Seems DU may have a lot of bigots as members per the definition.

[Live and Learn]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by SYFROYH (a host of the General Discussion forum).

big·ot
noun \ˈbi-gət\

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

[Fumesucker]

1. Many of us strongly and unfairly dislike conservatives and conservative ideas

It is clearly a moral flaw.

[Live and Learn]

2. Really, exactly what don't you like about conservatives?

Is it their bigotry?

[Fumesucker]

3. Conservatives aren't bigoted..

Just ask them.

I said we unfairly disliked them.

[Live and Learn]

4. Not necessarily, it could be for other reasons.

Greed is one that comes to mind.

[Fumesucker]

5. They claim greed is a word impossible to define..

An entirely subjective measure.

[Live and Learn]

6. How about stupidity? nt

[Fumesucker]

8. Voting for Democrat politicians, duh...

Do you know any actual conservatives?

[Live and Learn]

10. Unfortunately I do and yes, that would be their definition of stupidity. lol

[JonLP24]

15. They're either greedy or stupid

Just take denying global warming to, it not or may not be man made, to I'm not a scientist.

Logically, regulation means oil companies they aren't making every single penny they possibly can so they pay people to say things like that, obviously. Or they believe it which means (I actually don't classify people "smart" "dumb" just the arguments or actions which I make plenty of myself) they're stupid.

Bill Maher based a discussion with Bernie Sanders who was disagreeing with him over his claim that they're stupid, he was saying they're very smart that a lot of these things they say & argue for is because of corporate dollars. Maher asked, "What about Inhofe" Sanders laughed and admitted he is very nice, believes the things he says so Maher says the Republican party is a "coalition of the greedy cynical & the truly stupid" which about sums it up for me.

[Live and Learn]

21. +1 nt

[Violet_Crumble]

7. I've never yet met a bigot who thinks they're a bigot...

And that's not confined to conservatives...

[Fumesucker]

9. I just admitted it in post #1

[pampango]

37. I think disliking conservatives is different from disliking someone based on a birth characteristic.

If you dislike someone because they are Black or Mexican or left-handed, you're basing your attitude on something they have no control over. To me that makes one a bigot. I can't change my nationality nor my race or my handedness at the drop of a hat. I can switch from being conservative to moderate or liberal whenever I want to.

OTOH, if you dislike someone because they are a conservative or a Yankee fan or an asparagus-lover that's a different story. You may be wrong or you may be right to dislike them but you are not a bigot.

[JaneyVee]

129. Nah, the difference is, I hate conservative ideology, not conservatives.

Whereas conservatives fantasize about liberal genocide, I would still try to save Hannity's life if I saw him get hit by a car in NY.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Key words: unfairly dislikes

Is it "unfair" that I "strongly" dislike homophobes or "refuse to accept" them?

[Doctor_J]

71. unfairly is a highly subjective adverb though

[JonLP24]

12. I don't have any problem with that

I'm bigoted towards sociopaths not that I wouldn't be fair to them at first or around in general but in I was in the position, only if I had much more than an "educated guess", I'd be far less likely to rent a home or hire. Only because you can't win, make things easier makes it harder for everyone around them, there is no "talking things through", or them being fair to you you can be locked up in a prison halfway around the world over something they did they go on with no guilt weighing them down or coming back and "clearing things up". Basically I'd be unfair in that regard, I'd be telling a lie if I said differently.

Republicans, not really. A lot of them for sure, a lot. But I always hear them out first. It is after hearing the ideas, stances, actions is when I strongly (I don't think unfair, I live in a city full of them). Evangelicals, definitely but I almost never run into someone who claims they aren't religious so again, I'm around them all the time. Well, I guess you could say Mormons, I mean the bikes, coming to your door, Russell Pearce (Mormon who is one of the most public open racists in recent history). The ideas, politics, and bigoted beliefs and practices.

I'm giving an honest answer best I can so maybe but unlike a Mormon or Republican I wouldn't discriminate against them like I would a sociopath but a lot of the traits, ideas, & actions have some overlap. I have been open minded, friendly, from people all over the world in place half way around the word when most of the very same people I were with would treat like dog shit, assume nefarious intentions on their part, etc. Those kind of people i tend to become more bigoted towards, the bigots.

[JI7]

13. is this about scientologists ?

[Live and Learn]

17. Are you bigoted towards them?

I'm not.

But the definition does bring up some good questions. Like is disliking a group like the KKK bigoted? I say no because the group itself is bigoted.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I thought it was about Muslims. There's been some bigotry aimed at them on DU recently n/t

[Live and Learn]

22. I have noticed quite a bit about many groups recently which is why I brought it up. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. you think?

[Live and Learn]

18. Not often, but on occasion.

And today I have the flu so not clearly.

[Glassunion]

16. Leave Olive Garden alone.

[Live and Learn]

20. Okay but Red Lobster has to go.

Olive Garden doesn't care what color a baby is, no breastfeeding allowed. Red lobster obviously discriminates against lobsters of any color but red.

[Pooka Fey]

23. Ah crap. That means me because I refuse to accept Sharia Law and those who wish to promote it. nt

[Live and Learn]

24. I don't think so. But if you unfairly refuse to accept people that

do live by it, you may be one.

