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.

59 Responses to So Who Are The Bigots?

  • JDP says:

    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

  • Foxfier says:

    Do not answer a fool in the terms of his folly for fear you grow like him yourself.

    Answer a fool in the terms of his folly for fear he imagine himself wise. Proverbs 26:4-5

    Any argument on the topic will tend to be a total dead-ender, because 1) you can’t convince someone against their will, and 2) you’re unlikely to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

  • 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 says:

    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 says:

    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 says:

    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.

  • Foxfier says:

    but “tolerance” is a pointless concept in the way you’re using it.

    No, it’s responding to the false assumption that “tolerance” is a universal good, by showing that the argument is much more suited to being used against their preferred outcome.

    The idea is to refute what they believe is a trump card.

  • Art Deco says:

    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 says:

    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

  • Foxfier says:

    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 very much disagree with that characterization.

    One side has “they disagree because they’re evil” as a basic tactic– the fruit of the seeds planted in the 60s, I’d argue. Demonization works, if the other side is too polite to scream back when lies are shouted at inappropriate outlets.

    The other side, by and large, believes that those who disagree are mistaken, haven’t got all the information or otherwise just drew the wrong conclusions.

    This is so well known that there’s a long running bit of wit to the effect: “Republicans think Democrats are wrong; Democrats think Republicans are evil.” There’s also variations that substitute stupid, evil and insane in various combinations.

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    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.

  • 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.

  • Foxfier says:

    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?

    Was there the same push to force public approval and aid in granting divorces?

    Was there the same level of violence and attempt to criminalize disapproval of divorce?

    Was there a legal push to force those offering benefits to married couples to offer the same to divorced persons?

    As Donald points out– it WAS fought against.

    If you want to draw a line of similarity, you’ll have to find someone who has lost their likelihoods due to objection to divorce, and then many more examples– it’s dead easy for abortion or homosexual marriage.

    There is a line of similarity– the justifications offered fell apart.

  • JDP says:

    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 says:

    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 says:

    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.

  • “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.

  • Foxfier says:

    JDP-
    I think that’s just a useful tool; the movement made most famous by Alinsky’s ‘Rules’ is a more likely target.

    Also, on shifting to “compromise” you miss that tolerance is possible– except that one side, the side that believes the other is evil, hateful, crazy and/or stupid– wants to enforce a “compromise” where everyone just agrees with them. On pain of everything they can throw at the heretics.

  • Jon says:

    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 says:

    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’).

  • Greg Mockeridge says:

    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.

  • Foxfier says:

    Jon-
    I believe it’s mostly in the UK, but one school doing it hit the news a year or two ago, and the spread of the fad is in the news again.
    Quote:
    Teachers in England are banning school children from keeping best friends, instead encouraging the youngsters to play in large groups, The Sun reported.
    The controversial policy was implemented in certain schools with the idea of avoiding pain for children who experience break-ups with a close pal, according to the newspaper.
    “I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn’t have a best friend and that everyone should play together,” U.K.-based psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni told the newspaper.
    “They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they’re learning to deal with it.”

    Greg-
    fighting it is the best way I can think of to keep folks from curling up when accused of such things, thus the post.
    Well, that and the sheer, mind-bending backwardsness of the side that has attempted mass murder and is trying to force everyone to change to fit their biases engages in name-calling.

  • Jon says:

    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 says:

    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.

  • Art Deco says:

    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.

  • Foxfier says:

    Jon-
    who says the issue of “bullying” is about anything but forcing kids to profess the “right” things? Behavior doesn’t matter, or the adults wouldn’t be acting like the bullies that tried to make my high school years bad.

  • Jon says:

    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 says:

    “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 says:

    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.

  • Foxfier says:

    JL -
    I know at least some of the “old folks” here facebook with Millennials (Ys/Echo Boomers/”the 9/11 generation”), because they are “friends” with me.

    I will also vouch that, going off of those of my generation who have become aware that I share ANY unpopular view with them, we’re the most aware of exactly what kind of violence our “peers” are willing to commit on those who become acceptable targets. At best, they’ll try to destroy your social life; at worse, they show up with products from the latest target of a boycott in hopes of smearing your dying face with it.
    Most of the time, they’ll be satisfied with vandalism and other attempts at intimidation.

  • Foxfier says:

    Jon-
    that bullying exists doesn’t mean it’s not a pretext. The anti-bullying campaigns have been amazingly focused not on physical assaults against the intellectually inclined, or in stopping the “boys will be boys” or “they’re just being girls” mindset to “pranks” (which may cost hundreds of dollars and/or physical harm, and would be assault in the adult world), nor even in keeping bullies from exploiting the rule system in order to bully more effectively (such as where raising your arms to shield your face/glasses is “fighting”)… they’ve been focused on those who will not be “accepting” of “diversity.” Such as the little girl that objected to having a boy in the girl’s bathroom, because he “identified” as a girl. Or wearing a flag shirt on Cinco de Mayo.

