We tolerate the Christian Conservatives, why can't they tolerate us?

And by 'us', I mean anyone who AIN'T a white, protestant, anglo saxon, Southern Baptist or Charismatic Evangelical, Born Again, Republican Christian Conservative, and we are legion.

They don't tolerate Muslims, they barely tolerate Catholics and Jews, they see Mormons as Martians, they SWEAR that Allah is not the same God of Abraham that they worship, they look at atheists as if they were pedophiles out to rape their children, and they are just generally intolerant of anyone not exactly like them, yet we tolerate their bullshit all the time.

I love America's rich mixture of cultures and religions, but THEY hate it, they can't stand the idea of a mosque or temple across the street from their mega church. They can't stand the idea of their children being exposed to new religions unlike their own, they secretly wish we would all just go to hell and suffer forever.

We all put up with pat and jerry's bullshit, but they just can't stand putting up with us, as we are, they want to make us all over like them, they just can't tolerate any deviation from their dogma. They can't tolerate uppity women, or uppity blacks, or challenges to their authority, they wish they could rid the world of homosexuals, atheists, and just anyone they deem a non believer.

We should not tolerate this kind of un-American intolerance, we should take charge and be wary of pat robertson and his demonic followers, they really are out to get us, and to make us all go away, they are so deluded, they think they can actually make this happen.

Not a lot of tolerance on display...

I think falwell is the reason the right has such intolerance. Falwell preached hate and intolerance for so many years. His legacy is the Christofacist.

Got the name, got the fame, fuck the rest.

Is that the kind of person you tolerate?

Learn the difference between "tolerance" and "repression."

We DO NOT tolerate Christian Conservatives. This thread is ridiculous.

See, I don't go to their houses and burn things on their lawn, nor do I wait for their elderly to get off a bus so I can beat them up with a pipe. I don't seek to add amendments to our Constitution to take away their rights. I don't tell them they're less than human, or that their relationships are evil, or that they should die of a horrible disease because that's "God's will."

I tolerate them, as human beings, fine. That doesn't mean I can't criticize their ridiculous beliefs or work to stop them from interfering in my life and my freedoms. Honestly, your definition of "tolerance" reminds me of conservatives who claim that Democrats are "intolerant" of religious people because we won't support their efforts to be intolerant of others!

I don't think there was anything wrong with the OP.

have his say. That's what he would have done.

Dancing on his grave was not "intolerance." That would have been doing what he did in reverse, i.e., saying his opinions were such that he should not be allowed to express them, that he should leave the U.S., you know, the sorts of things he said about people who did not agree with him.

The subject of politics came up. He said he could not vote for the queers. I said, you think it's more christian to vote for a giggling murderer who starts wars based on lies? He walked out saying you can't say anything that will change my mind. I hate these close minded bastards!

these people have no minds of their own.

different than falwells prejudice and bigotry how?

Or, is it ok because "they" do it?

An observation about people who just do and think what they are told to do and think. Obviously, not all people who follow a religion are like that.

I'm still not sure I'm clear on this- and I'm glad you recognize that not all people who follow a religion or all people in ANY "group" are 'anything' good- bad- indifferent, based solely on their classification as part of a 'group'

Making blanket judgements about individuals based on the unbiased observation of 'groups' is bigotry- is prejudice, is wrong= and unfair.- No matter who does it.

Don't you think??

Thanks for your reply.
peace,
blu

a blanket judgement. I was talking specifically of the people who refuse to think for themselves and just let their churches (for example) do it for them.

meat of your statement generally, but how do you know which "religious people" are refusing to "think for themselves" and how do you make sure when you condemn a 'group' that you are only getting those who you INTEND to target???

Prejudice is born like this- from my own experience.

I hope to learn how to live more a more ...genuine...life than this offers... and to encourage others to consider it themselves-
Maybe it will never happen, but if we don't try, we can be assured of more of the same old same old, and that is just too hopeless for me to be able to face waking up to in the morning-

Thanks for your thoughts.
peace
blu

everyone who falls in that category, which is why I never assume that someone is like that right off the bat. When they say things like the litigious comment upthread, though, that's a very good indication.

used caution me about my "vague specifics"- :silly:

hey- thanks for exchanging ideas- it is good to listen to each other. Especially when we don't see I to I.

peace,
blu

Have a good day :)

Delete that and insert any other group of any kind.

