# A person who discriminates based on religion



## SwissPete

Racist (noun) definition: a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

Sexist (noun) definition: relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

What then do you call a person who discriminates based on religion? Religious bigot? Religious zealot?

Thank you for enlightening me.


----------



## JulianStuart

(Often it is a religious person who displays that behaviour, based on the tenets of that religion, but) I don't know the one-word answer to your question.


----------



## Copyright

"Religious discrimination" is a very common term, with "religious intolerance" also being used. But I don't know of a word for the person.

No reason we couldn't use "religionist," however – especially since it follows the construction of sexist and racist. Or even "religist," although that would take some acclimation to get used to.


----------



## SwissPete

Thanks for the answers. If neither of you nor  I  know the word, then it does not exist.


----------



## Cagey

I would call that person a bigot, and it seems that the dictionaries agree with me:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
(I wasn't sure they would.)


----------



## DonnyB

I agree with Cagey's suggestion of "bigot".  

It is used to describe intolerance of opinions other than purely religious ones, but it is particularly applied in BE to _religious_ intolerance.


----------



## velisarius

I have a feeling that "bigot" in this sense is more often used in AE than in BE. 

I'm trying to think what I would say in BE. We lack a sentence, but I think I'd probably end up using a different term if I'm talking about a person who has strong religious beliefs and is *intolerant* of other people's beliefs, than if I'm talking about a non-religious person who doesn't like those who observe a religion or a particular religion. It's a very sensitive subject, and depends on context I think.


----------



## JulianStuart

I agree that bigot fits the person who discriminates based on religion, but it also covers more things - such as sexism, racism or intolerance of, for example, those on the other side of the political opinion spectrum (users of words like repuglican or libtard for example).   I would understand "religious bigot" to mean a bigot who was religious. We still seem to not have a word with the specific meaning SwissPete is seeking.


----------



## ewie

DonnyB said:


> I agree with Cagey's suggestion of "bigot".


Me too ~ it was the very first word I thought of  (In fact it was the _only_ word I thought of)


----------



## sound shift

I think it's possible to be a bigot without actively discriminating against anyone: bigotry is in the head. A bigot might actively discriminate if given the chance, of course, but many bigots don't get the chance.

Maybe "religious exclusionist" describes someone who actively discriminates according to religion.


----------



## SwissPete

OK, _bigot_ it is, and_ religious bigot_ if qualification is needed.

Thank you for your contributions.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Forgive me for not letting this one die, but doesn't the intent and reasoning behind the person's sentiments have to be clarified before one can decide the person is a "bigot"? After all, we do discriminate and treat each other differently all the time in daily life depending on many different parameters.

So, if you are intolerant and are discriminating against a person because of her political views it's really neither good nor bad unless we actually find out what those views are. Only an anti-semite would argue that being anti-anti-semitism is a bad thing. And who argues against me giving up my seat in the subway, but only to pregnant women and the elderly or disabled? I understand that this is a can of worms and I'm not after a discussion on the specifics of this instance, just that there's possibly a reason to point out that specifics are important.

Or in other words: The word "bigot" is maybe often completely appropriate, but is definitely also misused a lot of times, so discriminating based on religion maybe doesn't automatically make one a bigot - one would actually have to look at the specifics to see if it applies.


----------



## JulianStuart

MattiasNYC said:


> Forgive me for not letting this one die, but doesn't the intent and reasoning behind the person's sentiments have to be clarified before one can decide the person is a "bigot"? After all, we do discriminate and treat each other differently all the time in daily life depending on many different parameters.
> 
> So, if you are intolerant and are discriminating against a person because of her political views it's really neither good nor bad unless we actually find out what those views are. Only an anti-semite would argue that being anti-anti-semitism is a bad thing. And who argues against me giving up my seat in the subway, but only to pregnant women and the elderly or disabled? I understand that this is a can of worms and I'm not after a discussion on the specifics of this instance, just that there's possibly a reason to point out that specifics are important.
> 
> Or in other words: The word "bigot" is maybe often completely appropriate, but is definitely also misused a lot of times, so discriminating based on religion maybe doesn't automatically make one a bigot - one would actually have to look at the specifics to see if it applies.


I think the OP had in mind the situation where A hates B simply because B adheres to a particular religion when A knows nothing else about B.


----------



## Truffula

Recently I have seen (around the Internet) some cases of "racist" being used with this meaning.  In at least one case, a discussion then ensued about whether one could be "racist" against a religion, and another person said "racist" covered bigotry against structurally oppressed races, ethnicities and religions.   So at least some group of English speakers uses it this way.  

