on "bigot" and "hate" and practicing peace

The words "hate" and "bigot" seem to get tossed around freely. Personally, I don't think using them is good for anything (other than for expressing anger, which has been shown to generally make people even more angry, and thus more divided), and hurts the user more than anyone.

For those of you who don't care, and are going to continue to call people hateful or bigoted, are you at least using the terms accurately?

bigoted:

• "obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions"

hate: 

• "feel intense or passionate dislike for someone"
  
• "have a strong aversion to something"

Perhaps the words are being used accurately. I suppose under the definitions above, many of those who are against gay marriage (for example) could correctly be called bigoted or hateful. At the same time, however, it seems that many of those on the other side are often bigoted and hateful in response. What to do? Where is this cycle taking us?

Whatever side you may be on, whatever your opinions may be on any number of issues, how do you stand up for them, and work for what you believe is right, without resorting to the same aggressive and self-poisoning modi operandi that your so-called enemies use? 

On a related note, how can we condemn war and international aggression when we can't even curb it in ourselves? I believe we must first practice peace within and around ourselves. We must find a way to express ourselves in productive ways. Or not.

Not so creative headlines

So are ESPN and SI both owned by Disney now? Or is one of them just having a hard time coming up with an original headline?

Sports Illustrated:


ESPN:

"Trillions" of inhabitable worlds

God, to Moses:

"And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten... For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them."

According to this article, there are "trillions" of planets similar to earth on which life could exist. Whether life on these other planets is intelligent or not is another matter entirely, but many of them may contain bacteria.

According to this article, the fact that I believe in science and religion is "doomed to fail":

"A true harmony between science and religion requires either doing away with most people's religion and replacing it with a watered-down deism, or polluting science with unnecessary, untestable, and unreasonable spiritual claims."

I'm not sure why, but apparently this smarty-pants (I'm only saying that because the article is in the New Republic) professor thinks that I will have to do away with most of my beliefs, or pollute my science with unnecessary spiritual claims. I don't see why that is necessary. Any thoughts?

Granted, I don't make spiritual claims in science class. But I know enough for myself.

Salt Lake Trib comments that make me smile

From "sandyboy" on fixing the immigration problem in Utah:

The only immigrants Utah should send packing are the ones that arrived es masse in 1847 bringing their ridiculous religious superstitions, litters instead of families, and cluttering the landscape with their architectural abortions....I think they called them "temples". THEN Utah might be more inhabitable.

How 'bout it Utah?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not oppose civil unions (officially, the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships.") Repubican Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. said yesterday that he supports them. Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot to mention that Esteemed Sen. Chris Buttars is against them.

For those of you still against them, what say ye?

For all of us, is this a possibility, or are we wasting our breath?