My spin: it should be illegal under the law to discriminate against ANY group, and punishable by law if they do so.

They have outsourced their thinking.

--IMM

Reason is not a part of their equation. Everyone else is expected to accept their irrational approach to life. The fundies see themselves as the 19th century English morality police.

animals for that matter-

Anything different is suspect and of questionable value.

Sad but true-

Watch a box of chicks peck the ones who 'stand out' to death- It could be because of size, or color- what ever makes the 'victim' stand out as an "exception" can fuel a "mass murder".

:shrug:

There are people all over this board who are blinded by hate. For some here tolerance is as far from their capabilities as it was from Falwell's. But that is ok...right? I guess it falls under the two wrongs make a right...

sP

gimme an effin break.

in the direction of any one with almost any religious bent is what you would call tolerant? Interesting definition...

sP

at the same time that I swear to uphold their right to practice it.
I further agree that I frequently state that the religious indoctrination of yutes and ein jungers is tantemount to child abuse, yet I will not propose, nor support a ban on parents being able to raise their kids as they see fit (within the obvious limitations).

I do think (as compared to too many religious folk) that religions are inherently evil, that the religious suffer from some mental illness which makes irrational behavior such as prayer much more common among them. I also agree with the studies that show those who self describe their faith as critical to their existance, also suffer from signifcantly higher levels of mental illness as measured by the DSM-IV-TR.

But, our society tolerates religions, so it is their right to practice.

how you square your 'tolerant' view of all 'religion'.... how to ask this-

... You say that 'the religious suffer from "some mental illness" and that the group that they belong to is "inherently evil"- and you don't see any problem saying this, or defending the bigotry it embodies-??? Your brush is quite broad indeed. Are you sure this is what you mean to say?


There are many different individuals in any 'group'- to say that a person is "mentally ill" simply by virtue of the fact that they may be considered to be "religious" is incredibly unfair, to both the "mentally ill" as a group, and to "the religious". It is also untrue.

It is surprising to me, that so many people seem to decry labeling people- the bigotry and prejudice that sterotyping brings, except when it is something they as individuals do????

How does this not lower society yet another step into the abyss???

And what is "evil" ? Who defines and judges what is and isn't "evil"? Why?

I'm a regular church goer and have at times been offended by some of the anti-christian comments on this board but I see a big difference between some guy in his pajamas telling me I suck on a BBS and someone trying to make my lifestyle illegal the way so many fundies work day and night to make anything they disagree with illegal. I don't know of anyone on the "anti-religious" side actually wanting to make my religion illegal.

And even short of that, I don't see atheists hooking fundies up to the truck bumper and dragging them around town until they are dead -- or spray painting fundie houses, or beating them up at school or or or.

who don't claim to be 'fundies' (would they then be potential atheists by your definition?) who have tied people to their vehicles and dragged a person around until he died- They didn't do it because they were "fundies" They did it because they didn't see the man as a person every bit like them- What ever the "group" they may have put him in (in the case I'm talking about it was the color of his skin) somehow in their twisted thinking made it ok to do this to a fellow human being, and feel somehow "ok" with it- even more than ok-

Prejudice starts with attitude. It starts with believing that another human is not entitled to be seen as the individual they are, but to be Pre-judged, and prematurely classified as either 'special' or 'suspect'- Society does it all the time. And it is the source of an enormous amount of suffering and death.

How can I know who you are if I don't even know you??? Can I use arbitrary "measures" to classify you as worthy or not? Is this the way the world should operate? If not, where do we start the change?

peace,
blu

Please consider- what was done to Matt Shepherd and Mr Byrd was 100% illegal- The actions taken by the individuals who tortured and murdered these men were criminal actions. It isn't the "LAW" that really changes things- Out lawing religion isn't what I'd use as a warning beacon if I were you- It is the promotion of attitudes that encourage people to hate and pre-judge GROUPS of people unfairly.


:hi:

his desire to turn this country into a theocracy...

sP

in my grandmother's nursing home who thought she was on a cruise. At worst, of course, it's the crusades and the Spanish inquisition and 9/11. I hate fundamentalism for the same reasons I hate fascism: both are utterly intolerant of dissent and difference. I despise theocrats because if they had their way, I'd be executed or thrown in jail for no crime other than my non-belief in their mythology. And I don't have much use for proselytizers of any stripe: their basic assumptions (that their beliefs are better than my non-belief, and that I need to hear about it) are completely arrogant and completely incorrect.

