There is too much of this toxic attitude around here...

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a "bigot," a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance and animosity toward members of a group. Bigotry may be directed towards those of a differing sex or sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, political alignment, age, economic status or medical disability. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigots with the following quote: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

[Woody]

I have to wonder - if after reading this - those who are like it - actually recognize that in themselves?

[M. T. Cross]

I will give you an AMEN

[Tom Wetmore]

Bigotry is a clenched fist wearing a glove of pure denial...

[Dr. Rich]

Jesus made it known that He did not tolerate evil people, and even congradulated those in Rev. 2 for not tolerating evil people. I guess then you would have to call Jesus a bigot.

[SivartM]

Jesus made it known that He did not tolerate evil people, and even congradulated those in Rev. 2 for not tolerating evil people. I guess then you would have to call Jesus a bigot.

Jesus' friends were people you might call evil.

[Tom Wetmore]

Jesus made it known that He did not tolerate evil people, and even congradulated those in Rev. 2 for not tolerating evil people. I guess then you would have to call Jesus a bigot.

That is absolutely not the point of bigotry. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is intolerance for good people and things different simply because they are not like ones own. To twist Jesus' words to mollify those who show intolerance for whatever is different from themselves and their cherished POV is disgusting. And it is repugnant to pretend that his intolerance of evil should in any way justify the intolerance that is at the heart of bigotry.

[Dr. Rich]

I knew you were going to say that Tom. But the truth is, Jesus was hated by the Jewish leaders because Jesus did not pull punches with them. Jesus had John write about how bad it was tolerating the woman prophet's teachings He called a Jezebel type in Rev. 2:18-25.

Yes, there is a difference between race, sex, religion, and opinions as I have pointed out here, and these differences will never be tolerated in such a way as to please everyone. Perhaps this is what was meant by the clay not mixing with iron? Our prisions are filled with folks because our government will not tolerate another's politial viewpoint. And I suppose it's not going to get any better.

Moderators and die hard Adventists on this forum can't tolerate posts that do not agree with their own opinions and have (in the past) locked down those threads so others can't give their take on those issues. Blogs or forums run by most Adventists will not allow anyone else to post if their post does not agree with what they THINK an Adventist believes. It's just the way it is.

[Tom Wetmore]

So, why defend bigotry? What is the redeeming value that you see in bigotry that you feel a need to justify it in others... or in yourself?

And since when did tolerance become a bad word?

Quite frankly, I see as much or more intolerance for Adventist views and those supposedly attributable to the moderators on this forum, than I see going the other way. I hardly think there is not any lack of such divergent views being freely and frequently expressed here, including by you. Seems a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The administrators to fostering an open and safe atmosphere in which a wide range of views can be expressed, even disagreeable views. But that demands tolerance from everyone that participates.

[Dr. Rich]

Tolerance is not a bad word in itself, and neither is apathy as I believe they both go together as the more tolerant one is the more they show apathy. Apathy is what we find in the 7th messages to the KOH in Rev. 3. Apathy is why we (Americans) are in such a mess right now that I doubt if we ever can recover.

Shoot Tom, I just took the other side of the issue because you seem so bent on putting down intolerance and bigotry. Know what happens when you allow the nose of the camel into the tent? Well, that is what happens when you tolerate a little bit of evil. After all, there must have been a very good reason to destroy the earth with a flood and to destroy Sodom too. Rev. 21:8 and 22:15 do not paint a very good picture on what is going to happen to people who believe in and practice a lie. No, God does not allow and will not tolerate anyone in heaven who has not overcome sin--even a tiny bit of sin. What Eastern religions and probably was Satan's legal question that got Him thrown out of heaven, is the yin and yang--a tiny bit of evil in good and vice versa.

[SivartM]

Shoot Tom, I just took the other side of the issue because you seem so bent on putting down intolerance and bigotry.

So, what, you were just playing devil's advocate but didn't bother to mention that fact?

There's a very good reason why Tom was "bent on putting down intolerance and bigotry": intolerance and bigotry are negative. What if Tom was bent on putting down pride? Would you argue against that?

Pride is just another way of looking at intolerance and bigotry; they're all different sides of the same thing. People are intolerant because they feel superior, morally or intellectually, to others. That's rarely justified except for the worst characters, such as Hitler, to whom I have no problem with feeling superior. Hitler's motivation was itself intolerance; that is usually the cause of the worst crimes. Hitler was a racial bigot, a sexual bigot, and channeled his bigotry into his crimes toward the Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, gypsies, and homosexuals. If it is not unreasonable to condemn Hitler's bigotry, why is it unreasonable to condemn more "mild" bigotry?

Intolerance blinds a person to the fact that they are naturally on equal standing to the objects of their derision, whether Jews (but they crucified Christ!), Jehovah's Witnesses (but they're heretics!), gypsies (but they're dirty thieves!), and homosexuals (but their sexual activities offend God!). That is what is wrong with intolerance.

[jasd]

QR frame:

>>why is it unreasonable to condemn more "mild" bigotry?<<

It is reasonable to condemn the term “bigotry” should it be used as a derogatory, invectively, or misplaced. Pejoratively.

[SivartM]

How do you use the term "bigotry" nicely? And why should tolerant people cater to the feelings of people who obviously don't care about the feelings of anyone else?

[jasd]

>>How do you use the term "bigotry" nicely?<<

As subject matter, without inflection. Any-and-everywhere used in the non-accusitive.

>>And why should tolerant people cater to the feelings of people who obviously don't care about the feelings of anyone else?<<

No one has to cater, and one can choose to ignore - or not. And, things are not always so obvious as may be perceived.

[SivartM]

If the accusation is accurate, why not call attention to someone's bigotry? Are the only acceptable options to ignore a bigot or to treat them gently so as not to offend their sensitive soul?