[Pooka Fey]

25. In life, you must choose. I refuse Sharia law and its proponents. Otherwise I betray myself.

I believe in equality between the sexes and it is fair for me to do so.

Thus, if I force myself to accept people who practice and promote Sharia law and in doing so subjugate and hobble women in society, I betray myself and my principals, and I am nothing, a cypher, a zero.

My life belongs to me, and I refuse to empty out my brain just to put myself in line with the popular PC nonsense. You have to make choices in life.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Who's trying to force Sharia law on you? n/t

[Pooka Fey]

29. ISIL is. The Islamic State. Don't you watch the news?

They haven't at all tried to hide this objective.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. I watch the news. I think you've got it wrong...

ISIL want to kill you. They want to kill me. Even with that upgrade of nasty prick status I can't bring myself to be worried at all about it. I thought you were talking about people where you live wanting to force Sharia law on you. Even then, I don't think I'd be too outraged or worried.

btw, they're better referred to as Daesh.

[Pooka Fey]

35. ISIL wants to convert you and everybody else on the planet

because it is the will of Allah. They have no problem killing you if that is easier. Keep on watching the news.

I never said I was worried about it. You asked me who wanted to force Sharia on me, and I answered your question, without using any swear words.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. No, they want to kill us.

There's lots of things they say they're going to do, and most of their tirades are pretty funny stuff.


See, I'm not worried about it, which is why I'm not saying things like they're trying to force things on me and I'm not going to accept it etc. For someone to try to force something on me and for me to worry about it, it'd have to be more than the microstorm in a teacup that's Daesh...

[Pooka Fey]

102. Oy vey

[Live and Learn]

28. Personally, I abhor much of Sharia law but I also

have a hard time with some of the laws here. Disagreeing with laws does not make one a bigot though.

Discriminating against someone that adheres to the laws probably does.

My OP really was a call to consider what it all means. I think we all agree that bigotry is wrong but we all have our own concept of what that means.

[Pooka Fey]

31. Just curious, which USA laws do you consider comparable to Sharia?

I'm really curious, not being obnoxious here.

[Live and Learn]

33. Death sentences for one. nt

[Pooka Fey]

36. Yup, we agree on that one.

[Live and Learn]

41. We don't cut off hands but we do condemn people to lifelong poverty

by keeping records forever and easing access to any criminal records. Seems quite similar to the Scarlet Letter or Sharia law of cutting off hands to me.

[Pooka Fey]

92. I like to keep my categories much tighter and well defined than you do.

In my world, the punishment of cutting off someone's hands for stealing is not the equivalent of the punishment of getting denied credit for running down your credit score at Experian.

[Live and Learn]

97. How about being denied job opportunities for life and

not being able to feed your family for stealing, a drug conviction or a plethora of other convictions.

[Pooka Fey]

105. For the 2nd time on this thread, my only useful reply is "Oy vey"

[Live and Learn]

114. Not a very helpful explanation. Sigh! nt

[Pooka Fey]

118. Oy vey ist mir nt

[Fred Sanders]

48. You do not have to accept anything in America that does not exist, but for fundies, they can just

make up their fear in the required amounts, on command. Like Sharia law is coming even as they impose Maria law on the nation.

Boo.mand delivered by strange brown men not speaking their Lord's language. Which actually is icloser to a description of what Jesus must have been.

Keep them in fear and then offer to save them, like promises.

"Jesus Saves". I always thought it meant "save fro fear". What kind of religion is that that has fear as its central teaching?

[Bluenorthwest]

94. All religions are based in fear and hate. The more anti gay and anti woman a religion, the more that

faith is devoid of courage, comprised only of panic and ignorance and of fear. It's an easy metric.

[Capt. Obvious]

78. How do you solve a problem like Sharia?

[Pooka Fey]

90. I don't know. Do you know? nt

[Capt. Obvious]

96. How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?

[Pooka Fey]

106. I find your DU pseudo suits you perfectly nt

[KMOD]

99. ...

Love it! :

[Live and Learn]

116. Damn you, never gonna get that song out of my head now. nt

[SidDithers]

144. Nice...

Sid

[ileus]

26. That's always been the case...but we're good guy bigots so it's okay.

hating the right groups has always been a progressive value here....

[Live and Learn]

30. If only WM would clearly define the right groups, we could solve this dilemma. nt

[kentauros]

34. You should include the etymology of the word,

as it gets to the "root" of its meaning. Turns out it's rather appropriate to your thread, too

bigot (n.)

1590s, "sanctimonious person, religious hypocrite," from French bigot (12c.), which is of unknown origin. Earliest French use of the word is as the name of a people apparently in southern Gaul, which led to the now-doubtful, on phonetic grounds, theory that the word comes from Visigothus. The typical use in Old French seems to have been as a derogatory nickname for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of the Germanic oath bi God. But OED dismisses in a three-exclamation-mark fury one fanciful version of the "by god" theory as "absurdly incongruous with facts." At the end, not much is left standing except Spanish bigote "mustache," which also has been proposed but not explained, and the chief virtue of which as a source seems to be there is no evidence for or against it.