I don't try to stop them or change them and I never organized any movements against them, yet, they have done all these things to me. I tolerate them just fine, and I occassionally bitch about them.

the words to endure without repugnance...and many MANY here have a total disdain for those who believe differently than they do...which is exactly what you are blaming christian conservatives for...

sP

If they could just keep it "in the family" and leave me and the government out of it, then every thing's jake.

But they can't and they won't. EVERYONE has to believe, act and vote the way THEY DO or they have to MAKE IT SO.

I have ZERO disdain for anyone's religious beliefs: HELL, I've even stopped calling them "Religious Myths." I think that's pretty damned tolerant of me, but as you know, that's not enough for THEM.

Disdain is a PRIVATE thing. I can have all the disdain for you and what you believe IN MY HEAD, but only as long as you LEAVE ME and mine ALONE.

If NOT ENDURING someones' evangelizing is part of "intolerance," then yeah, I guess you'll have to sign me up.

But why should we endure without repugnance those who seek to eradicate all deviation from their norms?

what they are doing to our constitution!

and an individual who fostered, relished in and profited off of the divisions and ignorance at that.

though I believe many here went overboard during his 'wake'. However, christians of all shapes and sizes are constantly trashed on this board...not terribly tolerant...

sP

I grew up with a fundamentalist, ordained Assemblies of God preacher as a father. As an adult I've come to the conclusion that it is not what I believe, and I'm an agnostic/atheist, whatever you want to call me. I have nothing in common with my family theologically, but I am not intolerant of them, nor are they of me.

Be strong in your beliefs and the insults or perceived insults shouldn't bother you.

disagreeing with beliefs...the slings and arrows do not bother me other than to see the hyposcrisy of claiming tolerance...

sP

And I assume you are not one of them or you wouldn't be here with the rest of 'us'.

they really are just different from you. And it is ok to be intolerant of some folks and their ideals...just don't claim to be tolerant when you are not. Hell, I am very intollerant of the likes of Fred Phelps. He and his brood make my stomach turn. My level of tolerance of him rises simply to the level of allowing him to continue because that is what this country was founded on...the right to practice your religion in any size shape and form you see fit as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others to do so.

sP

no one should be allowed to say that their way of thinking is the only way any one should be allowed to think (or act). That part of Falwell and his group should not be tolerated...he wanted to make this country into a theocracy...and that should NEVER be allowed.

sP

edit for too much coffee...

So then we will only be moderately intolerant.

The state of the Democratic Party in the year 2007.

I won't participate in that exercise, thanks.

they hate us for our freedoms

of thought, that is.

Their inability to tolerate anyone perceived to be different is based on a deep-seeded recognition that their own positions are irrational, unsustainable, and can only survive, in the face of all contrary fact, by an extreme act of faith. That requires them to act unnaturally, in that the last bits and pieces of moraily, ethics, and logic must be erased from their own consciousness. Seeing those attributes in others just drives them even more nuts.

it is the "cult" phenomenon

believe in this illogical story and you're "in" - but reject ANY "outsider" point of view (since it might lure you to the land of the logical)

keep insisting that you "believe", reciting the mantra, and you'll be one of the in crowd (saved, not "left behind", etc)

not that different from teenagers insisting on dressing like the popular kids, pitching a fit when mom wants them to do something logical - or not do something illogical - because "everybody is doing it" and "I'll be sooooo six months ago if I wear THAT!"

These people are brainwashed to reject rational thought - some from birth, others recruited later as a result of various disappointments in life. Once they are "in" they are generally "turned" irreversibly. And antagonism toward those who are not "in" is part of teh cult mentality. It's how the cult leaders keep them in line.

We don't tolerate them. Just look at some of the comments on this board.

Actually, I'm a little incorrect here: many people on this board don't tolerate ANY Christian and lump us all within the confines of "fundamentalists," whether we are or not. (Hint: It's NOT tolerant to tell someone they are "living in a fantasy world" or claim that they "believe in imaginary beings." It's NOT tolerant to stereotype and assume a Christian would be against abortion rights or for the unjust wars.)

I wish we were a little more tolerant and patient with people who don't see things as we do - it would go a long way toward bringing them around from the brainwashing they've received from the media and the right. Because, quite honestly, other than the abortion rights issue, Democrats actually believe in more things that would be seen as "Christian" by these people than the Republicans do (Jesus believed in caring for one's neighbor, in helping the poor, in avoiding war, etc).

