But you see, Biggie, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I compare the situation to an incident of anti-semitism.
Bigboy said:
In respect to the thread's story though, we aren't dealing with racism or bigotry in such crude respects. The discussion that took place may have ended with one person feeling hurt, but this is a matter of religion and not hatred. His beliefs disagree with hers and unless there is some kind of backstory we aren't privy to, she shouldn't be upset by the exchange. The guy doesn't seem all torn up that someone disaggrees with him, why does she?
By this line of reasoning, just because his bigotry (and it is bigotry) has some basis in religious belief, it is somehow immune from being labelled as such. Because it's dealing with someone being gay, rather than simply black, we (as a culture) are more willing to gently term this fellow's ideas as "his beliefs," giving them exactly the same amount of credibility as Shaidalyn's desire to protect her friend. Because we're dealing with a more "socially acceptable" prejudice, people are willing to see it as a completely legitimate "side" of the story, rather than identifying it for what it is.
If a white man in a white robe were to invoke the N-word on the street to a random black citizen, NOBODY would be so delicate about giving that man proper 'respect' for his 'beliefs.' At least on a cultural level, his 'beliefs' are granted to him as a fundemental right, but you will find very, VERY few people willing to placidly let his expression of those putrid belief go uncountered.
People will dismiss him as a bigot, because he is. He's not given equal consideration, not on a cultural level. It's safe to identify those particular opinions of his as prejudiced, and anyone would scoff at a similar portrayal (like yours) of his conflict with a friend of the black man as an argument between two equal points of view. The simple truth is, both points of view are NOT equal, and it's okay to say so.
40 years ago, when there were still interracial marriage laws in many states, and segregation was a hot issue, it was the same. Those with the racist point of view were given an equal amount of time and consideration by more neutral parties, and the things that we are now ashamed to even
hear were listened to as a legitimate "opinion" in an open argument.
Today, our culture at large is pretty much ashamed that we ever gave people who honestly wanted there to be two sets of fountains, or to keep a black man from marrying a white woman, the sort of credibility that we once did. They had their equal time in televised "debates," whereas today, they'd be dismissed outright.
We don't do that with bigotry towards gays, lesbians, bisexual people, whatever. We're reluctant to even CALL it bigotry. Today, it's on the same level as the anti-integration debate was on decades ago. People with the sorts of ideas that Shaidalyn was fighting over are given entirely too much credibility, and I have no doubt that we're all going to be beyond ashamed of ourselves for not simply dismissing such rubbish for what it is.
It is bigotry, no matter if it comes from his religion. Make no doubt about it. One only needs to bring up the biblical arguments put forth by American politicians to defend slavery, or from Nazis defending the notion of an "Aryan race," to realize that just because something stems from a religious belief, that does NOT mean you have to respect it. You've got to let them have the belief, true, but ...
If it's ridiculous enough, hateful enough, and just plain STUPID enough, it's OKAY to point it out for what it is: bigotry. The word "religion" doesn't coat something in a microfilm of Teflon. It's okay to criticize it, I promise you. And no ... your criticism of his religious beliefs, at least about this particular issue, is not even in the same UNIVERSE as his assault on Shaidalyn's friend.
Not all beliefs are created equal. If we feel free to ridicule, express disgust over, and dismiss outright the K.K.K.'s "beliefs," because they are so very OBVIOUS to our modern level of cultural sensitivity as sheer idiocy, then we can do the same to those who carry signs that say "God hates Fags."
I know I've made this point ten times, but it bears repeating: you don't have to create an equality between Shaidalyn's belief that her friend has a right to exist as she is, unassaulted, and the Biblethumper's belief that her friend is a sinner for daring to exist, because they simply AREN'T equal. There will come a day in which saying something like what this person said will yield the same kind of dismissive disgust as someone today saying that they think black people are genetically inferior to whites.
"Religion, not hatred" means nothing. It's entirely possible for religion to BE hatred. His bigoted views gain no special protection from being called what they are because they are religious in nature. Once more -- not all beliefs are equal, and not all necessarily garner respect. Allowing someone to keep them is not the same as being required to give them LEGITIMACY.
Bigboy said:
The equivilent to this situation would be one of us making another thread, about how someone is a dick for not agreeing with us in this thread.
Can you see how wildly inaccurate an assertion like this is, now, bearing all of that in mind? It's not on the same ground as a simple discussion about whether or not the drug restrictions within Major Leage Baseball are too strict. That's the sort of pointless, generic argument that would warrant a response like this.
In this case, one of the sets of beliefs is just plain rotten to the core. It is not "equal." It should be dismissed, as we would a neonazi explaining to us the nature of Hitler's genius. The fact that we're so reluctant to do that to someone that explains to a gay man or woman that they're going to burn in Hell, and shouldn't adopt children, is the reason behind this thread.
The fact that Shaidalyn decided to defend her friend is NOT.
