According to the definitions you have included, hatred is not required for bigotry to be present. Therefore, it's perfectly possible for people to enjoy the tapdancing of Bill Robinson and still believe he should not be allowed to drink from the Whites Only waterfountain. And this was the way it was. It didn't make segregation any better for African-Americans of the day, knowing that they were still admired for their rhythm and liked personally by some whites, even though they could never attend the same schools.
In the same way, the dance teacher in the next town is widely admired for his volunteer efforts in choreographing other people's children the high school musical, but the thought that he should be permitted to adopt a child with his partner is considered horrifying. Let them stay in their "place" and everything will be fine. This is bigotry's bottom line.
I would be interested in which definition of "tolerated" you considered applicable in SDAI's post. Is that "tolerated" as in "allowed the same rights as all citizens of civil society, without favoritism", or is that "tolerated" as in "suffered to live"? There's a big difference. I think he meant the latter, based on his other statements.
There are many areas in my own religious and moral beliefs where I have not reached certainty. One area in which my footing is pretty solid is what constitutes scientific evidence and what doesn't, and why it's important not to use scientific terminology to define religious belief. That's what a lot of this is about.
PS: Definitions
The whole thread (67 posts)
- For Derek
- Weighing in on SDAI- Teckie1
- To which I humbly add:
- Morality
- Piss them off you did.
- See
- re: Cultural evolution
- Sad Depressed Angry Infantile (n/t)
- Whoa, easy steady there, Tony. (Heh, heh, that's what they usually tell me.)