Words have meanings. This is why laws and contracts feature definitions at the top of the documents. An all too commonly used word today is bigot. It seems appropriate to learn the meaning of this word. Don’t you agree?
When someone disagrees with our president on any matter, that label of bigot gets thrown his way. There are folks labeling former Sheriff Joe Arpaio as a bigot because he defied an unconstitutional order from a federal judge.
It seems to me a lot of folks who freely use that word may not know what it actually means. This is true for a lot of American English words, words like incredible; if truly incredible (unbelievable) why would use this word to describe something wonderful as something unbelievable?
Back to bigot and bigotry.
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on religion, politics or race
My understanding of the American English vernacular (estilo Tejano) is this – the person labeling another as bigotted is himself or herself a bigot.
Actions have consequences.
How does one gain advantage through bigotted name-calling? Answer: It doesn’t happen. Instead, name-calling self-identifies the person engaged in name-calling and sets up confrontations, battle lines.
The above came to mind because you see, I am also guilty of labeling persons who think differently than I do.
A debate of ideas is how peace is made. Name-calling spells the end of the debate.
I recently posted a discussion on HRES 257 a bill before the House to outlaw animus – thoughts. HRES 257 is a desperate, unwise attempt by Congress to quell public unrest. Has anyone in Washington, D.C. considered the consequences of outlawing thoughts? Do lawmakers actually think nullification of the First Amendment natural right to freedom of conscience a good measure?
Please join me in refraining from bigotry. As it is written,
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.