Left Wing Bigotry

Published on June 16, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

Bigotry is a bias against a person based on prejudiced stereoptypes, right?

And prejudice is forming an opinion based on preconceived notions, right?

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?

Or when someone expresses their hatred for fundamentalists of any faith...again, bigoted...would you not agree?

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"? Both statements imply that a person is unable to get past their superficial analyses of an individual and see them for who they are. Both statements imply narrowmindedness and hatred that destroy, rather than build us as a country. But the racist is usually unapologetically racist, and DOESN'T call for openness and tolerance. Not so the left.

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?

Liberation theology teaches that none of us are free unless the least of us are free. And among liberal Christians, liberation theology is a widely held view. So how can we all be free if the liberation theologian hates us for who we are?

Comments (Page 3)

Ionolast

on Jun 17, 2005

I did say A LOT OF religious people.

it will never end

Exactly. Nobody's perfect.

-----

on Jun 17, 2005

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

--Davis was a lunatic in a sane mans body,IMO, if you read about him, i mean really read about him, you can see that he was and could've been an american "hitler"...the only fact was that he was restrained by possible revolt...and politics in the south...

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

--I really don't care if a "miracle" image,etc...appeared...as for the parents, arn't you being intolerant of their beliefs...hmmm?

Ionolast

on Jun 17, 2005

as for the parents, arn't you being intolerant of their beliefs...hmmm?

Yes. I would rather the children be helped every way possible. Refusing them medical treatment is stupid and cruel.

-----

on Jun 17, 2005

Yes. I would rather the children be helped every way possible. Refusing them medical treatment is stupid and cruel

--Well then, i guess it means that to believe what you beleive in, means that you'll be intolerant to what some others beleive in...(in some cases)

MasonM

on Jun 17, 2005

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.

And therein lies the difference. While I do not believe homosexuality is moral or correct, I don't hate homosexuals. While you hold these obviously intolerant and hate-filled views of me, I don't hate you.
Who is really the intolerant one here? The liberal who espouses tolerance, or the Christian?
You dislike the idea of religion and religious people. Fine, that's your right. But instead of accepting it as a fact of life for many people, you must go beyond that and spew venomous hatred toward them (and me since I'm a Christian). That steps far beyond the bounds of tolerance, don't you think? Kinda takes away any credibility when you say people should tolerate someone else.

1tomot1

on Jun 17, 2005

you are just another brick in the liberal wall.

Is it partisan to point out that there are failures on both sides of the aisle? Mr. Mod, you pointed out religious intolerance of one side. I brought attention to the other.

There is something far more simple here, which is that neither political side is free of party faithful who are bigots of one sort or another. Our discussions shouldn't be finger pointing matches where each side points out the shared flaws of the opponent.

We should be looking at the shared problem itself and what we can do to fix the problem.

Ionolast

on Jun 17, 2005

Well then, i guess it means that to believe what you beleive in, means that you'll be intolerant to what some others beleive in...(in some cases)

If their beliefs worked and the children were saved (physically, not spiritually), that would be different.

You dislike the idea of religion and religious people. Fine, that's your right. But instead of accepting it as a fact of life for many people, you must go beyond that and spew venomous hatred toward them (and me since I'm a Christian). That steps far beyond the bounds of tolerance, don't you think? Kinda takes away any credibility when you say people should tolerate someone else.

If you're saying there's nothing wrong with people having faith in those so-called "visions" because it helps them, I think you're missing an important point. Those "visions" are not authentic. They have rational, scientific explanations, but the people who believe them refuse to hear those explanations. They are not the same as the visions at Fatima, Lourdes, etc. I think they could be called false idols. I'm fed up with the stupidity and blindness of many religious people. If you're not one of them, fine.

-----

on Jun 17, 2005

Our discussions shouldn't be finger pointing matches where each side points out the shared flaws of the opponent.

--IMO they are not...both sides (some more...seriously than others) are pointing out to the other that there are those type on the other side,to make them realize it...unfortunatlry ,realizing, isn't part of polotics...

