This message was self-deleted by its author

[guillaumeb]

This message was self-deleted by its author (guillaumeb) on Tue Oct 17, 2017, 06:48 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Xipe Totec]

1. There are only two things I can't stand in this world...

[Xipe Totec]

5. his main enemy whom was a Dutch farmer raised his other son, Douglas, to be an evil genius

Nigel also harbors a strong prejudice against the Dutch people, a prejudice that spills over onto Belgians because they share a border, but it's more likely due to finding that his main enemy whom was a Dutch farmer had raised his other son, Douglas, to be an evil genius. He is presented as humorously hypocritical as, along with the Dutch, his greatest hatred is people who are intolerant of other people's cultures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Powers

[Buckeye_Democrat]

3. Clap clap!

[guillaumeb]

4. Thank you.

And Trump, in my view and I suspect most here, epitomizes raw intolerance in his behaviors and rants. Sad that a certain, hopefully small, faction of US citizens are so filled with hatred and intolerance for difference from what they believe to be the norm that they see enemies and danger everywhere.

Islamophobia, misogyny, racism, all aspects of the intolerance that is apparently the new GOP paradigm. And intolerance for religious belief is no different from believers who are intolerant of non-believers. All must be confronted and challenged.

[Albertoo]

6. Intolerance is built in most religions. To think otherwise is wishful thinking.

Judaism

Deuteronomy 17:3-5 "And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, .....and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die."

Christianity

Romans 1:
21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God ..
25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie,
32. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death,

Islam

3:110 You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah .

98:6 Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.

[Albertoo]

17. Extremely funny coming from you who actually invent quotes

I called you out on a Quran quote which you actually invented.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=238456

But back to your present question. It is comical of you to accuse me of selecting quotes from the 'sacred' texts. I just picked quotes from the 3 Middle East monotheisms that were relevant to your question about intolerance. These quotes demonstrate that intolerance is built in those religions.

If you have any way to disprove my contention backed by primaruy source quotes, feel free to do so.

While you're at it, do try to find anything remotely matching your invented quote in the Quran.

Good luck on both endeavors.

[Albertoo]

21. Your ability to put opinion before fact is stupendous

I made two claims based on facts. You offer unrelated words. My claims:

-1- that you made up one Quranic quote
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=238456

-2- that there are quotes in the Torah/NT/Quran which enjoin the believers to be intolerant.
I was thus answering your claim about what prime sources of intolerance might exist.

Your answer that I would 'select' quotes is extremely weak.
Had you made a claim about the sources of homophobia in the world,
I would have picked the relevant homophobic quotes in the Torah/NT/Quran.

In short, I use primary sources to indict religions.
While you use your feelings and wishes to try and defend them.

One of these two systems is more robust in trying to make a point.

[trotsky]

25. You are utterly and completely wrong, as usual.

That isn't what Albertoo is claiming at all.

And congratulations on your demonstrated willingness to just make up quotes to protect religion. Shameful. Isn't there some kind of commandment about bearing false witness?

[trotsky]

30. Naw, I just like to point out when you're wrong.

Keeps me plenty busy. Don't you have a Koran quote you should be fabricating about now?

[guillaumeb]

33. See number 32

[trotsky]

35. Is that a quote from the Koran?

[trotsky]

39. If you apologize for fabricating a quote from the Koran, I will forgive you.

Go ahead.

[trotsky]

48. No apology, no forgiveness.

You fabricated a quote. Quit trying to weasel out of it and just own up to your dishonesty. Confess your sins.

[Albertoo]

38. You're piling up new invented quotes, this time from me

I accept your surrender on the fact you cannot back up your invented Quranic quote

I accept your surrender on the fact my quotes prove intolerance is built in religions

I note that you invent a quote, this time about me: kindly make a direct quote where I would have attempted, as you falsely assert, "to frame religion as the problem".

My point is merely that religion is A problem. A big one, but just one among others.
Just on par with nationalism or racism.

[trotsky]

40. Apparently some people think dishonesty is something that must be tolerated.

Who knew?