I believe in freedom of religion, unless one particular religion begins to absorb the whole world.

I was responding to the "we" part. There are some on this board who aren't tolerant of any religion and some who aren't tolerant of only the Christian or Jewish or Muslim or whatever religion.

First, our optical system is among the worst of all animal life on this planet. Our ears are pathetic, most animals hear far better than we. our sense of smell is miserable. Our sense of taste is pathetic. Our hearing is deaf to all but a very limited range and strength. Our sense of touch is even worse.

Add to that, our brains shut down and ignore our senses 90% of the time. Can you imagine if you automatically felt your clothing 100% of the time? you'd go nuts.
So, we limit input that our brains get. We have limited information to process before that. We are easily distracted and we think alot about sex. with all that going on, it is clear that we create our own realities, and a great deal of it is fantasy, because our brains fill in the blanks where our knowledge or senses are missing. In fact, that tendency to fill in the blanks in knowledge and understanding with fantasy is precisely how Religions were born. out of ignorance. and maintained by ignorance.

Luckily, most rational people realize that ignorance can be solved by education. unfortunately, the religious believers refuse to be educated, and prefer blind faith and self-imposed ignorance. .

it by lumping all religious believers together.

I'm religious, but I'm educated. I don't prefer "blind faith" and I don't use self-imposed ignorance.

If you had said "some" religious believers, your argument would hold water.

I happen to believe in both Christianity AND evolution. I don't read the Bible literally. I read it as parables used to give me examples regarding the process. I don't think God created the world in seven days, for example. I think God created the elements that created life and evolution and free will.

See?

>>>I happen to believe in both Christianity AND evolution. I don't read the Bible literally. I read it as parables used to give me examples regarding the process. I don't think God created the world in seven days, for example. I think God created the elements that created life and evolution and free will.<<<

I've been wanting to share my tradition of faith as such, but wasn't sure of being able to continue an expression of my beliefs effectively for lack of time/being able to cite references timely.

I find not having the ability to 'abide MYSELF' continually. (Y'all can fill in the smilie of yer choice here!)

P_P

:dem:

I don't care one whit what someone BELIEVES as long as it doesn't effect ANYTHING that I do.

That's NOT a big request.

I have to say this: when "we" complain about "Christians" it's usually for some very specific reason, and usually related to the "flat, 6000 year old, Noah-rescued-everyone-from-the-flood" crowd, and usually someone from that crowd who absolutely INSISTS that I must believe everything THEY do.

If you don't fall into that category, then hey, we are not talking about YOU.

"We" on this board are NOT all tolerant of religions. You may be. I may be. The OP may be, but there are a lot of people on this board who aren't.

I have no problem with the imaginary beings statements. That is only disbelief. Disbelief, or a statement thereof is one thing. Ridicule and statements like 'religious people are all crazy' are another. It is also ironic that these rationalists who believe in science and fact, or say they do, think they win arguments with ridicule, when ridicule does not prove anything except the contempt of the ridiculer.

And the OP says he was talking only about Rightwing fundies, and not all Christians. But that is beside the point. Intolerance of Rightwing fundies was clearly evidence. How are they intolerant, except by saying "nasty" things about certain activities - promiscuity, homosexual acts, and abortion, etc.? Doesn't everybody say "TOBAL" (There Oughta Be A Law) about alot of things? Isn't that a basic American right? And we believe people to be evil for exercising those rights just because we disagree with them?

First off, some Christians on this board get hives when fundamentalist right-wing Christians are criticized, or take criticism of the Rapture Crowd or 6,000 year old young-Earth creationism as attacks on them and their beliefs personally.

Yet with the almost the same breath, they will continually remind us that "those people" don't speak for ALL Christians. And on that, I agree. But you can't have it both ways. You can't argue that your Christianity has nothing to do with the Creation Museum, prayer in school, ban-the-birth-control pill and stone the gays crowd, and then flip the fuck out whenever someone here criticizes or makes fun of those guys, taking it as a personal attack on you.

