Questions about bigotry.

[JC]

Defending bigotry makes you a bigot as well NN, deny it because it doesn't feel good to be called that but it is what you are.

I do not think bigotry should be outlawed, thoughts are ok, however crazy they seem, its the action that is the problem.

You forgot to add IMO at the end of that.  The people that I am defending also have their opinion.  I am aware of the argument that the homosexual rights movement is exactly the same as the civil rights movement but I am also aware that there are many who do not believe that this is so.  Of course, you still get to call me any names you want to.

As for the second part of your post, I believe that is exactly what I was arguing.

We are sort of making the same argument.  I am saying Christians who work against homosexuals having equal rights are bigots while defending their right to be bigots.  That does not mean if I am talking to someone and they make some bigoted comment that I wont call them a bigot and tell them to stfu, that their opinion is meaningless because its based on some 2000 year old superstitious fiction.  Now, you are right to call me intolerant because when someone works to deny another human being the same rights they require, I become very damned intolerant!

You are saying because their religious doctrine requires them to be a bigot that they are not bigots, LOL. 

[NotNow]

Defending bigotry makes you a bigot as well NN, deny it because it doesn't feel good to be called that but it is what you are.

I do not think bigotry should be outlawed, thoughts are ok, however crazy they seem, its the action that is the problem.

You forgot to add IMO at the end of that.  The people that I am defending also have their opinion.  I am aware of the argument that the homosexual rights movement is exactly the same as the civil rights movement but I am also aware that there are many who do not believe that this is so.  Of course, you still get to call me any names you want to.

As for the second part of your post, I believe that is exactly what I was arguing.

We are sort of making the same argument.  I am saying Christians who work against homosexuals having equal rights are bigots while defending their right to be bigots.  That does not mean if I am talking to someone and they make some bigoted comment that I wont call them a bigot and tell them to stfu, that their opinion is meaningless because its based on some 2000 year old superstitious fiction.  Now, you are right to call me intolerant because when someone works to deny another human being the same rights they require, I become very damned intolerant!

You are saying because their religious doctrine requires them to be a bigot that they are not bigots, LOL. 

You really don't hear yourself?  Are you really so wrapped up in your own world?  For many, their religion IS life.  It is their reason for being and their love of their God is as strong as any love you have ever felt.  Then they are faced with someone who practices what their religious institution teaches is a sin.  The religious institution classifies many things as a "sin".  Most for a very good reason, some are not so clear.  But they are face with this person who is arguing that he or she has an "equal right" to participate in what to most of the world's religions is a sacred sacrement, marriage.  Then the man or woman demanding to participate insults what they call the two thousand year old superstitious fiction that is the entire basis of life to our religious person.  And you are surprised that they oppose you?  Really?  What makes you so sure that you are right?  Is it possible that five thousand years of human experience might carry some wisdom?  Ever been wrong before? 

[JC]

You really don't hear yourself?  Are you really so wrapped up in your own world?

I understand the reality of bigotry, racism, intolerance, I get it, I just will not offer any exemptions for it!  And yes, I hear myself loud and clear!

For many, their religion IS life.  It is their reason for being

That's cool, they are free to believe as they see fit, and I have no beef with religion until its believers tell others how to live, you do understand that dont you?

and their love of their God is as strong as any love you have ever felt.

You have gone to far here and I am inclined to tell you what you can go do.  You have no idea about who I am and have zero idea about the feelings outside your own body and mind so please, spare me your analysis of me!

Then they are faced with someone who practices what their religious institution teaches is a sin.  The religious institution classifies many things as a "sin".

They either need to hole up or understand that people live differently than they do.  Homosexuals are not trying to force anyone to be gay or denying anyone anything.

Most for a very good reason, some are not so clear.  But they are face with this person who is arguing that he or she has an "equal right" to participate in what to most of the world's religions is a sacred sacrement, marriage.

Please give me some good reasons, I want to hear them.

Then the man or woman demanding to participate insults what they call the two thousand year old superstitious fiction that is the entire basis of life to our religious person.  And you are surprised that they oppose you?  Really?

If someone is going to use their religion as justification for their bigotry they are going to get their feelings hurt by me and I will do it with zero concern for, well anything.  It is not my responsibility to baby someone through their evolution of tolerance, you can do that.

What makes you so sure that you are right?  Is it possible that five thousand years of human experience might carry some wisdom?  Ever been wrong before?  

Ummm yeah, because I have been wrong about other things I should accept something that no one has any proof of outside their own head! "Better get right in case you are wrong" does not work on me.

