Lets start with some terms. In the original post I pointed out:
…the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “prejudice” as:
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one?s rights; especially : detriment to one?s legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
Before I move on to the term ‘bigot’, indulge me on some further thought. I expounded on the nature of applying the term ‘prejudiced’ as follows (emphasis new):
I think you touched… (0.00 / 0)
… on one of the reasons I put this post on BMG in the first place.…
This lead me to the question that, even if we didn’t bring up the word, is the word apt? I came to the conclusion that it is, by definition. I do think it is possible to be prejudiced and not be a homophobe, because the underlying premises of your beliefs could rise from flawed assumptions that have nothing to do with an irrational fear of homosexuality… so I wouldn’t use that term in a blanket sense. But prejudice does seem to apply.
I think it is important to recognize the reality of what is going on here. It is prejudice. Screaming it in someones face is probably not productive, but recognizing reality is.
…
In recognizing the reality that the term prejudice is particularly apt in this situation, it brought me to reflect on why the commenter was so defensive. They may (consciously or sub-concisely) not want to be labeled as prejudice because of its associated negative character. That is a good thing. People should feel bad about being prejudiced. The commenter just happen to feel so bad that they failed to see that the term was apt. They didn’t see it in themselves.
I have pointed to the function of shame in public discourse elsewhere as well:
Shaming is a harsh, but many times legitimate tactic for social change. It is used frequently by Churches, pundits, officials, and all manner of people.
OK… now to the main event… the term ‘bigot’. Raj chimed in and offered the distinction (anyone else in the ‘we miss Raj club’?):
It is possible to be prejudiced without being bigoted. The difference, as far as I can tell, is that a bigot is stubbornly unwilling to give up his prejudices even when being presented with new information.
I suspect that most people have preconceived notions, which might be analogous to prejudices. If someone can and is willing to overcome his preconceived notions, so much the better.
by: raj @ Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 16:59:17 PM EDT
I elaborated on the point:
Well lets see… (0.00 / 0)
big·ot:… …a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I guess you could say that a bigot is a stubbornly prejudiced person. I guess it would follow that all bigots are prejudiced but not all prejudiced people are bigots.
I don’t think that it is the case that bigots understand their own prejudices but overcome their understanding with stubbornness. I think it would be more correct to say that the preconcieved notions that define a bigot’s particular prejudices are subbornly resistant to reason.
This idea of being ‘bigoted’ having something to do with information was touched on by lightiris:
Crossed the line. (6.00 / 3)
I think early on in this debate the YES supporters/voters could have appropriately been described as prejudiced, i.e., they had pre-judged the individuals and the issues based on their own limited and insular worldview. At this point, however, I no longer think “prejudiced” is the correct term. “Bigoted” is. Since the early stages of this debate, a tremendous amount of information has been made available, and we have first-hand evidence–the lives and stories of real people–that SSM is good, decent, and pro-family.For example, my rep Lew Evangelidis had frequent contact with married couples and their children who live in his town. Lew even attended a fundraiser for The Bridge of Central Massachusetts’ Safe Homes, a program for GLBT youth who need support and a place to stay. Through all this, however, Lew willfully disregarded the humanity of these people and their stories in order to cling to his misguided and factually inaccurate mantra. Despite their pleas, he was apparently perfectly willing to impose his personal sensibilities on these people, some with their children begging him to change his mind, to preserve the dignity and standing of their family unit. No dice, though.
And he is not a stupid man; he is simply, at this point, a bigot.
I replied noting that ‘letting the people vote’ can function as a rationalization allowing legislators the freedom of not having to actually face a confrontation of any of their personal preconceived notions.
lightiris pointed out:
By actively bypassing any need (0.00 / 0)
to examine one’s underlying premises, one is actively and willfully protecting one’s point of view. The side-step is simply too cute by half. I’m afraid that behavior still qualifies as bigoted.
So does the term apply in Ms. California’s case? She’s certainly prejudiced. I’m not sure how informed she is. Also, if she is uninformed, I’m not sure about how ‘willful’ she is in being uninformed. I suspect it’s willful. She clearly understands that ‘equal rights’ are important, but she doesn’t go on to make the jump that marriage is (or should be) a right. Put another way, she doesn’t see or willfully disregards that denying that right to gays violates any sense of fairness to their legal, relationship, and life aspirations. There certainly is enough opportunity for a pageant queen and model to have absorbed enough context to have seen this by now. Recognizing fairness while simultaneously refusing to see the unfairness of her position seems at least a little willful to me.
So I think the term ‘bigot’ probably applies.
Normally as indicated above, I’m fully in support of shaming her for it,… not for her sake but for the sake of establishing that it is shameful. On the other hand, there is a glimmer of hope (or was… that she felt the need – possibly not without cause – to become defensive about it, she may be too deeply invested in her position now) in that she does recognize some sort of fairness is the issue. She just thinks that ‘separate but equal’ should be fine and that only her own (probably religious) understanding of the term marriage should apply to everyone. (She probably doesn’t see the unfairness in religious desire to ‘own’ the term).
As such, I wouldn’t have actually
called her a bigot, even if the term is applicable… because
there are practical considerations to using the term ‘bigot’
You should really be careful of throwing around the term biggot in that it is a declaration that the person in question is immune to conversation. By declaring that, you give up hope their ever changing their minds.
Sabutai went further:
I’m talking about giving people a way out. People who weren’t on our side a year ago, and may not even be on it today — because as Ryan has pointed out, this was one battle in a longer campaign. People are drifting to our camp steadily, but saying that anyone in the process of changing their mind is a bigot for most of their lives certainly won’t help. People want to adopt more pro-equality stances, and we shouldn’t make it harder for them to do so.
Any group that calls someone a “bigot”, is ceding all attempts to have their opinions be relevant to that person.
Of course, as Laurel pointed out later, there are limits:
sure (0.00 / 0)
i’m not infinitely patient, especially when the bigot is making sweeping legal or policy decisions.
I don’t think ‘prejudice’ is exclusionary… (5.00 / 1)
… however I think ‘bigot’ is. Calling someone a ‘bigot’ is to preemptively accuse them of being immune to conversation. It is a conversation stopper.‘Prejudice’ on the other hand is something we have all dealt with. We have first hand experience of overcoming prejudice. We can see first hand the progress toward overcoming some of our society’s overall prejudices.
Maybe some of this is navel-gazing, but I do think that the first step toward change is recognition of a problem. The problem of ‘prejudice’ is something we can make serious progress toward overcoming, but it should be called what it is.
Similarly, throwing out terms like Bigot in the absence of any evidence of such (and perhaps even if there is evidence of such) is probably unproductive.
I don’t do this out of pride. I do this because I want to understand the reality so I can navigate through it better.
She’s a bigot, but we may have lost an opportunity. The public shame happening now has it’s own utility in the fight, not in our efforts for her but for society.
Even today, John Aravosis of Americablog notes that Focus on the Family has pointed out that they would have no problem with a gay SC nominee:
In a move that will surprise gay activists and liberals, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family, a top religious right groups, tells me that his organization has no problem with GOP Senator Jeff Sessions’ claim today that he’s open to a Supreme Court nominee with “gay tendencies.”
The spokesperson confirms the group won’t oppose a gay SCOTUS nominee over sexual orientation.
…
This is a huge sign of the times, when the lead religious right group – this is James Dobson’s group – is afraid to be openly homophobic. And earlier today, I noted how Tony Perkins over at the Family Research Council left gays out of his demand that the “new” GOP focus on social issues. The religious right may actually be – at least publicly – backing away from its over hostility to gays.
Now, do they still hate us in their heart of hearts? Absolutely. Will they do everything in their power to hurt us, and take away our civil rights? You betcha. But now they’re afraid to say it.
Ok,… that was long and I apologize, but my previous thread, I think, illustrates that there are many nuances of the applicability of the terms ‘bigot’ and ‘prejudiced’ and the considerations one should keep in mind in using them. I wanted to point out all these things in the previous thread, but I lacked the time earlier and, as you can see, there was a lot to cover.
Hopefully my gathering these earlier comments in this way contributes in a helpful way.
At least in terms of connotation, bigot strikes me as a stronger word than prejudiced. One might fairly argue that all humans are by definition prejudicial. How can we not be? We all have experiences after all which will color how we see various issues and circumstances we encounter in life. Not everyone is going to be prejudiced about the same things or to the same degree, but it can be acknowledged and addressed through reasoned argument.
<
p>Bigotry, on the other hand implies action and deliberate thought, along with a don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts attitude. It is more hateful, which is why I cringe when the term is thrown around so generously to apply to anyone whose only sin is not being for same-sex “marriage” even if they are fine with civil unions to the level of being marriage in all by name. The context of statements and actions must be taken into account and I’d much rather take a he-who-is-not-against-us-is-for-us attitude than a he-who-is-not-for-us-is-against-us attitude.
… bigot is a ‘stronger’ word than prejudiced. I certainly don’t think that everyone who isn’t for SSM is a bigot. I can also understand the ‘benefit of the doubt’ attitude encapsulated in your last sentence.
<
p>However, I’d also say that the ‘benefit of the doubt’ should end when doubt is removed when people expound on their thoughts, the reasons behind them, and then elect to keep their prejudiced opinions in the face of evidence.
