Why do Christains want to be bigots

[Donray]

Was Jesus a bigot? Is God a bigot? If not, why do Christians want to be bigots and racist?

Look at the KKK, a nice Christian organization that is also racist.

Now we have government employees that are bigots and refuse to give marriage licenses to gays.


I guess Christians think it is OK if a Christian police person does not want to respond to any calls that involve gays or atheists and that is OK with God/Jesus?

So the question is why do Christians think they have the right disseminate for their belief systems.

Also, should anyone for they personal beliefs be able to be a bigot and discriminate?

[Donray]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

As SC said, this could lead to a new kind of segregation where "certain" types of people have to go to "special" locations to get services, just like how it was during segregation. No thanks. If someone is a public employee unwilling to serve LGBT people, then they have no business working.

Really, if someone works for the government, they should check their religion at the door when they show up for work. They're an agent of the state, and because of that they should behave in a completely secular manner while acting in that capacity. They can be Christian again when they leave work.

So, are you saying that you do not support the "reasonable accommodation" policies of the EEOC?

What accommodations should be made for a police officer that does not handle any cases where a person is a Christian? They believe that Christians are unclean and they should not touch them.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 20:

It is interesting that in all my time serving the public I have never seen a biological woman, regardless of sexual orientation, use the men's restroom.

Or is it, some of 'em dress so's ya can't hardly tell, without havin' to cop a feel to do it?

Shut down the men' restroom, no problem. Shut down the women's restroom, big problem. Does that make women bigots?

It just means when ya gotta sit down to pee, you're more bound to need a bathroom to do it.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

As SC said, this could lead to a new kind of segregation where "certain" types of people have to go to "special" locations to get services, just like how it was during segregation. No thanks. If someone is a public employee unwilling to serve LGBT people, then they have no business working.

Really, if someone works for the government, they should check their religion at the door when they show up for work. They're an agent of the state, and because of that they should behave in a completely secular manner while acting in that capacity. They can be Christian again when they leave work.

So, are you saying that you do not support the "reasonable accommodation" policies of the EEOC?

What accommodations should be made for a police officer that does not handle any cases where a person is a Christian? They believe that Christians are unclean and they should not touch them.

That officer is not required to hand out DARE certificates as part of a Christian activity. We are not talking about touching someone. We are talking about processing paperwork and, if you want to expand this to the wedding cake issue, taking part in an objectionable activity.

[bluethread]

From Post 20:

It is interesting that in all my time serving the public I have never seen a biological woman, regardless of sexual orientation, use the men's restroom.

Or is it, some of 'em dress so's ya can't hardly tell, without havin' to cop a feel to do it?

Not so much. There may have be one or two over the years, but clothing is not a real indication anymore. Just because some women do their best to look like Justin Bieber, there are more indicators than cloths or makeup. Also, quite frankly, given the clothing standards these days, there isn't much left to the imagination.

Shut down the men' restroom, no problem. Shut down the women's restroom, big problem. Does that make women bigots?

It just means when ya gotta sit down to pee, you're more bound to need a bathroom to do it.

Men sit down to relieve themselves also. Nice try. This is about more than plumbing and you know it.

[Donray]

That officer is not required to hand out DARE certificates as part of a Christian activity. We are not talking about touching someone. We are talking about processing paperwork and, if you want to expand this to the wedding cake issue, taking part in an objectionable activity.

I cannot tell if you are OK with Christians being bigots and racist or not.

Should people be able to discriminate based on their beliefs? Should people be able to ignore laws that they think are against their beliefs?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 25 by Donray]
A deep issue indeed.
Should a man (even a woman nowadays) be forced to kill people if s/he does not believe in killing? Apparently our own U. S. (so far at least, who knows what's to be the next travesty by SCOTUS) says "No", as we provide for CO's (no, not Commanding Ofiicer, who would think that fits, it's "Conscientious Objector). And that's not just Quakers but also persons of conscience as well as 7th Day Adventists and others who will join the military, even die in combat, but as medics who carry no weapons.

