Monday, March 18, AD 2024 11:05pm

So Who Are The Bigots?

big·ot [big-uht]
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Origin:
1590–1600; < Middle French ( Old French: derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans), perhaps < Old English bī God by God

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

A movement to redefine a basic institution of civilization into a novel form, unsupported by traditional practices or even rational justifications for gov’t involvement. Supporters commit acts of vandalism, intimidation/assault (including by law enforcement), and violence up to and including attempted mass murder; those who oppose are met with bullying attempts to silence them and ban their employment.

All of those could also apply to the introduction of laws against blacks and whites marrying.

Actual voting results do not back up claims that the fight is over, and even if they did– Truth is not determined by a majority vote. Forcing people to call a thing by a nice name does not change the thing; as was pointed out in arguments yesterday, forcing kids in a class to call everyone a friend does not actually make them friends.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
59 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JDP
JDP
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 1:59pm

much as I dislike the intimidation stuff, I tend to think arguments on who’s bigoted-er (or “the real bigot”) are total deadenders, because the people making them hold radically different assumptions

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 2:55pm

Today in this country the most intolerant people tend to be those who yell the loudest for tolerance. Of course those promoting gay marriage are not concerned about tolerance in the slightest. This is all about domination and forcing every group in society, especially the Catholic Church, to confess that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexual conduct. Those who do not comply with this are to be treated with the utmost contempt and intolerance. This is all part of a long term war against Christianity in general and Catholicism by the forces of the Left. These blind fools are sowing the wind and they will reap a whirlwind before all of this is over.

JDP
JDP
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 3:30pm

but “tolerance” is a pointless concept in the way you’re using it. There’s things people have the right to say that you no doubt wouldn’t tolerate. Likewise there’s certain things the Catholic Church doesn’t tolerate cuz it believes they are wrong.

mutual tolerance between two irreconcilable worldviews seems pretty much impossible.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 3:34pm

Their folly should be responded as it deserves, with derisive laughter.

I find it inappropriate to discuss their nonsense with my liberal realtives.

It gets us nowhere.

They have no context or moral grounding.

They do not believe in objective truth. There is no reason in them.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 3:39pm

Jesus told us not to cast pearls before swine.

As always: Truth.

If the liberals had half a brain, I’d use something like this.

Only I’d need to talk really slowly and use fourth grade vocabulary.

Every person in the United Stated has the same right to marry. These people do not want the opportunity to obtain a state-issued marriage license. They already can obtain one. They require that the state redefine marriage to include passive/sterile/unnatural buggery, that which Plato (Gorgias) termed “ridiculous, loathsome, disgraceful, shameful, and wretched.” They want the states to force the rest of us to believe that such shameful intercourse is equal to fecund, sacramental marriage, i.e., that which sodomy can never be: marriage’s moral and legal equivalent.

Elsewhere, Plato provides other condemnations. See Laws 636c. Plato, speaking through the character of the Athenian stranger, rejects homosexual behavior as “unnatural” (para physin), describes it as an “enormity” or “crime” (tolmema), and explains that it derives from being enslaved to pleasure.

Here are comments from Aristotle. “Others arise as a result of disease [νόσους] (or, in some cases, of madness, as with the man who sacrificed and ate his mother, or with the slave who ate the liver of his fellow), and others are morbid states resulting from custom, e.g. the habit of plucking out the hair or of gnawing the nails, or even coals or earth, and in addition to these sex with men [ἀφροδισίων τοῖς ἄρρεσιν]; for these arise in some by nature and in others, as in those who have been the victims of lust from childhood, from habit.” [Nicomachean Ethics Book 7:5] [Arist Eth Nic 1148b 27-30]

His equation of sodomy with nail-biting or eating coal was made to communicate that which they have in common: essential futility. Likely, Aristotle meant the weird comparisons to highlight his conclusion.

There are no rationales for sin/vice only causes.

Gay marriage is solely about those getting “married.” This narcissism is the main difference with valid marriage.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 4:43pm

but “tolerance” is a pointless concept in the way you’re using it. There’s things people have the right to say that you no doubt wouldn’t tolerate. Likewise there’s certain things the Catholic Church doesn’t tolerate cuz it believes they are wrong.

mutual tolerance between two irreconcilable worldviews seems pretty much impossible.

