Dictionaries ascribe an overly broad and vague meaning to the word “bigotry.”
Writing for The Bilerico Project, Patricia Nell Warren narrows the scope to strengthen the word while limiting any abuse of it.
A real bigot goes beyond expression that is protected by the First Amendment — beyond what is protected by the above-mentioned clause in the Matthew Shepard Act. He or she even goes beyond hate speech — which is knowingly and purposefully inflaming others to take violent action against those of whom he or she disapproves.
The real bigot openly works for the establishment of state religion — his or her religion, naturally. Whether as a voter or lobbyist or legislator or judge or media person, he or she aims to see draconian laws passed that would deprive the disapprovees of their civil rights. In the name of state religion, the bigot wants to harass them, silence them, beat up on them, jail them, even torture them and kill them, if possible. Their mission statements make it very clear that this is what they aim to do.
Nell Warren warns:
Individual bigots like Lou Engle and Rick Warren, and organizations like The Family, The Call and the New Apostolic Reformation, are now cozily accepted in the Republican Party, and are working to embed themselves in the Democratic party as well. According to political reporter Jeff Sharlet in his recent exposé The Family, even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can be seen hobnobbing at the National Prayer Breakfast sponsored by these people. Sharlet’s book bristles with disturbing documentation on how the Democratic party is forgetting what it supposedly stands for.
The solution:
How do we turn things around? More laws? More investigations? More court fights? There’s a saying, that you can’t legislate enlightenment. So I’m not sure that more laws and legal opinions will do the job.
But we can start by exposing these crimes in the media, so the American public gets educated about what the real bigots are up to. We must put that label on the politicians and the lobbyists and the celebrities and the corporate figureheads who deserve it. We have to hold them up to public censure — prevent them from hiding behind the user-friendly labels that they stick on themselves, like “patriot” and “good Christian.” The extreme right launched its Teabagger movement — we have to launch our Teabigot movement.
Little by little, more Americans have to get deeply shocked and embarrassed about bigotry. Being a bigot, as I define it, needs to become socially unacceptable.
Related posts
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
I respectfully disagree.
The value of a definition is how useful it is and “bigot” seeks usage by those who are against bigotry. A useful definition will encourage some bigots to stop being bigotted and non-bigots not to defect into bigotry. However, the LGBT movement, unlike the racial equality movement, has perhaps encouraged more bigotry thru the word than discourage it. Simply, if we make someone angry with us by calling them a name (even if we’re right), they’ll dislike our side and join our enemies, the bigots.
Imagine a spectrum with extreme bigots on the right pole and extreme inclusion on the left pole. 99% of people live off the poles. We should define the extreme bigots are bigots and focus on them only. No one will debate whether Fred Phelps or countries with laws killing gays, lesbians, and trans people are bigots. When we call them bigots, they’ll agree and join us. If they agree with us that far, that’s a critical first step. But we follow Neil Warren’s advice, we’ll hit people too close to home. We’ll preach to the choir while losing those precious people who are undecided.
It’s not about being right. Who cares? I’d rather be persuasive. Let some people off the hook if it means bolstering our ranks.
Comment by Ephilei — November 18, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
let’s face it michael, in your view, anyone who opposes
homosexuality for any reason is a bigot, even if
the person opposes homosexuality for moral reasons.
you have made it a zero sum game: either accept
and approve (indeed, celebrate with us) our homo-
sexuality or you’re a bigot.
Comment by brad anderson — November 19, 2009 @ 2:43 am
Brad it seems that you are playing the straw argument that many on your side does.
Your statement “either accept
and approve (indeed, celebrate with us) our homo-
sexuality or you’re a bigot” says a lot more about why there is bigotry behind most opposition of the lgbt community.
You can’t make anyone accept anything they don’t want and I hardly think that allowing lgbt couples to marry or providing anti-gay discrimination rights or allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military is “celebrating” anything. That is where the bigotry lies. To think that doing these things, which are common displays of courtesy and accentuations to the American idea of liberty, is somehow “celebrating” or “accepting” a “lifestyle” is in fact bigotry because it cheapens the worth of the lgbt community much like saying that segregation is right because it keeps black men away from white women
Comment by a. mcewen — November 19, 2009 @ 9:07 am
To me “accept” has less to do with what you personally “approve” of, and much more to do with “accept the reality that exists, and it is true, while also having the humility to realize that your opinion on my sexuality or my marriage isn’t relevant.”
And a. mcewen, the “celebrate” thing…yeah. What you said. They can’t get over the idea of “gay pride,” much the same way white racists think they’re being shafted by Black History Month.
Comment by Evan — November 19, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Brad:
You don’t quite get it. Homosexuality is not a moral issue, thus can’t be condemned for moral reasons. It is as asinine as claiming left handedness or hair color is a moral issue. One can die their hair or adapt and use the other hand with great difficulty. But is not normal, natural and certainly has zilch to do with morality.