  • Jon says:

    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.

  • Foxfier says:

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

    It’s “bullying.” Because wearing the stars and stripes when openly racist organizations are waving the Mexican flag is hateful, you see.

  • Jon says:

    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.

  • Greg Mockeridge says:

    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.

  • Art Deco says:

    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).

  • Art Deco says:

    Teachers in England are banning school children from keeping best friends, instead encouraging the youngsters to play in large groups, The Sun reported.

    The teaching profession attracts more than its share of the world’s officious people.

  • Foxfier says:

    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.

    I disagree.

    When the other side goes for juvenile tactics like name calling, we point out where the issue is and keep acting like rational adults. Otherwise, they are setting the argument by their name calling– as the amazingly undaunted by his “welcome” archbishop from San Fran did, pointing out where their setting is wrong. As he pointed out, this isn’t about discriminating against homosexuals– they have the exact same ability to enter a marriage as anyone else, the argument is that the marriage is centered around having and raising kids. In that context, “homosexual marriage” obviously loses its ability to claim discrimination, because the meaning of isn’t “marry whoever gets you hot.”

    In the “Uncle Tom” example, it lets the folks who think name calling and insults are the height of argument set the assumption that skin color matters.
    (I use to always put in a joke about not needing sun screen here, but one of my Marines found out that he could burn if he hadn’t had sun on his back for over a year and then laid out on the beach all day. Talk about an ugly shock.)

  • Foxfier says:

    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.

    I propose that step one be that they stop forcing the social dynamics into the false dynamic of “you were born the same year! This is the only time it will happen, but due to that birth date you will spend the first third of your life REQUIRED to socialize only with those of your own age, rather than those who are doing the same thing you are doing.”

    Get rid of age-grades, and a large part of the problem goes away– especially if you are allowed to drop those who do not want to be involved in a class. Get rid of “zero tolerance” (which never ends up ACTUALLY being zero tolerance– it’s CYA and pound on the odd ones that make waves) and hold teachers responsible for their action or inaction, just like any other adult. Bringing “recess” back might help, too.

  • Art Deco says:

    Get rid of age-grades, and a large part of the problem goes away– especially if you are allowed to drop those who do not want to be involved in a class.

    I think that works if you are speaking of secondary schools. Elementary schools might have separate tracks delineated by performance metrics but should have a fairly similar curricula (studies toward the mastery of English grammar, arithmetic, elementary algebra, and the fundamentals of American history, geography, and civics). Within each track, however, the classes are going to be roughly age-graded as the track will be composed of students adapted to a similar pace of learning.

  • Foxfier says:

    Art-
    in theory, yes; in practice… well, I know that I finished my work in the first ten minutes of class, and I’m not amazing.
    About 10-15%% of the other kids didn’t bother to do the work, but got advanced at the end of the year anyways.
    Some folks needed help and took up most of the teacher’s time.
    And most of the kids were being distracted in one way or another by either the quick or didn’t bother kids.

    Just because the paths are going to be pretty much the same doesn’t mean that everyone is going to be going down them at the same speed.

    Add in the ability to “challenge” classes and organization gets a lot easier…

    but we’re getting into the weeds, now. :) I keep meaning to “design” my dream school, but keep getting distracted by trying to figure out how we’re going to educate the kids…..

  • eddie too says:

    i do not know the efficacy, that is dependent upon each unique encounter, of engaging same-sexers in debate. however, i do know that we are all called upon to testify to the truth. it is not often a good idea to allow evil ideas to be expressed without opposition.

  • Anzlyne says:

    Elaine I think it is not such a close comparison as it might seem. Divorce, thought hurtful and to be avoided, was never an abomination. Moses could tolerate divorce.

    When the marriage sacrament is a good thing, with the proper matter, divorce had to do with sundering a bond that could have been natural and good, and carried with it unhappy consequences for the individuals and the rest of the family. So it is something to be avoided but not in the same league as the sexual perversion of sodomy. Same sex activity is always been viewed as an unmitigated evil, and has not been seen as natural or good. And often the unhappy consequences are mortal.

  • Jon says:

    I think bullying really exists and has worsened in recent years. But it has become an excuse for schools to get on their soapbox about homosexuality, arguing that the children being picked on are homosexuals. So all they do is teach tolerance of the alternative lifestyle. They’re not really dealing with actual bullying, but promoting a secular or statist agenda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .