Tal Bachman wrote: Hi Wade
This is kind of a difficult question to answer, because even when someone is a bigot, it is almost impossible for vanity reasons to acknowledge that to oneself. For example, all of us have heard people begin a sentence by saying, "You know I don't have a racist bone in my body, but...". And right then comes a comment that many people might consider racist. Their self-image, in other words, tells us virtually nothing about whatever bigotry they may really feel, or be guilty of.
I understand this human tendancy. In fact, it is not uncommon for people to errantly consider themselves as not bigotted, while errantly considering others as bigotted. Or, even when correctly noting the bigotry of others, people can be blind to even more incideous bigotry in themselves.
As an illustration of this, Wade, perhaps I can point out that you probably feel you are not bigoted against those with homosexual inclinations - yet, it is a fact that many millions of people, including probably 95 plus percent of all gay people on earth, plus probably 95 plus percent of all psychologists or psychiatrists on earth, would state flatly that you were, based on your writings on "sexual attraction disorders" at
http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/sad.htm#Papers. They would also say your writings betrayed not only bigotry, but profound ignorance. Would that mean you were an ignorant bigot? If you said you weren't, but all those people said you were....who should we believe? And what in the end would it matter what you said? You can hear people say, "I'm not racist, but I don't like black people". You know? So what? What does that tell us, other than maybe that the human race is mad and vain?
I am not sure if your percentages are correct except perhaps in terms of the unreasonable and irrationally emotional among us. But I understand your point. One does not change minds and hearts simply by affixing a label, particularly if those on whom the label is being affixed reject the application.
And, were that my intent, your point may have some relevance. It's not, and so it doesn't. In fact, if you read my Anti-Bigotry Initiative web site, you will learn that I am attempting to avoid that happening with me and the general discussion on bigotry.
P.S. Would you say that someone who believed that Catholics belonged to a church, the creed of which was an "abomination", qualified as a bigot? Catholics might - but that would also include you, wouldn't it, given that you believe that Joseph Smith was really quoting Jesus in his D & C autobiography...and it would also include me, since I think the Catholic church overall actually is a religious abomination, though I applaud them for their relief efforts, and I know a lot of Catholics I like personally.
No. I would not say that is bigotted regardless of whether someone is confused as to who or what the statement from Joseph was specifically in reference to, or who one attribute as the source for the statement. It doesn't meet the requirements of my GENERIC definition.
You know what I'm saying? The answer is that there is probably no one on here who thinks of himself as a bigot. But what does that really mean? It's like how everyone says, "I'm a good person". So what? All it might really mean is that we're all vain.
Yes, I understand what you mean. That is why I asked the follow-up question: "
Do you think it is possible to be bigotted against the CoJCoLDS? And, if so, what would it look like?"
I would be interested to see your answer.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-