In support of the "by God" theory, as a surname Bigott, Bygott are attested in Normandy and in England from the 11c., and French name etymology sources (such as Dauzat) explain it as a derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans and representing "by god." The English were known as goddamns 200 years later in Joan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches (see also son of a bitch). But the sense development in bigot is difficult to explain. According to Donkin, the modern use first appears in French 16c. This and the earliest English sense, "religious hypocrite," especially a female one, might have been influenced by beguine and the words that cluster around it. Sense extended 1680s to other than religious opinions.

[Live and Learn]

38. Interesting. Thanks. nt.

[kentauros]

39. You're welcome.

Etymology Online is one of my favorite informational sites. You never know how it might support a point around here.

[PeaceNikki]

42. I see something very different. I see people who criticize Islam and the ideology that fuel violence

I don't think there are "a lot" of people here who think all Muslims are evil. I think there are a number who dislike organized religion and the misogyny, hate and harm it can do.

[Live and Learn]

43. So, you support those thinking we should outlaw all religions?

Hasn't that been tried before? Did it work? Wasn't our country founded (American Natives, please forgive the founded reference) on religious freedom?

[PeaceNikki]

44. um, no. please read what I wrote.

[Live and Learn]

49. Those that dislike organized religion? Not a fan myself but what

exactly do you mean by that?

I think we would both agree that misogyny would fit in to the definition of bigotry in any capacity.

[PeaceNikki]

50. I mean exactly what I wrote.

As a strong supporter of women, LGBT and a secular society, Republicans are my adversaries.

Organized religion is as well. Islam is generally an extreme example of misogyny, hate and violence. And attempts to inject these horrible beliefs into society, governments and law. And I, for one, won't hold back on criticizing it just because the RW does.

We think it's hypocritical when the Christian RW wants to exclude Islam while pushing their agendas (and it is!), but I ALSO think it's hypocritical to defend Islam or pretend their harmful beliefs do not exist and I won't. I am well known on DU for my criticism of Popes, the RCC and any other religious person or belief that is discriminatory or otherwise harmful to a secular society. I don't like any of it.

I cannot and will not respect it. And I will satirize and criticize it.

[brooklynite]

45. The problem with straw men is that they burn up easily...

...who has advocated outlawing religion?

[Live and Learn]

46. I guess you haven't been reading DU lately. nt

[PeaceNikki]

47. there was one thread advocating that. One.

And I didn't post supporting such a notion so don't put that on me... Or "a lot" of DUers.

[Live and Learn]

51. More than one and I didn't put anything on you, personally.

And, I agree 'a lot' was subjective.

I love DU. Best people around and that is why I post here at all. If you can get anyone to think a bit anywhere, it will be here.

[brooklynite]

52. As I've said, I have the upmost respect for individuals' rights to engage in religion...

...and I would never show disrespect to them directly. I wouldn't enter a mosque without removing my shoes, or enter a synagogue without putting a yarmulke. Doesn't mean I don't think the religion they practice is a mix of fantasy and troubling "inspired" rules, and I'm comfortable saying that publicly.

[PeaceNikki]

53. amen.

Exactly.

[Live and Learn]

55. And I would always not only encourage your right to speak about

your 'uncomfortableness' with 'inspired rules' but probably join in with you. But calling for an outright ban on religious beliefs is ridiculous and ignorant.

[PeaceNikki]

61. So take it up with the one(s) who did rather than label "a lot" of the members here.

Your OP is disruptive meta meant to stand your high horse and tell us all how much better you are than "a lot" of us.

Many of us who are critical of religion and see the importance of bringing a violent ideology and barbaric tentets into the discussion, even though we're very mindful of not placing blame on ALL Muslims are being called bigots and/or Islamaphobes.

There's a difference. We don't hate or even dislike Muslims. We dislike theocracies and hate how religion punishes those who choose not to adhere to their ways.

[Live and Learn]

62. My post only offered a definition of a bigot.

If you take offense to the definition, please take it up with the definers.

I have no idea why you are taking it personally.

[PeaceNikki]

64. how fucking handy since none of us have access to such useful information.

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the internet.

Here's a hint: the title of your op is what makes it disruptive meta.

[Live and Learn]

65. It really wasn't personal. Sorry if it upset you. nt

[PeaceNikki]

67. the title of your op leaves it open to interpretation, which makes it disruptive meta.

If you take issue with specific posts, take it up with them or alert.

[brooklynite]

69. No, no, no...this is just your MISINTERPRETATION of the OP

Just like radical Islam is a misinterpretation of the Islamic religion.

Because everyone agrees as to what the correct interpretations are.

[Live and Learn]

70. I don't really think so. The title was meant to make DU'ers

think about whether they might be guilty of such. Which is why I included the 'appears'.

[PeaceNikki]

73. so meta!!

[PeaceNikki]

77. also, you made it personal with this ridiculous reply

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026074564#post43

I said nothing of the sort. Your question to me was obviously rhetorical in your head since you went on to rebut what you thought was my stance.

You made it personal. Not me.