If one of my classmates says that he would avoid or reject a family member if they were gay, he is a bigot, and that's pretty obvious. I'm not a confrontational person (in the physical plane), but I would support anyone who called him out. If he felt that it was appropriate to declare his intolerance, I think it's justified to respond in a proportional manner and let him know that it's not appropriate.

[jasd]

>>If the accusation is accurate, why not call attention to someone's bigotry?<<

There are “accusations” that are “accurate” – and there are “accusations” only perceived as “accurate”. Besides, one might oughta first determine the extent of another’s bigotry – before calling attention to what others might consider inconsequential; thereby labeling oneself a sh***te stirrer – or a few fries short of a Happy Meal...

In other words, there are determinates to consider – even when that perceived as bigotry is accurate.

Now, when you get to be my age – all things are perceived differently and any action that may or may not follow that perception is driven by ‘strange’ directive(s). It is both the bane and the privilege of gray hair and adiposity. ;-) I think it is called ‘goes with the territory’.

>>Are the only acceptable options to ignore a bigot or to treat them gently so as not to offend their sensitive soul?<< [/ed.jasd]

Quote:

Quote:SivartM

Intolerance blinds a person to the fact that they are naturally on equal standing to the objects of their derision,

>>If one of my classmates says that he would avoid or reject a family member if they were gay, he is a bigot, and that's pretty obvious.<<

He may have determined beforehand not to share information as to the exact ‘nature’ of the “gay” family member – and being the only one in the conversation privy to that information – is the only one qualified to make a determination re the ‘rejection’ of that gay family member.

For instance: that particular “gay” family member may be an addicted ‘Rough Trade Cruiser’ who is guaranteed to bring nothing but trouble to those with whom he associates. I would not only avoid but reject that type of gay from any familial association of mine; whereas, were the gay family member a dweeb – I am compelled for any number of reasons to [over] extend myself.

All things, all matters, have their variants.

>>I'm not a confrontational person (in the physical plane), but I would support anyone who called him out.<<

And you may prove to be a ‘Buttinski” in a matter where you, mebbe, oughta have been no more than an observer.

>>If he felt that it was appropriate to declare his intolerance, I think it's justified to respond in a proportional manner and let him know that it's not appropriate.<<

Ahh, there is magic in the phrase “proportional manner”.

[SivartM]

The comment about a gay family members was made during an open class discussion as a general principle during an activity about tolerance. Now, maybe he does have a gay family member with whom he does not wish to associate for reasons unrelated to sexuality, but he was answering the question "What would you do if one of your family members told you they were gay?" If someone says that they don't like a particular gay person or a particular black person, that's not evidence that they're bigoted. But if they state that they dislike them in general, that is. Can we agree on that?

[jasd]

>>Can we agree on that?<<

Indeed, point taken.

[Tom Wetmore]

We could dispute indefinitely whether bigotry exists or to what degree, or all manner of alternative explanations to apparent manifestations of intolerance. We have to recognize that this only feeds the real element of bigotry of denial and self-justification.

Rather, let's continue the conversation on this in a more constructive direction. Let's assume it is present and real and a serious problem. How does one rectify the problem of bigotry, in oneself, in ones friends and family, in society?

[olger]

So who can we count on to decide what is bigoty, and what is legitimate breakaway from iniquity?

Are you nominating yourself to arbitrate this one, Tom? John 317? Travis? Richard?

Who gets to decide?

[Dr. Rich]

The comment about a gay family members was made during an open class discussion as a general principle during an activity about tolerance. Now, maybe he does have a gay family member with whom he does not wish to associate for reasons unrelated to sexuality, but he was answering the question "What would you do if one of your family members told you they were gay?" If someone says that they don't like a particular gay person or a particular black person, that's not evidence that they're bigoted. But if they state that they dislike them in general, that is. Can we agree on that?

What the heck was this issue (subject) doing in any open class discussion in ANY school? I see this as an open assult on the bible and the people who use that bible as a foundation for their opinions. The word "gay" was a wonderful word, but has now been usurped to describe those people who choose (for good or bad) to be in a relationship against the moral values God has established. The correct word for this has all but been destroyed (and I will not use it here either.) And how did this all come about? By calling those who obey God's moral values a "bigot". And that, my friends, is the problem with calling someone a 'bigot' or being intolerant.

Jesus was and is totally intolerant of evil even IF it has been painted and it's name has been changed to protect the innocient. Does that make Jesus a 'bigot'? If so, then being like Jesus may just get you into hot water with the citizens of 'Sodom'.

[Woody]

So who can we count on to decide what is bigoty, and what is legitimate breakaway from iniquity?

Are you nominating yourself to arbitrate this one, Tom? John 317? Travis? Richard?

Who gets to decide?

Excellent question brother Olger.

[Dr. Rich]

the 'jury' ought to be the readers of this thread.

[SivartM]

Bigotry was defined in the very first post of this thread. Is the question what degree of intolerance is acceptable? Is it okay to murder someone because they are gay? Is it okay to refuse to hire them at the grocery store? Is it okay to yell at two women for holding hands? Is it okay to call them by slurs? The real question is how much intolerance one ought to tolerate.

[Woody]

Quote:

Is it okay to murder someone because they are gay?

Murder is never okay

Quote:

Is it okay to refuse to hire them at the grocery store?

Yes. An employer should be able to hire whomever he feels will best serve his business.

Quote:

Is it okay to yell at two women for holding hands?

Yelling is not polite.

Quote:

Is it okay to call them by slurs?

Slurs are not polite.

My question to you -

Is it okay to use mistreatment as an excuse for racism? Wouldn't those who are mistreated WANT to STOP racism?