[Albertoo]

57. Not sure where you're going. Not sure you know either.

I made some very simple claims:
- that you invented a quote 'from' the Quran
- that the texts of the 3 middle-eastern monotheism preach intolerance

You are making up false pretense claims around these two affirmations without addressing them. I can't add much as long as you do evade my two contentions, unless you have questions.

PS: your method of defending religions is odd
- you invent quotes from holy scriptures
- you do not know some basic tenets (your affirmation that the hadiths are commentary)

What you defend is actually how you wish religions to be, not what they are.

[trotsky]

59. You've pretty much described how most discussions with him go.

He likes to argue against a straw man non-believer he's created: someone who blames religion alone for all the world's problems, and blames all the followers of a religion for the actions of a few.

No matter how much you point out you haven't claimed either of those things, he'll keep beating up that straw man.

And this:

What you defend is actually how you wish religions to be, not what they are.

Couldn't be more spot on.

[Albertoo]

68. It would be interesting to quantitatively measure why people believe

Because, as you agreed, most believers do not do so on the basis of their texts which they twist and turn at will.

In this regard, the most chutzpah I ever observed was Tariq Ramadan telling Christopher Hitchens that what one found in the texts depended on what one had in one's own heart. I think Ramadan was trying to say that good people will always find good things in the holy books.

I never understood how Hitchens, with his quick biting irony, did not point out that if certain texts have no more meaning than what the readers bring, the texts are pretty much meaningless. Which they are. Except that they also add in reasons to be violent if one is inclined to search for excuses to be a psychopath. A la ISIS.

[trotsky]

73. Yes, that is the core contradiction at the heart of the argument guillaumeb tries to champion.

if certain texts have no more meaning than what the readers bring, the texts are pretty much meaningless.

In defending religion, he destroys it.

[trotsky]

7. Not all intolerance is bad. Why are you painting with such a broad brush?

We should be intolerant of slavery - don't you agree?

We should be intolerant of rape and sexual abuse, right?

[rug]

8. Yes, it is.

You are, deliberately, conflating intolerance, the unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own, or the unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group, with illegal acts.

Why is that, trotsky?

[rug]

12. It's hard to avoid a giant, flashing neon sign.

[Goblinmonger]

41. Are there not "opinions or beliefs" used to support slavery?

Even religious opinions or beliefs? What about the RCC and their disdain for the LGBTQ community. Those are sincerely held beliefs which come from religious doctrine. Should I be forced to tolerate a belief that gay marriage is of the devil or can I say the Pope is a fucking intolerant ass for saying that? He believes it. So does the RCC.

[guillaumeb]

10. An attempt at word play?

But to help you in your possible confusion, here is a definition of "intolerance".

1.
lack of tolerance; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own.
2.
unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/intolerance

So, following this particular source, intolerance is defined as an intellectual choice to not respect difference.

Your examples describe particular behaviors, and all of your cited behaviors are illegal.

And as I posted, intolerance can be motivated by a variety of factors, but any attempt to single out one particular factor as the "biggest" factor suggests to me an agenda.

[trotsky]

14. No, a request for clarification, since you didn't specify.

Is it OK to be intolerant of pedophiles? They have their own social group, and are definitely a minority.

Legality is not part of the definition you've offered, you seem to be engaging in special pleading. Interesting.

[guillaumeb]

19. No, you are ignoring what does not fit your predetermined narrative.

And ignoring the actual definition of intolerance. Perhaps you should reread it.

Your agenda is obvious.

[trotsky]

22. "you are ignoring what does not fit your predetermined narrative."

That is quite the criticism coming from you, given the predetermined narrative you operate under when it comes to religion. One I've demonstrated time and time again here, clearly much to your chagrin. Which is why you abandon every thread where it happens, only to try and start a new one to save face.

Looks like the pattern continues. Talk about obvious agendas.

[guillaumeb]

24. Yes, your intolerance for religion is obvious.

So the many posts by you about the problem of "intolerance" show your own intolerance in the posts.

Ironic, is it not?

[trotsky]

26. LMAO!

The pattern continues. Don't you get tired of being humiliated?

[guillaumeb]

29. Yes, your pattern of intolerance continues.

But change IS possible if you really wish to change.

[trotsky]

31. LMAO!

Honesty is possible, if YOU really wish to change.

