Who Then Is a Bigot?
A bigot is, “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”
Bigotry is, “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”
On a recent visit to a blog, I was reference to being a bigot, because I believe homosexuality is immoral and a sin against God.
As concerning homosexuality, the commenter wrote, “There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. In fact, criminalizing it and denying rights to homosexuals is what is immoral. If you are too bigotted to accept that, it is not the school's responsibility to make allowances for your bigotry.”
Scripture, as per Romans 1 and elsewhere, declares homosexuality is indeed a sin in the eyes of Almighty God, and therefore immoral and evil.
I completely realize that, with the above reference to Scripture, we have two choices:
1. We accept that this is indeed the Word of God, with the authority to judge our thoughts and actions righteously; therefore, we conclude that homosexuality is immoral and a sin. With this, we conclude that we are “stubborn” and “utterly intolerant” toward any idea that homosexuality is moral and acceptable behavior.
2. We deny God and/or reject this to be the Word of God, allowing it to have no authority in judging our thoughts and actions; therefore, we conclude that homosexuality is moral and not a sin. With this, we conclude that we are “stubborn” and “utterly intolerant” toward any idea that homosexuality is immoral and unacceptable behavior.
Do we not notice that both sides (Christian and Atheist) hold strict contradicting views, which are intolerant of the other? It all comes down to faith vs. unbelief, and that is where our security lies.
So, what I would like to say to the Atheist, the next time you wish to call a Christian a bigot, over the topic of homosexuality or any other, you will find that you are no less of one.
The name calling does nothing, but cause a debate/discussion to become personal. It does nothing in reaching an agreement/decision.
17 comments:
Tim
I'd have to agree that, using that definition, I'm intolerant of religious thinking, but I'm not intolerant of Christians, just as you are intolerant of gay lifestyles, not gay people. If that makes me and you a bigot, then fine, I'm a bigot and you're a bigot. But I don't think the etymology of the word justifies that distinction. Wikipedia says "Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false."
The subject of homosexuality is rightfully subjective. What's good for the goose is not always good for the gander (or in this case, another goose). You can have valid moral objections to homosexuality. That's called personal belief. I have no problem with you reading your magic book and basing your morality on what you find there, as long as you don't insist that I do the same thing.
I don't take my personal beliefs regarding, say, Christianity, and demand the government discriminate against Christians, simply because they are Christians. Yet that is what many Christians do when they demand the government impose a ban on gay marriage, or demand a constitutional amendment that insures that gay couples have different rights than non-gay couple.
It's one thing to have a belief in a particular morality, and it's fine if you live your life according to that belief. Where it crosses the line is when you (and I don't mean you personally, as I'm sure that person in the other blog did not mean you personally were a bigot) insist that everyone else abide by your morality. At that point you (the impersonal you) become a bigot, and deserve the charge.
Tim
Don't flatter yourself. You are not a bigot, not yet in my books.
You are just a moron, which is like, three rungs down????
Beast
Spanish Inquisitor,
Homosexuality is/was against the law. It is/was homosexuals that demand the law be changed to give them rights.
But, as I see it, when homosexuals know that Christians (and maybe others) do not believe homosexuality is moral or right, there are/is already (afore time) laws against homosexuality, yet they demand the law to be changed so the EVERYONE MUST accept homosexuality, they are "inist[ing] everyone else abide by [their] morality". For, once given "full rights" and laws have been abolished, how then will one voice their choice against it, without those saying, "How can you say it is wrong, when the law is on our side?"
I realize they are not saying everyone must be a homosexual, but they are saying that everyone should accept homosexuality or, at the least, allow it, even against their conscience.
My point of the post, was not limited to homosexuality, although that was the topic, but to the idea that we often times seems to lower ourselves to name calling. Calling one a bigot does not prove their point of view, nor does is disprove anothers, it simple brings a discussion into a personal level that usually leaves both sides with a bad taste in their mouths.
Homosexuality is/was against the law. It is/was homosexuals that demand the law be changed to give them rights.
Ummm. No. But I can understand why Christians think this way. Christians always seem to be in persecution mode, a holdover from the Roman times, I presume. No lion's dens around your neck of the woods, are there? :)
Homosexuality was against the law. It is not now. Actually, to be precise, it was only certain homosexual acts (they called it sodomy and it applied to heterosexuals too) that was against the law. It was not against the law to be a homosexual, and if it was it was only in the acts that it could be discovered and prosecuted, not in the thoughts.