Your basic position is that some people are born not to experience love and enjoy sexual pleasure. They are predestined to be miserable, for no other reason than your personal hang-ups or those of a bigot church. So, because of your hate or irrational fear of people who have never harmed you, you believe that you have the right to pass laws to ruin their lives.
What amazes me is that in trying to make this a moral issue, people like you demand that gays make immoral choices. For example, your solution is clearly having gay people be dishonest with themselves and society. Then, take a spouse they are not attracted to and will make miserable. A divorce and broken family are the likely outcome. Go family values!!!
That is why you have already lost, Brad. You and your ilk have vividly stated what you detest – gay people. Yet, you have given no good or coherent reason for such hostility against innocents – except a literal and biased reading of a Bronze Age book willfully misinterpreted to justify and rationalize bigotry. (The same book was used to keep down women, Jews, black people, Chinese immigrants)
But, you have never articulated what would happen if you actually won and got your way. The best you can hope for is misusing police at taxpayers expense to harass, intimidate and jail gay people. You would force hundreds of thousands of gay people into becoming liars and actors. Instead of healthy, happy relationships, they would live on the down low. Again, Brad,I’m impressed by your “family values”.
It is clear, that you suffer from confusion and invective, but no answers other than treating people like shit to shame them into becoming full-time liars. So, while being gay is natural – and certainly not a moral issue – the way you want GLBT people to live is harmful, irrational, sinister and immoral.
Each year, more people understand this – and that is why GLBT equality is advancing.
You’ve already lost in America and Europe. That is why the fundamentalists are working so hard to screw up Africa, South America and Asia
Comment by Wayne Besen — November 19, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Brad Anderson, if I choose to accept, approve and celebrate my homosexuality, that’s up to me. I don’t expect YOU to accept, approve or celebrate it, nor have I ever invited you to do so. Nor, I think, has anyone else on here invited you to accept, approve or celebrate theirs. As long as we’re not harming anyone else, it’s no business of yours.
What we CAN reasonably invite and expect you to do is to keep your nose out, just as you would expect us to do in respect of your sexuality.
Comment by William — November 19, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
That touches on the other strange thing about the “celebration” rhetoric, William. I really can’t remember a time when my close straight friends have asked me to “celebrate” their sexuality. I have been there for their weddings, as they will be there for mine, when I meet him, whoever he is…so in that way we’re “celebrating” each others’ relationships and happiness. But otherwise, no. When I go on a double date with a straight couple, we’re not “celebrating” each others’ sexuality, we’re just two couples, having dinner.
And therein lies the thing that the bigoted set fears the most — as Larry King said a few years ago to George Takei, (I’m paraphrasing) “When the rest of society realizes you’re just as boring as they are, it’s all over.” As Wayne said, their battle to keep institutionalized discrimination in effect is already lost. The kids, people in their 20’s and 30’s pretty much get it. It’s just a matter of passing time now, until the very near day when the scales are tipped in the favor of equality, for good.
Comment by Evan — November 19, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
I’ve been called a “bigot” by other LGBT people for speaking out against the rampant infighting and back stabbing that goes on in the LGBT Equality movement~~never mind that the Bay Area Reporter in San Francisco, Queerty, and even the Advocate have also reported on such behavior.
Queerty gets dozens and dozens of comments a week from people who are as tired of the gay VS gay fighting as I am.
There’s one trait many on the left and right share, the phrase “If you disagree with me, then you’re a bigot.”
Both sides need to learn the basic lessons of tolerance.
Comment by David Alex Nahmod — November 20, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
David:
You just mentioned “rampant infighting” and “back stabbing” by the GLBT community – which is, um, kind of bigoted.
You offer the illusion that straight people do not do this, or do so at lower percentages. You have no evidence to support this and are speaking from a personal experience I do not share.
I find the GLBT community to be warm, loving, supportive and very smart. Of course, we can do better – especially because those who have suffered the sting of discrimination should apply those experiences and be more tolerant.
But, I do not buy your theory and suggest that you find new friends if the ones you currently have are exhibiting such anti-social behavior.
I’ll swear by my GLBT friends – many who I have known for decades and would trust with my very life….and even (gasp) the life of my beloved cat. :)
Have a good weekend.
Comment by Wayne Besen — November 20, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
I don’t know a lot of LGBT people, but I recall a trip to a gay bar with an acquantance. We set our coats down at a table and went to the bar to get a drink. As we walked back a girl came up to us and handed my acquaintence his coat and said “Here, this fell on the floor”. It was a simple act of consideration that I’ve never experienced in my many trips to straight bars. It gave me such a warm feeling of safety, acceptance, and community, something that stays with me to this day.
Comment by Priya Lynn — November 20, 2009 @ 11:15 pm