Example citation: Muslims Aren't A Race, So I Can't Be Racist, Right? Wrong. | HuffPost 

"Treating Muslims poorly because they are Muslim is racism. It is that simple. If someone gives a Muslim women wearing the hijab a dirty look, sorry, but you are racist."

"Ultimately, the issue here is 'racism without race,' as sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva calls it. The more we assume that race is limited to skin color, the less we understand about contemporary racism faced by Muslims at home and abroad."


----------



## JulianStuart

Truffula said:


> Recently I have seen (around the Internet) some cases of "racist" being used with this meaning.  In at least one case, a discussion then ensued about whether one could be "racist" against a religion, and another person said "racist" covered bigotry against structurally oppressed races, ethnicities and religions.   So at least some group of English speakers uses it this way.
> 
> Example citation: Muslims Aren't A Race, So I Can't Be Racist, Right? Wrong. | HuffPost
> 
> "Treating Muslims poorly because they are Muslim is racism. It is that simple. If someone gives a Muslim women wearing the hijab a dirty look, sorry, but you are racist."
> 
> "Ultimately, the issue here is 'racism without race,' as sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva calls it. The more we assume that race is limited to skin color, the less we understand about contemporary racism faced by Muslims at home and abroad."


This "expanded meaning" probably arose because there is no word that matches the OP's description and racism carries most of the desired meaning.


----------



## ewie

The day I start paying attention to sociologists is the day I fly to Venus on fairy wings.  _(I've said this out loud, haven't I?)_


----------



## Englishmypassion

In India, they are known as _secular_.

And people who actually demand equality and freedom for all religions are called communal by _secular_ people/media/politicians here.


----------



## JulianStuart

_Secular_ is normally a neutral term

of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred;
temporal:secular interests.
Are you saying that in India its meaning has prejudice and discrimination connotations?


----------



## MattiasNYC

JulianStuart said:


> I think the OP had in mind the situation where A hates B simply because B adheres to a particular religion when A knows nothing else about B.



I understand that, but my point is whether or not that makes a person a bigot. I don't think it does. The definition here says:



> big•ot  _(big*′*ət),_ n.
> 
> a person who is utterly intolerant of _*any*_ differing creed, belief, or opinion.





That's not what this is though, it is specific. So if a person hated me for my skin color, and I knew nothing about that person other than that and hated that person for it, does that make _me_ a bigot? That seems odd to me. In a sense it boils down to the argument that one is intolerant of intolerance and therefore am no better oneself [paraphrased, and driven to its extreme of course].


----------



## MattiasNYC

JulianStuart said:


> This "expanded meaning" probably arose because there is no word that matches the OP's description and racism carries most of the desired meaning.



It absolutely does not, and I think it's a horrible misuse of the term "racism". 

While you can debate the definition of an individual race (or if such a thing exists at all), once the definition is established you have no say in which race you belong to. Religious affiliation you can choose yourself (barring indoctrination).

This application of "racism" seems to me to be born out of carelessness or ignorance, or out of a desire to protect religious beliefs from outside criticism.


----------



## ewie

MattiasNYC said:


> if a person hated me for my skin color, and I knew nothing about that person other than that and hated that person for it, does that make _me_ a bigot?


No, it just means you hate that person who hates you.


----------



## Packard

Would "anti-" work?

Anti-Muslim
Anti-Zionist
Anti-Catholic
???


----------



## Englishmypassion

JulianStuart said:


> _Secular_ is normally a neutral term...
> Are you saying that in India its meaning has prejudice and discrimination connotations?



In India, practically all the media houses that support _secularism_ and all so-called secular political parties are anti-Hindu (and antinational). It's because of that that the word sickular has been coined for such people here, as well as sickularism. Sickular people, political parties and media call the supporters of equality and nationalism communal!


----------



## JulianStuart

MattiasNYC said:


> It absolutely does not, and I think it's a horrible misuse of the term "racism".
> 
> While you can debate the definition of an individual race (or if such a thing exists at all), once the definition is established you have no say in which race you belong to. Religious affiliation you can choose yourself (barring indoctrination).
> 
> This application of "racism" seems to me to be born out of carelessness or ignorance, or out of a desire to protect religious beliefs from outside criticism.


For most religions, there are people who are neither extreme nor proselytising and for whom their religion is extremely personal.  I also know people of that same religion who are extreme and one way or another push their beliefs onto others (with violence in some cases). To assign a person to the latter category without knowing them and therefore to hate/discriminate/show prejudice against them is what I think the OP was asking about.  I think the elephant in the room is Islam.  I think the vast majority of Muslims belong to the first of my categories while the second category is the one that is extreme and violent.  Many people, certainly in the US are simply anti-(all Muslims) because they assume they are all violent.  This kind of person who demonstrates such blind hatred/prejudice, based simply on a "religion" tag without knowing the person involved, is called what?


