Acceptable Bigotry?

[Alexandra 55]

Tom, the book has nothing to do with the post. The concept of acceptable bigotry is the point. The paragragh using Romney as an example could be completely deleted and the point is still the same. It has become totally acceptable to spew forth about Christians and their beliefs when everything else is taboo. I disagree with this double standard. I can post such articles for debate, can't I?

This is just not what I see going on. If Evangelicals and such are getting a bit of bad press at the moment, it's not surprising considering what their voting might hath wrought the last two elections. Can they take as good as they give?

T_O_M's point is right on...all of us, Christians included, should take a step back from considering religious affiliation as a factor in suitability for public office.

[lisah25 3]

Acceptable bigotry?

Two major news stories last week had unsettling implications for the status of religion – and freedom of conscience – in the United States. First, a USA Today poll reported that while 94% of Americans said they would vote for a qualified presidential nominee who was black – and 88% said they would vote for a woman – only 72% would vote for a Mormon.

My first thought reading this is that being a woman or being black doesn't tell me what a candidate is likely to stand for, if they would be liberal or conservative. So, the term "qualified" in the question would likely mean "matches what I want".

Now, a candiate who is a Morman, people are more likely to have idea about what they stand for, and that they are probably conservative. So, I don't know if this poll is about bigotry. In other words, those 38% who wouldn't vote for a Morman may have said so not because they are anti-religion, but they are liberals who think a Mormon would be too conservative. Does that make sense?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Tom, the book has nothing to do with the post. The concept of acceptable bigotry is the point. The paragragh using Romney as an example could be completely deleted and the point is still the same. It has become totally acceptable to spew forth about Christians and their beliefs when everything else is taboo. I disagree with this double standard. I can post such articles for debate, can't I?

Of course you can, and I am debating you.

Do not accuse me of always thinking I am correct, because I know of no one on this board who posts thinking that they are incorrect.

I, in fact sometimes say the opposite of my true intentions and have sometimes been accused of bigotry by people who have only read that one sarcastic mocking post.

Christians come in all shapes, sizes and types and they can be as different as night and day, as you and I often prove, but that is ok for as Paul said in Romans 12-

2: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

3: For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

4: For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

5: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

You, Leatha and I do not conform to the same ideas of Christianity.

When I and many others complain about Christianity, we are complaining about the people who have shaped Christianity as a political tool. I asked in another thread:

Then when are the believers in Jesus going to take back their church from the politicians masking themselves as "men of God".

If Christians realized the dirty politics needed to rise to Jerry Falwell's or Pat Robertson's or James Dobson's positions, they would know that no one who has risen that high is truly a man in Christ's mold. They will tell you that it was God's wish that they moved to the top, but it was back-stabbing and treachery that made them what they are today, leaders who speak for their flock and just like real shepherds, they intend to lead their flock to slaughter.

[Lap_dancer 8]

Its interesting...the blood. Its what makes demons flee. Its also the most important thing to life. Its more precious than the air we breathe.

If its so valuable, how can anyone hate it? What is so revolting about it.

Have you not ever loved anyone so much that you would do anything to keep them with you? Yes blood is impressive, but not revolting. Impressive indeed.

(snip)

:eek:

<<<Okay this makes me want to wear a turtleneck.>>

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

My first thought reading this is that being a woman or being black doesn't tell me what a candidate is likely to stand for, if they would be liberal or conservative. So, the term "qualified" in the question would likely mean "matches what I want".

Now, a candiate who is a Morman, people are more likely to have idea about what they stand for, and that they are probably conservative. So, I don't know if this poll is about bigotry. In other words, those 38% who wouldn't vote for a Morman may have said so not because they are anti-religion, but they are liberals who think a Mormon would be too conservative. Does that make sense?

I think the problem is not that Liberals or atheists would not vote for a Mormon, because to Liberals and atheists, a Mormon is just another flavor of Christianity, but it is the Evangelicals who object because Mormons and Evangelicals don't agree on some fundamental issues.

[lisah25 3]

Of course it does. If you're zeroing in on the book. Which is not the gist of the article. I could care less about the book. It is just one more example of how bigotry in reverse is alive and well. It has become socially acceptable, even encouraged to slam Christianity at every corner. Yet those very same people denounce all other forms of intolerance or bigotry. I see a bit of hyprocrisy here..

