Bigoted? Who?
A bigot is someone who is intolerant of another's viewpoint.
Wikipedia on bigotry:
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.
From the OED:
1. A religious hypocrite; (also) a superstitious adherent of religion. Obs.
2. A person considered to adhere unreasonably or obstinately to a particular religious belief, practice, etc.
3. In extended use: a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or strongly partisan beliefs.
Okay. Now, what does it mean to be intolerant?
From wiktionary, "intolerant": (second definition)
Not tolerant; close-minded about new or different ideas. indisposed to tolerate contrary opinions or beliefs; impatient of dissent or opposition; denying or refusing the right of private opinion or choice in others; inclined to persecute or suppress dissent.
So what does "tolerate" mean? Believe me, it does not mean "agree with."
tolerate:
dictionary.com
1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.
3. Medicine/Medical. to endure or resist the action of (a drug, poison, etc.).
4. Obsolete. to experience, undergo, or sustain, as pain or hardship.
Hmm. Maintaining a strong opinion is not intolerant. Attempting to persuade people of the wrongness of their view is not hindrance, either.
Barak Obama has strong opinions about abortion, homosexuality, the poor, and what's right for America.
So does John McCain. As do many other people. They tolerate others' opinions, and they accept dissent as American. Okay, perhaps less so for John M, but still he engaged in debate.
So, I read this article, by Amy Goodman, on Alternet, where the lead-in line is this:
Progressives are right to hold the line against Warren's bigoted positions on abortion and homosexuality.
Well. Okay, let's make the test.
Does Rick Warren allow people to have other ideas? I think so. He obviously doesn't go around slaughtering people who hold ideas opposing his.
Rick Warren believes that abortion is wrong. He bases this belief on the proposition that life begins at conception. If a fetus is human, sentient, and living... then abortion is murder. Can't get out of that one, because deliberately killing a human being with malice aforethought - is murder. There are questions being begged on both sides when they argue about abortion. For example, the pro-choice folks believe that abortion is NOT murder, because the fetus is not truly human. Therefore, they believe that the anti-abortion folks are bigoted. Naturally. Now, is Rick's point of view illogical or without support? No. Once you grant his premises (DNA of a fetus is human DNA; heartbeat and brainwaves are present within a month, so living, sentient, human), the logic is easy enough to follow. Are his views counter to some universal opinion? No. Many people are against unrestricted access to abortion (something like 2/3 of the population). On the other hand, many people are for partial access to abortion (first trimester, rape, incest, the like - something like 75% of the population supports this). The opinions are not universal.
Rick Warren believes that homosexuality is sin. He believes it strongly. He bases his view on two basic premises: 1) the Bible says homosexuality is wrong (twice it uses the word "abomination"), and 2) natural law. He believes very firmly that homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms, and shouldn't even be permitted. Is this view illogical or unsupported? No. Once you grant his premises (the Bible is a worthy book expounding on moral values, and true if read in the original languages and understood from the point of view of the original writers and readers of it; and "the purpose of sex is to create children"), the logic is easy to follow. 52% of Californians voted FOR Proposition 8 in the last election. There is not a universal tide of opinion against his views.
Does Rick Warren disallow other opinions to exist in his presence? Nonsense. Does he hinder people from having their own opinions? No. He tolerates others' opinions - he asked Obama (with whom he disagrees strongly) to a debate at Saddleback. He disparages Obama's answer, but that's expected. Obama disparaged John McCain's answers in nationally-televised commercials. Let's get real.
Ergo... not a bigot. Strongly-opinionated, yes. Perhaps a bit hypocritical. Less bombastic than most; doesn't try to force his opinions on others; the tone of his message is more congenial than strident.
Calling someone a bigot doesn't make him one.
On the other hand, calling someone "stupid" for holding a contrary opinion is intolerant of another's views. Calling someone "bigoted" for holding a contrary opinion is intolerant of another's views. Not to mention that both of those are attempts to polarize opinions, which I've been concluding is one very real danger affecting America today.
My mind boggles at the very idea that "there is no middle ground" to most journalists and many politicians. "Liberals are ALL for aborting every fetus, forcing children into homosexuality, et cetera" or "Conservatives are ALL bigoted, hypocritical, money-grubbing, power-hungry Right-wing Christian zealots" - neither one of these opinions is right, and the idea that there can be but two points of view is vastly unsupported and hugely illogical.
Agreement is not necessary for tolerance.
We can agree to disagree.
Strongly-held opinions do not bigotry create.
Even people holding opinions strongly can agree to disagree, and have even-tempered and congenial conversations with one another over lunch. And that mentality is one of the fundamental concepts that has, in the past, made America a great place to live.