[Live and Learn]

79. Honestly, I have no idea what you are referring to.

Your link goes to the definition of the Merriam_Webster definition of Bigot that I posted. I have never singled you out. In fact, I really don't know you at all. But your adamant insistence that my post was about you is beginning to make me a bit suspicious.

[PeaceNikki]

80. suspicious of what? here... this is where you got personal.

Since you seen to have forgotten this portion of the exchange:

[Live and Learn]

83. Okay, I am still confused. Exactly what did you find personal about that? nt

[PeaceNikki]

84. You accused me of something I didn't come close to saying or implying.

Again, suspicious of what exactly? What are you implying now? Be clear.

[Bluenorthwest]

91. You accused that poster of saying something outrageous that she did not say, while you also evaded

what was actually said. That's not only personal, it is dishonest. Where are your ethics? Passive aggressive crapola.
Now try addressing what is actually written to you, instead of the heaps of straw you keep arguing with.

[Silent3]

98. Please do tell where you run into so many people saying "we should outlaw all religions".

Curiously I've hardly ever seen that come up, while the accusation that it's happening seems a bit more frequent.

[Live and Learn]

103. Seriously? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

119. Again you are asked a valid, direct question and dismiss it with disrespect and snark.

What do you think 'discussion' means, exactly?

[Silent3]

149. Quite seriously.

Show me some of these numerous examples of people (on DU especially) calling for the OUTLAWING of religion.

Some helpful hints to employ during your search for such examples:

1) Expecting separation of church and state, i.e. wanting to keep organized, school-sponsored prayer out of public schools, religious displays off public property, saying that "under God" doesn't belong in the Pledge, etc., does not constitute seeking the outlawing of religion.

2) Making fun of religion does not constitute seeking the outlawing of religion.

3) Wishing religion would fade in influence and popularity does not constitute seeking the outlawing of religion.

4) Thinking any of the above is a "slippery slope" toward the kind of thing you imagine might lead to a day when there would be open, clear, and unequivocal calls to ban religion does not justify the conclusion that any of the above are a stealth campaign seeking the outlawing of religion that you oh-so-cleverly see through and aren't going to let get past your watchful vigilance, nosiree.

[notadmblnd]

54. Everyone has bigoted attitudes at one time or another towards one group or another

The question is; can we recognize it in ourselves for what it is and that it is wrong, then work toward eliminating it in our individual lives?

[Live and Learn]

58. Bazinga! nt.

[marble falls]

56. When is the fistfight going to breakout, I want to make a run for some popcorn.

[Live and Learn]

59. You can have mine. I have to go to leave soon. nt

[JackInGreen]

57. Oye vey

I suppose someone has to take a stab at the 'your just as bad' dart board.
But what am I saying, i'm the one feeding the troll, right?

[Live and Learn]

60. Interesting post. nt

[Pooka Fey]

156. + 1000

LOL I needed two "Oy vey" posts and an "Oy vey ist mir" post to escape from this thread.

When the discussion gets too ridiculous, it's better to switch to Yiddish. At the expense of giving this thread another bump

[Agnosticsherbet]

63. Merriam-Webster's definition hinges on the word "unfairly."

That source defines "fairly" as:

fair·ly adverb \ˈfer-lē\

: to some degree or extent but not very or extremely : to a reasonable or moderate extent

: in a way that is right or proper : in a fair way

—used for emphasis before a verb that is being used figuratively

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fairly

As long as the dislike exhibited is reasonable, moderate, or fair, it is not bigotry.

I do not like religious extremists who attempt to pass discriminatory laws, laws that limit the rights of others, or laws that force others to live by their religious rules. I think that is reasoned, fair, and moderate.

Religious Extremists who murder others in order to force everyone to follow their religious laws are criminals that should be hunted down and tried in a court of law (when it is possible to capture them alive).

I also think that is reasoned, fair, and moderate.

I don't like the Conservative movement because many of its policies create hardship for the poor and middle class and are made to benefit the wealthy.

That is reasoned, fair, and moderate.

I know many conservatives who I like as individuals. I am related to some religious extremists that I care for deeply, though often annoyed by their attempts to save my soul.

To me, when we condense a whole group into a label such as Muslim, Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Libertarian, Muslim, Christain (or any other over simplified label for a group) we slide towards bigotry.

[Live and Learn]

66. Agreed.

[LanternWaste]

68. I'm bigoted against passive-aggressive questions masquerading as sincerity.

I'm bigoted against passive-aggressive implications awkwardly masquerading itself as a sincere question.

[Doctor_J]

74. I'm just a crotchety old man

And I almost alerted this ridiculous flame bait op

[Live and Learn]

81. I think that would have been unfair. nt

[Pooka Fey]

109. + 1000

[Live and Learn]

75. That doesn't bother me but double implications in the same post

is a bit troublesome.

[LanternWaste]

82. Oh dear. Your inferences could indeed, be troubling if accurate...

Oh dear. Your inferences could indeed, be troubling if accurate...

I can only hope a creative rationalization is set forth below...)