<
p>In the case of Miss California, I’d say that it is quite possible that she wasn’t a bigot when she originally answered the question, but I think it’s clear that she’s moved beyond the benefit of the doubt at this point.
<
p>
Sabutai’s point that it gives people a way out is somewhat compelling, but having met several of the local anti-SSM folks in person and having seen where organizations like MFI and MassResistance turned after losing the marriage vote, there’s no question that the driving force for the anti-SSM forces in this state was bigotry. I haven’t even heard a valid reason for opposing civil gay marriage, despite Jeff Jacoby’s dozens of attempts to rationalize his position. đŸ˜‰
<
p>You can soften it by calling it prejudice, but it doesn’t make their actions any different. Nor does it make postings telling gay people they just need to deal with it any less poisonous.
<
p>Finally, as should have been clear from the recent discussion, I certainly don’t think everyone who isn’t for SSM is a bigot. I will say that I think John Kerry and Obama’s positions on the subject is a copout. It doesn’t make them bigots. Unlike Ms. Prejean, the reality is quite provably opposite.
<
p>
prostitution, strip joints, beauty pageants, denigration of woman in the media, few rights for working moms. I could go on and on. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me on these issues, or to understand where I’m coming from. What I do think is that I have to live along side it (I have no choice)and be grateful for every step forward we take. In the meantime, throwing eggs at our local strip joint, or spitting on everyone who watches Keith Olbermann because I think he is unfair to women, or chastising everyone who watches and participates in Miss USA is not going to do a thing toward my cause or do a thing to improve my life.
<
p>You can choose to be an angry person, or you can choose to celebrate the successes you have had so far. Life is short, I would go with the celebration.
<
p>
I’m still trying to wrap my head around spitting on Keith Olbermann (!), but giving the Miss. USA pageant a pass. I won’t even touch equating prostitution with gay marriage. Let alone your series of angry rants followed by entreaties for OTHER people to choose tolerance.
… at your general impression. I think that you’ve got to realize that by definition, you’re experiences with the local anti-SSM crowd is with a subset of the anti-SSM crowd… specifically the subset that is willing to be vocal and on the front lines. It’s probably true then that the ‘bigoted’ to ‘merely prejudiced’ ration is much higher in the group you interacted with compared with the population as a whole. That this more active subset is a ‘driving force’ isn’t very surprising either. So I think you’re probably right in saying that ‘…the driving force for the anti-SSM forces in this state was bigotry.” However, that’s what started it and drove it, but their hopes and aspirations depended much on the non-vocal ‘merely prejudiced’ to go along.
<
p>At least, that’s what I surmise anyway.
<
p>I am confused by an apparent contradiction though,… your closing point “… I certainly don’t think everyone who isn’t for SSM is a bigot.” undercuts your opening assertion that “…it’s a distinction without a difference”, doesn’t it? I assume your talking, as I was, about the distinction between ‘prejudiced’ and ‘bigoted’, yes?
I don’t, which is why I don’t see a contradiction. You’re trying to draw an exquisitely fine line. One, which frankly, could only be drawn by people not affected by the prejudice in question.
… either prejudiced on the issue of SSM marriage (which is a subset of prejudices having to do with homosexuality), or have taken prejudiced positions on the issue for strategic reasons.
… they either really believe their stance on the ‘definition of marriage’ or the don’t. If they do, then yeah… that stuff definitely comes with a bunch of ‘pre-judged’ erroneous claims that fly in the face of fairness and justice. The correct term, as far as I can tell, to describe such a state is prejudiced. I don’t think they are prejudiced in general on homosexuality, but in the salient context at hand,… yeah, they might be.
… an interesting concept. Prejudiced, having to do with ‘pre-judged’ notions, can vary widely in specifics. That is to say, it’s rather broad to say someone ‘pre-judges’,… it begs the question ‘what?’. In this way, you can have prejudices and you can have prejudices and they can differ both in scope and magnitude.
<
p>Scope and magnitude are what differentiate Kerry and Obama,… but not the applicability of the term to the scope in question… it still applies though it’s scope is limited.
You have to judge in context. There’s a HUGE difference in tone and sentiment. I think it’s a cop out, but I understand the political reality.
(My own comments, notwithstanding.) Thank you for going back and finding these comments; they resonate clearly today and distill succinctly the concepts of bigotry and prejudice to their essence. Very helpful, Mr. Lynne.
<
p>
I have only one qualm about the premise, and that is that all who favored a vote were bigoted/predjudiced.
<
p>I thought then, and think now, that a vote would have set this matter to rest in a way that a court decision cannot. I was not alone in this – David also thoguht so. And as I said at the time, I think that a vote would have ratified SSM in the Commonwealth, not banned it.
<
p>The SJC noted from the beginning that the legislature was free to act – that was the reason for the delay in the judgement. Lawmakers in MA, like ME, could have taken a vote and ratified. Or, they could have allowed the electorate to decide. Both options would have created a law, rather than a decision. Reliance upon a decision merely pereptuates opposition, no matter what strategy Arlene Isakson thinks is best.
<
p>FWIW, it feels predjudiced to me to dismiss those of us, like David and I, who are concerned with the ramifications of enforcing decisions as law. To persist in calling us anti-gay when our qualm centers around process – is bigoted.
<
p>Sigh. Go ahead and call me names now. Great post anyway.
and asking “when did the love that dared not speak its name become the love that can’t shut up about itself.”
<
p>But yeah, go right and ahead and think of yourself as a victim of prejudice.
For those interested, here is a link to the 2005 POST on my blog, not BMG, that Huh refers to. I state that was the word used in the 1780’s. It was.
<
p>And read the whole thing – it does not bash gays, it clearly states they are entitled to legal protection, and sugests a solution to the issue that applies to all proclivities equally.
<
p>Data vs. Insinuation. And I really don’t think of myself as a victim – I merely point out that I would (absurdly) qualify using your victim-status calculus.
Slavery was also common in the 1780’s. In fact, the person whose name you’re “borrowing” was a slavery advocate. “Faggots” were bundles of wood, then too. The point being that there were lots of offensive things about the 1780’s and your namesake.
<
p>You don’t live in the 1780’s; why did you decide it was necessary to write this?
<
p>
<
p>You may have taken on the name of a Revolutionary War era bigot, but you most certainly don’t come from such a time.
<
p>Here, in reality, you’re a female Republican State Committee member (something that wouldn’t have been possible in 1780) who virulently defended Mitt Romney’s position on gay marriage and obsessively posted about the need to take a vote.
<
p>Forgive me if I don’t find your “marriage is for straight people, civil unions are for everybody” proposal at the end of a several paragraphs of anti-gay snark (clicking our heels!) compelling.
<
p>
Even a blind squirrel finds a few nuts.
<
p>I share your dismay at the tone of the piece. On the other hand, I think the conclusion she draws works more effectively than the approach the entire progressive community is taking now. She “buried the lead”.
<
p>I find her piece snarky, condescending, and unnecessarily inflammatory. I find her proposal, at its conclusion, sound (although unsupported by anything in the paragraphs that preceded it).
<
p>I think her proposal:
<
p>a) Solves the legal and financial problems that give the issue substance and muscle.
<
p>b) Solves or moots the political issues that hinder its acceptance in red states that currently oppose SSM.
<
p>c) Effectively turns conservative dogma on itself and thus provides yet another in the long and growing list of rightwing hypocrisies for those rightwingers who will continue to oppose it.
<
p>As I’ve written on another thread, it is the religious aspects of all this that trouble me the most.
<
p>I agree with this excerpt from the offending column:
<
p>It seems to me that we can do very little, legally, to change the attitudes and feelings of the homophobic. What we can do is seek pragmatic actions that accomplish the ends we seek.
Blind squirrels will not go hungry! I couldn’t resist!
… are preferable to legislative ones, but the example of actually getting it done and watching it work for a few years without the world ending is priceless.
<
p>Regarding the creation of Law, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that what happened was law… it was the court fulfilling it’s function regarding existing law. Many disagreed with their interpretation, but that is their job. I’m not sure what you mean about ‘enforcing decisions as law’… are you suggesting that judicial review be abandoned or that executive and legislative branches should feel free to ignore it? My understanding that judicial revue is law…. not an action masquerading as law.
<
p>As far as my original premise… the whole thing was an exercise to see if the term fit. I came to the conclusion that prejudiced fit by definition on its face for pretty much all who voted yes (the details behind the reasoning are in the original post). ‘Bigot’, on the other hand, could not be said to apply to all (though no doubt probably many).
<
p>Most took offense at the use of either term, but I surmised that ‘prejudiced’ was not only applicable, but also it’s use in this context was appropriate for both utility (as a tool for societal change) and moral reasons.
<
p>Off topic for those interested:… saw Star Trek. Big Trekkie. Loved it. Thumbs up from me.
Trekkie:trekker is analogous to bigot:prejudiced. It’s a distinction that only matters in discussions amongst nerds. đŸ˜‰ I’m going Sunday.