Yet somehow we manage it and have managed it for decades. Go figure.

JDP
JDP
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 5:35pm

Art Deco: past widespread agreement on cultural norms with a small minority of people against them is different than the 50-50 split you have today

JDP
JDP
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 5:58pm

i’m speaking in general, that there is obviously a vast divergence between (speaking broadly) blue/red regions on basic moral assumptions, where the most committed believe that if the country doesn’t share these moral assumptions they’re evil. I don’t see how you have peaceful coexistence or compromise in this situation. It’s different from, to pick an obvious example, the ’60s, where you have a vocal minority rejecting several norms but the country generally still believes in them.

If trends continue you might get the past in reverse: traditionalism tolerated within church walls but thought of as some kind of eccentricity

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 6:46pm

Here’s a question that recently occurred to me. When divorce and remarriage began to become more pervasive, and laws were passed forbidding discrimination on the basis of marital status, why was that not regarded as a dire threat to religious freedom in the way that same-sex “marriage” is today? Why was there not (as far as I can recall) concern that Catholic priests would eventually be obliged by law to preside at weddings for divorced persons, or that Knights of Columbus halls would have to host receptions for couples marrying outside the Church? Would that not be as much a violation of their religious principles as having to celebrate a same-sex wedding? And given the fact that divorce and remarriage are and probably always will be far more common than same-sex unions, wouldn’t that be far more likely to create situations in which a person or group must choose between their livelihood or their family relationships and their faith? What is different this time around? I say this NOT to minimize the nature of the threat to religious freedom and genuine tolerance that exists today but to ponder whether or not we have already been in this situation without fully realizing it.

Donald R. McClarey
Reply to  Elaine Krewer
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 6:56pm

There was a fair amount of resistance to no fault divorce for a very long time in this country, hence the popularity of Vegas for decades as a mecca for quicky divorces. Most religious denominations fought against it, and the Church was in the forefront of that fight. When that battle was lost in the sixties and the seventies, it was a foreshadowing of things to come. By the time that battle was lost, the Church was already engaged in the fight over abortion, which tended to overshadow everything else.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 7:08pm

and laws were passed forbidding discrimination on the basis of marital status

Who was aware of them?

JDP
JDP
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 7:09pm

Foxfier you’re right about the evil/mistaken left/right dichotomy in political discourse, something I’d chalk up to the Left’s tendency to see a million things through the prism of the civil rights movement. but you still have this conflict between people who think certain things are sinful, and people who not only disagree, but think teaching that they’re sinful is harmful. Not a situation that’s really amenable to compromise

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 7:10pm

Elaine, the ‘divorced’ do not form pressure groups to engage in lawfare against third parties. Has anyone ever sued the Knights of Columbus to be able to use their halls for 2d marriage receptions?

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 7:28pm

but you still have this conflict between people who think certain things are sinful, and people who not only disagree, but think teaching that they’re sinful is harmful. Not a situation that’s really amenable to compromise

JDP, have you forgotten or were you not there? The use of the language of sin was not the predominant way of assessing homosexuality as a phenomenon 35 years ago. It was certainly a way, but not the exclusive way or the modal way (at least in public life and mundane life where I was living). Homosexuality was more than anything else as another booth in the carny in and amongst all the entropy around us. You had characters like Cleve Jones on their soapboxes, but they did not look any more dignified than the rest of them. In everyday life the subject was surrounded by embarrassment or annoyance. The difference in world view was between vociferous homosexual men making displays of equal parts petulence, exhibitionism, and pathos; and a general public looking on with a mixture of sentiments. What has happened in the intervening years has less to do with the homosexual population than with how the professional managerial bourgeoisie understands itself as against previous generations and as against other classes in society.

Donald R. McClarey
Reply to  Art Deco
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 7:30pm

“What has happened in the intervening years has less to do with the homosexual population than with how the professional managerial bourgeoisie understands itself as against previous generations and as against other classes in society.”

Bingo.

