-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bigot of the Year
- Thread starter Panda
- Start date
that's amusing. Not sure it's helping the case for gay marriage at all though
horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
WoW! It is one thing to attempt to get a point across, but to use such childish means is quite surprising, especially when it is coming from a socially respected person attempting to address such an issue that needs praise not ridicule.
Alceste
Vagabond
I agree with this, from the article:
But Stonewall Scotland director Colin Macfarlane said: "The people that were nominated for Bigot of the Year have this year called gay people Nazis, they have compared them to bestialitists and to paedophiles, and one of the nominees suggested that gay people should be put in front of a firing squad and shot dead.
"So I think what we are doing is highlighting the very cruel, very nasty, very pernicious language that is being used by some people - and in particular by the cardinal, who won.
"I think we are right to highlight that and to shine a light on that kind of discrimination, and hence why bigot of the year was one of our award categories.
"In the past year the cardinal has likened the campaign for same-sex marriage to slavery, he has called it grotesque."
I don't think people have any obligation to show respect to those who exhibit these - well, bigoted, for lack of a better word - attitudes, regardless of their position and rank. If he didn't want to get a bigot award, perhaps he should have put more consideration into his philosophy and method of self-expression. Shouldn't actions have consequences?
But Stonewall Scotland director Colin Macfarlane said: "The people that were nominated for Bigot of the Year have this year called gay people Nazis, they have compared them to bestialitists and to paedophiles, and one of the nominees suggested that gay people should be put in front of a firing squad and shot dead.
"So I think what we are doing is highlighting the very cruel, very nasty, very pernicious language that is being used by some people - and in particular by the cardinal, who won.
"I think we are right to highlight that and to shine a light on that kind of discrimination, and hence why bigot of the year was one of our award categories.
"In the past year the cardinal has likened the campaign for same-sex marriage to slavery, he has called it grotesque."
I don't think people have any obligation to show respect to those who exhibit these - well, bigoted, for lack of a better word - attitudes, regardless of their position and rank. If he didn't want to get a bigot award, perhaps he should have put more consideration into his philosophy and method of self-expression. Shouldn't actions have consequences?
Alceste
Vagabond
Ridicule is a powerful tool.
Any effective political movement has many facets. One of those facets involves making the philosophy you are attempting to defeat socially unacceptable. Of course that's nobody's ENTIRE strategy, but I am really sick of seeing gay people compared to pedophiles and murderers. Seriously. I can't be bothered to argue those points any more, but what's left? You can't let such statements go completely unchallenged, or they will keep cropping up around the water cooler, in the papers, in legislative debates. So, why not just laugh at them. Say "Look at this neanderthal! Jeez! What a clown! Here, have an award for being such a moron!" At the very least, perhaps the award might cause him to reflect on the persuasiveness of his own tactics.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
I'm ok with this. It is cathartic if nothing else. Sometimes you just have to be immature back.
Skwim
Veteran Member
So you don't think that bigots should be called "bigots"? What would you call them? Of course it may be argued that the cardinal isn't an actual bigot, but with what's been presented this certainly appears to be the case.
somethingNiftyhere
Squadoosh 1@ATime
The bestowal speaks poorly of Stonewall more than it insults Cardinal Keith O'Brien.
O'Brien is parroting the beliefs of the faith he represents as one of it's highest ranking emissaries and as such it would be nigh on impossible to expect him to say anything contrary to the official church stance regarding Gay's or Gay marriage.
Meanwhile, the designation of Bigot of the Year, makes Stonewall rank and file that elected the Cardinal this insult appear to be ignorant of the Catholic religion. And as such no better in their level of intolerance than is the adversary they target through a pejorative.
O'Brien is parroting the beliefs of the faith he represents as one of it's highest ranking emissaries and as such it would be nigh on impossible to expect him to say anything contrary to the official church stance regarding Gay's or Gay marriage.
Meanwhile, the designation of Bigot of the Year, makes Stonewall rank and file that elected the Cardinal this insult appear to be ignorant of the Catholic religion. And as such no better in their level of intolerance than is the adversary they target through a pejorative.