<
p>And yes, Ms. Porcupinse is playing semantic games, now as then. One of the more puzzling anti-SSM collaborations is Ms. Porcupine’s other organization (Citizens for Limited Taxation) and MassResistance. The CLT brass spent more time on the MR radio show than anyone but CJ Doyle. Go figure.
Prejudging is normal and necessary. We could not get through a day if we did not make a series of prejudgments:
Now is the time to get up if I want to get to work on time:
The milk doesn’t smell fresh;
Looks like rain, take an umbrella;
Don’t sit next to that person on the train.
<
p>As much as we rely on our produces, they can sometimes be wrong and we readjust our thinking and behavior.
<
p>I remember the first discussion I heard of gay marriage back in the 60’s. 2 men married to each other was as outrageously funny as women doctors. I’ve since been educated on both.
<
p>Bigotry is when you are faced with information that your prejudices are wrong and you cling to them anyhow and are intolerant of those who feel different.
<
p>If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, don’t engage in it. It’s amazing that those who are denying equal rights to others cry intolerance. The intolerance is when you deny others their right to choose the marriage that works for them. Intolerance is not calling out the bigots; it would be denying heterosexual marriage.
<
p>Adding “no offense” to a bigoted remark does not take the sting out.
<
p>So, the guy who stands up in the movie and shouts, “you can’t beam up people that way!”…is he a Trekkie or a Trekker?
thanks.
<
p>I was a Trekkie in my youth, so I’m thinking the ones that care that much are Trekkers. Could be the other way around. đŸ˜‰
… I was kind of surprised that so many terms were being thrown around and being taken offense to in the other thread without anyone defining some terms.
<
p>As someone famous once said… “Words mean things.”
I like the notion of willfulness as part of the definition. I heard the original question and answer, and thought the the primary problem might be that she was dumb as a box of rocks. The whole answer had a level of incoherence that struck me as similar to the infamous Miss South Carolina incident. That said, her later behavior might move her over toward the bigotry side of the scale. The question to me is one of whether a person is willing to consider respectfully the ideas that don’t comport with her prejudice ( I think I’m using the term correctly). We all have prejudices-but bigots are unwilling to adjust them in the face of new information.
I remember the scandal KnowThyNeighbor.org caused in 2005 with our 12 foot sign at the State House which read, “Vote Bigotry Out!”
<
p>I agree we need to be politically correct now. May I suggest calling them HBPIQ ? Hateful Bigoted Prejudiced Ignorant or Questioning !!! That way they can choose and we won’t be insulting any of them.
… that we ‘become tolerant of the intolerant’. Rather, I’d like to label phenomena clearly. One of the problems that can occur in discussions is people taking the word ‘prejudiced’ as an insult rather than an adjective that may or may not apply. Part of the reason for the post is to legitimize the use of the words. I don’t want anyone to automatically assume that assertions have degenerated to insults just because these terms were applied the way many people tune out when the term Nazi comes in.
<
p>The point is that they really can and do apply and are not just insults. I don’t want to give anyone that ‘out’ from the confrontation of what their beliefs may be correctly characterized as.
there is a reason why many get so angry when they are labelled. It’s called “in denial.” And those on the opposition side, like FOTF, MFI, VOM, etc. don’t want us to use these words and will fight us on them because they know that use of these words cause people to fear association with them. If we tone down the labels then we open the door to more excuses being used to take our rights away. “I am from a different generation.” “I only think this way because of my religious beliefs.” “It’s your grandmother and she never discussed ‘sex’ so don’t bring up the topic of gay rights to her, it will only upset her.”
<
p>Gays are hearing it all, just as other minorities heard the excuses years ago and still do in some places.
The other recent thread was a complaint about incivility. My point is that ‘bigoted’ and ‘prejudiced’ are not uncivil terms in and of themselves because they have actual meanings that may be actually applicable. Don’t give them the excuse to just be dismissive because they feel insulted… we have to make them work out the ideas behind those words and we do that by emphasizing the meanings and their applicability. This is another weapon for the arsenal. Its not a call to tone it down but rather confront tribalism with moral reality.
<
p>Don’t get me wrong… sometimes the need is for shouting. The previous thread framed the Miss CA issue as a ‘debate’,… and if it is a debate (I’m sure it isn’t for many) then some other tools are from the toolbox.
I’m not sure I would go that far. I think you have made a good case about the distinction between “prejudiced” and “bigoted”, but, by your own account, calling someone bigoted says it is no longer worth it discuss the issue at hand with them. Now, I don’t know about you, but I have a friend who is constantly amused at my ability to phrase things diplomatically, but I’m hard-pressed to find a way to soften a statement like:
Given that your views are fixed in a manner inaccessible to evidence and logic, I think we should stop discussing this.
I suppose that’s politer than
Given that you are a complete idiot, I’m done talking with you.
Politer, but not by much.
I guess what I would point out is that (and maybe I failed to say this elsewhere) once the term ‘bigot’ comes out, the defensiveness bypasses any attempt to win over the target, but at that point the real target switches… by demonstrating the aptness of the term you lose the subject of the term but can make larger points with bystanders and observers… especially those that may actually be bigots but didn’t necessarily vocalize. Harsh statements aren’t aimed at the subject but at the audience.
<
p>Emphasizing the aptness of terms lends weight to the objective,… the terms and the objectives being variables.
As in “I’m going to stop talking to you since you’re a bigoted idit. It’s so brave of you to hang on to those opinions despite all common sense and logic, bless your heart.”
“It’s my religion, I just believe it,” etc. are all indications that the person has already stopped listening and are not open to facts or reasoning.
<
p>I try to follow a do unto others as I would have have them do unto me,and would not likely drop the “B’ word in a discussion, and hopefully they would not tell me “You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny”, it still is correct to name it bigotry.
and she actually hunted me down at a fundraiser and tried to get me to back down and tell her that I didn’t think she was really was a bigot. She tried everything. Like telling me that she is against gay marriage because she is “best friends with a gay man, who I probably know, who used to work at Filene’s, his name is Ralph and I don’t know his last name, but you probably know him and he is against gay marriage, he told me most gays are, that is why I am against it too.” eh hem.
<
p>I think “bigot” is a conversation starter for some people.
I’ve been reflecting on the apparent immunity of social conservatives to facts. How is it that SSM could cause anyone harm? Why don’t we regard their views on this as similar to conspiracy theorists and UFO enthusiasts?
<
p>Following a tip from LightIris many months ago, I wandered off to read some of Jonathan Haidt’s work. Leaning on a number of investigations of morality, we find human notions of morality often have five axes:
Reflecting briefly on the Old Testament, one can easily think of examples of all five.
<
p>A curious thing about liberals is that we have a distinct preference for the first two, a strong suspicion of the last two, and curious ways of manifesting the middle one. (Think of those who enforce political correctness, the total green lifestyle, or veganism.)
<
p>If I understand it correctly, social conservatives regard support of same sex marriage as undermining the moral building blocks of society: It messes up gender hierarchy, it redefines who the tribe is, it introduces something impure into marriage. (Think of the odd fascination heterosexual social conservatives appear to have with gay sex.)
<
p>The psychological argument here is that morality is part of our wiring. In fact, tribal loyalty and hierarchy seem to be pretty deeply wired. That makes changing minds an uphill fight against strong inner mechanisms. It could account for the strong resistance social conservatives have to facts.
In a sense, bigots make moral statements regarding purity and tribal membership. We find those statements so abhorrent because we recognize their appeal.
Given a group consisting of MCRD, JohnD, billxi, and lasthorseman, I think you’d have trouble making a case. Add in JoeTS, CMD, gary, and a few others, then sure.
Then again, I doubt that any of the above would regard me as a “social conservativ”– perhaps because I am insufficiently wacky.
As I keep saying, there’s a huge difference in tone and intent. Especially between you and that first group…
refer to this phenomenon as “strange new respect” and opine that the recipient thereof is, ipso facto, not conservative.
Such is life, I guess. đŸ˜‰
With the left-wing-nut agenda, I am a bigot. If not for free thinking “bigots” like me, you’d all be British. Therefore, I am proud to be a bigot. You buncha dipshits! LOL!
Whatever the comment was that you just transcribed from your extraterrestrial masters, you appear to have garbled it somehow.
You’re not a bigot. You’re just wacky. Period.
<
p>People’s evidence 47: your bizarre insistence that Republicans are better on disability issues than Democrats.
I chose the word wacky to convey (playfully) how social conservatives seem inscrutable to liberals. I don’t think you’ve ever been inscrutable — well, except for your dislike of most things from the sixties.
<
p>That I can’t explain. A wacky hippie hater?
Even as I type, I have Revolver playing on the ipod. “Love You To” just ended, and I will skip over “Here. There, and Everywhere” to get to “She Said.”
Apologies!
a 1968 Fiat Spider 850., and loved it when it worked.
The first car I bought on my own was a used Fiat 128, in 1974.
<
p>When it worked, it was fine. During cold weather (remember when we got COLD weather around here in winter?), it would occasionally sputter and die. Yup. Like driving up the Route 2 hill, all warmed up, and — phhhht — there I am on the side of the road.
<
p>I can’t wait for the Chrysler/Fiat merger (my current vehicle is a Chrysler minivan).
The downside of coming from a Ford family. I learned a LOT about repairing cars, quickly.
