Originally posted by segovius
According to WordNet, the definition of the word bigot is as follows:
A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
I would understand this as referring to someone who objects to any opinions that differ from his own on principle rather than someone who objected to an opinion that happened to differ.
In any case, if it is the latter, we are all bigots as there is no-one who ever lived who had not a single objection to even one solitary contradictory opinion. I would cite characters such as Jesus, Buddha and Mother Theresa here - all of whom had some objections to something.
You're glossing over the word "prejudiced" for whatever reason.
Since, in my opinion, Jesus never existed, and considering Mother Theresa is just an extension of that myth's world view, I won't comment further on them.
But as for the Buddha, I'd offer he is the antithesis of "pre-judging". He "retreated" to observing and careful inspection - he did not "stand firm" and presume things to be truly as they (arbitrarily) initially seemed to him, having found that the various distractions can pull our beliefs to and fro to nearly any false, incomplete, dishonest, stubborn and arbitrary conclusion.
"Opinion" is equally useless, as they are only shades of the same Ignorance.
"Own/self" wouldn't pertain to the Buddha (or any of us when made aware), ultimately.
"Intolerant" would be irrelevant if there is no self or other.
The Buddha first tried to "tell" his found truths but the person laughed and disbelieved, which is why he instead developed a path identical to the one he followed, so as to let others see for themselves as he did - if they are so inclined.
Disbelievers (or really, those-that-believe-too-much as opposed to knowing), to the Buddha, are just people that are addicted to the status quo and there is no particular desire to "save" them nor rip apart their beliefs for the sake of making them feel bad.
(That's something I'm actively working on, being so modernized, it's hard not to overbearingly spew opinion, no matter how calm or balanced I might try to be.)
Anyway, I daresay the Buddha had no "objection" to anything in particular. His is an open and welcoming philosophy but by no means mandatory. It's a simple: patient:"Doc, it hurts when I do this"; doctor:"Don't do that." advisory kind of thing - not dictatorial.
One can teach "best practices" without objecting to your doing it your (perhaps unhealthy and foolish) way.
I think it's mostly when one's stubborn illogic or harmful actions interferes with others that it becomes objectionable.