“The irony we see on these threads from the self-appointed “Bigot patrol” (a loose-knit term I’ve applied to other posters) is that they tend to show themselves when they are rather offended — intolerant if you will — about certain religious comments.
“Does that apply to you?
“Are you intolerant of certain religious comments made within this thread?
“If so, how is your intolerance to be differentiated from what you deem as religious “bigotry?””
Williams - you see how the question mark works? Is there any doubt that you and I are being accused of bigotry by innuendo?
I find the leading sentence, “The irony we see on these threads from the self-appointed...” to be EXTREMELY ironic and informative.
Colofornian - in the world I come from, the clealy displayed hatred of Mormon”ISM” (quaint, that affectation) is openly, plainly and honestly called “bigotry”, and where I come from, honest men are not afraid of honest words.
I am not a Hindu, nor Muslim, nor Morman, nor Catholic - BUT I can spot anti-any-of-those bigotry a mile away.
IOW, you concede that you are "bigoted" intolerant of my religious views vs. cults.
Well, fine. Be intolerant vs. my views; I will continue to object to certain worldviews.
Lest you think I am suddenly making up my convictions-on-the-fly to address personally you and/or Williams, allow me to quote from a post from Nov. 1, 2011...excerpt below the **********:
*************************
All "bigoted" means = intolerant
All "cannot stand" = intolerant
So you are intolerant of Mitt Romney based upon his stances
Now here's the interesting part. Mormons are my relatives. Highly valuable people. Worth the love.
Yet, for a reason, you have "personalized" what you can not stand -- personalized it in a person (Mitt Romney).
Me? I get along with the Mormons in my life. They are worth the love exchanged. I make a distinction 'tween the "ISM" and the person, much the same way many will treat the homosexual well and yet vehemently oppose the homosexual agenda.
You've bought into the liberal, homosexual activist worldview that if you oppose the agenda, you oppose the person, and are therefore guilty of bigotry. (You can thank the MSM and your liberal campus educators for such a perspective gleaned from them)
According to your perspective -- if you were to embrace any modicum of consistency, that is, the Christian and conservative elements in society should shut down any and all opposition to homosexual activist demands because that, too, is deemed as "bigotry."
Here's the fact: Everybody is tolerant and everybody is intolerant of something. Everybody draws the line somewhere on what they won't oppose. But opposition in and of itself does not = "hate" (I get the feeling some people grew up in homes of conflict and project any disagreement as hate-filled)
Yet you are bigoted toward religious views (like mine) because you draw the line at some point. It shows you are intolerant of some things. I say, "Well, good for you. Everybody's intolerant of some things. And some people are tolerant of false teachers, deception, and counterfeiters." (That's just the way things run)
But bottom line, "tolerance" is not touted as any great virtue in the Bible. Why? Because it's so dependent upon what is being discussed! It actually falls more into the licentious camp.
******************************
Upon posting the above, poster Eternal Vigilance posted:
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." -- G.K. Chesterton
Also, back in May 2010 a FR poster wrote, "I now understand that Colofornian is an anti-Mormon bigot."
Osage Orange responded: "Oh...well that's original. So does that make you an anti-anti-mormon bigot? I guess it does, eh?"
So...Giles...are you an anti-anti-MormonISM bigot?
In that same thread, I responded to the original poster the excerpt below:
*************************
In light of the origin of the word "bigot" I find all this a bit ironic. Originally, the word “bigot” was developed in a Catholic context & wasn't originally aimed at anyone outside of a historic Christian (Catholic) context.
"Bigot" is etymologically tied to "Beguines." It was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood, with the meaning of attaching "excessive devotion" to this sisterhood...(yeah, the devoted do get slapped around a bit).
So, you’re right...in one way in that “bigot” in its original usage was tied to perceived intolerance. (I don’t know if the Beguines were actually intolerant or not). The Beguines were probably at least perceived as practicing "spiritual one-upsmanship"--and others didn't like it--they felt looked down upon. Perhaps they felt scorned because such sisterhoods tended to isolate themselves more and because of that, the Beguines perhaps were perceived as being spiritually snooty ("we don't like how excessively devoted they are").
But to wind this back to what I said. "Bigot" is originally tied to "excessive devotion." I suppose it's possible that the Beguines were indeed "excessively devoted." (It's also just as possible that the other Catholics' perception was largely wrong...but once a reputation develops...). But let's just say they were excessively devoted. If that's the name-slinging you wish to engage in...I'll just claim a historical context.
But if you want to insist on a contemporary usage of that term -- that "bigot" means "intolerant" -- then you need to answer Osage Orange's Q. Because aren't you showing religious intolerance toward us? On what grounds is your "intolerance" so "allowable" and therefore elitist, whereas anyone else's perceived "intolerance" is called into question?
(Yes...we noted your 7 Q marks in post #204 alone...you jumped right out of the starting block on this thread w/em...)
Well; I sure am!!
And most of them are statements that have been made by MORMONs that I have posted!