JDP
JDP
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 7:34pm

i wasn’t there no, i’m a young’n

Jon
Jon
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 7:45pm

Interesting remark about the term ‘friend.’ Recently, one method that’s been adopted in some classrooms for pre-school and kindergarten now is to refer to have the children refer to each other as friend. Even the teacher uses the term collectively, such as “Friends, let’s clean up now.” It’s thought that if they use that word the children will automatically see each otehr in that light. NOt sure whether it makes much of a difference or not.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 8:03pm

Steven Sailer (a dubious character, I know) offered a more colloquial assessment:

Look, principles don’t have anything to do with it. It’s a popularity contest. Gays are popular and Mormons aren’t. Polygamous fundamentalist Mormons are extremely unpopular, so nobody is going to do anything for them.

You get past a certain age, and progressiste politics seems more and more like high school. We have middle-aged men informing us that it is just imperative we have some social policy that never entered their heads for the first 20-odd years they walked this Earth. (See this guy: http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/). These people do have, when carefully examined, a body of moral sentiments. It is naive, however, to think that is what is really driving this in most cases.

And in response, what do they get? Here we have a United States Senator (who was also the budget director and special trade representative) telling the world he takes direction on matters moral and political (and, implicitly, religious) from his callow post-adolescent son. Said U.S. Senator is armed with a baccalaureate degree from Dartmouth College and a juris doctor from the University of Michigan. An attorney and counselor at law makes arguments for a living, no? Well, evidently not to his son, to whom he was ‘rock-solid supportive’ [smarmy term the son’s] from the get-go. You could call that a moral point of view as well, but it seems rather a function of the disordered internal dynamics of the Senator’s own household (which member of the mental health trade will no doubt bless with the encomium ‘healthy’).

Jon
Jon
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 8:31pm

Plato probably would have liked to ban “best friends” too. When was that banned in schools? I was unaware of that.

Greg Mockeridge
Greg Mockeridge
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 8:44pm

As long as people, including many ,if not most, conservatives, stop being intimidated by accusations of bigotry, the left will continue to hurl that accusation every chance they get.

Jon
Jon
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 9:28pm

I don’t know. It seems we keep trying to excise suffering from life, as C. S. Lewis seemed to have remarked years back. In the twentieth century as early has his day this sort of thing was happening: people trying to change life or to live it artificially so they don’t feel pain, when pain is what you need to grow and to learn, to become more human and more connected. Pain is often the way back to God. Lewis said it is God’s megaphone to rouse a deaf world.

Jon
Jon
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 9:41pm

But the real problem of bullying and children acting out is not solved by the group thing. Bullying grew worse through the years when group work was really implemented. So the problem is that children are not taught and trained in morality and decency. And changing words as you said doesn’t change realities. Children still act the same.

JL
JL
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 10:00pm

Ya’ll old folks are lucky you don’t have Facebook/aren’t FB friends with people of Generation Y.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 10:00pm

As long as people, including many ,if not most, conservatives, stop being intimidated by accusations of bigotry, the left will continue to hurl that accusation every chance they get.

Or intimidated by conflict.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 10:04pm

The business about ‘bullying’ is a pretext.

Jon
Jon
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 10:12pm

It’s complicated. Bullying arises for many different reasons, but when children are not taught morality and decency, their actions become far worse and bullying increases exponentially. There’s nothing checking their nature. No discipline. No clear teaching regarding positive action. I know you had a bad school experience as have many people including myself. My middle school years were awful! Middle schools seem to be even worse behaved than high schools, come to think of it. What I saw was that morality wasn’t taught. Tradition wasn’t extolled. Teachers wanted the kids to behave well, but the school system and its staff including teachers didn’t support good behavior. It didn’t have the tools to promote that. It fell victim to the cerebral fallacy, that humanity’s problems owe themselves to a lack of mental education. There is no education of the heart. No education in morality. No education in behavior. And schools cannot get punitive for fear of lawsuits, which is another issue. Most people familiarized with the state of classrooms in many schools today will tell you it’s not worth it. It’s not worth it to teach there or to learn there. It’s a dead end and a waste of time. Not to mention the horrible language, threats, and violence you come across there. It’s crazy. The saying is true that you have to be crazy to want to teach in the public shcools today. You have to be the type that thrives not only on constant challenge but on chaos, and the type that doesn’t mind if a brat one quarter of your age is telling you they’re going to beat you up in the parking lot because you reprimanded them. Horrible place for teachers and kids.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 10:17pm

“The business about ‘bullying’ is a pretext.” A lie they repeat ad nauseam to quash debate and villify Christians.