----------



## Packard

Of all the religions I have come in contact with the Amish are the most palatable. _* They leave me alone*_.  They don't proselytize; they don't try to get me to become Amish; and they don't try to eradicate other religions.  As a religion goes, almost ideal (by my criteria:  They leave me alone.)


----------



## Truffula

MattiasNYC said:


> It absolutely does not, and I think it's a horrible misuse of the term "racism".
> 
> ...
> 
> This application of "racism" seems to me to be born out of carelessness or ignorance, or out of a desire to protect religious beliefs from outside criticism.



If you read the article I cited, you will see that the "misuse" (I would call it an alternate use, because I'm a descriptionist  ) is clearly _not_ out of carelessness or ignorance.  The author took great care to explain, and addressed opposing opinions.  One can disagree, and many will, but it is not reasonable after reading the article to say the usage is careless or ignorant.  It's a considered and educated intentional expansion of the meaning, and cites sociologists and other scholarly support.

I am not sure about "out of a desire to protect religious beliefs from outside criticism" either.  To protect religious beliefs and people who _appear_ to subscribe to them from being discriminated against and attacked, is closer to the mark.  And of course, expanding the usage of a word does not actually do either of those things, except in that by having a name for something, it is easier to address and try to prevent it than if it lacks a name, I suppose.

Edited a few minutes later adding:

Attitudes Toward Muslim Americans Post-9/11

"Although Muslim is a religious label and does not pertain to race, *the line between racism and religious discrimination is often blurred *(Allen & Nielsen, 2002). [ ....]

In the aftermath of September 11, because of the higher occurrences of discriminating incidents directed toward Muslims and those perceived to be Muslims (Sheridan, 2006), it is important to identify the particular situational contexts in which Muslim Americans are most vulnerable to experiences of expressed negative attitudes toward their self or their cultural group. *Such information may help Muslim Americans process and understand negative experiences through the lens of racism and racism innoculation* (Comas-Diaz & Jacobsen, 2001)."

With regards to the India English concepts of "secular" and "communal" I must admit they're fairly opaque to me - the usage is embedded in the politics of India that I do not fully understand.  This article has some information - I would welcome links to better ones though that address the meanings for non Indian English speakers:  Debating the secular-communal divide  The article also contains direct usage that refers to the topic of this discussion thread:  " In Europe, the secular separation of religion and politics was followed up by multiculturalism as a preservation of cultural differences, which has only resulted in an increasing ghettoisation of religious minorities and the creation of 'parallel societies' and demands, mostly on Muslim populations, to demonstrate loyalty, and adopt the 'our' values of the dominant community. This has given a fillip to not only a separation of communities but also, *what Slavoj Žižek refers to as 'racism at distance.'"*

Ewie - good luck on the trip to Venus, I hear it's rather warm there


----------



## MattiasNYC

JulianStuart said:


> This kind of person who demonstrates such blind hatred/prejudice, based simply on a "religion" tag without knowing the person involved, is called what?



In this particular case you're asking a question at the end of your post, but that question can be contextualized with the rest of it. With that context "bigot" is probably appropriate.

But my point is that it tends to depend on the situation. There's a tendency to automatically excuse some amount of opinions or actions simply because they're held or carried out because of a religious foundation. I honestly don't think religion is exempt from scrutiny. Therefore it's not a good thing to _imply _that not liking religion, or not liking a particular religion, is all some sort of blind prejudice.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Truffula said:


> If you read the article I cited, you will see that the "misuse" (I would call it an alternate use, because I'm a descriptionist  ) is clearly _not_ out of carelessness or ignorance.  The author took great care to explain, and addressed opposing opinions.  One can disagree, and many will, but it is not reasonable after reading the article to say the usage is careless or ignorant.  It's a considered and educated intentional expansion of the meaning, and cites sociologists and other scholarly support.



Citing sociologists etc doesn't make a cause valid or good. I know I said "carelessness" and not "invalid" or "bad", but I stand by my opinion that conflating race and religions is just bad. It serves absolutely no good purpose whatsoever. Let me give you a reason why I think it's plain "bad" to do this:



> I am not sure about "out of a desire to protect religious beliefs from outside criticism" either.  To protect religious beliefs and people who _appear_ to subscribe to them from being discriminated against and attacked, is closer to the mark.  And of course, expanding the usage of a word does not actually do either of those things, except in that by having a name for something, it is easier to address and try to prevent it than if it lacks a name, I suppose.