[Live and Learn]

85. Really, how so? Please doublespeak your mind. nt

[Pooka Fey]

93. ROFLMAO nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

150. Agreed. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

72. Here, I'll give you an example of what 'people of faith' on DU say about LGBT people.

"The openness and brazenness of the LBGT agenda and the media flaunting of gay marriages all across the country cost Dems dearly and threatens to do so in the future."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025764803#post45

Here's another:
""Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote. I believe that marriage is something done in churches, and the Bible does speak negatively about homosexuality."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1352110

I could do this all day. Open contempt for LGBT people, streaming from the 'faith community' which is also full of clergy that each and every day speaks slurs, weaponized sermons, lies and filth about us while 'people of faith' cheer them on. They call us demonic, they call us traitors, sinners, infidels, heathen, criminals and the 'people of faith' shout 'Amen' and 'Allahu'.
The 'faith community' also has entire governments run by theocracy, in some of those LGBT people are executed. Whipped. Put in jail and the 'faith community' cheers for this.
Where is your show of outrage when those openly bigoted words and actions take place? Absent. Your opposition to hateful words and bigotry seems very selective, situational and limited to your own kind, which is in fact, bigotry.

The 'faith community' is the source of most of the anti gay, anti woman verbiage in the world, most of the terrorism streams from 'the faith community' as well.
So who the fuck are you but a representative of the most proudly bigoted faction on earth, 'faith folk' who each think the rest of us will burn in hell for being wrong while they drink cool eternal waters for being so perfect. That's hugely bigoted thinking, sport.

[Live and Learn]

76. Hold on, where did I absolve anyone of bigotry against the LGBT community or women?

In fact, I would suggest that by the definition both groups are included

[Bluenorthwest]

86. Where did I say that you had? I showed you clearly bigoted materials.

I noted that those of you howling about insults to religion never, ever show any concern about the insults that stream out of religious communities toward others, even on DU.
If 'bigotry' is your enemy, why is it you don't speak up about all bigotry, but instead come and cast unsupported accusations about people on DU. I can show you the bigotry of the bigots I oppose here. You show only your own lack of support for your assertion.

And of course, you failed to address what I actually wrote. Because 'those people' don't deserve respectful discussion. I'm so sick of this shit.

[Live and Learn]

95. I didn't bring up religion, the definition did I suppose as an example,though it also included race.

But, I never thought it was limited to to either one. I have always stood against bigotry of the LGBT community.

Your links went to a post from 2004 and a post that was deleted. Forgive me for not seeing and responding to every post. I do my best.

Honestly Blue, unless you somehow feel personally guilty of bigotry, my post had nothing to do with you.

In fact, I think we are all a bit guilty of some form of it, including me. But, I think bringing awareness of the possibility that we might be should be enlightening and not confrontational.

[Bluenorthwest]

125. Again with the dishonesty. In the thread you attack those who mention women's rights and LGBT

with accusations that they want to 'outlaw all religion'. You brought religion into the thread. But when asked to address specifics, you simply refuse. I offered you examples of really shitty and open bigotry on DU, you dismiss them. You on the other hand are accusing others of terrible things without any shred of proof and when asked, you just accuse some more.
If a person asks about abuse of women and your response is 'you want to make religion illegal' you are being evasive, dishonest and bearing false witness against the other poster. I object to that mistreatment of others.
I note that when asked a question, you don't answer the question, instead you hurl an accusation, bravely and proudly.

[Live and Learn]

140. That is not at all true. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

142. Yes it is true. You did exactly that to Nikki upthread. 'You want to outlaw all religion' you spewed

when she said she is critical of those who abuse women. It is as dishonest and unfair as it gets, to ascribe to someone something they did not and would not say. You did not want to discuss the things she brought up, so you accused her of some bullshit you made up. I have no respect for that tactic and don't expect to find any quarter here when employing such tactics to slime good DUers.

[Live and Learn]

158. Totally wrong. i am sorry you took it that way but you are way off base. nt

[RKP5637]

88. +1, n/t

[RKP5637]

87. It's a relative description depending upon ones frame of reference, often a broad brush. n/t

[hrmjustin]

89. i took yesterday off from DU because the vitriol aimed at Muslims and people of faith in the past

few days. Not a very welcoming week here for Muslims and people of faith.

[Live and Learn]

100. DU can be hard on anyone sometimes.

Please remember that not everyone on DU joins in on the pile ups and many specifically don't join in on threads of that nature because they think the threads are ridiculous.

Still, on DU you will also nearly also find threads and posts disagreeing with any form of bigotry.

It is still the safest have I know of for civilized discussion. When I want a flame war, I will use Yahoo or something.

So sorry you have felt alienated here recently.

[hrmjustin]

108. Thank you.

It was a bad week here.

[Bluenorthwest]

104. That's just so much bullshit.

Look in this very thread.
Poster A: 'I don't like the violence against women and gays'
Poster B: 'So you would outlaw all religion, how will that work out?'
Is that honest? Is that respectful to the question about women and LGBT and violence toward us? What sort of a person, when asked about violence toward women, refuses to speak of that violence and instead accuses the questioner of wanting to outlaw all religion? That's a vile thing to do. It is in fact 'bearing false witness'. One of the Big Ten No Nos.