You could start by apologizing for fabricating a quote from the Koran.

[saltpoint]

47. In my opinion, trotsky's pattern of

intelligence and perception is what continues, and this to the benefit of many others.

I count myself among them.

[Fix The Stupid]

49. Here, here! Believers get owned every day here. Comical. N/T

[saltpoint]

51. I spoke in support of trotsky's posts on

this site.

I invoke Forster in matters of belief / nonbelief / etc. He suggests that there is more than one path through the wilderness, that by and large people are overwhelmed by their own paths to acknowledge others' paths, but that in certain all too rarte ideal circumstances, the trick is to help someone else through the wilderness.

I have long respected in trotsky's posts here the mind of someone who is reflexively distrustful of dusty institutional thought, and who has the depth and range to gird his criticisms of those institutions.

The Catholic Church is not the only bully but it has done its share of bullying, most certainly. The responsibility to examine why this is so should fall primarily on the Church itself -- that church and others and other institutions generally -- to determine what individuals' relationship to power should be.

In Europe in the Second World War, one did not storm into a Gestapo office, slam one's fist on the front desk, and demand that they cease their atrocities visited against innocent citizens. If one did that, one would likely find one's ass in a freight car bound for Dachau within the half-hour.

Yet still, a conscionable person would not tolerate the presence and daily practice of the Gestapo, and could, bravery allowing, connect with the Underground, active in many European cities at the time, as a gesture against the violence, as a refusal to tolerate the intolerable.

[guillaumeb]

56. This

Yet still, a conscionable person would not tolerate the presence and daily practice of the Gestapo, and could, bravery allowing, connect with the Underground, active in many European cities at the time, as a gesture against the violence, as a refusal to tolerate the intolerable.

Yes, people could refuse to tolerate, but only a minority did so. And refusing to tolerate religious intolerance by being reflexively hostile to all religious belief demonstrates to me the same intolerance for difference that a poster claims to oppose.

Consistency helps when taking positions.

[saltpoint]

60. You make the discussion personal when the personal

Last edited Wed Oct 26, 2016, 10:59 PM - Edit history (1)

was culturally and politically imperiled. That is not a fair fight.

&quot O)nly a minority did so."

Absurd.

[guillaumeb]

64. In a dialogue such as this, viewpoints are advanced.

If, after much reading of the views of a particular poster, I arrive at a conclusion, that conclusion is based on my reading.

Fighting intolerance by exhibiting intolerance is counterproductive. Far better to examine why people are intolerant and attempt to counter that.

[saltpoint]

71. That's one navigation, but it does not respect

individual expression of the same set of circumstances.

Could one not disagree with someone's writing and work but still feel it is intellectually sturdy and insightful, feel that it is representative of authentic experience? What grounds do I have to take issue with Hemingway as a core-curriculum reading assignment based solely on my personal distaste for his writing?

None.

One of the functions of institutions is to derive power from general consensus. Fear of The Other often forms this consensus and provides the context for how power is manipulated. The Other, the Stranger, is to be feared by the village just as the individual objection is to be suppressed by the institutions manipulating the power.

I don't believe there is a convincing argument that suggests religious institutions are not neck-deep in that scam.

[guillaumeb]

54. An apt name.

[trotsky]

67. Ha! Back atcha, FTS.

[guillaumeb]

53. Deonstrating intolerance for religion is a positive?

And you do qualify by saying it is your opinion, but anyone who argues against religious intolerance by demonstrating intolerance of religion is being somewhat inconsistent.

At best.

[saltpoint]

55. If 'intolerance' is judged independent of those

exhibiting it, possibly, but not at all in the context you propose.

The issue is whether -- and how much -- power drives the intolerance, in what motivates a decision or impulse to limit, to isolate, to undermine, to censor, to kill.

[guillaumeb]

63. Now you are attempting to add to the stated idea that intolerance is a human condition.

Power is a factor when discussing institutions, but my point has been that intolerance as a behavior seems to be endemic to the human experience. And if intolerance is something seen in every human society, no one factor can be called the biggest factor. Yes, much violence has been done in the name of religion, and much violence has been done in the name of country. Is the solution to reflexively blame the concept of religion and country, or is the solution to educate people for alternatives to violence?