What book? I'm going mainly by the article that started this thread.

I'm saying that comparing those who would vote for a woman or a black person to those who would vote for someone in a group that actually says something about where they stand is comparing apples and oranges.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

What book? I'm going mainly by the article that started this thread.

I'm saying that comparing those who would vote for a woman or a black person to those who would vote for someone in a group that actually says something about where they stand is comparing apples and oranges.

She is referring to the book about Romney being a Mormon that the article's author is accusing Liberals of not complaining about.

[lisah25 3]

She is referring to the book about Romney being a Mormon that the article's author is accusing Liberals of not complaining about.

Thanks. I was feeling confused. No unusual for a Monday Morning.

[Alexandra 55]

I think the problem is not that Liberals or atheists would not vote for a Mormon, because to Liberals and atheists, a Mormon is just another flavor of Christianity, but it is the Evangelicals who object because Mormons and Evangelicals don't agree on some fundamental issues.

That's another excellent point. Who are the 28% who are saying they wouldn't vote for a Mormon? Very likely not liberals and atheists.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Amen:clap2:

This article speaks to society in general, Tom, not just you. I understand politicians make fools of themselves and use their power. I do not understand why Christianity as a whole should take the brunt.

It is not acceptable for me to say all Muslims are terrorists because a few do atrocious things. It is not acceptable to say all fat people are slothful pigs because a few stuff themselves til they're running over. I could go on and on, yet the point of acceptable bigotry is avoided. Politics aside - it has become quite the rage to slam Christianity as a whole.

Until the good Christians like you and I follow my advice, Christianity will suffer a bad reputation.

The advice stated twice in this thread already is: "(W)hen are the believers in Jesus going to take back their church from the politicians masking themselves as "men of God"."

[Lap_dancer 8]

Originally Posted by Tired_Old_Man

Christians come in all shapes, sizes and types and they can be as different as night and day, as you and I often prove, but that is ok for as Paul said in Romans 12-

2: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

3: For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

4: For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

5: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

You, Leatha and I do not conform to the same ideas of Christianity.

This verse makes reference to following Christ. Be different, you should be, from the world. God's word and your Christian walk should make it so that you are different from the world. (be ye transformed).

[lisah25 3]

That's another excellent point. Who are the 28% who are saying they wouldn't vote for a Mormon? Very likely not liberals and atheists.

It is a good point, I sit corrected. Thanks TOM and Alexandra.

My original thinking was that race and gender don't tell you what someone will stand for, so in answering a poll about whether you would vote for them, you have less information then you do when you know someone's religious affiliation.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

It is a good point, I sit corrected. Thanks TOM and Alexandra.

My original thinking was that race and gender don't tell you what someone will stand for, so in answering a poll about whether you would vote for them, you have less information then you do when you know someone's religious affiliation.

You are correct with one slight correction on my part: you have less information then you do when you know someone's alleged religious affiliation.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

What do you propose we do to accomplish this?

I actually like James Dobson and I appreciate that He has taken on the task of learning about what goes on in Washington. He is an advocate for Christianity, the same as any other sector has advocates. Why is it bad that he is there and not so bad that a non-Christian advocate might be there? Isn't that considered fair representation?

Sorry. I still don't understand how it is okay to bash Christians when all other forms of bigotry are clearly denounced.

Because Jesus would not have condoned the war in Iraq or the war on the poor in the USA, or the war on the environment (by the poluters and big business), but the leadership of the Christian Right politcal Movement does.

They do not represent Jesus. They represent the money changers and the powers that control us.

[Lap_dancer 8]

Because Jesus would not have condoned the war in Iraq or the war on the poor in the USA, or the war on the environment (by the poluters and big business), but the leadership of the Christian Right politcal Movement does.

They do not represent Jesus. They represent the money changers and the powers that control us.

MMMMMM I'm not so sure about speaking what Jesus would do (never did like that Bracelet, it assumes too much) Anyway, Jesus drove the money changers from the temple and he didn't exactly do it by pointing to the exits and saying "Single file folks, this way"