How can you call yourself 'tolerant' when your behavior towards those that you see as religious is often offensive, provocative, and focuses very strongly on their religious affiliation?
I don't "see" them as religious, they
are religious.
If denouncing their totalitarianism ways is offensive then you're going to be offended quite often - every time someone stands up for democracy you're going to be defended. Sure, some of them are not totalitarian - so they should know my statements of that nature don't apply to them. You find me a christian that isn't predjudiced against atheists, in america, and I will give you a freaking medal. Even the so called "liberal, tolerant" christians are closet bigots against people not of their religion in my expirience - my own mother even!
Denouncing their being deluded may be - but the truth sometimes hurts. I don't give a **** if they're offended by the truth - that's their problem not mine. Simple fact is: they fit the textbook definition of delusional. They are believing in something without the slightest scrap of evidence, and some of what they believe goes AGAINST evidentially established fact. Worse they let this delusion control decisions they make that affect other people.
Their religious offiliation is something they _choose_.
I have every right to denounce it, I can logically justify why it's dangerous, and I can demonstrate and prove the harm it's done to me.
No... whatever I do that you claim is offensive is not a single ten thousandth as offensive as what they have done.
Yet despite all these things I still defend their right to believe what they believe - I'd say that is the pinnacle of tolerance.
I consider their beliefs (and rightly so) a threat to my rights, and the survival of the human species - and yet I defend their right to believe it! After they have been responsible for the supression of my rights, the mutilation of my body, the cause of many wars, the death of millions, the source of mental illnesses, and any other offenses - I still defend their right to be what they are!
no... that is not intolerant - that is the very definition of tolerance - allowing something to exist that you disagree with.
Stop confusing "tolerance" and "agreement"!If I was intolerant of their position I wouldn't be friends with them, if I was intolerant of their position I wouldn't have the best man in my wedding being one of the more religious people I know. If I was intolerant of them I would not consider hiring them if I was an employeer.
so stop insulting me with your faulty presumptions!Yet the taboo against public masturbation is also thanks to those aforementioned "hyperventaliative moralists" (I presume you're referring to the Puritans here).
irrelevant - it can be secularily justied (rude because most people simple don't want to see someone beating it in public, potentially banable because exposing children to sexual acts _can_ be harmful to them if exposed in the wrong situation)
