All are bigots and dogmatist

Your points r well taken.





David

Bigotry is said to have begun with a Viking
who was captured by the English,
the foot of whose King,
he refused to kiss,
saying "not me, bi Gott" (meaning "by God").

His intransigence on this point
was not well received,
but he had the courage of his convictions, come what may,
regardless of the popular smooching practices.





David

This is what happens when any group has extremist elements.

WOW! That's sad. Well he wasn't a christian because the bible speaks differently about those kinds of actions. I do see your point, this is a true bigot, an extreme bigot. But we all have a touch of bigotry in us, there are those people who can't stand because of who they are. Though term bigot is used to describe people like this so called christian, his intolerance of others is not remote to us. That's all I'm saying.
Well what about the non-violent movements that have happened in the past. Those were extreme, though they were getting hurt. Say MLK, he couldn't stand the ideology of the time thus a change needed to happen. He couldn't be called a bigot because of his intolerance? But I could be getting it wrong, maybe bigots are those want their opposition dead.

lol. I didn't know that. interesting.

MLK was fighting for equality; not against any particular group or for any particular group. His civil rights activities helped all minorities and women although it may have seemed he was fighting only for blacks. Even many white people saw this general advocacy for everybody suffering from inequality, and that's one of the reasons many whites participated in the demonstrations. That's not a bigot by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

If this means he wasn't a Christian, then no one is a Christian.

There is no one who calls himself a Christian today who doesn't do things contrary to the Bible.

This guy was a Christian terrorist as much as the 9/11 terrorist were Muslim terrorists. Let's stop with the hypocrisy here.

The Royal foot remained unsmooched.

I see your point and it may be true that not many people really are Christians. It's true that many people do what's contrary to the bible who proclaim to be a Christian, but it depends on their intentions. If a Christian purposely disobeys the bible then they are not a Christian, just like a Muslim who may disobey the Koran, is not really a Muslim. You're a hypocrite if you proclaim to be something you're not. If you say you believe in something and we compare your actions with the list of beliefs you say you value, then we'll know if you're a hypocrite or not. So this so called Christian terrorist is not a real Christian because he did not keep peace and disobeyed the law. We all make mistakes but we do know our intentions.

I understand, but like I said it depends on who's watching.

Bigot is a fuzzy concept, furthermore as my name suggests, I cannot satisfy such conditions.

Dogma =/= necessarily true beliefs

Does pragma satisfy dogma?

I do have faith in science.

My karma just hit your dogma.

I agree; I think that your point is well taken.





David

I suppose the meaning of "bigot" and "dogma" are more in the connatation that the definition. It's the manner, the tone, the attitude in which someone expresses his "disapproval" more so than the disapproval itself---blunt, rude, insulting.

A "dogma" generally applies to a religious tenet and is therefore generally mystical, "transrational", though I'm sure many religionists would prefer to think of their tenets as "rational". In any case, it's definitely acquired a very pejorative sense, deserved or not.

Disputants will sometimes declare the opinion/conclusion/axiom of each other as a "dogma". " I have 'axioms"' you have 'dogmas'". It's ultimately just empty, frustrated rhetoric. But, like "bigot" there may be an attitude, a manner, a tone in which a statement is uttered, is "dogmatic".

I think the point at which a principe might be reasonably called a "dogma" or a person with a moral position or dislike a "bigot" is very problematical, and exploring that should involve as much self-control as we can muster, without tossing around empty pejoratives.

I look at these questions from a radically agnostic perspective. (Though I am a radical agnostic, I still have convictions/beliefs/principles. I now and then try to "argue" for them, but make no claim they're a priori true or proven.)