• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are People Of Religious Faith Typically Bigots?

Are People Of Religious Faith Typically Bigots?


  • Total voters
    58
big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

My experiences tell me yes, all people who strictly try to follow ancient religions are bigots. I'm curious of other peoples opinions on this.
Taking this definition at face value, no, not anymore than non-religious people.
 
So that is what makes them bigoted?

Definition of the word:

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions
 
Notice the word strict also.

People who are strict on their religious practices would be bigots. For example, a person who feels women have no rights because their religion forbids it.



We are somewhat off the topic, but yes all religions have their orthodoxies....in the Sikh faith they fight over whether to allow tables and chairs in Temples.

Bigotry to one degree or another exists in all of us. What is not acceptable is calling an entire group of anything bigots, it add hypocrisy and arrogance to the equation.
 
Definition of the word:

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions

So it has nothing to do with believing what they believe?
 
It's not just an opinion. An opinion is "I like chocolate ice cream". This is a claim about the state of objective reality. That's like saying gravity is an opinion. It is not.

would you prefer i use the word 'superstition'? I mean, you have often heard the (in your opinion, cop-out) "i don't hate them, god hates them"; "i'm not judging them, god is."

So in that context, how is believing adultery is a sin by definition bigotry? It seems to me that only once they attach personal hatred - rather than unthinking submission to their bible - and attempt to make the act illegal in our laws does it veer into intolerance

I fear that if we use your definition, everyone is a bigot about a great many things.
 
Last edited:
We are somewhat off the topic, but yes all religions have their orthodoxies....in the Sikh faith they fight over whether to allow tables and chairs in Temples.

Bigotry to one degree or another exists in all of us. What is not acceptable is calling an entire group of anything bigots, it add hypocrisy and arrogance to the equation.

That would seem reasonable, unless all of the group were truly bigots.
 
would you prefer i use the word 'superstition'? I mean, you have often heard the (in your opinion, cop-out) "i don't hate them, god hates them"; "i'm not judging them, god is."

So in that context, how is believing adultery is a sin by definition bigotry? It seems to me that only once they attach personal hatred - rather than unthinking submission to their bible - and attempt to make the act illegal in our laws does it veer into intolerance

I fear that if we use your definition, everyone is a bigot about a great many things.

That is why judicial laws change more so than religious laws I suppose... because all the people changing the laws are bigots...
 
Do you consider yourself a bigot?

Only in regard of people harming other people. Aside from that my opinion is always willing to be persuaded. I'll allow anyone to try and convince me of anything. That doesn't mean I have to accept their view, but I'll at least be tolerant enough to listen and respect what they say.
 
All religions do, in fact, teach at least one form of bigotry: that believers are somehow superior to nonbelievers. They may teach other forms of bigotry as part of their theology, but it's not required.

If you're going to restrict your definition of bigotry only to openly hostile acts, you get a different answer to the question.
 
All religions do, in fact, teach at least one form of bigotry: that believers are somehow superior to nonbelievers. They may teach other forms of bigotry as part of their theology, but it's not required.

If you're going to restrict your definition of bigotry only to openly hostile acts, you get a different answer to the question.

I agree with what you say. But I'm confused with the last part. Can you elaborate on that a little more please?
 
I agree with what you say. But I'm confused with the last part. Can you elaborate on that a little more please?

Well, you can consider yourself (a believer) superior to someone else (a nonbeliever) without being hostile to that individual. Even a misguided attempt to convert the person, although very annoying, isn't necessarily hostile.
 
That is why judicial laws change more so than religious laws I suppose... because all the people changing the laws are bigots...

So a law requiring seat belts is intolerance of the belief of others that seat belts should be a choice...

Yes that's true, but could they *possibly* have other motives, like safety or insurance costs?

Laws against gay rights, in contrast, are just born from hatred and a desire to oppress. If i'm going to apply the term 'bigotry' in a way that doesn't dilute its significance when it really should be used, i'm not referring to a seat-belt law as bigotry
 
Well, you can consider yourself (a believer) superior to someone else (a nonbeliever) without being hostile to that individual. Even a misguided attempt to convert the person, although very annoying, isn't necessarily hostile.

That is sensible. I understand what you were meaning now. Thank you for taking the time to explain.
 
Absolutely not. Bigots are bigots, and some bigots use religion (e.g. by cherry-picking scripture, emphasizing some sins over others) to further their bigotry. I mean, since gluttony is a sin, conservative Christians should never serve fat people.
 
So a law requiring seat belts is intolerance of the belief of others that seat belts should be a choice...

Yes that's true, but could they *possibly* have other motives, like safety or insurance costs?

Laws against gay rights, in contrast, are just born from hatred and a desire to oppress. If i'm going to apply the term 'bigotry' in a way that doesn't dilute its significance when it really should be used, i'm not referring to a seat-belt law as bigotry

The fact that the laws can and probably will change in our judiciary system in regard of public opinion is the opposite of bigotry....
 
Absolutely they are, by definition. That doesn't mean that they want to harm others necessarily, but all of them think that people of other belief systems are wrong and many think that's going to send those people to eternal damnation. How is that not being a bigot?

Show me a human being that bolded part does not describe.
 
Absolutely not. Bigots are bigots, and some bigots use religion (e.g. by cherry-picking scripture, emphasizing some sins over others) to further their bigotry. I mean, since gluttony is a sin, conservative Christians should never serve fat people.

You can only be saved through Christ is a bigotted statement. I don't know any Christian who would sway from that line of thinking and still call them self a Christian. If they do, their congregation would more than likely disagree with them.
 
The fact that the laws can and probably will change in our judiciary system in regard of public opinion is the opposite of bigotry....

oh well, explain prop 8 then
 
Back
Top Bottom