In addition, homosexuals are not granted certain privileges and rights associated with heterosexual marriages.
The laws were against homosexuals because of what Christians look back to lovingly as those times when we were a "Christian nation" (ptui). Christians made the laws, and insisted that Christian morality be embodied in the laws. (double ptui).
It wasn't just homosexuals who demanded the laws be changed. It was rational people of all persuasions who realized that the laws were just a form of discrimination in disguise, and it was they who demanded the laws be changed. It was the Supreme Court of the US that changed the laws, and, last I looked, I don't believe a single member of the S. Ct. is gay.
Being black and drinking out of a white water fountain was against the law at one time also. Do you think it was only blacks who demanded that law be changed?
Oh. And don't forget. The rights homosexuals are "demanding" are the same rights you already enjoy, without any interference. You get to marry who you want. Your spouse enjoys rights of inheritance and other benefits that they don't. You get to have any kind of sex, in any describable position that you and your consenting wife wish to have.
yet they demand the law to be changed so the EVERYONE MUST accept homosexuality,
You're still in persecution mode. Get over it.
No one demands that you accept homosexuality. I presume that you are not gay, so I defy you to find anyone who thinks that you should be gay now that the laws have changed. You are free (this is still America) to believe anything you want - IN YOUR MIND. You can believe that homosexuality is immoral until you die. Be my guest and everyone else's.
But if you understood my original point, it's when Christians act on their beliefs and insist that others act accordingly (such as when they originally enacted legislation making specific sexual acts between consenting adults a crime) that they rise to the level of bigots. They are the ones who are forcing their particular Christian morality on everyone else, and demanding that everyone else accept it.
If you think you are being forced to accept homosexuality, you are deluding yourself. Until someone sticks a gun in your ear and says "suck my d**k" (I put stars there so you don't delete my post), you have no complaint. Even in that example, it's not homosexuality you are being asked to accept, it's rape.
Feel free to preach from every pulpit, and even this blog, that homosexuality is immoral. Everyone that wants to is free to listen and agree or disagree. If you can still do that, then clearly, no-one is making you accept homosexuality.
I've given a little more thought to what you said. In return, give a little thought to what I say.
If you honestly believe that homosexuality is immoral, as you think your religion teaches you (keeping in mind that there are many Christians who disagree)and you keep your belief to yourself, i.e. you simply live your own life in accordance with your understanding of morality, and don't insist others do the same, then you cannot validly be called a bigot. I'll grant you that.
In a blog, or elsewhere, if someone calls you a bigot because you tell them that you believe homosexuality is wrong, and nothing more, they are wrong. If they insist on calling you a bigot because of your professed Christianity, they come perilously close to being bigots themselves under this definition:
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
A prejudiced person is one who prejudges, without all the facts.
Now, in return, I ask you to consider this.
Is it possible that your religion simply gives you a convenient excuse, the moral high ground if you will, to justify your personal revulsion of a sexual lifestyle diametrically different than your own, that has no effect on you or your own lifestyle, and that you are not forced to accept or live in any way?
Think about it.
In addition, homosexuals are not granted certain privileges and rights associated with heterosexual marriages.
There is a reason homosexual unions are not granted the same "rights" as heterosexual marriages. Marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman; therefore, it is impossible to give man/man or woman/woman homosexual rights under a name they cannot/do not fit.
Homosexuality is not only an attack against God, it is also an attack against the values of marriage. If the homosexuals did not really care that Christians, and others, do not accept them morally, they would not try to pry their way into redefining marriage, but would define themselves a new term, whereby they could fight for the rights they desire.
I do find it quite interesting that Atheists will fight to claim that we were not based on a Christian nation, and that the founding fathers where merely deists and/or atheists, yet now you claim is was, "Christians made the laws, and insisted that Christian morality be embodied in the laws." So Atheists and Deists made laws so that we would all act like Christians? :)
It amazes me to no end, how when the discussion of homosexuality arrises, some wish to bring up slavery and the trials of the black man. Being a black person is not a sin, homosexuality is.
The rights homosexuals are "demanding" are the same rights you already enjoy, without any interference.