[saltpoint]

70. Whether a set of traits is endemic obscures

the relation of the individual to power and the individual to a society that wields it.

To the point of religions' role as bully, I don't see why that is even in dispute. The direction of the discussion is not whether other entities also bully, also isolate, also visit violence upon others. (By the way, Don Delillo's Underworld is an extraordinarily useful source for this question, but take a deep breath because the novel is lengthy.)

Again, power: Whose interests are served if an individual stands up for what is right (Rosa Parks) or marshalls others, inspires others to make a collective statement against institutional wrong-doing (Dr. King)? And is that individual or collective objection morally persuasive?

Societies can dial up (or down) on possible solutions "to educate people for alternatives to violence," but this is a precarious undertaking with no predictable outcomes. An accusation by the individual against institutional transgression, no matter the stripe, becomes a personal act, a political act. It would seem to me to be a justified act, spiritual or otherwise, and therefore, trotsky's assessment would be demonstrably true.

[guillaumeb]

75. Starting with your first assertion:

You state,

To the point of religions' role as bully, I don't see why that is even in dispute.

You are asserting that in your view, the role of religion is to bully. And you have the right to your personal opinion, but your opinion has no validity except as your opinion. And the direction of this particular post is that intolerance is the problem. You are free to digress, but your digression says nothing to the assertions made by the post.

Your next assertion that claims:

It would seem to me to be a justified act, spiritual or otherwise, and therefore, trotsky's assessment would be demonstrably true.

makes the point that raising an assertion of intolerance automatically confirms the assertion. I fail to see how making an unsubstantiated assertion that religion is the biggest bully becomes anything other than an unsubstantiated assertion.

[saltpoint]

76. I most certainly am asserting the role of

religions include bullying, and it most certainly is a personal opinion.

An earned one, if I may say so, and of evident historical foundation.

It was Rosa Parks' assertion that her money was as good as anybody else's, that her skin color should not occasion discrimination against her dignity, and that she would stay right where she was on that bus. I would say her opinion did indeed have 'validity.'

And it is not "unsubstantiated" that Rosa Parks did indeed ride that bus. She did indeed remain in her seat. Many still resist equality based on ethnic or racial grounds, but as to the actionability of personal opinion in the social context, I believe Rosa Parks was right and that her example, a personal opinion if ever there was one, won the argument.

[guillaumeb]

80. The role of any social construct is to provide a framework for social interaction.

religion, schools, the military, prison, are all social constructs. All have their own traditions, rules, behaviors.

I would argue that the primary function of religion is to establish how to live a good life. What constitutes good behavior varies from religion to religion. Reinforcing group norms is accomplished by many means. Bullying is a negative reinforcement. And no one is denying that it happens. But it also happens in every other social institution.

But if anyone makes the point that religion is the biggest bully, or religion is the biggest source of intolerance, is an assertion without evidence.

So because bullying and intolerance arise in all social institutions, every single one, is the only solution to encourage tolerance?

In my view, yes.

[saltpoint]

81. No, their role includes, but is not limited to, "a framework

for social interaction."

No individual is required to socially interact, much less to kowtow to established institutions. To be sure, there are penalties involved in challenging institutions, ranging from termination of employment to being nailed to a board in the first century.

And not least, bullying.

Institutions bully. They bring pressure to bear upon individual exception, upon individual challenge, and certainly upon philosophical or political challenge.

The Church is one such entity.

Your argument asks the individual vision to become a witless supplicant to the potential for and implementation of the abuse of power.

[guillaumeb]

83. Social groups are by their name groups of whatever makes up the society.

A flock of birds is a social group. As is a group of humans. And in any group, there are behavioral expectations.

And humans are social creatures. A young human requires many years of socialization/training/education. So one can say that "No individual is required to socially interact, much less to kowtow to established institutions" but what does that mean? Humans are not reptiles, which are independent from the egg. And humans require social interaction.

My interpretation of what little you have written in this thread is that you view socialization as a form of bullying. And if that is so, if you see socialization as a form of bullying, how would you construct your ideal society?

