david c.,

It seems to me very difficult to define religious bigotry. But suppose Christians make the above case in class, and Jew stands up in class and says, “Well, the reason Jews don’t believe Jesus is the Messiah . . . .” And the Christians interrupt and say, “Of course you are going to deny Jesus is the Messiah. If you say anything else, you will have to admit the truth—you killed God!” And a Mormon stands up and starts to speak, and the Christians say, “Are you kidding me? You believe the Book of Mormon was copied from golden plates that were conveniently lost? How gullible are you, anyway?”

I do think it is religious bigotry to claim you have the truth, you can prove it, and people who don’t believe your version of the truth are either stupid, self-deluded and in denial, or are deliberately claiming to believe things they actually do believe because if the acknowledge the truth, they will have to give up their wicked lifestyle. I think one sees a certain amount of that kind of argument here, especially on hot-button issues.

If i understand your implied definition of bigotry, any person publicly proclaiming a view which excludes any others from some benefit or place or good is exposed thereby to a charge of “bigotry”. That is such an expansive view of the meaning of bigotry that it makes conversation nearly impossible, in my view.

Is not a more charitable characterization the assertion that someone who holds a different claim of exclusivity is “mistaken” (perhaps deluded — as you put it — although I think that term carries a derogatory note that mistaken does not)? After all, orthodox Jews and Muslims, (not to mention atheists) all make their own exclusive claims. Are they “bigots” if such views are expressed? Bigotry is a powerful charge, particularly in the modern academy. It is, in essence, a conversation stopper. Accusations of bigotry have become an instrument of power and coercion — a way of silencing opposition and reading folks out of civil society.

Are there “Christian bigots”? Of course there are. Christians are as prone to human brokenness as anyone else. But to characterize orthodox Christian proclamation as by its very nature bigoted (and to not apply the same standard to anyone else with a comprehensive world view or anthropology) is a species of the very kind of thing you call ‘bigotry’.

For me the question of bigotry depends on a follow on question to ~any~ exclusive claims…. “and”? Is there an imperative that follows the indicative? What is the nature of that imperative?

If the students in the class were to argue — “Christian belief is the only way to be in right relationship to the God of the universe..” (indicative) “and we think you should believe that too” (imperative) then that is not bigotry but discourse. You are free to agree or disagree. To dispute. If the indicative were to be something along the lines of “and we believe that Christianity should therefore be declared by law the only legal religion” or “and therefore Jews, Muslims and atheists should be thrown out or locked up, or killed” well that, to my mind is clearly bigotry.

Remove it from the context of religion. Is it ‘bigotry’ to state something as factual/true if by it’s implications someone may be excluded, or (in this case) “feel” excluded? If I state “no blind person should receive a driver’s license” am I being bigoted? I am claiming a particular privilege or benefit for the sighted, after all. Or am I simply stating my understanding and conviction about how the world (or at least driving in it) works? In the face of such a statement, one has a choice to engage it rationally (via discourse) or one may simply declare it an irrational animus (‘bigotry’) and thus declare the end of the matter.

It would seem to me that the ideal of the academy as a place for the free exchange of ideas is significantly endangered when the arbiters of that exchange start making charges of “bigotry” on so shaky a foundation.

Likewise, the students should recall Wittgenstein’s “What can be shown cannot be said.”

Atheists say that all the time.

Sometimes they offer arguments. Other times they just act like it’s self-evident.

Sometimes the arguments are good. Other times they’re bad.

After all, chest-thumpers like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have made a career out of jeering at straw men.

The question is, if a Christian teacher wrote the above email to militant atheist students, would he be mocked for it?

You bet your booties he would.

I agree with you up until your last two sentences. We don’t know what was said in class. Is it impossible for Christians to act like bigots in arguing in front of others about the superiority of their religion? Maybe, from the Christian viewpoint it is. (I don’t think so, but maybe.) If Christians argue in a classroom where there are Jews and Muslims that only Christians will go to heaven, and all others will go to hell, is that acceptable, as long as you don’t specify who the “others” are? If Christians argue that Christianity is so clearly true that non-Christians are either ignorant or self-deluded, is that acceptable, as long as the Christians don’t actually name any other religions? Is it acceptable to argue that all non-Christians are going to hell, but bigotry to argue that Jews and Muslims are going to hell?

If a professor of cross-cultural psychology at a public university acknowledges that it is possible for members of any religion to know and prove their religion is true, how does he deal with a classroom where there are devout Christians, Muslims, and Jews?

I am in agreement with Scalia’s comment that “it is difficult to feel sympathy for Father O’Reilly; his actions toward the gay activists were intentionally provocative, which rendered his mumbles about “tolerance” insupportable.” It seems to me that if one wants to engage in the rough and tumble of “street politics” one should be prepared for, well, a certain amount of rough and tumble. In an ideal world the protestors could be challenged perhaps to live up to the virtues they believe themselves to advocate — more civil, less reactionary, but that’s not the world we live in, and Father O’Reilly should have known this. As such, his complaint smacks of a species of special pleading.

Thus, I think a more detailed account of what actually happened in the classroom would be helpful before drawing any conclusions. Is Botolph right that it was the professor who initiated a “withering criticism” of Christianity? Or did the Christian students initiate by responding defensively/aggressively to the standard politically correct (per Maximilian) meme of the modern academy about value neutrality and and the ultimacy of tolerance as the supreme virtue?

Without knowing more about the context, it seems hard to tell, or to draw any hard and fast conclusions. Certainly it is troubling to see a tenured advocate for pluralism and rationality publicly naming certain of his students “bigots”. Were I a Christian in his class, I would definitely wonder if it was possible for me to be graded objectively by said professor.

Well put by Carson and Maximilian about truly believing that one’s belief system is “the most valid”, otherwise what’s the point?

I get tired of people claiming that religious believer’s need to “question their beliefs” and “challenge what they believe”. Again, this shows a clear lack of understanding about the nature of faith and what it means to live faithfully or strive to live faithfully. Why should I question what I know to be true? This knowledge is not of my own doing, but truly a blessing from God. Living in this world is challenge enough to what the church teaches but to get through I hold fast to my faith ever tighter because my faith and my experience has taught me that to do otherwise is to be lost. As frustrating as it is to hear about people like this professor and be subjected to his misguided views, let’s take the opportunity to pray for him that he will one day be a believer in Christ.

In the end, I think the prof is just showing he is as human as the Christian students. One gathers that his beliefs are equally strong. I do find his claim that the Christian students were dishonoring those who believe else wise a bit disingenuous, given that he holds, and should hold, the power in the class.

I believe we can all learn from one another provided we can explain our beliefs. It is possible that the students were just claiming their beliefs (we’re right, you’re wrong), but it is not evident in what is presented.

Also, exactly what should be expected of a psychology professor in a state school when Christians, in a majority in the class, take up class time to espouse Christianity when there are students of other religions in the class?