My first car was a Ford Maverick! I think it was a ’75. It was blue! I ran it for a year on a blown head gasket. Oh, to be young again, when one could care less about a blown head gasket. As long as it started and moved forward and back, life was good đŸ™‚
I found your 6 as intriguing as your other ratings here.
Sets up the slider.
I showed his TED lecture to students this semester again to gauge their reactions, and, in general, they find his observations compelling. He’s writing a book, and I’m really looking forward to reading it. I wrote to him asking for any classroom materials he might have for high school kids, and he tells me they are working on refining some of this stuff for intructional purposes. All good stuff.
… his TED stuff?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/t…
This is slightly tangential, but the other phenomenon of tribalism you come across is nationalism risen to the point of irrationality. Sue’s comment above mentions the brick wall you sometimes hit on religion: “It’s my religion, I just believe it,”. The nationalist version of this is “My country, right or wrong”. Taken literally, this is tribalism’s triumph over morality… when faced with the tribal choice and the (plainly stated) wrong choice… they’ll choose wrong. Amazing statement. Wrong is just… well,… wrong. This is even more eggregious than the religious example, because the statement itself isn’t ambivalent or agnostic to what is ‘wrong’ or ‘right’,… it actually makes the assertion that ‘wrong’ is preferable, whereas the religious would define right and wrong in the belief system being clung to.
In a sense liberals have been fighting some kind of hierarchy since kings exercised a absolutism. So when I mention hierarchy, it gives everyone a bad taste. Yuckers!
<
p>However, many of our social structures — including republican forms of government — are based on a sort of consensual hierarchy. Even with this blog, we participate accepting that Bob, Charley, and David have more authority or power over its operation than the rest of us.
… I’d go so far as to say that Liberals tend to abhor hierarchy. I’d say that hierarchy, as asserted or constructed, is either accepted or not. I’d say that liberals tend to be much more willing to question the authority and actions of the leadership of a hierarchy. This is done not because of a general dislike of hierarchy so much as a liberal distrust of leaders, because leaders can take advantage of a hierarchy for unjustified actions. Also leaders can emerge from or create an illegitimate hierarchy (a despotism say). Liberals think hierarchies are fine, but their construction and operations should be carefully watched because leaders might abuse them.
You liberals embrace the Massachusetts democratic hierarchy.
<
p>I’m sure you’ll tell me I’ve ignored the context or something but I just want clarification.
… that should read “I wouldn’t go so far…”
<
p>Thanks for the catch.
… the sentence starts with the title: “‘m not sure… …I’d go so far as to say…”
Got it. Thanks for helping me read.
<
p>See dick run. Run Dick run. See Jane and Sally.
This is slightly tangential, but the other phenomenon of tribalism you come across is nationalism risen to the point of irrationality. Sue’s comment above mentions the brick wall you sometimes hit on religion: “It’s my religion, I just believe it,”. The nationalist version of this is “My country, right or wrong”. Taken literally, this is tribalism’s triumph over morality… when faced with the tribal choice and the (plainly stated) wrong choice… they’ll choose wrong. Amazing statement. Wrong is just… well,… wrong. This is even more eggregious than the religious example, because the statement itself isn’t ambivalent or agnostic to what is ‘wrong’ or ‘right’,… it actually makes the assertion that ‘wrong’ is preferable, whereas the religious would define right and wrong in the belief system being clung to.
Not so fast. There are a number of things to be said for tribalism.
<
p>
There’s a philosophical project of trying to define morality rationally. The main difficulty with that is jumping from “is” to “should”. There are no bridges over that river. It might be useful to reflect on our a priori moral responses because philosophical efforts can end up being no more than attempts to fit our predispositions into rational corsets and hoop skirts.
… (or much) of the utility and evolutionary aspects to tribalism…, it’s just the cognitive dissonance of being ‘for’ the ‘wrong’ and the complete lack of recognition of how outrageous this position is on it’s face (when meant literally). Our brains do indeed have a great capacity to hold self-contradictory ideas simultaneously, but one would hope that cognitive reflection would result in a process resolving these things (it usually does) such as Sue’s example above.
<
p>”Yankees Suck!” is just tribalism being somewhat rude, but rudeness in a sports context can actually be an acceptable expectation (to a degree… Philadelphia Eagles fans really need to learn how to not make people wish they hadn’t brought their kids to the game). Being ‘for’ the ‘wrong’ is a whole other level. I’m not in awe at any dissonnance of Sox fans… cognitive dissonance and tribalism in sports don’t have the same consequences. “My country, right or wrong!”… remember Sullivan calling those against the war traitors?… that’s where this can lead.
<
p>I spent a considerable amount of time going over moral and ethical theory and developing some ideas of my own during undergrad years. My thoughts in reaction to your point about “..attempts to fit our predispositions into rational corsets and hoop skirts.” are too involved to get into here… we should really go out for a beer sometime.
In the example of abortion, there are people who sincerely believe that abortion is murder while the pro-choice people believe it to be a fundamental right to choice. Are either of these groups “wrong” for feeling strongly about their positions? Or, getting back to the original arguments, are either of these groups bigots? What is the trip switch for being a bigot… the law?
… what you’re trying to get at here.
What I’m trying to get at is bigotry true in the abstract or is it simply relative? You seem to want to describe bigotry in terms of somebody believing in something even in light of contradictory facts. You contrast this with tribalism (supporting your team/cause/tribe…). What I am asking is what if you believe in something but do not believe the contradictory facts are “facts”. I used abortion as an example because while pro choice supporters believe a woman’s right to choice but the pro life movement believe in the rights of the fetus. I don’t think they are simply supporting their tribe. They don’t believe the opposing views are “facts” and are believing the “wrong”. But I would guess there are pro choice supporters who would call the pro-lifers bigots since they are trying to deny them their rights (like SSM supporters do). Also, what I was trying to understand is what are the “contradictory facts” that are determining if someone is a bigot… the law? If the law says SSM is illegal then are opponents of SSM suddenly NOT bigots? If the vast majority of Americans believe SSM is wrong then does that make opponents of SSM suddenly NOT bigots? Is bigotry only in the minds of the “victims” of bigotry? What is the determining factor or pivot point of what defines bigotry?
<
p>Some were mentioning American History on this thread… were colonial slave-owners bigots? Were American men prior to women’s suffrage bigots? Did they only become bigots when the light was shined on these inequities and then they still denied it or was it when the law changed?
… of the term. Pro-lifers are not bigots (or at least I should certainly hope so) because the term bigot is about the identity of the person in question. That is, I can’t be a bigot about your rights unless my objection to your rights are on the grounds of who you are. Being pro-life (hard to imagine many exceptions) isn’t about ‘who you are‘, it’s about the alleged rights of the fetus. Bigotry doesn’t apply.
<
p>Regard your point on ‘earnest belief’, I’ll get to it tomorrow possibly… to busy now.
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the 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.
I could go onto that page and edit it to say that a bigot is a chunk of grass that’s torn loose when a golfer swings too low. That definition would probably not last long before some other registered editor changed it, but it demonstrates the flaw of using Wiki for definitions of disputed terms. As I’ve mentioned before, traditional dictionaries are better.
In the only legitimate study thus far, Nature found little significant difference in the accuracy of Wikipedia as opposed to Encyclopedia Brittanica. If you made the change you described, it would be reverse in a manner of seconds (literally). If you tried three times in a row, you’d be banned.
<
p>The greater danger of Wikipedia is that the community gains a level of specialization and interaction that a viewpoint develops that manifests in certain biases. That does happen (IMO) on articles relating to technology more than any other topic.
Britannica disputes the study. [I had a quote from the article here, but it was too choppy to read this close to the margin.] Why would Nature publish a flawed report? There’s some speculation about the motive on the second page of the link.
… ‘lifestyles or identities’ to be identities, as defined by ethnicity, lifestyle, or other criteria’.
<
p>That is, it doesn’t make sense to say one is ‘bigoted’ toward people who run red lights, or drive recklessly or drive sports cars, however their driving habits inform their ‘lifestyle’. It’s the difference of ‘I hate it when people do X’ and ‘I hate X people’. Bigot applies to the identity, not just the behavior.
<
p>One way in which people are often accused of bigotry is in regard to their being ‘against the behavior’, but not against the ‘people’. This has the effect of making their attitude ‘effectively’ bigoted. That is, they think they are not attacking an identity, so their intent in prejudiced but not bigoted,… however in practice they really are attacking an identity, and so they are ‘effectively’ bigoted.
<
p>I’d also take issue with ‘differing from his own’. I’m intolerant of self identified murderers. This isn’t bigotry, not because of a behavior / identity issue, but rather because the discrimination has a justifiable basis. The reason we have a problem with racism is that skin color isn’t a salient characteristic for deciding issues of justice. Judgment on salient issues are fine.
Can you be bigoted against a Republican or a Democrat? Is this a behavior vs an identity? Are either of these labels truly homogeneous?
… when you ask the question “Are either of these labels truly homogeneous?” Opinions are rarely identity based. The closest this comes to it is probably religion, and even your average christian, for example, believes that being a christian is much more than just what they believe (their opinion).
Some clarification needed on what it is exactly you are asserting?