[JC]

Let me tell you about tolerance, every time someone says "God bless you" or "have a blessed day" I say thank you because I feel that person is showing me good will, like saying "namaste," "shalom," "A Salam Aalaikum."  I don't insult, I don't say shut up, I say thank you, even though by saying thank you I am giving in to the nuance.  I understand that religious people will be around long after I am gone, I realize that people I love are religious, as are people I am simply friends with.  I also realize that if people in my workplace knew about my lack of beliefs I would be treated unfairly, I would be looked down on and possibly become a pariah.  I get that my lack of beliefs is rarely held by others, but you, or anyone else will not use whatever "good" book you read from to restrict the rights of others! CAPICE?

[NotNow]

Cant you make the exact same arguments about drug addiction, NN?

Your kidding, right?

[NotNow]

JC, what I am trying to communicate to you is that others do not view the world as you do and they feel as strongly as you do about their own passions.  You take offense to easily IMHO.  For pages of posts and a couple of days now I have repeated that we should all be treated the same by the state, which is all any of us can ask for.  Yet the name calling and posturing continues against "religion" and against me for supporting folks right to hold a religious belief. 

I have not heard anyone here advocate restricting the "rights" of anyone.  Every poster (that I can recall) has advocated either civil union rights or (as I believe) the withdrawal of the State from subsidizing or advocating for any personal relationship or household type.  Yet in your advocacy you continue to posture.  Again, I feel that you might want to review your attitude and you might find that walls against communication are not built so fast and strong when threats and name calling are not involved.  Are you blind to the fact that no one here has called for any "restriction of rights" other than you?

You are the one who is the bigot at your work.  You are the one assuming that others are wrong.  From what you say, others are only offering you good will.  It is your fear of identifying yourself and your beliefs (or lack thereof) that is causing your consternation, not the actual acts of anyone else.  Try being honest about yourself and your opinions.  Others will not agree, just as we do not.  But if you are civil, and don't insult the beliefs of others, I think you will find that we all tolerate others differences. 

It seems to me that the only ones doing any "imposing" here are you guys.

[buckethead]

Christianity's most sacred sacrament:

Galatians 5:14

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

[Sportmotor]

I dont know buckethead, I love myself a couple times a night I am not sure my neighbour could keep up.

[buckethead]

 

I love me some sportmotor!

[Jaxson]

True faith, in my opinion, comes from being secure in one's beliefs regardless of other's expressions of their respective faiths.  I appears that the fundamentalists are the ones who are afraid.  They fear being exposed to other religions because it may somehow diminish their own beliefs.  By keeping a monopoly on public expression of faith, they seem to believe that they will keep their own ranks strong.  For example, if a non-Christian gives a public prayer, it will lead to our young and impressionable citizens to explore other religions and - gasp - actually agree with them.  If we are truly secure in our faith, we would not mind others religions and faiths to be part of the public dialogue. 

[JC]

JC, what I am trying to communicate to you is that others do not view the world as you do and they feel as strongly as you do about their own passions.  You take offense to easily IMHO.  For pages of posts and a couple of days now I have repeated that we should all be treated the same by the state, which is all any of us can ask for.  Yet the name calling and posturing continues against "religion" and against me for supporting folks right to hold a religious belief. 

My problem with your argument is that you use religion as an excuse for bigotry, I cant put it any simpler than that.

I have not heard anyone here advocate restricting the "rights" of anyone.  Every poster (that I can recall) has advocated either civil union rights or (as I believe) the withdrawal of the State from subsidizing or advocating for any personal relationship or household type.  Yet in your advocacy you continue to posture.  Again, I feel that you might want to review your attitude and you might find that walls against communication are not built so fast and strong when threats and name calling are not involved.  Are you blind to the fact that no one here has called for any "restriction of rights" other than you?

Again, my posturing is against your excuse making, (simpler).

You are the one who is the bigot at your work.  You are the one assuming that others are wrong.  From what you say, others are only offering you good will.  It is your fear of identifying yourself and your beliefs (or lack thereof) that is causing your consternation, not the actual acts of anyone else.  Try being honest about yourself and your opinions.  Others will not agree, just as we do not.  But if you are civil, and don't insult the beliefs of others, I think you will find that we all tolerate others differences.

This is a joke right?

"Discrimination
Main article: Discrimination against atheists

Legal and social discrimination against atheists in some places may lead some to deny or conceal their atheism due to fears of persecution. A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities, more so than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other groups. Many of the respondents associated atheism with immorality, including criminal behaviour, extreme materialism, and elitism.[3] However, the same study also reported that, “The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation--with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.”[3]" 

I have seen this happen, I have had co workers here in Jacksonville use beer and pancakes to lure me to church with them.  I have been questioned, doubted and told I am going to hell.  I would be a naive moron to think that attitude and club stops at the worker level and does not permeate upper levels of management.  So now, I presented a study and my own personal experience, this is just how it is and I accept it, at least at work.  Putting food on the table is far more important than being judged as "immoral, criminal, materialistic and elitist" although I will cop to being elitist at times.