Religion is something you choose, your genes not so much. If racism - anti-religionism then you will end up:

- upgrading the protection of religion because people who are anti-racist and take racism seriously now have to do the same for anti-religionism. And by doing so you're entering the space of justifying anything that's got a cover under religion. Some versions of Mormonism comes to mind as being quite relevant here since some Mormons still believe that the presence of a dark skin is due to not being faithful enough [paraphrased]. That interpretation of that religion is by definition racist as far as I can see. Yet here we are then in a bizarre situation where we've equated bigotry against religion with racism, even if we (dark skinned people) choose to dislike, heck, even hate religion that includes such racist tenets. Does this not seem like we've ended up in a curious catch-22?

- downgrading the severity of racism simply because some criticism of religion is totally warranted and is allowed. The attitude becomes more along the lines of "well, regardless of what I say I'm called a 'racist', even if what I say is true, so I don't really care if I'm called a racist any longer, or even if I am one..."

Further more the article is illogical; if racism doesn't exist because race doesn't exist then people of faith don't actually have faith if god doesn't exist. I actually agree that race is a dumb intellectual construct rather than a biological 'fact', but that doesn't mean that there aren't people that still hold that view. It is that view, factually correct or not, which is labeled "racist". 

As a brown person myself I actually _want_ to know that when someone calls another person a racist, it's because the person is racist, not anti-religion-x.


----------



## Truffula

MattiasNYC said:


> Citing sociologists etc doesn't make a cause valid or good. I know I said "carelessness" and not "invalid" or "bad", but I stand by my opinion that conflating race and religions is just bad. It serves absolutely no good purpose whatsoever. Let me give you a reason why I think it's plain "bad" to do this:
> 
> Religion is something you choose, your genes not so much. If racism - anti-religionism then you will end up:
> 
> - upgrading the protection of religion because people who are anti-racist and take racism seriously now have to do the same for anti-religionism. And by doing so you're entering the space of justifying anything that's got a cover under religion. Some versions of Mormonism comes to mind as being quite relevant here since some Mormons still believe that the presence of a dark skin is due to not being faithful enough [paraphrased]. That interpretation of that religion is by definition racist as far as I can see. Yet here we are then in a bizarre situation where we've equated bigotry against religion with racism, even if we (dark skinned people) choose to dislike, heck, even hate religion that includes such racist tenets. Does this not seem like we've ended up in a curious catch-22?



I don't think that is inevitable at all.  You can be anti-racism and still support people's dislike for the whole concept of race - as you do below.  So you could also be anti-religious-bigotry and still support people's dislike for religion.  I don't think your statement "I actually agree that race is a dumb intellectual construct" means you are pro-racism.   

Religions that promote bigotry don't get a pass for that from every person who supports the civil and human rights of people who subscribe to those religions.  And why should they?  Being opposed to anti-semitism doesn't mean approving of the Orthodox Jewish treatment of women whose husbands won't grant them religious divorce.  I'm skeptical that simply calling religious bigotry "racism" in any way would lead to giving justification to that Mormon belief you gave as an example.  However, I can see how it would disturb anyone who thought that, so, that is a clear reason why people oppose this usage - it's helpful to English learners to realize that, should they use the word that way, they'll potentially be offending or distressing some of their readers or listeners.

Also - religion is not as much a matter of choice as that.  Most people follow the religion they inherited from their parents.  Many cultures and social groups penalize people who change religions.  It is not wholly a matter of choice.



> Further more the article is illogical; if racism doesn't exist because race doesn't exist then people of faith don't actually have faith if god doesn't exist. I actually agree that race is a dumb intellectual construct rather than a biological 'fact', but that doesn't mean that there aren't people that still hold that view. It is that view, factually correct or not, which is labeled "racist".
> 
> As a brown person myself I actually _want_ to know that when someone calls another person a racist, it's because the person is racist, not anti-religion-x.



Certainly it's true that "race" doesn't exist as a scientific fact, but it does exist as a cultural construct and that's what is being reacted to.  Some people think religion plays a part in this cultural construct and others don't - this is how culture works - it's a sort of group dynamics thing and will vary in perception.  Plenty of people feel just as you do.  Some others feel as the author of the article does.  The divide may remain or grow wider or disappear in either direction, who knows... not I.  

Your preference for "racist" not to be used this way is understandable, and thanks for sharing that.  Some people still use it that way, even careful and educated people.  It may well turn out to be a bad thing.  I can see how it might.  It also might not turn out that way.  I don't think the slippery slope you describe is inevitable.