<
p>Then you mentioned the defination of bigot as…
<
p>
<
p>And my understanding is a true Muslim believes any non-muslim is an Infidel. Now I am not anything close to an expert on Islam but could a person interpret this “preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics” or “one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance” as bigotry?
<
p>I think it is. What does Islam say about homosexuality? About race? I’m guessing people will shy away from this type of label “bigots” since criticizing Muslims is right up there with a few of the other third rail issues on the left. But it seems to me if the sandal fits, wear it…
…. is the issue that not all Muslims conform to what you are calling a ‘true’ Muslim. Believing one to be ‘going to hell’ and having an ‘adverse opinion’ are two different things. I have a Muslim relative married who is married to an agnostic raised as a Christian. I don’t think her opinion of him because he’s an agnostic is ‘adverse’. Indeed, if Muslims generally believed what you’re saying, they wouldn’t have any non-Muslim friends. (That many probably don’t would have to be ‘corrected’ for geography and proximity to non-Muslims.)
<
p>Now, if someone is a self described Muslim and holds and adverse opinion on homosexuals (or Africans, or Asians, or Left handed people) owing to their identity?… yeah sure that’s bigoted. Does this mean that the Quaran is bigoted?… I’d say it holds some prejudiced positions. It, in and of itself, can’t be ‘bigoted’ because we can’t rightfully ascribe the property to it that it could ‘change it’s mind’ in the face of evidence. That is,… it could be said to be ‘stubborn’, but only because of what it is, not because of it’s capacity to reject evidence.
<
p>That this particular religious book holds some prejudiced opinions doesn’t make it unique, of course. Most appeals to tribal definitions of identity eventual trip over prejudiced premises. Needless to say, the Bible is full of it’s own problems.
<
p>Now, because of this characteristic of certain religious texts, I’d advise that judgments of people should refrain from identity classifications based on books. If they themselves believe the prejudiced sections?… then yeah, they are prejudiced. If they ‘stubbornly’ believe these things despite contrary evidence?… then yeah, they’re bigoted. But this is ‘saying’ a very different thing than claiming that ‘all those who adhere to this book’ are prejudiced. We’d have to assume all Christian’s were ok with slavery if we had only the Bible to go on, and of course this isn’t the case.
<
p>If people could be so easily defined, I guess you could make such a blanket statement about them. But such as it is, beliefs are the things that can be prejudiced or bigoted. Books certainly can ‘assert’ beliefs, but I’m not concerned with the beliefs of books,… just the beliefs of people.
So… can I summarize that people (Muslims and Christians) who believe things like homosexuality are “wrong” due to religious beliefs (Quaran/Bible), in the face of evidence are bigots? What of cultures and races that believe in marrying within their own race/culture/class and going outside is “wrong”… bigots?
… it could extend to bigotry to the extent that ‘not wanting to marry’ constitutes ‘thinking adversely of’. For most people, if the only ‘adverse opinion’ is ‘don’t marry’ and I doubt that this scales into a major concern… like masturbation as a sin. Let’s say, ‘mildly’ bigoted. Of course, more likely, the reasons for ‘not marrying’ can be rooted in other, broader, ‘adverse opinion’ and either prejudice or bigotry.
Which is exactly why I think the litmus test of anyone against gay marriage is automatically a bigot. There could be political, religious or cultural reasons why people could be opposed to gay marriage and not necessarily make them a bigot. Otherwise, I think half the world (or more) could be “bigoted” in some fashion or on some issue.
<
p>Thanks for the insight.
… most of us are prejudiced or possibly bigoted in some way. The important part is to recognize that to be in such a state is to be in a state of error. This is true by definition since the key part of prejudiced (and by extension, bigotry) is that the criteria for judging isn’t salient and therefor unjustified. The insidious part of prejudice is the difficulty in seeing it in ourselves. But since it is a state of error, it is desirable to break out of such patterns. Since these patterns are fed by unjustified preconceived notions, the key to breaking out is to be open and not necessarily retreat to old patterns just because they are more comfortable. Indeed, such a retreat in the face of being confronted with the unjustified nature of such precepts is often the leap from being merely prejudiced to being stubborn and possibly bigoted.
A comment on your comments out on the left margin.
… marriage criteria can also just be an expression of preference, not rooted in bigotry at all. Some people aren’t attracted to brunettes. Some people can’t imagine not sharing their religion with their partner, just as some can’t imagine not sharing their politics. The key thing here is the question of whether or not identity is in play, or merely characteristic preference. People with mere (not born of bigotry or prejudice) preferences, are open to being confronted by exceptions. “I normally wouldn’t prefer to marry a non-christian, but my feelings for (Mr./Miss) X (i.e. all the other qualities in them that I do prefer) tell me that its not a deal-breaker. I’ve got some thinking to do.”
but all perfect Muslims are. Ba dum bum.
and thought provoking posts.
<
p>But don’t you think some people fall back onto the “its my religion” when they don’t want to debate facts?
<
p>The Bible has been used by many Christians as an excuse to hate, Jews, Blacks, Homosexuals…even though Jesus Christ, who they claim to follow, clearly said “Love thy Neighbor”. I know they don’t hate others, whatever…
<
p>But a reason is something that leads you to a point of view, an excuse is something you pull together to justify your point of view you hold because you just like it.
<
p>Are there some people who look at a fetus and honestly believe that looks like a tiny cute baby, sure! How many honestly believe that a fetilized egg is a baby? The supporting evidence for this position is almost always – religion. That translates into – don’t bother me with the facts. They are often the folks who are spending so much time involved with regulating their neighbors behavior, they have little time for introspection.
<
p>
don’t get what it is to follow the word of Jesus Christ. And they do use it as an excuse to preach hate and try to control others. I was raised Catholic, and sinned so much under their teachings that I was surely going to hell. Not going to church on Sunday was a mortal sin punishable by everlasting life in hell. I am no longer a practicing Catholic, but I do believe in God, a good and loving God, from whom you can’t hide. In other words, you can’t be evil to people all week and then go to church on Sunday and be a Saint. That hypocrisy drove me crazy and was another reason I no longer practice Catholicism. I believe God judges you not on who you are, but what is in your heart. If you are good to people, and don’t thrive and rejoice on watching other people suffer, or cause other people to suffer in their own struggles, then that is all he is asking for. This is my own personal relationship with God. Everyone has their own ideas about religion, and I would never want to try to change that, because I value my right to believe in God in a way that makes sense to me.
<
p>There are always going to be people who are against abortion. I’m not a big fan of it myself, although I absolutely believe that every woman has the right to make that choice for themselves. Who ever came up with the term pro-choice made the best move for gaining support for it from people who might otherwise be totally against it. I know a woman who is STRONGLY against abortion, she would get furious at me for being pro-choice and start trying to convince me why I should be against abortion. Finally what I told her was that I understood why whe was uncomfortable with it and it can be hard to accept some aspects of abortion. I told her that I don’t like abortion either, and I guaranteed her that no woman likes abortion, they don’t approach it lightly, they often struggle with the decision and that it is not easy for them, but that I STRONGLY believe it should legal but rare. (Hillary Clinton often states this and maybe even coined it, not sure) It is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. After several years of trying to get this message across to her, she finally understood what it meant. She understood that the way to reduce abortion was not to ban it but to improve access to education and contraception. It was quite literally a huge success to have gotten through to one anti-abortion person, and for us to have a meeting of the minds about what the pro-choice movement is.
It was a total love moment. : )
<
p>So I appreciate so much when people in places of authority, (like Hillary Clinton , or Barack Obama) who have a voice that can reach many people will reinforce the pro-choice movement as a womans right to choose. while also being a woman’s and man’s responsibility to become educated about and use contraception, so we can continually reduce the number of abortions and they will be rare ( and they should be). I think that is an important part of the fight the pro-choice movement is using, in trying to be diplomatic about keeping the rights woman have achieved over their own bodies. People who are against abortion have their own reasons for feeling that way, sometimes, trying to understand how they feel makes them more likely to be willing to understand how we feel.
We pick and choose what part we wish to follow, and discreetly ignore the parts we don’t. I will admit to not being a good catholic. I believe the life or abortion decision belongs to the two individuals involved. NO ONE ELSE!
although I would think Catholicism far from being a la carte.
<
p>Frankly, internal divisions in Catholicism used to be settled by forming somewhat autonomous lay orders be they more liberal or more conservative than the mainstream. While these orders are not always looked at too well by the Vatican, they are still in Full Communion.
<
p>However, the life issue isn’t really a question according to Catholic doctrine, and nor is this inconsistent. The ancient Romans didn’t like the fact Christians were opposed to infanticide.
There is no way that a consistent dogma could be supported by large numbers of the Catholic Church in the West and the South (world, not American labels). There would be a schism.
You make some incredibly broad and sweeping statements about Christians, which as a group run the gamut from hide-bound literalists to those more accepting of the ambiguities and nuances of the Word. Pastor Phelps and others of his ilk are not representative of my faith. There are, SK, spiritual infants in every faith under the sun.
<
p>However, try painting an ethnic group with the kind of nonsense you just spouted and you would have been openly ridiculed and vilified. Evidently, Christianity bashing is still okay.