Wikipedia on bigotry:
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.
From the OED:
1. A religious hypocrite; (also) a superstitious adherent of religion. Obs.
2. A person considered to adhere unreasonably or obstinately to a particular religious belief, practice, etc.
3. In extended use: a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or strongly partisan beliefs.
Okay. Now, what does it mean to be intolerant?
From wiktionary, "intolerant": (second definition)
Not tolerant; close-minded about new or different ideas. indisposed to tolerate contrary opinions or beliefs; impatient of dissent or opposition; denying or refusing the right of private opinion or choice in others; inclined to persecute or suppress dissent.
So what does "tolerate" mean? Believe me, it does not mean "agree with."
tolerate:
dictionary.com
1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.
3. Medicine/Medical. to endure or resist the action of (a drug, poison, etc.).
4. Obsolete. to experience, undergo, or sustain, as pain or hardship.
Hmm. Maintaining a strong opinion is not intolerant. Attempting to persuade people of the wrongness of their view is not hindrance, either.
Barak Obama has strong opinions about abortion, homosexuality, the poor, and what's right for America.
So does John McCain. As do many other people. They tolerate others' opinions, and they accept dissent as American. Okay, perhaps less so for John M, but still he engaged in debate.
So, I read this article, by Amy Goodman, on Alternet, where the lead-in line is this:
Progressives are right to hold the line against Warren's bigoted positions on abortion and homosexuality.
Well. Okay, let's make the test.
Does Rick Warren allow people to have other ideas? I think so. He obviously doesn't go around slaughtering people who hold ideas opposing his.
Rick Warren believes that abortion is wrong. He bases this belief on the proposition that life begins at conception. If a fetus is human, sentient, and living... then abortion is murder. Can't get out of that one, because deliberately killing a human being with malice aforethought - is murder. There are questions being begged on both sides when they argue about abortion. For example, the pro-choice folks believe that abortion is NOT murder, because the fetus is not truly human. Therefore, they believe that the anti-abortion folks are bigoted. Naturally. Now, is Rick's point of view illogical or without support? No. Once you grant his premises (DNA of a fetus is human DNA; heartbeat and brainwaves are present within a month, so living, sentient, human), the logic is easy enough to follow. Are his views counter to some universal opinion? No. Many people are against unrestricted access to abortion (something like 2/3 of the population). On the other hand, many people are for partial access to abortion (first trimester, rape, incest, the like - something like 75% of the population supports this). The opinions are not universal.
Rick Warren believes that homosexuality is sin. He believes it strongly. He bases his view on two basic premises: 1) the Bible says homosexuality is wrong (twice it uses the word "abomination"), and 2) natural law. He believes very firmly that homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms, and shouldn't even be permitted. Is this view illogical or unsupported? No. Once you grant his premises (the Bible is a worthy book expounding on moral values, and true if read in the original languages and understood from the point of view of the original writers and readers of it; and "the purpose of sex is to create children"), the logic is easy to follow. 52% of Californians voted FOR Proposition 8 in the last election. There is not a universal tide of opinion against his views.
Does Rick Warren disallow other opinions to exist in his presence? Nonsense. Does he hinder people from having their own opinions? No. He tolerates others' opinions - he asked Obama (with whom he disagrees strongly) to a debate at Saddleback. He disparages Obama's answer, but that's expected. Obama disparaged John McCain's answers in nationally-televised commercials. Let's get real.
Ergo... not a bigot. Strongly-opinionated, yes. Perhaps a bit hypocritical. Less bombastic than most; doesn't try to force his opinions on others; the tone of his message is more congenial than strident.
Calling someone a bigot doesn't make him one.
On the other hand, calling someone "stupid" for holding a contrary opinion is intolerant of another's views. Calling someone "bigoted" for holding a contrary opinion is intolerant of another's views. Not to mention that both of those are attempts to polarize opinions, which I've been concluding is one very real danger affecting America today.
My mind boggles at the very idea that "there is no middle ground" to most journalists and many politicians. "Liberals are ALL for aborting every fetus, forcing children into homosexuality, et cetera" or "Conservatives are ALL bigoted, hypocritical, money-grubbing, power-hungry Right-wing Christian zealots" - neither one of these opinions is right, and the idea that there can be but two points of view is vastly unsupported and hugely illogical.
Agreement is not necessary for tolerance.
We can agree to disagree.
Strongly-held opinions do not bigotry create.
Even people holding opinions strongly can agree to disagree, and have even-tempered and congenial conversations with one another over lunch. And that mentality is one of the fundamental concepts that has, in the past, made America a great place to live.