----------



## MattiasNYC

If discrimination of a person was because of that person's religion and that can be called racism then any definition of racism should include that. To date I haven't seen a single one that does.

I stand by my claim that doing as the article author proposes only serves to dilute the concept of racism and in a sense provide shelter for less savory interpretations of religions. Diluting "concepts" as serious as these ones is not a good thing. I would also say that we've already seen examples of how this "drift" of definitions have a negative effect. 

Anyway, to get back to the point of the thread; when the question "What then do you call a person who discriminates based on X" is asked I really don't think an answer can be given without reading a fair amount into the question, and particularly "X". I discriminate against men in the subway all the time, by giving preferential treatment to women, particularly pregnant women. So, "What then do you call a person who discriminates based on gender?" Am I a misandrist?

The question in the original post is only superficially 'obvious'. It's really more complicated than it seems in my opinion.


----------



## JulianStuart

I thought the question was relatively simple : The kind of person who demonstrates such blind hatred/prejudice, based simply on knowing that a person adheres to religion X, without knowing anything else about the person involved, is called what? Such as, "I am OK with Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus but I hate all Muslims."


----------



## Truffula

MattiasNYC said:


> The question in the original post is only superficially 'obvious'. It's really more complicated than it seems in my opinion.



It definitely is more complicated than it seems!  

The biggest part of the reason is the same reason you will find in any discussion of words that have a heavy emotional loading - people have strong opinions and they differ, *and* words with strong emotional loading often change meaning faster than other words.  As well as changing situations where they are appropriate to use.  

And another part of the reason is that your definitions given of "racist" and "sexist" aren't entirely accurate either to how the words are used, as you can see by Mattias's example.



JulianStuart said:


> I thought the question was relatively simple : The kind of person who demonstrates such blind hatred/prejudice, based simply on knowing that a person adheres to religion X, without knowing anything else about the person involved, is called what? Such as, "I am OK with Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus but I hate all Muslims."



I thought it was any religious bigotry, but specifically - coinciding with the original post - more like "I am OK with people of my own religion but people of other religions are mostly rapists and criminals, maybe a few of them are good people."


----------



## JulianStuart

Truffula said:


> I thought it was any religious bigotry, but specifically - coinciding with the original post - more like "I am OK with people of my own religion but people of other religions are mostly rapists and criminals, maybe a few of them are good people."


That was the sentiment in #2 but we might consider two types of bigotry, one based on "my religion is the only one and everyone else is bad", vs. the one I proposed in #31.


----------



## SwissPete

Thank you for the many interesting answers.
There is a lot of food for thought.


----------



## dojibear

Fifty years ago we used the word "bigot" for anyone who hates (or discriminates) based on *any *race, religion, or gender (and probably other things). A racist was a bigot. A sexist was a bigot. Someone who hated Christians or Jews or Muslims or gays was a bigot. It was easy to say what specific kind of bigot someone was -- that was never a problem.

I think the word "bigot" is used less because the media stopped using it_..._
_<-----Off-topic comments removed by moderator (Florentia52)----->_


----------



## SwissPete

So "religious bigot" would apply to a person who dislikes all people not of their religion.


----------



## JulianStuart

SwissPete said:


> So "religious bigot" would apply to a person who dislikes all people not of their religion.


It's ambiguous.  That's part of the problem that caused you to start the thread, I think.  Two possibilities: 1) someone who is "religious" to the point where they hate/despise/ don't tolerate etc people of any other religion (elitist religions, fanatics, some proselytizers etc) or 2) someone (who may or may not be religious themselves) who hates/... all people of one religion simply because they "belong" to that religion.


----------



## dojibear

SwissPete said:


> So "religious bigot" would apply to a person who dislikes all people not of their religion.



I haven't heard of any people like that. More often, a "religious bigot" is a person who hates one specific religion. 

The two-word phrase "religious bigot" does not tell you what religion they hate, but that is okay. Everything does not have to be explained by the phrase. Some "racial bigots" ("racists") have hatred for only one race, others for more than one.


----------



## SwissPete

Thank you for the additional comments, JulianStuart and dojibear. 
The issue is indeed not simple!


----------



## KBJones

A religiophobe would be someone who fears or hates religion or religious people.  
Maybe xenoreligiophobe? A fear/hate of those of a different religion? 

There are specific terms for some targets.  Islamophobe, antisemite, etc.


----------



## natkretep

Welcome to the Forum, KBJones! 

Interesting suggestion, but I don't see it catching on! Too many syllables!


----------