<
p>As for your discription of the “excuse” people use to be prolife – well, SK, that’s just simplistic, and ignores the intensive and spiritual quest that many engage in when thinking about when live begins. No less than St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas grappled with that issue.
<
p>So what do I do with your summation? Do I judge all Democrats by your patently offensive remarks or do I mark you as another ignorant member of the Party?
Rereading SK’s comment, I see she says many Christians. There are so very many Christians that that could encompass a mere 5% of Christians.
<
p>If I’m not mistaken her main point was on the effect of religious belief on political discourse; it was not on any alleged evilness of all Christians.
“Many” implies a large number, like a majority. Use “small vocal minority” or something like that. Do you really think she’d get away with that crap with an ethnic group? Imagine starting a sentence with “many (fill in the blank of an ethnic group) do and think (this way – fill in the blank). I think her whole response was rather prejudicial and wonderfully ironic, when one considers the that the title of the piece is “Bigots, Predjudice, Shame, and ‘Civil’ Debate.” Ms. K’s comment was neither civil nor was it prejudice-free. It’s the proverbial complaint about the plank in the eyes of the Christians without acknowledging the one in her own. She has pretty much proven the whole point of the post. She has now lost me as a civil participant by taking a decidedly uncivil and unfounded shot at my faith.
<
p>And the nonsense about abortion was showed a child-like contempt for a faith that has long labored over the question of when life begins.
Sorry you’re offended.
<
p>”Many” can also refer to the squeakiest wheels not just a 40% or more.
<
p>By its very nature and definition, the word “faith” applies to assertions that lie beyond the usual machinery of logical discourse, i.e., evidence and logic. If one believes something based on evidence or logic, it is no longer faith.
<
p>So to a degree, what SK is asserting is unremarkable, that religious faith imposes some inherent limitations on what can be discussed.
<
p>Am I missing something?
but you’re not the one being offensive. Let’s let SK step up.
<
p>Let’s look at what SK does assert:
<
p>
<
p>Don’t bother me with the facts? Little time for introspection? Really? And how does dear SK arrive at that assertion? How does she explain the various bodies of work by theologians attempting to discern when life begins? What facts and logic are behind this bold statement?
<
p>And not to belabor the point, but I will have to disagree with the reframing of the word “many.” As I mentioned, let SK pull that garbage with any other group, organization or ethnicity and people would be howling. This stuff is so not okay. She isn’t asserting that faith imposes limitations on what can be discussed(which isn’t precise anyway) – she’s making a broad judgement about a faith based on the words and deeds of a few, and shouldn’t THAT be rightly called prejudiced?
… that she said “some people… don’t bother me with facts”. It’s true… some people can’t be bothered with facts. Some people cling to religion to not be bothered with facts. I don’t see how this assertion is false.
that SK specifically mentions “many Christians” in her opening salvo. I also think the assertion that “some people cling to religion to not be bothered with facts” demonstrates either ignorance of faith (any faith) or is prejudiced. The inconvenient truth is that it’s not about “avoiding facts.” After all, how many “facts” has science gotten wrong through the years? It’s about trusting in something that’s far greater than the microscope and petri dish. You may not agree…but at least be respectful.
… I was just pulling my quote directly from what you quoted.
<
p>You are absolutely right. It was a blanket statement that was even offensive to me. I value my relationship with God, it does play a role in my life. It doesn’t mean I am blind to the facts or that I simply choose not to acknowledge them because it’s convenient for me.
But there are some religions that do go over the top, including “some” Christian faiths. I decided I would try not to be overly sensitive. Maybe that’s what she meant and it just didn’t come out right. Lord knows I’ve made that mistake before. Besides, I didn’t want to get into the whole Christian bashing debate.
That was not my quote. I did not criticize Christians or the Christian religion, or make any broad statements regarding any group or class. I called out the hypocrites. Jesus Christ also called out the hypocrites. There were many then and there still are. Some might say “too many”. If more people were able to truly follow the messages of the gods and prophets, this world would probably be a better place.
<
p>Christians have differing beliefs regarding abortion, homosexuality, birth control, etc., but they are not based on a directive from Jesus Christ. If they are not based on scientific proof, or any specific directive from a God, but instead, “a spiritual quest”, then under our legal system this belief is to be applied to the individual who holds it, not forced on those who have come to a differing “spiritual” answer.
<
p>”I just believe it,” does end all debate on facts and reason. What are you going to argue, “No you don’t believe it?” Its akin to saying, “end of discussion”.
<
p>Some or many might believe that the push to make abortion illegal coincides with the advent of the Women’s Rights Movement and was actually an attempt to keep women in their place.
<
p>Although I never said anything about people wrapping themselves in religion, I might suggest that some or many Americans wrap themselves in the flag to justify torture, the PATRIOT Act, and other unconstitutional un-American activities and policies. This does not mean that I hate America or Americans or that this is what America stands for.
I was highlighting the part of J4A’s comment that I agreed with. And I did state in the comment that I was assuming you did not mean many as in 85%, 75%, 1.5 million?(open to interpretation.)
<
p>
<
p>Religion is also a touchy subject to talk about. Saying the words “I believe in God” can cause ridicule and laughter in some circles. How can you believe in a God…ha, ha, ha…there is no proof (facts) there is a God…..laugh, chuckle, snicker.
<
p>So forgive me if I was for a moment taken aback by your
comment about “many” Christians. It took me a moment to realize that indeed you were correct about “some” Christians.
Yes – I am touchy when people make blanket statements about “many Christians.” And while Christ certainly didn’t issue an edict against abortion, but he was a Jew who followed Mosaic law. Paraphrasing from Matthew, Jesus says – “I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.” While He didn’t deign to follow some of the ceremonial or civil codes, (He supped with sinners)he did observe the moral codes. Your comments reveal that you have a very superficial understanding of Christianity. Not that I expect you to, but if you’re going to comment about “what Christians believe” then you should probably do some homework.
<
p>You claim you called out the hypocrites – and who exactly are you to judge them or the contents of their hearts? How do you know them to be hypocrites? Because they don’t agree with you? If people sincerely believe that something is wrong for society, and vote accordingly (as is their right) how are they behaving hypocritically?
<
p>And just for clarity,I happen to believe that gay marriage is a civil marriage and not a sacramental marriage, and therefore – at complete peace with it. The Church hijacked marriage as a sacrament in the 13th century and for hundreds of years, Protestants refused to accept that marriage was a sacrament, including our Pilgrim antecedents. They believed it was a civil matter.
<
p>The thing is SK – there are plenty of Christians like me who are content not to judge other people’s lives. It’s a “judge not, lest ye too be judged” kind of thing for us. Some of us, SK, are even smart and educated. We’re likely Democrats because it’s the closest party to social justice we’re going to find. Yet…we can be insulted at times, by people who presume to know so much and really know very little about the faith we hold.
for not speaking with clarity, perhaps I should have stuck with “some”. A blanket statement would have been “Christians, all Christians”, or at least “most Christians, Christians in general or the majority of Christians”. I did not want to imply that.
<
p>The passage you paraphrase from Matthew 5:17, “I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.” Continues… “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” in the next line, Matthew 5:18. Matthew was not promoting an ala carte menu of laws.
<
p>My superficial understanding is that Mosiac Law was from the Mosaic Covenant between the Israelite God and his chosen people. If they followed his laws, he would reward them. Is there a passage where he asks them to impose their laws on others?
<
p>Is there a passage that says women should not practice abortion? The passage in Exodus only states that a man injuring a women and causing her to miscarry must pay damages to the husband. This certainly stops short of denying the parents the right to make such a decision.
<
p>As to who is a hypocrite, Jesus’ explanation was pretty good in Matthew 23:23, – those whose focus on the minor and have omitted the weightier matters of the law.
<
p>Too bad he didn’t tell us what the weightier matters of the law were. Oh, wait, he did, loving God with our whole heart and mind and loving our neighbors as ourselves. Mark 12:31 “There is none other commandment greater than these.” So working to improve our neighbor instead of ourselves. That might be considered hypocritical. Oops, looks like I might fall into that category. A clear example or hypocricy might be a Christian who burns a cross to terrorize their neighbors, shoots people at an abortion clinic, or participates in religious ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. It could possibly also include those who attempt to impose their religious positions on the private lives of those with only superficial religious understanding.
<
p>While I agree whole heartedly that it is hurtful to attack the religious beliefs of others, do you feel that if religon is offered as proof of the validity of an arguement, that it is fair to examine and analyze that religon?
SK. And I am trying very hard to respond as gently as I can. No one is suggesting an ala carte interpretation of the Law is found in Matthew. I provided the quote because Jesus is clear that the Law is not destroyed by His coming-in fact if anything, the passage reveals that the Law is intact until “heaven and earth pass” and “till all be fulfilled.” Jesus did practice his own brand of the Law, however. Turning that crowd away from stoning the adultress was pretty big stuff back then.