It seems to me that the only ones doing any "imposing" here are you guys.

Are you trying to make another joke here?  I am not trying to use the power of the state to restrict any ones bigotry, thoughts are fine, its the actions that I have a problem with.  It is Christian groups constantly trying to change laws based on their "moral" code, not the other way around!

True faith, in my opinion, comes from being secure in one's beliefs regardless of other's expressions of their respective faiths.  I appears that the fundamentalists are the ones who are afraid.  They fear being exposed to other religions because it may somehow diminish their own beliefs.  By keeping a monopoly on public expression of faith, they seem to believe that they will keep their own ranks strong.  For example, if a non-Christian gives a public prayer, it will lead to our young and impressionable citizens to explore other religions and - gasp - actually agree with them.  If we are truly secure in our faith, we would not mind others religions and faiths to be part of the public dialogue. 

Yeah, I would love to see them open a session of congress with a dialogue by Richard Dawkins.  Very telling how you use "non-Christian" to describe people who are presumably not like you, it really says it all, as if being Christian were the default.

This 1990 letter to the NYT editor illustrates my point more clearly, just replace "white" with "Christian".

The Term 'Nonwhite' Has Racist Overtones
Published: April 1, 1990

    * Sign in to Recommend
    * Twitter
    * Sign In to E-Mail
    * Print

To the Editor:

I am not ''nonwhite''; nor are my friends of Bahamian, Cape Verdian, Colombian, Cuban, Dominican, Jamaican, Japanese, Korean, Panamanian, Puerto Rican or Trinidadian descent. I, a woman of African descent, an African-American if you will, would never be so presumptuous as to characterize ''whites'' as ''nonblack.''

''Whiteness'' is not the standard of humanity against which every other racial and ethnic population of the world should be measured. Using the term ''nonwhite'' promotes an ''us and them'' mentality, a subliminal separation of people into two groups, white and everyone else. Identity is not ''non'' anything. It is a positive self-affirmation, not a negative exclusionary basis of comparison.

It is ironic that I first became aware of the term ''nonwhite'' in your Feb. 17 report that the New York State public education system is finally incorporating contributions of various ethnic and racial groups into the history curriculum.

If writers are so desperate to save space or so fearful that they might leave out any specific group of people, let them refer to general geographic regions when describing those people, such as Africa, Asia, the Caribbean or Central America. It is not acceptable or appropriate to refer to the majority of the earth's population as nonwhite.

ALEAH BACQUIE

Roosevelt, L.I., March 14, 1990

[NotNow]

Cant you make the exact same arguments about drug addiction, NN?

Your kidding, right?

no.  I'm not.  And If you are an Evangelical Christian, I definitely support your right to a Civil Union with your partner, notnow.  I just don't think you should be allowed to be married.  Marriage is too sacred, and according to the headlines, many of them cannot be trusted to keep its sacraments:  The ones who aren't actually homosexuals, like Haggard, Governor McCreavy, Dr Reker, are sex addicts like Mark Sanford, John Edwards and that little perv from Louisiana with the diaper fetish, David Vitter.  But I am definitely for allowing you guys to have Civil Unions.  That way you can live your lives the way you wish, and still be entititled to cohabit for as long as your relationships might last.

But considering the high incidency of child molestation involving Evangelicals and Catholic Priests, I think you should only be allowed to have children under special conditions, and tightly monitored in order to preserve the safety of the child.  Hopefully this will cut back on the number of abortions performed in the country as well, since the vast majority of women who seek them are self identified evangelicals or conservative catholics.  While many Christians are decent folks, the risk to children is just too great to let them be unprotected.

And of course, there is the matter of your employment.  If a group of normal people would like to have a completely normal workplace that doesnt involve workers talking to imaginary people or fantasizing about public executions and zombie miracles, then that is their right isnt it?  Its an act of bigotry to suggest that Evangelicals have the right to be employed.  No one has that right.  So I do not support Evangelicals having the right to force people to continue to employ them after their dangerous habits have been uncovered.  Im sorry, but considering the mass murders and the public executions of people like George Tiller and many others, employers shouldnt be forced to take those risks.