To wit, as an outspoken unbeliever, I'm always hearing from the "persecuted Christians" on DU... But when challenged, most seem pretty unwilling or unable to come up with examples of the broad-brush slams which so many are supposedly guilty of, around here. You and I had an interchange a few days ago, where I had made fun of the people who genuinely believe the Earth is 6,000 years old- nowhere implying, in any way shape or form, that that was "all Christians". Yet you took it that way, and I challenged you to show me where I had said anything like that at all. If you see criticism of Creationists, Intelligent Design "scientists", flat Earthers or the folks who think Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark, and take that as a personal attack on YOUR worldview, I'm sorry sister, but that's YOUR problem.

Now, on to your other point: Personally, I would never take it upon myself to tell someone that, because they were religious, they "believe in imaginary beings". Not per se. However (and this is a VERY important distinction) because so many believers, even here, feel compelled to enter debates about the scientific merits of teaching concepts like "God" and "creation" in science class, you bet your bippy it is a legitimate rejoinder to say that, for instance, you can no more "prove" the non-existence of unicorns, leprechauns, the Wizard of Oz, or Zeus, than you can do so with "God". If this upsets you, that's unfortunate, but again it is an inevitable consequence of trying to drag something inappropriate, i.e. religious faith, into an arena it doesn't belong, i.e. provable scientific fact.

And beyond that, while I have never told (as far as I'm aware) anyone flat out that their God is "imaginary", I have been told- by you, even, unless I'm mistaken- that, in no uncertain terms, "God" exists, I just haven't figured that out yet. Why is "God exists" any less of a bigoted, intolerant statement than "God doesn't exist?" Why is it insulting or offensive for us to state our beliefs, but not so for you to state yours? We've got plenty of people here who will defend the right of door-to-door proselytizers to spread the "good news" to uninterested people during their dinner, but many of those same folks go apopleptic when an atheist actually has the temerity to say something along the lines of, "there is no more physical or scientific evidence for 'God' than there is for gnomes which fix people's shoes at night while the cobbler is asleep".

Personally, I would preface wide ranging statements of belief (as opposed to ones pertaining to physical evidence) with "I believe".. Like, "I believe that gods are imaginary". That's my style, and I really don't want to disparage other people's belief systems. I think people have their own minds and heads so that they can figure out the universe for themselves- it's not my job to do it for them...

But it is no more "intolerant" to say "God is a figment of your imagination" than it is to say "God exists, even if you deny his presence". Both statements are sort of insulting, frankly.

...Get it?

We can't wish characteristics we want them to have onto them. They're also not very smart as a whole, and there's not a lot we can do about that either.

Here:
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/
and especially here:
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/nationasfamily/nationasfamily

I just don't have time for the synopsis right now. (I'm trying to avoid Posting While In A Hurry {PWIAH}. That's when I tend to write things I don't really mean or just am inaccurate.)

but I have been a registered democrat and a union member all my adult working life, so I'm going to HELL, according to Jerry. I'm terrorized by Jerry's Jazuz!

EDIT...I'm a hellbound yellow dog democrat and proud of it.

What specific course of action are you proposing?

Just tighten up the restrictions, and re focus on the true meaning of seperation.

:eyes:

They are Calvinists. A theology clearly made by the devil.

this isn't about anything except fear and power.

fear of women, fear of sex, fear of brown people -- and fear of losing control.

They believe that good and evil are fixed. That their doctrine informs them of these things in absolute terms. They believe that anything that turns society or individuals from these truths are evil as well and destructive to society. And most of all the believe they are correct.

With such a belief system how could they react to progressive society in any other way? Progressive society is indeed destructive to everything they believe to be good. Many aspects of our society are tearing away at their belief system. Science is knocking the foundation out from under them and progressive moral codes are stripping their proclomations of divine moral authority from the beliefs. In many ways they are struggling for survival against this society.

Here is the problem we have. We believe in tolerance. We believe that everyone has an equal voice in this society. But we also happen to believe in learning from things and applying what we learn to our society. This means we believe in our society changing. But this creates an untenable situation for those who do not agree with the lessons we learn from our experiences.

How does a society that proclaims tolerance for ideas deal with a subset of the community that does not believe in tolerance?

I have had my Brother's family and my Aunt's family taken away when they changed from Catholic to Con Christian.
All of a sudden we were looked at as Idol worshipers and the Pope's evildoers. We couldn't believe it. Our family dates back to Italy for 1000's of years,and Catholic for more than 1 of them!
They will have no tolerance of anything that is different from their beliefs.
We are not welcome anymore.

your Brother, and your Aunt made CHOICES. And the reality that they chose a group of people over their own family, their own flesh and blood has got to be incredibly painful, and sad.

