half the country voted for the Zero, too. I'm supposed to accept their ill-formed opinions as truth? Closer to the truth, is in America today, increasing numbers are in full rebellion against Christianity more specifically than any other religious expression. Forms of mention of principles and morals informed by such, even the mere mention of "God" as once culturally known in the [arguably] sadly distorted American "Christian" tradition, is now labeled "bigotry" for being much in anyway adhered to, or held up as standard.
What is sought today, enforced when possible, is nothing less than outright prohibition of informed consultation derived from the Word. I have heard it with my own ears. "We want to remove totally religion from government". That includes in their minds, precluding policy makers allowing themselves to be openly and admittedly informed by the sacred texts. If a viewpoint informed by Christian perspective lacks elasticity enough to conform to anti-theist views, it is sought to be fully prohibited, then further removed wherever vestiges of policies informed thusly may seen to be found. You know these things.
How can one, in good conscience, further comply with these demands? or rather, as the left-wing ponders and discusses among themselves, how may Christians be forced to comply? That's where I'm concerned we are headed. Are we to now be in retrograde progression; forced into the privacy of our own homes, much as homosexuals were once merely "tolerated"? Then later shunned more completely (as they previously were) leading eventually to a total outlawing of the "thought crime" of religious thought itself? How else could the atheists ban all religion?
Is your message for us to go underground, now? Seems like it, in more ways than one(!)
Please take care that you yourself not join in with this 'stacking of the deck' as it were. Speaking frankly to them, and witnessing truth to them as can be found in Torah, could help.
By it's nature, religious belief can be exclusionary. Declaring a "this" while pointedly excluding "that other"...is that the definition of bigotry?
It may help to define what you mean by the term. Then we may need look into how the term is currently being casually (but with deliberate aims) tossed about in the culture widely, this "wideness" you make mention of yourself in your "half the country's electorate...", etc.
How could one go about opening these same people's eyes to the fact that they themselves, in screwing up their faces in disgust at each appearance and every expression of Christian thought in America, seeking to ban it outright if they can get away with it, are displaying grotesque exercise of "bigotry" themselves, if the same standards they seeming employ, were to be applied to them neutrally?
There is a concerted effort by the atheist left-wing, to tear down Christianity, for Christianity is the greatest threat to their atheistic, outright hostile anti-theist "system".
As to definition of the word bigot, you attempted this definition as part of a polemical;
They think themselves immune from ever possibly being guilty of religious bigotry, for they claim to have no religion. So that makes it ok for them to be bigoted against Christianity, in their own eyes. If you wish to rage against blindness, please fully consider theirs.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king?
Again, if you are to argue not only am I wrong (could well be) but "have no basis in fact", please quote the precise statements which you claim are such. This scatter-shot business confuses the mind readers. but when around you, they don't need much coffee ;^)
Please ping me if you find anyone actually doing this!