--"They" as in the scientists, because what do you do about those scientifically unexplained things, what about those people on their deathbeds who miracuously are cured/healthy...and yet doctors can't explain it...hmmm? Just wondering...

kingbee

on Jun 18, 2005

Why is it right for a black man to be upset

no matter how intrinsic you may feel your beliefs to be, unless you wear some special garments identified with your religion or display a symbol that's so visible people see it before they see your features, theres a distinct difference. especially since you can remove your garb and the symbols.

Chakgogka

on Jun 18, 2005

... but not reasonable for a fundamentalist Christian to take umbrage with the statement that "I hate fundamentalist Christians"?

It's not a question of 'reasonable', it's a question of what their faith calls them to do.

You see, western culture for better or worse (a bit of both) has been moulded by Christian beliefs (other beliefs to, but Christian beliefs most of all). This means that there are some for whom Christianity is their religion, (their spiritual path, guide to good living and moral compass) and then there are 'cultural christians' (ie those who make no serious attempt to follow the message of Jesus, but simply identify from a conservative standpoint with the western heritage of which Christianity is so big a part.

For the religious Christian the answer is clear: very hard, but very clear. "Bless those who curse you, do good to those you hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you that you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 5:44-45).

However, what the cultural christian can do about the problem I have no idea. It seems a very odd thing to me to try to distill a faith's moral teaching for a political purpose while ignoring its mystical dimension.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 18, 2005

Kingbee,

I hate to say it, but this answer is pretty full of shit. The question is rhetorical; a fundamentalist Christian IS just as justified as a black man in taking offense when someone states an outright hatred for their faith.

And I have news for you. While the "garb" of fundamentalist Christians may not have a label denoting it as such, I can pick "fundies" out of almost ANY crowd by their manner of dress, etc. So yes, they ARE pretty readily identifiable.

Myrrander elaborated nicely on this piece in his thread, linked in the first response (Because he can't respond directly, I have no problem "promoting" the article here), when he pointed out we're basically all bigots. My point is the ones decrying the bigotry of others are outright hypocrites because they're denying others the rights to actions they themselves commit.

Ionolast

on Jun 18, 2005

a fundamentalist Christian IS just as justified as a black man in taking offense when someone states an outright hatred for their faith.

So being black is a faith?

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 18, 2005

lol...poor grammar, sorry icono...but I KNOW you get my point, so I won't fix it.

kingbee

on Jun 19, 2005

this answer is pretty full of shit

in keeping with the assumptions upon which the article is based.

your definition of bigotry is glib indeed, and seriously erodes the weight of the word. bigotry is not merely dislike nor is it any part of disagreement with a philosophic concept. it is extreme and irrational hatred rooted in the unwarranted assumption of prejudice. prejudice, however, is potentially refutable thru argument, bigotry persists in spite of evidence.

furthermore, you also seem to be trivializing hatred in your comparison. fundamentalist christians have never been legally classified as subhumans in this country...nor have they been relegated to second-class citizenship. there is no comparitive anti-christian slur. there are black fundamentalists who are reviled by white fundamentalists as well as white non-believers not for their faith but for their parentage.

while you may feel yourself able to discern members of a particular faith by some sort of 'fundie' uniform, i've got no idea what you're talking about nor do i believe most people share that talent. if i were to grow a full beard and don the kind of clothing worn by mennonites or the amish, i might be able to pass myself off as a member of their community and any white fundamentalist can merely change clothes (if youre correct) as well. i doubt many black people could do something equally simple and be welcomed to worship at the world church of the creator or any other white supremacist congregation.

despite the title and the argument you put forth in this article, your issue isn't left-wing bigotry but what you perceive as greater support of your christian belief by those on the right. there is no monolithic right nor left. there is no left-wing cabal of christian haters. nor is there anything about american right wing politics that makes the right essentially any more faith-friendly than the left. at the moment there is an alliance between fundamentalists and republicans but it's a union of quid pro quo & convenience rather than ideology. the closest analog would be democrats and blue collar union members.

the political voice which comes closest to expressing my personal view on religion's role in politics belonged to barry goldwater.

Chakgogka

on Jun 19, 2005

a fundamentalist Christian IS just as justified as a black man in taking offense when someone states an outright hatred for their faith.

Not according to Jesus. But a cultural christian does have that right.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!