It is easier to accept if you can place fault on "an institution" or a "group" but no one handcuffed your loved ones- no one threatened to murder them if they didn't comply- They CHOSE to participate in something that you (wisely IMO) choose not to follow or to claim to be accepting of, in order to maintain a relationship.

I'm sorry you are dealing with this- I am too. But it is my loved ones choice, and my own refusal to compromise my own values which keeps us apart. We can't control others- that is what much organized religion attempts to do- people have free will, and make choices that impact much more than just "them"-

I wish you peace,
blu

He also hates Democrats with "a passion".

:hug:
blu

>>>How does a society that proclaims tolerance for ideas deal with a subset of the community that does not believe in tolerance?<<<

By being vocal, by attempting to have reasonable discourse w/ 'those'
(improbable w/fanatics), by being watchmen & women--taking steps to insure that
this country doesn't land in an extreme state run by extremists. I've been Dem since 18 and a believer since 40 days old, which is not to say I'm wonderful. I am the chief of 'sinners'. I find that what the Democratic way espouses (should espouse) is aligned more w/ my faith beliefs than any other. What has evolved in this land is scary, but not immune from a reversal.

I am expressing myself in the best of my capacity.

P_P

As progressive society continues to undermine their teachings they do experience a real threat to their existence. By advocating all the louder you diminish their world all the quicker. Everything reasonable and decent that can be done only serves to dismantle their world view.

There is this thing called the Social Contract. It is an unwritten code of behavior in societies such as ours where in everyone agrees to let everyone else have a say and let them be as long as the written rules are obeyed. But as the fundamentalists are pressed further and further into the corner the benefit of abiding by the social contract become less reasonable. Thus they use what political clout they can muster and use it to discard the social contract and attempt to override the rights that we all are guaranteed by the social contract and the bill of rights.

That is the damage that has been done. They employ the pulpit for preaching politics. Considered a serious and huge no-no by the faith I embrace. Users & abusers of beautiful tenets meant to save & preserve, but having the opposite message as delivered. I've said enough. Like June, my 'righteous indignation' will be bustin' out all over.

P_P

believing you are any different than "them"-

read your words carefully, and see if you can see what I'm driving at:



True tolerance isn't "putting up with" it is ACCEPTANCE- giving people the room and freedom to be themselves.

It doesn't require you approving of another persons life- OR choices.

It doesn't mean biting your lip when in their presence, then speaking 'less than kind' thoughts behind the back of those you believe to be 'less than' your equal- (it doesn't matter what "THEY" do- what do YOU do?)

There are bigoted, intolerant, hate-filled people who claim a religious connection, and those who claim that they have NO religion. We can't hide behind the "group" shield, and fool ourselves- can we? If I claim to be 'tolerant' and then say "they are out to get me, so I need to watch out for "them" who am I fooling??? Do I need the "flock" to band together with me and defeat "them"? how is that any different from what I am claiming "they" want to do to me?

We need to take PERSONAL responsibility for our own individual actions, and stop allowing the world to be divided into "us" and "them". It is, when you come right down to it- Me- and We.

something to think about?

peace,
blu

people who are trying to destroy the republic and replace it with a theocracy. Period.

I'll quote the late and GREAT Senator Paul Wellstone:

"Sometimes you've got to start a fight to win one."

others.

The root of intolerance is almost always traced back to simple minded ignorance and narrow minded thinking. Mostly narrow minded thinking. That type of mentality of "Only those things that I believe to be true can in fact be true in reality". Doesn't matter which direction the intolerance is coming from.

Under our Constitution, we all have the right to believe (or not believe) as we choose. That right ends at the beginning of the next person's right to do the same. The difficulty is with those who do not respect that right and try to force others to follow their religion/myth system through change of laws or infiltration of offices.

The Dominionists/Fundamentalists are threatened by any changes to their authoritarian medieval world view. These changes include civil rights, womens' rights, gay rights and application of current scientific knowledge. In fact, they are challenged by anything outside their fixed world view. They are simply a sad bunch, and to be pitied, even by good Christians, who should see that the Fundamentalists have become like the Pharisees of the NT.

I can't hate them, I just feel sorry for them. However, when they start to step on my rights of belief/not belief, then I am forced to act.

They don't tolerate Buddhists, either. But that is their own karma.