[saltpoint]

85. Humans like to believe that they are not

reptiles, the current Republican nominee for president notwithstanding, but in fact we are evolutionary creatures before we are social creatures, and the "reptile brain" is still a functional reality in human neurophysics.

See Robert Bly's Leaping Poetry: An Idea with Poems and Translations (Beacon Press).

The "new brain" aspires to peace, to exploration, to sensory enhancement. A mammal brain values community and strives to adhere to traditional instincts, such as feeding the young, the impulse to be warm in winter, collaboration to make the best of difficult times.

Institutions arise from socialization, by gradients of need and want. Unfortunately, power is not beholden to protective instincts, and will seek to thwart them if control is within reach. This implicates those institutions so-conceived.

The individual objection to that process as it forms, or as it is practiced, is the truer measure of self and a guidepost to society. the Third Reich was 'social interaction,' but its motivation and means were lethal to millions.

[guillaumeb]

86. If by "that process" you are referring to socialization,

how do you see social development?

A stifling of the inner individual?

To me, this sounds vaguely Randian, vaguely Libertarian in outlook. Given that all social constructs have rules and expectations, your ideal sounds anti-social.

So again, what do you see as the ideal type of society?

[saltpoint]

87. "While admitting to the worst of all possible

worlds, we must behave as if we could be the best of all possible people," says novelist Paul Horgan. He urged that we not lose ourselves in the gloom of philosophy.

Also from Nietzsche:

“The surest way to corrupt a young man is to teach him to esteem more highly those who think alike than those who think differently.”

-- a man who could be argued to have lost himself in the gloom of philosophy while forging a philosophy that leads many thinkers out of gloom and into self-empowerment.

Do societies bully individuals? They do. Do the institutions which rise out of societies bully? They do. The Church is without question one such institution. Some members of the Catholic Church (to single out one faith tradition) sought to hide Jewish children, this in several countries. Those who were found out were severely punished. At much higher levels of the Catholic hierarchy, there was overt collusion with Hitler.

There's an existential hum running through most things, including societies. An individual has the greater chance to achieve meaningful reform to a society while institutions have the greater power to resist that change.

[guillaumeb]

90. Interesting points, and in addition,

you end with:

An individual has the greater chance to achieve meaningful reform to a society while institutions have the greater power to resist that change.

An individual generally achieves meaningful reform by working to change existing social constructs. So institutions, like organisms, are capable of change. Or evolution.

[saltpoint]

91. But the resistance = intolerant of change

in the first place.

Absent that resistant, no action would be required.

[guillaumeb]

96. Resistance to change does not automatically equate with intolerance.

If an institution has a certain way of dealing with certain situations, simply announcing that one has a better way does not automatically guarantee that the better way will be immediately adopted. Sometimes people require proof that the change does represent better and not just different.

[saltpoint]

103. guillaumeb, when resistance to change

does in fact equate with intolerance, then the individual objection is the moral high ground.

[guillaumeb]

105. When the resistance is in spite of a change that has been proven to be better,

I will agree that intolerance for change is at work.

[saltpoint]

107. We could make a very long list of

people who were at the vanguard of meaningful reform. Some of them suffered for their vision and actions and words. But some prevailed.

Just one thought here from Kenneth Rexroth:

"Against the ruin of the world, there is only one defense -- the creative act."

And since that creative engagement can come in many forms, institutions resist such acts and punish such people.

Galileo could tell us all something about that dynamic.

[guillaumeb]

108. Galileo and Copernicus both.

I am currently reading Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel. A very interesting book about Galileo's relationship with his daughter and his struggles to defend his sun-centered universe against the Catholic hierarchy.

[saltpoint]

109. Good stuff, and you're doing it

right. Never mind how many U.S. Americans have not read a thoughtful story, or a poem, or a novel, or an essay, or much of anything else since 11th grade.

No wonder someone like Donald Trump has emerged as the GOP's presidential candidate. No wonder FOX News is the most-watched news source on cable.

On the Catholics, my quarrel is not with the graveyard shift nurse who brings skill and comfort to patients needing both, but with the up-top hierarchy who over many centuries have done much to hurt ordinarily people.

Stalin let his iron guard down rarely but in one instance is quoted as saying, "What Russia needed was ten St. Francis of Assissis."