I have not heard anyone here advocate restricting the "rights" of anyone.  Every poster (that I can recall) has advocated either civil union rights or (as I believe) the withdrawal of the State from subsidizing or advocating for any personal relationship or household type.  Yet in your advocacy you continue to posture that Evangelicals would somehow be considered victims unless they had the right to traditional marriages.  Again, I feel that you might want to review your attitude and you might find that walls against communication are not built so fast and strong when threats and name calling are not involved.  Are you blind to the fact that no one here has called for any "restriction of rights" other than you?

And when it comes to Evangelicals in the workplace, You are the one who is the bigot at your work.  You are the one assuming that others are wrong.  From what you say, others are only offering you good will.  It is your fear of identifying yourself and your beliefs (or lack thereof) that is causing your consternation, not the actual acts of anyone else.  Try being honest about yourself and your opinions.  Others will not agree, just as we do not.  But if you are civil, and don't insult the beliefs of others, I think you will find that we all tolerate others differences.

I can't make sense of what your point is in this post.  I was assuming that your "drug addiction" comment was a response to what I said about JC's comments such as "2000 year old superstition".  For a guy who claims extensive exposure to the worlds religions as you do, to claim that a religious person is the equivalent of a drug addict doesn't make sense to me at all.  Either you do not understand the chemical and psychological effects of drug addiction, or you do not understand religion.  

As for your Evangelical speech...no, I am not an Evangelical Christian.  I am definitely not what I would hold up as a good example of a Christian, I just give it my best effort.  I am not real big on organized religions of any faith, but I realize that I am biased by my own life experiences.  I do have the opportunity to run across and interact with admirable Christians most days, and I am filled with respect for those that can adhere to their beliefs so well, in spite of the actions of others.  In my short experience, I have had the opportunity to meet and interact with persons of other faiths, who have also earned my respect  and admiration.  Having been given the opportunity to travel around the world, I have had a difficult time squaring my childhood training that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to God when I have met such wonderful people in areas of the world where the majority of the population is never exposed to Christianity.  It's funny that in most of those religions, they are taught that their particular faith is the ONLY way to God.  Of course, I have met awful people who claim membership in the various religions as well.  But I remain a Christian, under the watchful eye of Mrs. NotNow who is an example of Christian patience and forgiveness. I have my own ideas and questions of faith.  This subject is one of those questions.  My views on homosexuality have changed greatly over the years.  From my childhood with literally zero exposure to that world, to the military and then interactions with gay friends and family as well as professional exposure to homosexuality.  I have become quite tolerant (INHO) over the years and like most cops don't really care what people do in their private lives as long as it doesn't require me to come and separate them.  I feel the same empathy for most people that for whatever reason feel that they are alone, isolated, or condemned by the world.  I don't claim to know what it feels like to be black, gay, sixteen & pregnant, Christian in Pakistan or Moslem in Ireland.  I do know there are always two sides in any dispute, and that they must be heard.  There are competing interests in this subject and I think that without some kind of communication and understanding it will remain unsettled.  Contrary to what those of you here seem to think, I really have no dog in this fight and my "give a shit" meter tends to waver towards E when people start pointing fingers at me and calling names.  Funny how I get the same reaction from some in sunday school when I offer up these same views.

Oh, and I agree with you about the TV preachers and the child molesting priests.  I know you would not agree with my solution for such actions.  But hypocrisy (did I spell that right?  Shh! I won't mention the misspellings in your previous post) is one of my pet peeves, as you know from the Al Gore thread and others.

[Sportmotor]

I love me some sportmotor!

<3

[NotNow]

JC, I understand that our difference is that you believe that religious objections to homosexuality or gay marriage is bigotry while I believe that they have a legitimate right to that belief without the power of the State to discriminate.  I believe the key is the portion of my argument "without the power of the State to discriminate".  But if you don't think that is enough, OK.  We just don't agree, that's all.

As for your interactions with others, yes, that will happen.  People are not required to like you.  I don't associate with a lot of people because of different personal behaviors that they have.  That is my right.  I know that it is hard to believe, but there are actually people who don't like me and don't associate with me for some reason!  Why, I don't get along with some of the big wigs where I work because of differing values and ideas, and I am also sure that will limit my advancement opportunities.  (At least as long as they are there.)  I went to Key West a while back and I was actually turned away at a hotel on Duval because I am not gay.  (Some kind of event)  I must admit I was shocked, but in the long run it was no big deal and we probably would not have enjoyed being around intolerance anyway.  

The point is that people will always discriminate in some ways.  One of the beautiful things about this country is that with just a little thick skin, you can go your own way.  

[NotNow]

I dont know buckethead, I love myself a couple times a night I am not sure my neighbour could keep up.

Now there is an interesting marriage!