<
p>But you seem to be looking for a specific passage that says women should not practice abortion…and my response is that the foundation of the faith forbids us to kill. Mosaic law….the Ten Commandments. So if you’re looking for something that states “thou shalt not take up a scalpel and remove a child from the womb,” you won’t find it, but the edict not to kill is thousands of years old. You and I may disagree what constitutes human life, SK, but even a fetus isn’t going to be anything else but a human. And I am aware of the passage in Exodus but I’d like to point out that just because a certain method of killing the unborn isn’t specifically identified doesn’t mean it’s sanctioned. If anything, the passage in Exodus regarding the unborn signifies the value the ancients placed on that unborn life. I also think its important to note that people of faith often do struggle with understanding when life begins. It’s not always a full acceptance of Church teachings, with a literal interpretation of the bible! Catholic and other theologians have grappled with the issue for centuries. Recently, I recently read an article by former model Kathy Ireland and her struggle to understand it all.
<
p>Jesus did express concern about hypocrisy in several passages, and Matthew 23:23 does detail what the scribes and Pharisees should have done in addition to tithing. They should have focused on “justice, mercy and faithfulness.” Jesus also takes up hypocrisy a few more times Matthew 6 & 7, and it is almost always about behaving one way in public (with a mask of righteousness) and another in private. When I think of Christian hypocrites, I tend to think of the bible thumping anti-gay legislators that are later found in public bathrooms. đŸ™‚ Or the minister who indulges in the very things he sermonizes against. I don’t think people who vote their conscience are behaving hypocritically if their lives reflect the values they espouse.
<
p>Nevertheless, anyone would see the hypocrisy in the examples you cite when perpetrated by anyone of any faith(cross burning, ethnic cleansing, etc) but I think it’s a little over the top to tie these extreme examples to people who genuinely believe that something is wrong and advocate against it. After all, hypocrisy is the least of it – it’s the whole terror and murder “thing” first and foremost. So let me ask you this….should Christians not advocate their principles? Would you silence them in a democracy? Should they not vote their consciences? Or better yet, should the missionaries and nursing sisters not speak with their actions by feeding the poor, healing the sick, giving comfort to the dying and preaching the Word in some of the worst dictatorships in the world. What they are doing in diametrically opposed to what the government wants and with their words and deeds, they are “judging” the government, and imposing what they believe on those with a superficial knowledge of faith. Is this wrong?
<
p>Faith is a complex issue, SK, and my purpose was to challenge your thinking on Christianity. There is a full spectrum of us out here, and we vote. Just because we don’t agree with you all the time doesn’t make us hypocrites, ill-informed and foolish. It just means we disagree.
<
p>
consists of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy and all the Commandments therein. Not “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law”.
<
p>< blockquote >If anything, the passage in Exodus regarding the unborn signifies the value the ancients placed on that unborn life.< /blockquote >
Yes, it does. The penalty for Killing = death
Striking your parents = death
Cursing your parents = death
Prostitution = death
Kill your neighbors cow = pay damages
Kill your neighbors fetus = pay damages
<
p>Advocate your principles and vote your conscience, but don’t claim God shares your position if it’s not true. I began this thread by saying, some people do honestly hold a position on abortion that differs from my own. But let’s hear the basis for your belief without invoking the authority of some all-knowing supernatural being. Because it is not in the teachings of Jesus and Mosaic Law quite contradicts the position that a fetus = a person or that abortion = murder.
<
p>I become suspect when few people hijack patriotism and write things like support of torture into the definition of a good American.
<
p>In the same way, when certain groups try to redefine Christianity, away from what Christ taught, (caring for the poor, sick, anti-death penalty, turning the other cheek, etc.), and instead substitute their teachings, anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, anti-marriage equality, etc.. as requirements to be considered a good Christian they are hijacking Christianity. Where Christ did not instruct his followers, Christians are allowed to find their own answers to these questions.
<
p>< blockquote >should the missionaries and nursing sisters not speak with their actions by feeding the poor, healing the sick, giving comfort to the dying and preaching the Word < /blockquote >
<
p>No.
Jesus instructed < b >all his followers< /b > to do these things. When someone neglects these responsiblities to full-time pursue an agenda having nothing to do with Christ’s teachings, (and some of the language is truly vile and full of hate), then I question the sincerity of those very few, who claim to be Christians and wonder if it is cover for bigotry. Jesus warned us that there would be false prophets and those who would use his name in vain.
SK – there’s a difference between breaking a law (Leviticus) and a moral imperative. Break a law (man-made)- pay the penalty, whatever the “price.” Moral imperatives as defined by the 10C…are harder to tap dance around. All I have ever challenged you to understand is that since you don’t know what a person’s experience of God is, and what they have in their hearts…you have NO idea what they have been called to do/say/act in society.
<
p>http://www.americancatholic.or…
<
p>
So, it’s not just behavior – and it’s what’s in a person’s heart, and how can you personally know what’s in a person’s heart?
<
p>Just because people don’t adhere to your rigid code of understanding politics (based on science? like scientists have never been wrong before) and employ their faith and the tools of religion to make sense of the world – doesn’t make them hypocrites. They can certainly say that God (as they know Him)is against killing, and cite the 10C, if that’s what is in their respective hearts. Spirituality has as much a right at the table of a person’s conscience and decision making as the tangible. And that’s not to say that everybody’s right all the time. I worked in a rectory while my kids were small and often wondered whether the “other guy” had actually called one of the priests. You are certainly right to question the sincerity of the Rev. Phelps of the world…his words and deeds are angry, vile and hateful…just don’t paint the rest of us with the same brush. Old Mrs. Miller in the ballot box isn’t on the same level with Phelps. Every group/organization/ethnicity has such people and that has to be acknowledged instead of the blanket pronouncements that you used initially.
<
p>BTW, if you really want to understand the “values” of the ancients, check out the man-made (but God inspired?) law to sort out how the ancients valued people – check out the passages on women (unclean after giving birth, and requiring a cleansing process for 7 days after having a male, and 2 weeks after having a female) slaves, etc. OH, and Paul in the New Testament wasn’t exactly a supporter of people who lived regular lives, vs. the unmarried and chaste who were utterly devoted to the Church. It’s enough to give you a complex.
<
p>If there’s anything I’ve learned on my faith journey, is that no one gets to Heaven on their own steam. It’s is by His grace and forgiveness that we get in at all. The whole “works vs. grace” thing will have to be a debate for another day because even the theologians are puzzled by the various conflicting passages.
Since we’re being finicky, I would note that she seems to be speaking of all Christendom. “Many” Christians include the growing groups in South America and Africa, quite often on opposite poles of tolerance than European and North American Christians.
There are other forms that tribalism takes that are actually pretty positive. Maybe Haidt et al. are missing the whole commonwealth idea that is so central to liberalism.
…, I was just commenting on the extreme cognitive dissonance. Haidt starts from the standpoint of morals as a utility, but people who assert morality don’t do so from the standpoint of utility (not usually). Even those who do (utilitarians) usually talk about absolute utility, not the relative utility that the in-group mechanisms Haidt is talking about result in. In this way, the ‘morality-derived-from-in-group-loyalty’ that Haidt is talking about and the morality that people (and people in groups) tend to assert are two different things. As such, this can create a hypocritical contradiction for those who would preach absolute morality while practicing ‘morality-derived-from-in-group-loyalty’. Even Haidt sort of sees this when he talks about ‘stepping outside and not judging’. Of course, in order to truly do it you have to ‘step outside’ the mental frame of being in the in-group. The thing that I think get’s missed here is that Haidt’s right – you have to ‘step outside’ in-group loyalty in order to see the proper moral landscape, which means that in many ways the morality of in-group loyalty, while possibly having utility (relative utility), is problematic – and since this is the case – ‘open to experience’ people (as he classifies them) are more likely to see moral landscape clearer, which sort of flies in the face of his starting point of ‘liberals misjudge’. His ideas have this interesting contradiction in that he sort of simultaneously asserts moral relativism and moral objectivity. He starts of with the relativistic origins of the moral brain but ends up with this meme of ‘step outside to see things more objectively’.
<
p>These were my thoughts as I was listening to his TED speech anyway (which I’ve seen before but didn’t pay attention to in this context).
I suspect you are taking the mind to be more rational than it is.
<
p>The different mechanisms of morality to which Haidt is pointing are not so much ideas, rules, or imperatives as they are emotional predispositions. It is not cognitive dissonance when someone you love screws up somehow and you feel simultaneously angry, sympathetic, sad, and hurt.
<
p>Nietzsche was fond of pointing out that the attempt to achieve an extra-human perspective was futile. Perhaps Haidt’s trying to get above it all is similar. Maybe moral philosophy too?
… that ‘the mind is rational’. Far from it,… I’ve asserted that cognitive dissonance is a fact of life. I am asserting that justification for moral precepts should exhibit some rationality. This is why moral cognitive dissonance should go through some kind of rational resolution when discovered, if the moral assertions are to be anything that can or should be applied generally. This resolution of dissonance process is exactly what happens when a person or group of people gives up their racism. When you find someone stubbornly ‘keeping’ the dissonance his or her moral assertions, our instincts as observers is to recognize that there is something wrong in those assertions. There may be an emotional reason or underpinning behind the dissonance, but that doesn’t let everyone off the hook. It can explain cognitive dissonance, but it can’t justify it.
suggests that we are hard wired to to one perspective or the other. Both are necessary for the groups survival.
A military example: someone needs to jump on the grenade, for the other to have time to run and survive. If they all jumped on the grenade no one would survive.