[guillaumeb]

110. Trump is indeed evidence of emotion over understanding.

I have no problem reconciling my faith and science. Science explains natural processes, religion explains/defines my relationship to the Creator. And I respect both religion and science for the good that is done, while recognizing that bad outcomes can also arise from both.

[saltpoint]

111. The religious right, at least since the Nixon

years or so, has been problematic. In extreme cases, we get the Falwells and the Dobsons and that guy who handles rattlesnakes, etc.

There are quieter, less egotistic, and more zoologically aware fundamentalists, certainly, but we don't hear much from their quarters when their endorsed presidential candidate says, in front of cameras and microphones, that if elected he plans to "bomb the shit" out of ISIS.

At a certain point the guy who handles rattlesnakes appears to be more or an adult problem-solver than someone who would support a candidate who is so eager to drop bombs in the Middle East.

[guillaumeb]

112. The extremes receive more attention.

Allowing the media the present everything as some type of apocalyptical conflict. This also encourages division. All good for the 1% who ultimately benefit.

[trotsky]

66. Thank you for the kind words, saltpoint. n/t

[saltpoint]

69. Hey there.

[cleanhippie]

79. +1

[Goblinmonger]

42. The pope has said that gay marriage is from satan and will destroy the family.

He firmly believes that and it stems from the religion of which he is the flawless leader.

Do you tolerate that viewpoint?

[guillaumeb]

46. I disagree with that viewpoint. eom

[Fix The Stupid]

50. No, you're being 'intolerant' of their beliefs...

See how that works yet?

[guillaumeb]

58. No, you obviously do not.

I can appreciate that people have differing opinions without accepting the validity of those opinions.

I can accept that some Christians truly believe that the earth is approximately 5800 years old. But to accept that they believe it does not alter the fact that the Earth is many millions of years old.

And if I make fun of their beliefs, calling them names, what does that demonstrate about my own character?

Do you personally tolerate opinions that differ from your own?

[trotsky]

61. How intolerant of you. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

62. That sounds a lot like "unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs"

which you have done a lot of finger wagging about in this thread.

And you know that those here that speak out against the RCC do so because of the policies of the RCC and not because of some fear and hatred of papists. The RCC stance on LGBTQ rights is appalling. Apparently saying that, though, is intolerance in your, and other's, eyes.

[guillaumeb]

65. What I said a short time ago:

I

can appreciate that people have differing opinions without accepting the validity of those opinions.

I can accept that some Christians truly believe that the earth is approximately 5800 years old. But to accept that they believe it does not alter the fact that the Earth is many millions of years old.

And if I make fun of their beliefs, calling them names, what does that demonstrate about my own character?

Do you personally tolerate opinions that differ from your own?

If, having read this, you can say that I am intolerant of differing beliefs, you are free to do so.

And I am not arguing the position of the RCC here, I am arguing that meeting intolerance with mockery and intolerance is counterproductive.

As to the RCC and sexual issues, I reject the official policies regarding abortion, sexual orientation, and marriage. Catholics are free to accept or reject the official views of the RCC. And if polling can be trusted, a significant number of Catholics do reject the official RCC policies on these issues.

[trotsky]

74. The pope and his church...

are actively fighting against marriage equality, reproductive rights, and justice for raped children around the world.

It's great you can say that you appreciate their opinion on those things, but then what?

By opposing the church doing those things, by your standard we become intolerant.

[guillaumeb]

78. Not quite.

The RCC Church, the official Church if you will, is one thing. And those who run the Church do have the right to their opinions. I am not saying you become intolerant by opposing these positions that we both reject. I am saying that even if I disagree with someone's view, the person holding that view has a right to that view.

And I reject any attempt to label one social institution as "the biggest", "the worst", etc. Intolerance is a social construct.

[trotsky]

88. Yes that's all fine and dandy that we accept other people can have opinions.

We don't really have a choice in the matter - no one can force someone else not to think about something. That you've drawn your line in the sand at this, pretending that the straw man atheists you love to hate are somehow against anyone holding a differing opinion, is very strange, but it is certainly a position you can defend well. Mainly because no one is opposing you on that, but hey, I'm sure you can use a boost after the long string of defeats you've had on here. Better than making up quotes, that's for sure!

