I think that calling out a true scotsman fallacy is becoming a fallacy in and of itself.
Me: You’re not a Scotsman.
George: Yes, I am, see the kilt?
Me: But, you’re not from Scotland.
G: Don’t you see the kilt?
Me: Your family isn’t from Scotland, no part of your genealogy traces back to it, and your 23 and me results don’t put any history there.
G: Kilt.
Me: You don’t have a Scottish accent, don’t eat or know anything about the food. You don’t like bagpipe music.
G: But, I do have this kilt.
Me: I’m starting to think that you just like kilts.
If someone refuses to take bribes - “that’s illegal” - while also texting while driving, cheating on his taxes, running red lights - he’s not wrong that it’s illegal to take bribes. It does make him a hypocrite since he doesn’t follow the law 100%, but it doesn’t follow that he ought to begin taking bribes.
Look how the “It isn’t his choice, it’s something he feels compelled to do.” from the OP vanishes as soon as someone points out that the religion also ‘compels’ the person to do some stuff that isn’t aimed at hurting weaker people. Why is it that only the obscure parts of the religion that align with his personal preferences and desire to bully vulnerable groups count as requirements, and not the core of the Bible that has God himself directly and clearly arguing against things that he wants to do, like accumulating and idolizing massive wealth, or hurting his neighbors, or treating immigrants differently than the native born?
If they are choosing to follow the rules imposed by their religion that they like, and not follow the ones that they don’t like, then they are in fact choosing which rules that they follow.
This is a terrible analogy. This is one that fits your OP:
If someone starts beating people up to break up a gay wedding and argues that they were compelled to because there is a law forbidding it, even though the law has been ruled invalid by Obergefell v. Hodges, and claims that you can’t call him a bigot for doing so as he was compelled by the law. The fact that the law he’s citing is no longer valid, and that he’s violating other laws in assaulting participants in the wedding, and that he’s also willing to text while driving, cheat on his taxes, and run red lights even though there are clear laws against those, make it clear that his actions weren’t actually compelled by the law, but were motivated by his bigotry. And his claim of ‘that’s illegal’ is clearly just a fig leaf attempting to deflect criticism of his underlying bigotry.
This isn’t the case. The Bible is the most published book in existence and well over a hundred million Americans own one. You don’t need a pastor to tell you what something says when one can read it for oneself.
In your OP, you literally made the statement that I quoted. The claim that the person is discriminating against weaker minorirites them because he feels his religion requires that he do so is also yours. The rest of that post was simple observation of where the alleged compulsion comes from, as well as examining the bible and behavior of real world behavior like your example.
It’s pretty clear that you have no actual counterargument when the best you can do is argue that you haven’t said a direct quote.
Who in this thread suggested taking bribes, texting while driving, cheating on taxes, or running red lights? What I posted is an ANALOGY, not a claim that someone advocated that specific action. If you’re not sure what an analogy is or how they work, you probably shouldn’t use them yourself.
If he is doing all these things, he is breaking all of those laws. He is a “sinner” if we are calling the breaking of the laws you are supposed to follow a sin.
And if he accepts that he is a sinner, then he has no room to judge others for their sins. It is that he claims that these laws that he doesn’t want to follow just don’t apply to him, but the law that he wants you to follow does apply to you.
bigotry = intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Yes it is bigotry because the act of intolerance is absolute and not related to his degree of inward desire. Adhering to a religion is a choice, You are responsible for the whole package.
Is it possible, free of external force, to discriminate without an inward desire to discriminate?
This doesn’t really tie back to the OP - the relevant point is not whether he is a ‘sinner’ or a ‘lawbreaker’, but whether he is exercising choice in deciding what parts of religion or the law to follow. The original contention was that someone engaging in bigotry because of religion should not have it counted against them, because they have no choice, and that they are not acting on any preexisting prejudice but instead are following the word of God. The fact that they actually pick and choose which pieces to follow disproves the claim that they have no choice, which invalidates the defense raised in the OP.
The switching around to ‘is he a sinner’ and ‘shouldn’t he then follow more of the religion, not less’ are attempts to shift away from the original argument. If he’s exercising choice in what parts of the religion he follows, then the argument that he’s not responsible for bullying weaker people because he has no choice falls apart. Criticizing the person for being hypocritical is true, but isn’t likely to bother them, and doesn’t invalidate the original argument.
I don’t get it. Can you flesh this out a little? Are you saying, for example, Reform Jews, Unitarian Universalists, Deists, and other such mellow religious people are all bigoted somehow?
Right, this is similar to cafeteria Christians – they break these laws, but not those laws. It just happens that the ones they don’t break are the ones that justify their bigotry. If I’m a cafeteria law follower, I break the laws I find inconvenient and I don’t think should be laws (hey, man, weed should be legal anyway), but I don’t break the ones I agree with (bribery is wrong!).
I’m not sure how this bolsters your case, unless I misunderstand your analogy.