Game Theory and the Prisoners Dilemma give mathmatical formulas for decision making.
Pascal Boyer, in Religion Explained, suggests that tribalism provides an important survival advantage.
<
p>He suggests that the harsh punishment meted out to transgressors has rather little to do with changing the behavior of the transgressor and rather much to do with showing the rest of the tribe what happens to apostates.
<
p>When the tribe faces fierce and unknown external threats, its members need blind and total trust of each other — their very lives depend on it. Military discipline and training is much like this today.
I also recall reading somewhere (was it one of Jared Diamond’s books?) that our species benefits by having a few members who are very independent. Generally, yes, evolutionary pressure probably worked to create early versions of military discipline.
<
p>One could view monotheism as the ultimate combination of hierarchy and tribalism.
that religion is itself a survival advantage, and is acquired much the way that language is acquired. He approaches this from an anthropological viewpoint (being an anthropologist).
<
p>Mr. Boyer suggests that we are wired to acquire whatever religion surrounds us as children, in the same way and using similar mechanisms to the way we acquire language. He cites the fascinating (to me anyway) insight that the most common predictor of religious belief for an individual is the religious belief of that individual’s family or tribe of origin — pretty much across the board and across history.
<
p>I find his thesis and presentation profound, accessible, and compelling. He makes great use of current research and statistical methods, and offers compelling empirical examples throughout.
<
p>Here is a choice excerpt:
<
p>I suspect Mr. Boyer would support your view of monotheism.
This post explains what I was continually trying to say but failed to do.
<
p>Calling someone a bigot is not indicitive of conversation. By considering someone to be one from the get-go, you have decided that they are, by definition, not going to change their view and therefore there is no need for a conversation, and if anything, you will only cause ire. However, someone can be prejudiced (known to them or not) and there is always the possibility of changing their mind.
<
p>I would note, though, that if someone is prejudiced rather than a bigot, the odds are that they are passive in their opinion (is personally against gay marriage but wouldn’t donate money to a cause or actively campaign against it) and I would insist you need to not alienate these people or insult them, which will cause them to have negative opinions of gay people to be re-enforced and may push them beyond ignorant prejudice. I get it though that it’s your rights and it would be wrong for you to lose them, but being prejudicial does not make you a bad person because it’s usually based in ignorance and not hatred.
<
p>That’s why I think people like Ryan and Huh need to be aware of the line between ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry. Sometimes you need to wear Erasmus’ hat and other times you need Jon Stewart’s. Social change isn’t going to come from falling back on absolutes and rationalizing hatred because of hatred like some sort of far-right evangelical or Islamic extremist.
… and don’t have time to review now, but my impression on the other thread was that you were quick to condemn the bigot label, but I don’t think you said anything that condemned the attitude she asserted. This probably had the result of coming off as a one sided defense. In this way it did little to acknowledge the offense people felt. So offended people saw what looked like you defending her (as opposed to merely objecting to the particular way people confronted her) and figured you as part of the problem. You tried to draw some observations about how people confronted her but didn’t draw observations about her so much. This is important because if we are going to describe the use of the term ‘bigot’ as ‘inappropriate’, we must look at object of its use.
I read JoeTS’s comment here and thought I might have been temporarily transported to another dimension. Yikes. My impression of his position on this matter on the other thread is akin to yours.
<
p>Like I say to students all the time, if that is what you meant to say, well, then, I guess you failed to communicate effectively. Geez…..
I don’t quite understand what you’re saying.
… because it looked like all you were interested in was defending her. Your comment here belies that impression.
Which is why I told JoeTS he should be ashamed. Ms. Prejean, no matter her original intent, is working for an anti-gay organization. JoeTS appeared to be saying that doing so isn’t bigoted.
After reading this diary, I realized that might not have been clear, so I went back and added a clarification to the other conversation.
I noticed that one of the ads on the right margin of this site is for “Nation For Marriage”, an anti-SSM group which also plays the victim card and claim debate is being stifled by those who favor it. Do you not have any say in which ads end up on this site? Most of the ads do speak to progressive values, but this one most certainly does not.
Peter Porcupine’s best writing is there. Link is here. I rarely agree with the politics, but you will find the writing witty. I have enjoyed a number of the posts there, for example, this excellent parenthetical:
Ms. Porcupine neglects to mention that she’s, well, you know, a state committee member, It moves her comments from “witty” to self-serving claptrap.
On 538.com I saw an ad for John McCain’s re-election yesterday, and last week saw SarahPAC on talkingpointsmemo.com
Maybe people at least “feel” better from their venting but most who are intolerant of other people’s views sound just as intolerant today which is not surprising since I’ve always believed that extreme socialism is actually very similar to fascism. So the more the left decries their big tent inclusion, openness, diversity, tolerance… and moves further left, the more we will hear about intolerance, litmus tests, populists, banning of speech deemed bad (talk radio, Jay, Rush…), nationalization, wage controls (and revenge on) the “rich”, “weakening religion and strengthening the state”…
<
p>I’m very glad this topic was discussed by all and defended by some, but I also feel the bar didn’t move.
<
p>At the risk of invoking Godwin’s rule, I will recommend a book by Jonah Goldberg titled “Liberal Fascism”… but most of you won’t like it đŸ™‚
… in the earlier discussion was that people often talked past each other because terms were not well defined. I think the lack of ‘contest’ in this thread is because I wasn’t really making assertions about Miss California so much as analyzing the terms being bandied about first. The thread had nothing to do with fascism or socialism… they are more likely personal issues of yours.
<
p>Goldberg’s book is full of problems. He was pretty much taken down here.
<
p>Brilliant.
<
p>You just couldn’t take it any longer. You HAD to say something.
<
p>BTW, I like your quote but I’m afraid neither party or ideology has a corner on that “winning by changing definition” market… “It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.” -Bill Clinton”
… to you, he did it to me. Granted, it was a comment about what you said, but engaging you and talking about you are two very different things.
I find the quote in Mr. Neiwert’s excellent commentary.
<
p>I also hadn’t read Neiwert’s TAP review and very much enjoyed it. Thanks for the link.
… at the time. Nothing like having a guy who’s made an actual study of fascism comment. Glad you liked it.
like a bunch of square pegs trying to fit into one round hole, (with me being one of those square pegs). I must say it was a valiant effort at trying to understand whether and why people are or are not ignorant, prejudiced, or bigoted.
It seems to me that the notion of “bigot” is tied to the particular type of society in which one lives in. For example, in hunter-gatherer clans, there is perhaps no pressure to overcome prejudices one might harbor against neighboring clans. Possibly such prejudices are useful for survival.
<
p>Or in the days of the Ottoman Empire, when Jews lived here, Christians there, Shi’ites elsewhere, and Jews and Christians typically played specific social roles, it makes no sense to talk about overcoming preconceptions about the roles to which people were suited. Employment was not open to everyone at the Sublime Port.
<
p>Hence the list in my title: These are taken from communist, Christian, and Muslim societies. To talk about a heretic in the U.S. would seem very odd as would a complaint that someone were a revisionist from the ruling party’s line.
<
p>Words, after all, do not exist independently from those of us who speak them. I think the account you’ve given of the boundary between “prejudiced” and “bigoted” accurately reflects how our “intelligent speakers” use them. Trying to apply these same categories or social conventions to societies and cultures very different from our own gets problematic quickly.
… an agreement on definitions is necessary before accurate meaning can be conveyed. My intent was to nail down some things in order that meaning may be more accurately conveyed, and in a more useful manner.
<
p>The issue of ‘definition’ aside,… given a common definition of a term, people from different backgrounds or cultures should be able to use it. Once established, the context of culture is ‘corrected for’ in the conveyance of meaning. Not to say that culture has been eliminated from the discussion, but that any ‘informing’ that culture imposes on a particular concept/term can be ‘handled’ as context and not an intrinsic part of the term (as agreed upon). Of course this context should be part of the discussion, but tying the context directly into the meaning of a term (as opposed to keeping it contextual) can cause people to talk past each-other.
<
p>The thing about prejudice and bigotry is that it is all very much tied up in the concept of ‘the other’ (although it is possible to hold prejudiced and/or bigoted views about one’s own tribe…. but it’s rare enough that we can call it an exception for our purposes here). So yeah, tribal identification can often play a role.
<
p>It is certainly the case that the context of tribes living apart can lead one to decide not to judge people (past or present) as ‘prejudiced’ or ‘bigoted’. It could also be framed in the phenomenon that tribalism can hide the reasons behind a prejudiced outlook, and insulate it’s members from being bigoted through a sort of ignorance of the culture (or even ‘personhood’) of ‘the other’. In so far one wants to tie the ‘justification’ part of prejudices (being unjustified) to a subjective moral utilitarianism, it’s hard to say anyone is prejudiced about anything except in the context of the opinion of others,… because subjective justifications have little universal applicability. Taken further, this could be a sort of ‘get out of judgment free’ card for slave owners. I think this is unacceptable and therefor reject the notion that justifications for prejudice born of cultural contexts are actual justifications at all. ‘Tribally accepted’ prejudice is still prejudice,… however absent the pressure to ‘fix’ it is.