We use the word "bigotry" too carelessly.

[Lyric]

First, a base definition of the word.

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

-----------

Since bigotry is a person who is "intolerant", we must then consider what it means to be intolerant. It's not the casual meaning that we give it, which is synonymous with "prejudiced." Being intolerant is more than just personal prejudice. It implies action. For example, a person who personally believes that marriage is a spiritual union, meant for one man and one woman only, but does NOT believe that it should be illegal, could be considered prejudiced but not intolerant. There are a lot of people like that--people who don't expect the rest of society to abide by their personal "moral rules." However, a person who opposes gay marriage and who spends time/money/energy fighting against allowing it as a choice for other people, even if those other people completely disagree with them, is both prejudiced *and* intolerant--and therefore a bigot.

So. I see the term "religious bigot" thrown around here on a regular basis. I take issue with it. I personally believe that religion is a bad thing, because in my view, the good that religion accomplishes is outweighed by the social evils that it permits in the name of "God." However, I do NOT believe that religion should be outlawed. I do not believe that other people should be forced to give it up. I have my personal views, but I don't expect the rest of the world to abide by them. Therefore, although I am prejudiced against religion, I am NOT a bigot.

I have never personally witnessed someone here claiming that religion should be forcefully abolished. I have never seen someone claiming that the government should be banning churches and imprisoning people for believing in God. I have never seen a single example of actual religious bigotry. I've seen plenty of prejudice and bias, but nothing that even comes close to bigotry.

Fred Phelps is a bigot. Pat Robertson is a bigot. Osama bin Laden is a bigot. There are even liberal bigots; people who are so obsessed with their pet causes that, if they could, they would deprive other people of their right to practice something that they disagree with. But simply disapproving of something--even vehement, foul-mouthed, hateful disapproval--is not bigotry. There is a difference of magnitude. It's like comparing Bill Gates to Hitler. No matter how much you loathe Bill Gates, Hitler he ain't.

Some will claim that this is just "semantics", but I believe that it's more important than that. We use the word "bigot" as an indication of someone who is *dangerous*--someone with the potential to cause damage to society because they refuse to co-exist with any beliefs but their own. Whether a large-scale bigot who has power, or a small-time bigot who helps *elect* the powerful bigots, bigots destroy. They cannot help but do so; it is the nature of *being* a bigot.

But atheists, even extremely vocal ones, don't destroy anything. Religious belief is so powerfully personal and internal, there is NOTHING that can hurt that belief. Atheists do not "convert" anyone who isn't already teetering. All we do is provide information and perspectives that people often have not considered, or didn't know about. Even a biased atheist who stereotypes religious people doesn't damage religion or faith in God. Faith comes from a personal experience, after all. An atheist can piss people off, but he can't change your personal experiences. He can't ban you from believing, or take away your relationship with God. And the vast, vast majority of atheists would never even *try*. We tend to value diversity, so long as we aren't constantly expected to acknowledge the value of a concept that we consider both valueless and damaging to society.

This is why we gripe about being forced to live in a society that claims to be religiously free, but is full of subtle acknowledgments to God. We confront it every day. We can all agree that spending money is necessary to have a decent life in America--and yet, every time we spend a dollar, we are confronted with "In God We Trust." For an atheist, it's like a slap in the face. America trusts in God. Therefore atheists aren't *really* a part of the group. Not completely. We are looked at like zoo animals, and sometimes even harassed, for refusing to swear on a Bible in court. Not *all* courts are enlightened. Go to court in rural Mississippi and refuse to swear on the Bible, and you just might find yourself held in contempt or judged against solely out of spite--not that anyone could prove it. There was a local high school that had a painting of Jesus hanging on the walls for fifty-odd years. Atheists objected to this and were told that the picture was "historical" and "traditional", and that they should shut the hell up. An honest atheist could never win or hold a public office, no matter what the Constitution says. We are http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html">ridiculed, http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/05/04/investigator_finds_reasonable_grounds_for_claim_of_atheism_firing/">fired from our jobs, and http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/smalko3.htm">harassed for being honest about the fact that we don't believe in God. Our kids http://nalrant.wordpress.com/2007/03/22/harassment-of-atheist-students-at-school/">suffer in school. In some places, we are even http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/12/24/2003216502">killed outright. It is insulting and degrading to then be told that we are nothing but "religious bigots"--as if WE are the ones hurting people. Professing our disbelief, disapproval, and even contempt of religion doesn't hurt anyone. We aren't looking to outlaw religion. We don't choose our political candidates based on how effectively and convincingly they degrade and harm religious people. We are NOT bigots.

If a woman gets married to a man, and then is repeatedly beaten by him, it's a tragedy. If she is then unlucky enough to get battered by the next *five* men she attempts to have a relationship with, it is traumatic and damaging. Who would blame her for not trusting men again? Who would call her a "bigot against men"? But this is precisely what we atheists go through. If we are bitter and traumatized by religion, we are called "bigots"--nevermind the background details, nevermind the damage. We're expected to possess a super-human ability to rise above it all and forget it. We are forgiven no weaknesses.

Can there be discussion here? Or is asking people to choose their labels more wisely a bit too much?

[BlooInBloo]

1. Whatever you say, Hitler.

:P

[Lyric]

2. ....

:spank:

[BlooInBloo]

6. My favorite is when bigots (typically racist) call other people bigots.

[Saturday]

3. Have you ever tried to herd cats?

That would be easier than asking people to choose their labels more wisely around here.

[Warpy]

4. Thanks for that rant, it's overdue

but don't expect it to have much effect on the crowd addicted to hyperbole.

[frebrd]

5. I agree 100% n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. I'm intolerant of thieves and murderers. Does that make me a bigot.

I appreciate your attempt to define the word, but to be honest I think you're on a hiding to nothing.

Everyone has prejudices; many of those prejudices are right. For everyone there are some things they're not willing to tolerate; there are some things it is right not to tolerate.

I think that bigot usually just means "someone who is strongly opposed to something which I support", although it does have connotations that the nature of that opposition is intolerance of a particular group or practice that I think should be tolerated.

[varkam]

8. Excellent post, and overdue IMO.

I have noted before and will note again that some people's reliance on the word "bigot" or "bigotry" reeks of an attempt to stifle discussion by making those who disagree soften their positions. This sort of tactic has been used to great effect with discussions concerning Israel and Palestine, such that one cannot offer strident criticism of Israel's policies without being accused of antisemitism.

I'm not sure that I agree with the term "prejudice" though. To me, the conception of prejudice seems to imply something unreasonable, unthinking, and perhaps unconscious. IOW, when I think of one who is prejudiced, I think of one who is unreasonable. I would not say that the conclusions that you have come to earn you the moniker of prejudiced.

[Lyric]

9. I personally have no problem admitting my own prejudice.

To me, prejudice is when, in the absence of information, you generally assume the worst about whatever it is you're prejudiced against. I have good reasons for my prejudice, at least in my own view, but I don't deny that it exists. Take the story of the shooter in the UU church: when I first heard the story, my first thought was that it was gonna be some crazed, fanatic fundamentalist nutcase.

I suppose my prejudice is more intensely focused on evangelical Christianity than any other religious group, but that's because that particular group is the one I conflict with the most frequently.