So when I see that much dishonesty, so casually employed, I think demand proof of any allegations hurled by those who are playing such shitty rhetorical games with such important issues. It is wrong to engage is word games about important things. It is dishonest. If it is not forbidden by a faith, that faith is worthless. Any faith that lets people indulge in bullshit to avoid speaking directly is without any value of any kind.
It is the fruit a tree bears that defines that tree, not the sign on the tree that says 'I am a good tree'.

[hrmjustin]

107. I never said you can't challenge religion.

Chllenging idea are a good thing but some of the people in the last few days were not about challenging.

[Bluenorthwest]

112. I asked you to look at this thread, I asked you to support your characterizations with citations....

Do you think it is honest to respond to a question about mistreatment and abuse of women and LGBT people by saying 'So you want to outlaw all religion'? Yes or no. Is that honest? Is that fair? Is it courageous? Truthful? Ethical? Respectful?
'What about the violence toward women?'
'You want to outlaw all religion!!!'

How is that acceptable within the parameters of any faith or ethic?

[hrmjustin]

113. Where in the op does it talk about women and LGBT people?

You are the oje not being fair here.

[Bluenorthwest]

141. Again, I asked you to read the thread, in which the OP does evade discussion of the truth

by accusing a good DUer of 'wanting to outlaw all religion'. She spoke her mind, said no such thing and would never say such a thing, but that's what the OP accused her of. Stand with that if you wish. I think it is devoid of decency to treat others in that way. I assume that in your faith, such deceptive tactics are encouraged. Is that the case? Is that why any question asked of 'the faith community' is answered with bullshit accusations about wanting to make religion illegal? Is this what you think Jesus taught?
'I criticize those who hate women and gays'
'You want to outlaw all religion'

Jesus said to use clear, direct language and never to be dishonest about what others have said. I thought his teachings were important to you. I now see your faith is improvisational and not associated with the teachings of the man who said 'let your yes mean yes, your no mean no for anything further comes form evil.' Yeah, Jesus said it is evil to play word games when in discussion. Evil to avoid a direct question by pretending the person has said something vile. Evil.
I know, fuck Jesus and his high minded nonsense about honest and direct speech, right? They want to outlaw all religion, if they ask about the beating of women, say they want to outlaw all religion. It's what Jesus would have done.

[hrmjustin]

143. Why are you putting this on me. i am not able to read all this right now.

I was responding to the op.

If the op said something in this thread that the op should not have then challenge the op.

Please do not make this about me.

[Bluenorthwest]

151. Then say you can't spare the time. I asked you to read the thread, you came back with 'the OP does

not say that' and called me unfair. But I was speaking about and asked you to read the thread. You don't have time to do so. I will take you at your word.

[Live and Learn]

160. I asked a simple question.

Much like I imagine Jesus would have done. I certainly didn't use profanity and accuse another of standing by something that wasn't even implied.

I understand that you are doing your best to upset me and get my post hidden but I don't understand why. And I will never understand why you would pick on somebody that had nothing to do with the thread.

[Live and Learn]

111. Wow, you took my reply to mean that I am against women and the LGBT community?

All I can say is, you took it wrongly.

I am a strong advocate of both.

As I said before, I will always speak out about bigotry wherever I find it.

[Bluenorthwest]

115. Then why did you respond to a very valid and honest comment with hyperbolic nonsense about

outlawing all religion? If, when asked about bigotry, you do not respond and instead accuse the questioner of vicious ill will, you are not speaking out about bigotry, you are demonstrating bigotry.

[Live and Learn]

121. Because your question was not based upon any knowledge of the religions,

but on hyperbole itself.

And there have been calls on DU to outlaw religion which I didn't see you object to.

[PeaceNikki]

124. One. There was one 'call on DU to outlaw religion'. By a 80 post n00b, I might add.

lol, someone is hyperbolic and it's not BNW.

Who did, by the way, object to it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026065094#post61

Bluenorthwest (33,718 posts)
61. A terrible fascist idea, but there have been many,many extensive posts from religious people

calling for bans on political speech and 'offenses to religion', laws to restrict and to limit the 1st Amendment, which many of them seem to despise. The 1st Amendment protects both speech and religious practice. So if the guardians of faith want to put freedom of some forms of expression on the block, they have themselves put religious expression on the block along with the rest of it.
And that does bring the question of which form of expression is doing the actual harm. If the 1st Amendment needs to be limited, as many on DU say it must, then let's talk about all of that amendment, and discuss the value of religious freedom, which also might be in need of some limits, restrictions along the lines of those suggested for political speech and speech critical of religion.

Personally, I am for freedom of expression in all forms, secular, religious, profane, artistic, good, bad, loud and soft. But if the talk is about limits for me, the talk must also be about limits for thee.

To be blunt, those who are asking for limits on freedom of expression of criticism of religion also want religion to be free to express hate and contempt for anyone religion wishes to attack. They just want their victims stripped of all defense. Fuck them.

So, AGAIN you made it personal with someone. AGAIN you accuse someone of supporting something they don't.

WTF is wrong with you?

