there are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

look to thy own bigotry lefties.

I forgot to mention Mexico (1836), and of course Japan! (1941-45)

learn the difference. It will help

OK, take it easy, no need to get insulting.

I was just saying that the right and the Administration has also been intolerant of those it does not agree with. Perhaps with not as much venom but with the same intensity.

IG

If they had suceeded, the war would have been over and these US states would have been 2 not one. Lee never looked to conquer the north, only to bring the war to them so that they would sue for peace.

Do you really think Davis would have just packed up and gone home after defeating and securing the North? Possibly. Also, didn't Davis attack first?

IG

OK, take it easy, no need to get insulting. I was just saying that the right and the Administration has also been intolerant of those it does not agree with. Perhaps with not as much venom but with the same intensity.

My appologies if I came across too harsh.  You have been very eloquent and I should have phrased that better.

Intesity is fine.  Passion is fine.  Flaming and vulgarity is the art of the lost.  That is what I am saying.  If I tell you to take a long walk to the steps of hades, that is the same as saying go to hell.  But the former is, while intense, much less offensive.

And it means that I have not lost control.  The latter is losing control.

Do you really think Davis would have just packed up and gone home after defeating and securing the North? Possibly. Also, didn't Davis attack first?

No, actually not.  SC did before there was a government.  And just to secure their own borders. And yes, if you study history, you will see that the south did not want the war.  After expelling the Federal troops, they were content.  Lincoln wanted it to secure the union.

That is why (from the losing side) the war is called the War of Northern Agression.  As it is all American (what a term for that abomination!), you can actually study it and see the real truth, altho the history books are sadly lacking in substance (not prejudice, they just dont teach squat!).

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Thursday, June 16, 2005Do you really think Davis would have just packed up and gone home after defeating and securing the North?

Understood. But if the charge had worked and Davis had control of the North, you really think he would have told his soldiers to go home? And have effectively two countries?

IG

Understood. But if the charge had worked and Davis had control of the North, you really think he would have told his soldiers to go home? And have effectively two countries?

yes, the south did not have the manpower to control or regulate the north.  They would have basically said go home.

You got to realize, the South is very laid back after all!  Just visit us, y'all come back ya hear?

We're supposed to tolerate every race, culture and sexual deviancy. But we're not supposed to tolerate the religious faiths of others? Come again, Mr. Freedom?

To be fair and balanced (haha) what about all of those on the right that were calling for the heads of Muslims following 9/11?

What about the right-wing patriot that murdered a member of the Sikh faith for looking too Muslim?

24 by 1tomot1 Thursday, June 16, 2005

We're supposed to tolerate every race, culture and sexual deviancy. But we're not supposed to tolerate the religious faiths of others? Come again, Mr. Freedom? To be fair and balanced (haha) what about all of those on the right that were calling for the heads of Muslims following 9/11? What about the right-wing patriot that murdered a member of the Sikh faith for looking too Muslim?

and I had such hope after your response in my blog, but sadly you are just another brick in the liberal wall.

Now those may be pretty glib definitions, but they basically hit the point. So, when someone automatically dismisses Americans as "ignorant", "arrogant" or "imperialistic", that would be a bigoted statement, right?

I'm starting to feel like that third one is a shot at me...

The thing is, I have no problem with Americans in general. However, the foreign policy of America over the last 60 years in particular has been imperialistic. It's like saying Nazi Germany committed war crimes. It's a part of history. You can't whitewash it or ignore it. The only difference is that the imperialism in still going on.

I don't fault the general American population. I blame the leaders, both Democrat and Republican. It is just so easy for the elite to get people to believe the Bright Shining Lie and shun the ugly truth, and so easy for them to use it to their advantage.

So by criticizing US foreign policy, am I some sort of bigot?

"Why is it right for a black man to be upset when someone says "I hate niggers", but not reasonable for a fundamentalist Christian to take umbrage with the statement that "I hate fundamentalist Christians"?"

Let me see if I can explain this. Do you consider being called a fundamentalist Christian derogatory? I would imagine that most black people do when called "nigger".

Besides...it's not you we hate....just your ideology....just as you hate ours.

Let me see if I can explain this. Do you consider being called a fundamentalist Christian derogatory? I would imagine that most black people do when called "nigger". Besides...it's not you we hate....just your ideology....just as you hate ours.

Oh, ok, so all the klansmen need to do is say "I hate people of color" rather than "Nigger", and it's no longer prejudice? Sorry, jay, don't buy it.

And no, I do not hate your ideology. I differ with it, I respect it, but I do not hate it. And the respondent in question did NOT say he hated "the IDEOLOGY" of fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and Jews, but that he hated Christians, Muslims and Jews. HUGE difference.

I'm starting to feel like that third one is a shot at me...

Not at all, latour. You're hardly the only one levelling that charge.

And yes, much of the label falls on the right as well. But there's a big difference. The left clamors for acceptance of every pet cause of theirs while expressing absolute intolerance for the right. When someone publicly expresses a universal hatred for fundamentalist Jews, Muslims and Christians without knowing the individual while seeking tolerance for homosexuals, etc, that's bigotry, plain and simple.

 

When someone publicly expresses a universal hatred for fundamentalist Jews, Muslims and Christians without knowing the individual while seeking tolerance for homosexuals, etc, that's bigotry, plain and simple.

Fundamentalist religious people don't have much tolerance for homosexuals.

When a lot of religious people stop believing that a burn on a taco shell is the image of Jesus, or that a stain on the wall of a freeway underpass is the image of the Virgin Mary, or when religious parents stop allowing their terminally ill children to die because the only thing they did for the child was pray instead of taking him or her to a doctor or hospital, I'll stop hating them.

When a lot of religious people stop believing that a burn on a taco shell is the image of Jesus, or that a stain on the wall of a freeway underpass is the image of the Virgin Mary, or when religious parents stop allowing their terminally ill children to die because the only thing they did for the child was pray instead of taking him or her to a doctor or hospital, I'll stop hating them.

Funny, I'm a conservative Christian and did neither of those things. So you hate me because of a well crafted stereotype that actually only fits a MINORITY of fundamentalist Christians (OK, so 5,000 Catholics flock to see the Jesus piss stain...what about the millions who didn't...as for denying medical treatment, one, you usually don't have the whole story, tow, only a SMALL MINORITY of Christian sects believe in denying routine medical treatment...again, your allegations against conservative Christians don't stand up to the facts).

Hatred is hatred, and bigotry is bigotry, and it will never end when the group advocating for the end of bigotry is guilty of perpetrating bigotry themselves. Perhaps a better solution would be to realize that we all have areas of prejudice and bigotry, as myrr's article (linked in response #1) points out, and to do the best we can to not allow our prejudices to color our actions towards others.

Example: I do not condone or accept the homosexual lifestyle. But I think what happened to Matthew Shepard was appalling and would never support, implicitly, or otherwise, actions against homosexuals for living life as they choose.