification for it other than religious crap, or people just having a personal aversion to it. Neither of those things is an acceptable reason to deny people equal rights.

You are showing a lot of bigotry towards Christians in the post, but maybe I shouldn't be surprised?

Absolutely, when we use the weird definition of 'bigot' that you seem to have invented in this thread.

Maybe you can stop painting all Christians (or even all Christians who oppose gay marriage) with the same paint brush.

It is the same thing as people saying "many blacks are in prison, so all blacks are criminals".

Oh I always love the old 'if you criticize the vast white christian majority then you're a horrible person just like a racist' victim card. It must really suck being in such a terribly oppressed majority.

It is often former Catholics who are quite angry at Christianity, but not always.

Clearly not always, no.

[Jon Miller]

Where do I support enacting laws to ban sodomy?

In fact, I support gay marriage.

Bigotry has a specific meaning. When people abuse it to vilify their opponents it becomes "this is what is true about people I disagree with" instead of "this is this one type of behavior which is understood (now) to be damaging". If you go about just vilifying your opponents, than there is nothing stopping you from being the vilified one at some point in the future.

It is important to go about things in a reasonable way. Not just 'my way is right, because I think my way is right'.

JM
(replying to NYE)

[Aeson]

You had a problem with CO being only religious.

No, I specifically said I wouldn't be given CO status if I claim I don't believe in killing people, and the reason for that is I don't believe in letting genocidal maniacs kill people either so would have fought (and even killed) in WWII. However, I certainly would not have fought in Vietnam as there was nothing in that ****ty war's purpose to override my belief in not killing.

My point being what I said which lead to that discussion, "It is apparent from your arguments that you discount some forms of freedom of conscience." You certainly discount my freedom of conscience by your support for the way the CO laws are written. As you spell out very clearly here:

Yes, you can't be 'CO' to one war while not being 'CO' in general. This seems perfectly logical to me. You aren't really a CO in that case. You are someone who disagrees with a specific war, which is not the definition of CO.

Of course it's not the definition of CO in regards to the law, that was what I was pointing out! The law is designed to force people to fight against their conscience unless they are some very limited subset of people who will not fight in any case. A subset of people which is defined to eliminate many COs in regard to the specific instance, and in practice ends up favoring religious over other COs. As you said:

"It is a lot easier to prove for certain religious denominations (see Quakers) than for other groups though."

[Propaganda]

Everyone here is a bigot because each is arguing that their viewpoint, in one way or another, is either morally, spiritually, ethically or logically superior to the other.

I, of course, am the ultimate bigot because my beliefs are superior in every conceivable way to the sum of all viewpoints presented here.

Case Closed.