[Live and Learn]

132. No, you are trying to make it personal. I am not about to play. nt

[PeaceNikki]

133. JFC, get some self-actualization.

Your passive aggressive bullshit is mind-boggling.

[Live and Learn]

136. As is your use of anagrams, curse words and psycho-babble. nt

[PeaceNikki]

137. Awesome fucking thread, L&L!! Way to go!

You did it! You 'told us'!

Don't get too nosebleedy up there on that high horse!

[Live and Learn]

139. Excellent retort from someone who just fell off theirs.

Have a great day!

[Bluenorthwest]

134. I saw one (1) such thread. I called it a fascist idea, sport. And I defy you to challenge my

knowledge of any religion, particularly the Big Three, for I am very well versed in all of them. I have been to all the holy places (other than the ones that discriminate against other faiths) and read all of the texts. I have met Popes, my first Mosque visit was as a child, my life has been saved by a Palestinian kid in Palestine, there are Jewish friends of mine, who when asked about Judaism, ask me to explain it. I now and have known for many years members of virtually every faith. Muslims? I know every sort, just as I know every sort of Christian and all sorts of Jews. I know devoted followers, those who were born to it but don't practice much, those who rejected it and are now atheists, those who were born in one of those faiths and converted to another. I know gay and straight people in most all faiths of the world, I know black and white people who are Muslims, who are Christians, who are Jewish.
So this 'no knowledge of the religions' thing will come as a surprise to many of my friends who consider me to be very well versed indeed.
So I recommend to you that any questions about religion put to me be crafted with great care and precision. I am capable of showing in 'their texts' why 'our faith' is wrong. I can use the Torah to give Palestine to the Palestinians, I can quote the Koran to support giving Palestine to Israel. I can, in fact, hang an archbishop on his own Biblical citations, can, have and will again.

I have to ask you, why would you assume I lack knowledge of the religions? Because I don't believe them? Because I am gay? Why would you make that assumption, that prejudging, that rather bigoted and presumptuous claim? Why, in fact, would you not think to ask me? Where is the respect?

[Live and Learn]

138. Sorry, I didn't realize you were the all knowing.

But I assure you, I will demand the right for anyone believing that to do so freely.

[Bluenorthwest]

146. How rude and disonest you are. I did not claim to be 'the all knowing' I simply challeged your false

assertion that I am without " any knowledge of the religions" which was your claim. You also claimed I did not comment about that one (1) thread on DU that spoke of outlawing religion, when I called it a fascist idea in that one (1) thread that you are going on about.
You accused me of knowing nothing about religions. I challenged you to test my knowledge. Apparently you are not capable of such discussion so you makes some snotty comment again putting words and attitudes into my mouth that I did not express.
This is not acceptable.

[Live and Learn]

148. And you aren't? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

155. No, I'm not. First you accused me of having no knowledge about religions, when I challenged that lie

you then attacked me for defending myself. First I know nothing, then you say I claim to be all knowing. That's mean, shitty, cheap and utterly rude and dishonest. You claimed I did not post in the one (1) thread on DU about getting rid of religion, when I did post in that thread. When corrected, you did not apologize but instead called me rude.
You say lots of untrue things, you do not offer apology when called out. One of the least principled posters I have ever encountered on DU.

[Live and Learn]

162. Obviously you detest me and do not wish to discuss things honestly.

The simple solution is to hide my posts. Please feel free to do so.

[el_bryanto]

101. It's obviously completely fair - Muslims and other believers choose to believe.

The sorts of people who have the desire to believe exhibit certain characteristics - that's the nature of belief. Muslims and Christians by choosing to define themselves as believers choose to take on themselves the characteristics of what they believe, both positive and negative. When you identify as a Christian you are identifying as a member of the same religion as Fred Phelps. When you identify as a Muslim you are identifying as a member of the same religion as those people who committed the Murders last week.

One can argue that there is a large difference between the type of Christian who participates at DU and Fred Phelps - but that assumes that you seem value in being a Christian, a Muslim, or a believer. If you see no value in it, than DU Christians are just willfully choosing to identify with a faith that produces monsters.

I am a Christian so do see a big difference between what I practice and what Fred Phelps practices (or practiced I guess he's dead now). But if I were an Atheist who thought that belief was nonsense, I could certainly understand how it would look. I mean there's nothing forcing DU Christians to be Christians. There's nothing forcing DU Muslims from being Muslim. It's probably a bit different in France, where most Muslims are both culturally and ethnically "other" from the French populace - a person who looks like a Muslim will be taken for a Muslim whether he or she attends Mosque or not.

Bryant

[Live and Learn]

110. I disagree completely.

I see much more value in what a person chooses to do than in what they profess to believe.

Allowing others to believe what they want as long as it doesn't infringe upon others is central to Democracy and that includes the rights of Atheists.

[el_bryanto]

117. If a person expressed a belief in White Supremacy but it had no effect on their actions,

would you feel comfortable with such a person posting at DU?

[Live and Learn]

122. Are you suggesting we don't have those on DU?

And those people are by definition, bigots.

[el_bryanto]

126. OK - people arguing that Whites are superior to Blacks exist at DU?

I do see people denying white privilege and arguments like that, but haven't seen any outright White Supremacy.