However, where we run into problems - and why people are disagreeing with you on this thread - is that not many people are content with just thinking about their opinions. Opinions about how society should be run, what behaviors are acceptable, what are not, etc. - all these opinions are going to conflict. So what happens when someone's opinion has to win, and someone's has to lose? You've set it up so that if I oppose your opinion being made into law, that I'm intolerant. Well that works both ways, you do realize, right? In playing fast and loose with the word "intolerant" you've also made it apply to yourself.

[guillaumeb]

92. Your agenda and style of argument are hereby noted.

[trotsky]

94. Ah yes, your standard answer when you've been shown to be wrong.

Totally expected.

[Iggo]

16. Ayup.

[Iggo]

15. I tolerate religious bullshit all the live-long day. (n/t)

[guillaumeb]

20. As I do with non-religious nonsense. eom

[Iggo]

27. Oh, yeah, the nonsensical stuff is the worst, right?

[guillaumeb]

32. What IS interresting/ironic/illuminating

is that some of the responses to this post clearly demonstrate an intolerance for religion. Or at least the Abrahamic religions, if one relies on the selective quotes from three sources.

So apparently some responders feel that intolerance for all religion is better than religious intolerance for different beliefs.

Ironic indeed, and illustrative of the truth of the post.

[Iggo]

34. I hate, hate, HATE religion. I tolerate it, because it's not going anywhere.

But I hate the fucking fuck out of it.

[guillaumeb]

36. I appreciate your tolerance in spite of your hate. It says a lot about you.

Why do you hate religion?

[immoderate]

82. So why post it in the Religion group?

I'll assert that: We should not tolerate intolerance!*

[rule]____________________________________________
*Unless it is warranted!!

--imm

[guillaumeb]

84. It was posted partially in response to another post, partly to illustrate

that focusing on one particular institution, religion in this case, is indicative to me of an agenda. Thus choosing this group.

[trotsky]

89. Christ on a popsicle stick.

As has been pointed out to you countless times now, this is the Religion group. It's where Religion and its effects are discussed. You might as well go barge into the Gun group and demand to know why everyone there only focuses on guns and not other weapons, FFS.

What it really seems like instead is that you don't want people to discuss religion and its role in society in anything other than a positive way. Whenever anyone fails to do that, you accuse them of having "an agenda." Hell yeah, it's called posting in the Religion group to talk about religion. How wildly inappropriate!

[guillaumeb]

93. Perhaps you misread the original question posted by another responder.

Understandable. We all do it at times.

[trotsky]

95. I read it perfectly well.

It is you who is apparently not understanding.

[guillaumeb]

97. Given that the question was asked as to why I posted in "religion",

and given that this was my response:

It was posted partially in response to another post, partly to illustrate
 
that focusing on one particular institution, religion in this case, is indicative to me of an agenda. Thus choosing this group.

I fail to understand your confusion as to why I answered as I did.

[trotsky]

98. "focusing on one particular institution, religion in this case, is indicative to me of an agenda"

Just answer me one question then:

How can it be an "agenda" to focus on the institution of religion when someone is posting in the Religion group?

[guillaumeb]

99. If an individual concentrates on posting negative stories about religion,

and if an individual constantly focuses on the supposed intolerance of religion and believers,
One might be forgiven for inferring that such an individual has a generalized dislike/hatred/intolerance for religion, and by implication and extension, believers.

Now such an inference is not, of course, proof in the scientific or legal sense, it is merely an inference.

[trotsky]

100. The "supposed" intolerance of religion and believers?

And right there you betray YOUR agenda. To defend religion at all costs, including simply accusing someone who doesn't fawn over it constantly of having an "agenda."

Thank you - that was brilliant.

[guillaumeb]

101. And add to "the supposed intolerance"

to selectively pick only negative articles. Like the post about believers and ability, a misreading of an article to support an agenda.

My agenda is to agree to disagree with some people on some issues. But I do not feel the need to demonstrate that those with whom I disagree are necessarily intolerant. I accept that people believe differently about issues.