From personal experience I voted for Barry Goldwater, Republican for POTUS in 1964, so when they were going to draft me I "volunteered" in the US Army, eager to kill North Vietnamese. After 2 years 1966 and 1967 in the US Army I came out a peacenik, totally opposed to continuing the Vietnamese War. (I was right on this; five more years of war under Nixon led to nothing but a US defeat and pullout.) My conscience had been changed by seeing how bad militaries are, even presumably the best in the world. One can't be in the military and retain the right to conscientious choice. So if in the four years 1968 to 1971 when I was theoretically in the US Ready Reserve (I was never called for any National Guard or similar meetings at all), would I have heeded the call? And if I had would I have been forced to violate my awakened conscience and kill people?

Are medicals students required to kill? Just asking, because I'm hearing somewhere that medical schools knowing that abortion is the law of the land have to prepare their graduates to be able to perform all duties, even those that violate the Hippocratic (Hypocritical?) Oath. Are they made to perform abortions, even if they are Catholics or others who believe that they are thereby killing innocent human life? Violating their consciences in the worst way? Just asking.

[onewithhim]

So, the first question is "Is the god represented in the bible a bigot?" I believe that a cursory reading of the bible will confirm that this god is indeed intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from his own, and intolerant of the people who hold them... to the degree of exterminating them. So, it's clear this god is certainly, by definition, a bigot.

Say you are a parent and you have certain rules in your house. One of them might be "do not pee on the toilet seat". Your kids constantly breaks the rules. So you implement a penalty system. Pee on the seat and you have to do a cleaning job. So each time this kid breaks the rule he has to do a cleaning job. Does that make you a bigot against children who pee on toilet seats?

What if you have one child who hits the other on a regular basis. You then implement a rule that if that kid hits his sibling, he has to sit on the naughty step for half an hour. Does that make you a bigot towards your child?

Do we call the police or the government bigots because they make and enforce laws, applying penalties where they are needed?

The thing is God is not just another human. He's the rule maker. So if he says no gay sex or no witchcraft and then implements a death penalty system which he rigidly enforces, that doesn't seem like bigotry to me. That just sounds like the enforcement of rules. You may think they are extreme penalties, but that's beside the point. God makes the rules and he determines what the penalties will be.

OnceConvinced, you have made an excellent reply to SailingCyclops. No one could give a better answer to negate the accusation that God is a "bigot"!

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 1 by Donray]

intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from his own


Are you intolerant of groups like the KKK? Nazi’s? NAMBLA?

Does that make you a bigot?

We all hold our own views/beliefs/opinions. Yours just might differ from mine.

If you were a photographer and you considered your photography a form of art that encompasses a part of you – the artist in all your work, do you think you ought to be forced to take pictures of a KKK meeting? They come into your business and asked you to be part of one of their ceremonies. They want to use your photographs in their pamphlets to spread their cause.

If you owned a t-shirt business and a group came in that wanted you to print 1000 t-shirts with a swastika on them so they could pass them out on college campuses, should you be sued if you refused to take their business?

If you are a OB-GYN doctor and a woman came in and wanted an abortion, should you be forced to perform the abortion if it violated your conscience?

Now note, no individual is being mistreated. In fact, it could be argued the more compassionate and tolerant thing to do would be to not take part in or provide your services for something that you think/believe is wrong/harmful/immoral.

[FWI]

If, we were to review the actual understanding of the word "bigot" in the pre-secular societies, the definition would be: an individual who is feigning (to represent falsely) piety or righteousness. This was a label given to those who were considered hypocrites or who preached one thing, but didn't apply that principle into their own lives.

This is quite different from the modern secular definition of bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief or opinion. Where, utterly can be defined as: completely and absolutely. And, intolerant can be defined as: unwilling to tolerate those differences.

Where, both definitions are used against the religious!

It is my God given right to be "utterly intolerant" of those who have differing views, than I do. However, this doesn't mean that I can take unlawful actions against them. I also can accept the differences and move on. Yet, I cannot be forced to accept the views of others, yet this seems to be the goal of many. But, I also cannot expect others not to be "utterly intolerant" of my opinions and beliefs. This is just the way it is!

Yet, what about those who are intolerant of the religious beliefs held by many. These could be the ones who deny that God exists and openly push this narrative or those who believe that the religious should accept their points of view, no matter what and want laws to accomplish this…Are they bigots, as well?

So, before groups can accuse others of being a bigot, their positions and actions must be taken into account. This is what determined the definition of a bigot in pre-secular societies and how they could be recognized…