I think it is possibly curable under extraordinary circumstances. I've been surprised here lately to see the deep bigotry some people here hold told Christians. I've seen members here lump all people that believe in God into the same category and casitgated as low down as dog crap and no better than slobbering idiots. I guess I'm just saying that to say that bigotry goes both ways. I believe in God and am not/have never been bigotted, prejudiced, or whatever you want to call it. Surely I am not alone in believing this way. However I do think, all in all, true bigotry would be quite hard to overcome.
as soon as we stop worshiping the filth of aggressiveness, romantacizing and rewarding it, then yes, it certainly will be. ALL forms of bigotry. not just ethnicity, nor even just ethnicity and belief.
What if someone is blindly tolerant in the guise of political correctness to the point of supporting an organised religious ignorance that has proven itself time after time to be fundamentally oppressive and violently intolerant of other beliefs? Is that blindly tolerant person actually a vicarious bigot or just a clueless fool or both? I think the answer is both.
I'm trying to think of what might be "an organised religious ignorance that has proven itself time after time to be fundamentally oppressive and violently intolerant of other beliefs?" Several candidates come to mind. ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Shabab, Boko Haram, and Hezbollah would certainly be on the list of radical Islamic groups. Christian-oriented groups would certainly include the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, the Army of God, Defensive Action, the Montana Freemen, and of course the Westborough Baptists. I can't think of anyone blindly tolerant enough to defend any of these groups in the guise of political correctness, so this seems to be a purely hypothetical question. I'd say such hypothetical defenders would certainly be fools. Webster's defines bigot as "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.; a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group). By that definitions, I don't see how a "blindly tolerant" person, even of fundamentally oppressive and violently intolerant people" can be bigots, vicarious or otherwise.
In thinking of candidates for "an organized religious ignorance that has proven itself time after time to be fundamentally oppressive and violently intolerant of other beliefs?", I forgot to mention Buddhist violence in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. in Myanmar, Wirathu and other Buddhist monks have spearheaded discrimination and violence against the Rohingya Muslims, while in Sri Lanka, the militant Buddhist BBS group has done the same against Muslim and Christian minorities (Although it has opposition from peaceable Buddhists). But I don't know of instances in which any "blindly tolerant person" under the guise of political correctness has been supporting these manifestations of "organized religious ignorance". If someone blindly supported their actions, it would be foolish, and if they automatically gave their blessings to such actions I'd say it could be a form of bigotry. Same goes for supporters of the groups listed above. But if someone condemned Buddhism in general because of the actions of these renegade sects, that person would be a fool and a bigot. Same goes for someone who condemned Islam or Christianity for the actions of particular sects.
It would indeed be absurd if every person who does Buddhist meditation were blamed for events in Myanmar. Equally foolish to blame all Muslims for ISIS, or all Christians for Christian abuses.
Muslims around the world condemned the Charlie Hebdo attacks. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/muslims-condemn-charlie-hebdo-attack_n_6458260.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/muslims-respond-charlie-hebdo_n_6429710.html .http://www.alternet.org/media/45-examples-muslim-outrage-about-charlie-hebdo-attack-fox-news-missed I remember one Muslim woman being interviewed on cable news saying it would be absurd to say she was Charlie, but that she was appalled by the murders and sympathized with the journal and the "je suis charlie" movement..More joined the "je suis ahmed" movement to express their condemnation of the terrorists without appearing to condone the anti-Muslim hate speech characteristic of Charlie Hebdo. http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7521151/charlie-hebdo-jesuisahmed
It is very easy for various Muslim councils to release a statement condemning these attacks. It would be suicide for them not to. But actions speak louder than words and Muslim actions to make real peace in multicultural countries like France is extremely minuscule. Thousands of Jews are fleeing France due to increasing intolerance and attacks from the Muslim community. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/22/middleeast/france-israel-jews-immigration/ . Muslims declaring these attacks are not condoned by the Islamic faith are contradicting the the texts they worship. You can always easily find ten times as many instances of Muslims supporting death and violent aggression than any condemnation of violence and call for tolerance. Back in the "Satanic Verses" affair, there wasn't just a few Muslims calling for the death of Rushdie but hundreds of thousands marching in the streets calling for head. You would love to think that if only 5% of Muslims cause trouble then 95% of the rest must be kind and tolerant. Human nature does not work this way. Islam is fundamentally intolerant. The tolerantly outspoken few who condemn violence are a minority on the other end of the spectrum. I guarantee it, because again, their actions speak for their true nature. You defend a hypocritical ignorance that repeatedly establishes homes in PC lands that welcomes them because of their tolerance and they repeatedly grow violently intolerant cells of hate and death with abusive intentions of complete domination. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_logic_of_islamic_intolerance.html
