I’m not sure why Sherman gets to be an “atheist crusader” while Davis is an “anti-atheist bigot.”

For anyone who knows anything about history, “crusader” is hardly a nice word to use to describe someone. In fact, it’s arguably worse than “bigot”.

Monique Davis of the 27th District is unopposed for re-election, according to the State Board of Elections website. Almost half of incumbent legislators seeking re-election are unopposed.

I thought several posters in the “negro” post combox did a good job of pointing out that it wasn’t just one word, but the whole context of Sherman’s comments, that made his remarks problematic.

As one poster put it: “It doesn’t matter what word he chose to use. The fact is, he attributed a set of actions, beliefs or characteristics to a group of people that does not universally apply to them. That’s called stereotyping. His bigotry is just as bad as hers.”

Yes, on face value, I thought the same thing at the time. It was understandable to take Sherman’s comments that way. I also suspected he didn’t mean what he said. It looked like clumsy wording, I thought I knew what he actually meant.

However, I read an explanation later by Sherman that stated he meant something else, and I can see how he could have made a mistaken in his wording. It’s a reasonable explanation. It would take some explanation to explain Davis’s comments.

Not many people were making that point, they were hysterical about the word “negro” instead.

Because Sherman is not a bigot for using a word marked on the naughty list in a culture he is not a part of, and claims he was ignorant of, meaning no offence to anyone.

I thought several posters in the “negro” post combox did a good job of pointing out that it wasn’t just one word, but the whole context of Sherman’s comments, that made his remarks problematic.

As one poster put it: “It doesn’t matter what word he chose to use. The fact is, he attributed a set of actions, beliefs or characteristics to a group of people that does not universally apply to them. That’s called stereotyping. His bigotry is just as bad as hers.”

FWIW, I’m not defending Davis’s comments. (In the case of the comment you cite, I’m not sure “bigoted” is the best possible word, although it’s obviously hostile and pedagogically reactionary as well.)

I’m not sure why Sherman gets to be an “atheist crusader” while Davis is an “anti-atheist bigot.”

Because Sherman is not a bigot for using a word marked on the naughty list in a culture he is not a part of, and claims he was ignorant of, meaning no offence to anyone. I don’t know Sherman, that’s his story, I accepted it, seems reasonable, no one has given me reason not to.

People who care about words and not meaning are batshit, and they’ve shown themselves to also be bigots in the comments you refer to. If you think Sherman is a racist or have any other accusations show me some freaking evidence or talk to the hand. Why is Davis a bigot? Because she says shit like this:

…it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

Until she repudiates her hysterical statements regarding atheism, she should be considered unfit for office and quite aptly labelled a bigot.

Does the word “bigot” really help? Yes, it’s true, but it’s not like either side in the theist-atheist controversy has a monopoly on non-bigotry.

Indeed. In fact, as the comments in the “negro” combox bear out, the “bigot” label seems a particularly unfortunate word to apply solely to the theist side of the current equation. I’m not sure why Sherman gets to be an “atheist crusader” while Davis is an “anti-atheist bigot.”

I frankly applaud Sherman and Davis for reconciling personally despite such opposing belief systems.

Absolutely. Let’s see more of this, please.

I frankly applaud Sherman and Davis for reconciling personally despite such opposing belief systems.