[trotsky]

102. And back you go to the straw man. You sure did show that fictitious atheist guy that you hate.

However, given your documented history of fabricating quotes and positions in order to advance YOUR agenda (and absolute refusal to apologize for doing so), any claim from you must be taken with a grain of salt.

But since it's an accusation from you, then hell yeah, I'm proud to have an agenda. Proud to present the other side of the story when people like yourself refuse to even admit it exists. For the longest time, people like you didn't have to bother with accusing people like me of having an "agenda," people like you just burned people like me at the stake for DARING to speak out against religion.

I'm glad to live here and now where you don't have that kind of power. But sad that the same attitude and viciousness still exists, even among people who like to portray themselves as tolerant, when they are really anything but.

[guillaumeb]

104. Do you live in 17th century America?

Burning at the stake?

This is the counterpart to some Christians who write as if they were literally in hiding because of the supposed war on religion.

[trotsky]

106. Of course not, which is why I said:

I'm glad to live here and now where you don't have that kind of power. But sad that the same attitude and viciousness still exists, even among people who like to portray themselves as tolerant, when they are really anything but.

[Jim__]

72. Well said!

We can all see other people's faults. Sometimes it is hard to see our own. Open conversations with people whose views we disagree with may help us to change their views and may also help us to recognize some of our own faults. A somewhat old column from the Opinionator, Of Cannibals, Kings and Culture, talks a little bit about this.

An excerpt:

In August of 1563, Michel de Montaigne, the famous French essayist, was introduced to three Brazilian cannibals who were visiting Rouen, France, at the invitation of King Charles the Ninth. The three men had never before left Brazil, had just been subjected to a long interrogation by the king (who was 13 years old at the time), and if they had not already contracted some dangerous European illness, they were surely undergoing a rather severe case of culture shock. Despite this, they still had enough poise to lucidly respond to Montaigne’s questions about what they thought of their new surroundings.

The observations shared by the native Brazilians have a certain comical quality. Because they looked on French society with such fresh eyes, their observations make the familiar seem absurd. But they are also morally revealing. First, the Brazilians expressed surprise that “so many tall, bearded men, all strong and well armed” (i.e., the king’s guard) were willing to take orders from a small child: something that would have been unthinkable in their own society. And second, the Brazilians were shocked by the severe inequality of French citizens, commenting on how some men “were gorged to the full with things of every sort” while others “were beggars at their doors, emaciated with hunger and poverty.” Since the Brazilians saw all human beings “as halves of one another… they found it strange that these poverty-stricken halves should suffer such injustice, and that they did not take the others by the throat or set fire to their houses.”

Montaigne records these observations in an essay entitled, “Des Cannibales.” Well ahead of its time, the essay challenges the haughty denigration of cannibals that was so common among Montaigne’s contemporaries, but not by arguing that cannibalism itself is a morally acceptable practice. Instead, Montaigne makes the more provocative claim that, as barbaric as these Brazilian cannibals may be, they are not nearly as barbaric as 16th-century Europeans themselves. To make his case, Montaigne cites various evidence: the wholesome simplicity and basic nobility of native Brazilian life; the fact that some European forms of punishment — which involved feeding people to dogs and pigs while they were still alive — were decidedly more horrendous than the native Brazilian practice of eating one’s enemies after they are dead; and the humane, egalitarian character of the Brazilians’ moral sensibility, which was on display in their recorded observations.

The fact that, despite all this, 16th-century Western Europeans remained so deeply convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority was, to Montaigne, evidence of a more general phenomenon. He writes:

We all call barbarous anything that is contrary to our own habits. Indeed we seem to have no other criterion of truth and reason than the type and kind of opinions and customs current in the land where we live. There we always see the perfect religion, the perfect political system, the perfect and most accomplished way of doing everything.

[guillaumeb]

77. What an interresting citation. Thanks for the link.

And this:

We all call barbarous anything that is contrary to our own habits. Indeed we seem to have no other criterion of truth and reason than the type and kind of opinions and customs current in the land where we live. There we always see the perfect religion, the perfect political system, the perfect and most accomplished way of doing everything.

illustrates the cultural basis of intolerance. The "us" versus "them" that is the basis of intolerance for "the other".