Is Christian Fundamentalism Essentially Intolerant?

[Scuba Pete]

Bwahahahaha! Their apparent devotion to Shrub is also worrisome to me.

 

[michel]

Hey NetDoc -- Sorry, I overlooked your post before.

I used to have mixed feelings about the church, like your friends. But my feelings aren't mixed at all anymore. I understand that there are Christians who are decent people, but they continue to support, by their prayers, their work, and their money, institutions that foster bigotry and hatred as a matter of official policy. Their personal convictions, which are better than their religion, have no effect on their religion.

When it's the churches who are the leaders in hateful campaigns, when atheists and agnostics are kinder and more reasonable than Christians, when all Christianity has to offer is cruelty and the worst of unenlightened human nature, and when Christians see their cruelty and hatefulness as a virtue, then what's the point? Who needs that kind of religion? How can I respect such a religion?

Let's face it, most Christians think the United Church of Christ is way too liberal because in the UCC bigotry and hatred are optional. Not unacceptable, mind you, but optional.

I believe in Jesus, but I'm not convinced that Christians do. Whether they do or not, though, I'm through with their churches.

Well, I am another Christian who loves gays; your point about atheists might have some value (about their being more tollerant), but from threads I have seen on this forum, there were as many intollerant atheists as theists towards the gay community.

 

[Smoke]

Well, I am another Christian who loves gays; your point about atheists might have some value (about their being more tollerant), but from threads I have seen on this forum, there were as many intollerant atheists as theists towards the gay community.

Maybe it's just because there aren't as many atheists as Christians in the U.S., but I've never encountered a homophobic atheist. I don't doubt they're out there, but they aren't a real and present problem, or a threat to my civil liberties.

But even if the incidence of homophobia is just as high among atheists, which I doubt, that seems like a pretty poor defense of Christianity. Atheists, after all, don't claim to belong to Christ. People who were really enlightened would be less hateful and mean than the general population, wouldn't they? But the religious people are at least as ruthless as anybody else. (In my experience, more.) Their religion doesn't teach them compassion, so what good is it? In fact, their religion seems to teach indifference at best, and more usually it teaches cruelty. You can notice the problem among Muslims and Jews, too, but I live in a country where Christians are the problem.

So I'm evolving a sort of standard for looking at religion: Does any given religion conduce more to compassion or to cruelty? Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all seem to encourage cruelty, given the opportunity. Ethical Humanism, Unitarian Universalism, Quakerism, and Buddhism seem to conduce more to compassion; that's one of the things that attracted me to Quakerism in the first place. Of course, there are evangelical Quakers, and they're less tolerant than Quakers who reject creeds. There are other religions that conduce more to compassion than to cruelty; Jainism, for instance, but for me, right now, the choices are between the Quakers, the UUs, the Buddhists, and no religion at all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... from threads I have seen on this forum, there were as many intollerant atheists as theists towards the gay community.

Please defend that claim. Please point us to this clique of homophobic atheists.

 

[Quiddity]

Thank you for the tautology. Those who refuse to tolerate something will be seen as intolerant.

However, it's not a question of "fulfilling some form of pleasure." It's a question of living with integrity, personal safety, and civil rights.

Boy did that go over your head. What in the world do you think integrity, personal safety, and civil rights is to an individual? It's a fulfilment of a need of the individual/populace. Thanks for adding to my point.

~Victor

 

[greatcalgarian]

Please defend that claim. Please point us to this clique of homophobic atheists.

May be you should start a survey to find out the number ratio for the RF community:

(1) Are you a homophobic atheist?
(2) Are you a homophobic theist?
(3) Other homophobic?

Very difficult to defend without making a statistical survey

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... from threads I have seen on this forum, there were as many intollerant atheists as theists towards the gay community.

michel, please substantiate this or retract it.

 

[michel]

michel, please substantiate this or retract it.

I'll pm you the names of the atheists.

 

[michel]

I'll pm you the names of the atheists.

After having considered the matter, I have come to the conclusion that I am not prepared to trawl through the archives of the posts for the last couple of months, looking for atheists who made derogatory comments towards homosexuals. To be quite frank, I neither have the time, nor the will to do so.

I would though, challenge you in one aspect;

... from threads I have seen on this forum, there were as many intollerant atheists as theists towards the gay community.

To which you responded with:

Please defend that claim. Please point us to this clique of homophobic atheists.

Kindly retract immediately "clique of homophobic atheists"......I never used the word clique; you have misrepresented me, and in the same vein as you petulantly demand accuracy from others, I see no reason why I shouldn't demand it of you.

As you well know, the intention of my post was to point out that atheists can be just as judgemental of homosexuals as can theists; you have demanded that I defend the claim, with you usual demeanour of 'One who must be obeyed'.

I sent you by P.M the names of members I could find easily; you dimissed my 'offering' with your usual condescending and scathing retort. Well, such is your self styled manner of demanding retractions that are seen as wont to be nrequired as and when required by you. I shall not use the words you used in the P.M, as PM's are personal by nature.

I must admit I was the one in error by PMing you in answer to your censorship; I should have posted, but them, I would have been in the position of making public information that would not be suitable for open debate. That, of course, immediately gave you the excuse to reply by P.M........as you have done before; I wonder if you would be so vocal in public forums as you are in PM's..........

Having said that, the answer is most likely "yes", since you seem to care little for the effect of your words on posters. I suggest you put me on ignore, if you don't like my style of posting........

Now, kindly 'stay out of my hair', and I shall stay out of yours...............

 

[Scuba Pete]

Those who demand "names" remind me of the McCarthy era; it's none of your business. I thought it odd that someone would contest that there are NO atheistic bigots. Kind of like a "my poop don't stink" argument. Rather than railing against those who point out the flaws, especially one such as Michel, it would be best to work from within your ranks and educate those who are homophobic. I do that with my Christian Brothers and Sisters.