Again, I say, stop demanding that Christianity and society accept the homosexual redefining of the biblical institution of marriage, of a man and woman. Define a new homosexual term, then campaign for rights. Marriage, man and woman, is a biblical idea. Since homosexuals do not believe the Bible, then don't desire to hold to a Biblical ideal, or try to redefine it to serve an unChristian cause.
Marriage is a biblical idea? What baloney!
The Sumerians, the Chinese, the Eygptians and all the rest of the ancient civilizations that predated Christianity already had the concept of marriage long before the erstwhile cult of Christianity took root.
Christians just love to plagiarize and steal the inventions of others, don't they???
Marriage was instituted by God, in the beginning, with Adam and Eve.
But, if you wish to take the credit from God, and give it to the "Sumerians, the Chinese, the Eygptians and all the rest of the ancient civilizations", you are free to do so.
It still, in no way, takes away the fact that marriage symbolizes the union of a man and a woman.
Did God issue a marriage certificate to Adam and Eve? Or any form of marriage rites to confirm their marriages?
For goodness sake, Tim, Christianity is a young religion. A cult in its formative years. Laws, marriages and other social norms that Christians love to attribute to their wacky religion is actually a continuation of other more ancient, archaic traditions.
Before you start sprouting off your Adam and Eve nonsense, just know that the Sumerians predate Adam and Eve by a thousand years, assuming that you believe that the Earth is 6000 yrs old, and the Earth is flat.
Beast
Adam and Eve? C'mon Tim, you're losing credibility here. Even most Christians acknowledge that Adam and Eve are mythical people.
The OT was written sometime around 3500 years ago. Marriage existed long before that. You cannot, credibly assert that marriage is a biblical invention, any more than you can credibly assert that "Thou shalt not kill" is a biblical invention.
Restore some credibility, Tim, and acknowledge a little, just a little, reality.
Even most Christians acknowledge that Adam and Eve are mythical people.
How can you say that? Is there any information to support this claim?
The OT was written sometime around 3500 years ago. Marriage existed long before that.
You are correct, for God has always existed; therefore, His idea of marriage predates everything. :)
Correction: Marriage is not God's idea. It is Man's idea of the "ideal union". God is merely used as a "third party" or witness in this unholy union.
In secular countries, the state is the third party, and god is merely relegated to the stands as a ceremonial figurehead.
Beast
Honestly,
For one that does not believe in God, I find it difficult to consider that you may know what is and is not in His mind, or what is or isn't His idea.
And by what grounds do you consider it, "unholy"?
Simple. Marriage is a form of slavery, a tripartite contract between two consensual partners and the state. It is a contract that binds both parties for an entire lifetime, until such time one or both of them is dead. Other than that, a divorce is the only probable option left to annul the contract. How "unholy" a contract is that?
As for God, no, God never existed. Marriage was a institution invented out of sheer jealousy: Your land vs mine, your buffalo vs mine, your dildo vs my dildo and so on. The wife (or in rare cases, the husband) becomes the sole property of the dominant partner. Marriage, bound by law, further cements the domination.
Marriage is slavery, no doubt about it. Just as slaves have contracts to bind them to their masters, so too is the wife, the only difference being, the latter is bound contractually till "death do us part".
Beast
So,
You would rather have no such thing as marriage, thereby allowing persons to switch continually among homo and heter sexual partners at their pleasure, with no consequences?
Would this not lead to the sure death of the family, morality, and humanity?
Since marriage is a contract, what I advocate is a short time contract, maximum 7 years, after which both parties can willingly terminate the marriages and go their separate ways. Finances, the allocation of property and even children can be stated beforehand to prevent a tedious lawsuits.
Otherwise, I think marriage is slavery. Do I advocate banning marriage? No. Let everyone who wants it have it. Its their right.
I for one do not see marriage as a necessity. Even without marriages, adult partners can still have children. The question here is social perceptions towards children born into parents without that "all important" contract.
Beast
Sure death? Not necessarily so.
Animals don't marry, yet they still breed. So do most tribes in the Amazon. It is only in advanced civilizations that marriage became a concept, since marriage itself typically involves a myriad of elaborate ceremonies as well as an official bond.
If life has evolved to exist for much of 4.5 billion years without a contract, I don't think humans will go extinct without one.
The way I see it, we are our worst enemies: Polluting the environment, killing ourselves over religion, etc. These things may cause our species to go extinct.
Beast
Post a Comment