I live in Alabama so if I didnt atleast tolerate (not choke the life out of) them I couldnt leave my house.

bring our country down...fuck 'em.

"And by 'us', I mean anyone who AIN'T a white, protestant, anglo saxon, Southern Baptist or Charismatic Evangelical, Born Again, Republican Christian Conservative, and we are legion."

Are you saying any of those groupins in not "us" or are you defining "they" as having all thosre characteristics?

I mean can someone be a part of we if they are a charismatic, Born Again, evangelical liberal?

And the majority of them are white, protestant, republican Christian conservatives who adored jerry and see pat robertson as a man working directly for Jesus in our government.

Because we certainly be accepting of liberal Christians of all theological stripes.

On a wide range of issues, including religion, they just don't like radical extremists or zealots.

Either? Both? or only when they are hopelessly interwoven?

In a town every man either shaves himself, or is shaved by the barber. So who shaves the barber? Similarly, if we are tolerant, don't we therefore end up tolerating intolerance?

One solution I've seen, states that other elements are omitted, such as time. Is he the barber 24 hours a day? Are we tolerant when a mosquito is chomping down on some juicy flesh.

When they are dormant, or just bloviating, we support their rights, but when they are acting intolerantly, we rise to the defense of others. The most adamant right to life supporter has to be in favor of killing diseases. :shrug: Unless they're really stupid, which calls for intervention.

--IMM

Authoritarianism starts with these groups; their 'seemingly incorruptible' morals aside, they'll turn on their fellow-citizen in a NY minute

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3268093&mesg_id=3268177

and already have at NSA apparently, in the case of the Quakers, whose website had the temerity to show the 14 Permanent Bases in Iraq while * was busy saying 'As Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down'

If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases?
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

Apparently no one with the moral 'rectitude' to stand up against these tactics resides at present within the 'intelligence community'
and none of these groups by their actions seems to be a servant of Christ.

I'm in their face pretty much every day.

I mourn Jerry Falwell. He never found Christ. Neither have most "Christian Conservatives".

I think their vision for the future of the U.S. is particularly ghastly. They are rigid, paternalistic, bigoted, hierarchical magical thinkers, and while I don't mind them living next door to me (they do, God help them), and I accept that it's their first amendment right to proselytize, I object wholeheartedly to their efforts to subvert the Constitution and undermine my civil liberties.

According to the bible god rested on the seventh day. It was hard work creating the Universe, life and such.

I dont 'tolerate' them, I despise what they stand for......:mad:

like, for instance, laws that interfere with the right of consenting adults to do what they damn well please with their own bodies in their own lives, insofar as they're not harming anyone else. When they start interfering with the right of the terminally ill to have a dignified, pain-free exit of their own choosing. When people's beliefs compel them to, for instance, have DEA agents kick down the doors of pot smoking cancer grannies, censor pictures of naked adults having sex, tell consenting gay adults they can't marry or have sex, force kids to pray in public schools, that's when I have a problem with their "beliefs". Likewise, when people's beliefs cause them to fly airplanes into buildings, or blow up abortion clinics, I have a problem with that. When people's beliefs force them to sabotage the teaching of the scientific facts about how life on this 4.7 Billion Year Old Planet Evolved, or when their beliefs force them to intefere with potentially life-saving scientific research into, for instance, stem cells.. then I have a problem with their "beliefs".

When their beliefs cross the line into interference with the uterii of women I know, the birth control prescription of my wife, the personal lives of my gay friends, my kid's public school science class.. that's when I become "intolerant".

If the fundy whackjobs could just be content with playing puritan flat-earth nutjob with their own lives, I wouldn't have "intolerance" toward them. But I suspect that's a big part of the fun of being a fundy, puritan, flat Earth-nutjob: trying to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

Sam Harris' book The End of Faith has as it's basic premise that what we need to develop intolerance of religion in order not to unmake the world.

If someone says that Elvis is alive, or that they are in telepathic contact with aliens, we don't put them in jail, but they are not taken seriously or given any power or public responsibility. Why should it be any different for people who think that a cracker is the flesh of a man who died 2,000 years ago, or that this guy (who may not have ever lived) came back from the dead and ate broiled fish, walked on water, and 'cast out demons'?

People who make irrational, ridiculous claims without evidence deserve ridicule and censure. Not persecution, not jail, just be nice to them but don't take them seriously or give them things that could hurt other people. And certainly do not give them leadership positions in business, or elect them to office.