So you are bigoted against White Supremacists?

Or do you simply think they don't belong at DU?

Bryant

[Live and Learn]

130. Interesting question. Can one be bigoted against bigots?

And actually one of the reasons I brought it up.

[PeaceNikki]

131. Opposing bigotry is not bigotry.

And tolerating intolerance is not, in fact, tolerance. It is merely the passive-aggressive enabling of intolerance.

[Live and Learn]

135. I actually agree with you believe it or not.

I hope it doesn't get used against against you in a future thread,

[el_bryanto]

147. Well that's the question isn't it?

There are clearly people posting in this thread who believe that religion has a bigoted aspect to it - that by practicing a religion you are accepting that bigotry on some level even if you personally don't agree with it.

To take another hypothetical - imagine the White Supremacist Pancake House - they serve really really good pancakes - but they are also run by White Supremacists who advertise that fact - would you eat there? You aren't a white supremacist - you just really like good pancakes and their's are the best. Many people would argue that it doesn't matter how good the pancakes are, by eating there you are supporting bigotry. Anybody driving by seeing you in there would think that you share the goals of the people who made what you are eating.

By the same token if you attend a Church, it's reasonable to assume that you support the goals of that Church, and some members of most faiths have some pretty ugly views that they claim are based on the doctrine of that faith.

Bryant

[Live and Learn]

153. I have an easy answer for myself but I will go the other route.

If you work for someone does that mean you ascribe to their beliefs?

If you live in the same household as someone should you be condemned for their beliefs?

If you you attend a church based upon your beliefs and understandings are you responsible for the Pastor/Priest/Imam etc... sermons?

If you are a member of DU are you responsible for the posts of every other member?

BTW, are you suggesting any pancake house is actually guilty of discrimination? Because if so, I would certainly like to know so I don't mistakenly patronize them. Not that I usually do anyway but I would certainly avoid them like the plague much as I do WalMart and any Kcoh bros. product.

[el_bryanto]

161. Hmmmm

The answers to those questions are Yes, no, yes, yes.

If you work for someone who is a racist or a bigot, than you are supporting them on some level even if you personally disagree with them. Other jobs are available.

If you attend a church where some people express ugly ideas, you are supporting those ideas by your presence even if you disagree with them.

If you participate at DU you are adding to the numbers that make this one of the major Democratic Message Boards - ugly views posted here have a greater prominence because you choose to participate here.

However, in response to 3 and 4, you can look at the totality of what is said. There might be some things you disagree with at a Church, but many more that you agree with - and if you find spiritual sustenance there, than you can take it as a whole. By the same token, while you might occasionally see some really ugly views at DU, presumably most of what you see is good insightful thoughts that encourage you to be better informed.

The counterpoint is that if you believe that religion is only negative (as some posting here clearly do) than there's no reason to support it other than meanness.

Bryant

[Live and Learn]

166. I disagree.

Other jobs are not available to everyone.

Attending a church or any other organization does not necessarily equate supporting a particular member's ideas. In fact, one of the best ways to change things is by engaging and challenging members of an organization.

[randome]

127. I would feel comfortable with that.

Anything can be debated. And anyone can be informed, if they have an open mind. Having a white supremacist 'come out' on DU would give us the chance to counter whatever flawed reasoning was being promoted.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[brooklynite]

120. I absolutely agree...

...and what a person chooses to do is based on personal non-religious decisions...UNLESS they make that decision based on their religious belief. In which case they open themselves to the question: "what is the basis for deciding that your interpretation of the religion is correct, and the others are wrong"?

[davidpdx]

123. L & L let's just out them all

then that way DU will be a whole less crowded after the ban everyone who is a bigot and everyone who called them out for it.

[Live and Learn]

128. Yikes, Discussionist will be a lot more crowded. nt

[L0oniX]

145. I "strongly and unfairly" dislike all republicans.

[Live and Learn]

154. Is that really unfair? nt

[jtuck004]

152. Yeah, parents did this when they incited their white kids to attack school buses of black kids

in the 70's, the good Democratic parents of the kids I went to school with. Rabid. They used to shoot at Republicans down by the river The Repubs have their own bigots, and I think they must talk to each other. Anyway, there have been lots of bigots around for the roughly 50 years that I could recognize it, though the groups change.

You may want to figure out how to live with it. At least they are relatively visible, and they probably aren't the worst thing out there.

Not suggesting you don't resist it, but realize you are fighting an entire society that teaches its young to be just like the ones who went before. Even it if kills them.

[Live and Learn]

157. Of course, I recognize that bigotry is rampant in the world and our society

and much more elsewhere than here. Just wanted to get some of us here thinking about our own prejudices and beliefs.

[snagglepuss]

159. So therefore the Koran is bigoted given its sentiments about kuffir and Jews.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

163. I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart. Anne Frank

[Arugula Latte]

164. I don't like Republicanism, a chosen belief system. Does that make me a bigot?

[aikoaiko]

165. Locking.

Your OP falls under the prohibition of disruptive meta discussion.

From the pinned thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978

Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.