When the bigots win, gay “marriage” will be legal. Then, it will be mandatory.

Holy masturbating monkeys, Batman!

Jon
Jon
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 10:25pm

T. Shaw, bullying really exists, but I agree they use it as a reason to further shape and mold kids in a direction that is not really productive or good for society. It becomes an excuse to endorse wrong things at times. What they won’t do is teach morality. That’s not an option in the public schools, yet it is the only way children can learn to behave well and get along with each other and respect their teachers.

Jon
Jon
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 10:51pm

Yes, bullying opened the door for them to engage in further indoctrination. Now they have the floor to brainwash kids even more. What I wanted to get across though, is that bullying really does exist and that it really has grown worse in recent years. It’s just that they’re not really addressing it. They’re just promoting further tolerance for deviancy.

JL
JL
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 10:54pm

What’s wrong with a flag shirt on Cinco de Mayo?

Jon
Jon
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 11:02pm

I think she’s referring to an incident in Tucson involving school kids. Something to do with cultural clash and Arizona polarization.

Jon
Jon
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 11:05pm

Well, Foxfier, we have a cult of diversity in this country. It is in a sense our new religion. We no longer have a civic religion. The diversity cult seems to be the only thing that works, and it reflects a very leftist view of reality, too.

JL
JL
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 11:12pm

Oh, I’m not aware of this happening. I thought you meant it’d be wrong to wear a Mexican flag shirt on Cinco de Mayo.

Greg Mockeridge
Greg Mockeridge
Wednesday, March 27, AD 2013 11:43pm

Foxfier

I agree with the fighting part. But I believe we need to be more offensive than just defensive in our approach. For instance, instead of waiting for Al Sharpton to call Dr. Ben Carson or some other black conservative and Uncle Tom, go on the offensive and call him, and others like him, out for the Uncle Toms they really are. Only they are doing the bidding of the white left wing slave masters. And we have plenty of facts at our disposal to back that claim up. And not just how the welfare state has harmed blacks more than anyone else. You can point out the fact that around 70% of black children are born to single mothers, which can be tied to leftist ideology in action. Let’s not forget the black genocide of abortion, to quote black pro-life leaders. I mean when you consider blacks make up only 12% of our population, but account for about a third of all abortions.

Another thing is not allowing the left to define the terms of the debate. That has gone on for far too long. Anyone who has engaged in any kind of debate, knows that he who defines the terms wins before the debate even starts. That’s just barely the tip of the iceberg.

trackback
Thursday, March 28, AD 2013 3:13am

[…] Omnia Vincit Veritas Justice Kennedy: Gay Marriage. For the Children – Matthew Archbold, CMR So Who are the Bigots? – Foxfier, The American Catholic Offending Analogies – Kevin Staley-Joyce, First […]

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, March 28, AD 2013 6:04am

Jon, school officials have an obligation to enforce standards of conduct in the classroom, in the halls, in the lunchroom, and on the school property generally. The recipients of ‘bullying’ are generally boys who manifest a certain vulnerability. That is correlated with academic performance but not identified with it. With the girls, the business is more esoteric (as always). Crapsters like Dan Savage have used this common and persistent problem in human relations as a wedge to promote sodomy and subcultures organized around sodomy. That is outside the proper purview of any public institution (much less schools) and is disgusting to boot.

I sound stupid stating the obvious, but adults cannot be present at all times and there are real limits to the prudence of adult intervention in the social dynamics which obtain amongst the young. Boys and girls need to learn emotional resilience and boys need to be taught to fight and take a punch.

Now, the powers that be have created a school system which exacerbates problems baked in the cake. The very unseriousness of secondary education in this country renders the social competition among the young paramount in junior and senior high schools. If they were in a mix of academic and vocational training programs with people of a variety of ages but a greater similiarity of interests, you would have fewer problems (and they would accomplish more while young).

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top