Talk about the Bible and stay inside the church.

+1

That, to me, is the question here. Whether China, or Cuba, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or the US for that matter, are we on the side of tolerance?

Which side is religion on? You need to reflect on that.

From the article:

Etched in stone.

If we are truly believers in tolerance, we should practice it.

I tolerate many things, but nothing is absolute. I don't tolerate hate for starters. White supremacist groups get no pass from me. Religious hate groups are a particular peeve of mine.

Which groups do you tolerate?

As far as white supremacists, our group has encountered a few of them, from Nazis to Act for America followers. We have confronted them, and at times shouted them down and blocked them as they tries to bully others.

You know, the three paragraphs that explained that the main objection from the RCC and from evangelical cults was the apparent legalization of gay marriage?

WTF.

Hmm...

How do you do it?

uses that one frequently. And when his sarcasm is refuted, he insists that he is correct.

in the post you are answering, but the article you posted clearly shows the churches are unhappy because the proposed constitution would allow marriage between two people of the same sex. As near as I can tell from my reading you are defending the churches in their gross intolerance of same sex couples.

I base my judgement on my experience reading the replies, and when they demonstrate a pattern, I make assumptions.

But I spoke here only of the intolerance of the Cuban Government for theists.

are showing intolerance to same sex couples and not being allowed to do that is why they say they are being treated intolerantly.

while allowing religious freedom at this point, has frequently attacked theists as representing a counter-revolutionary influence.

the line in the proposed Cuban constitution that would seemingly allow same sex marriage was changed to appease the protesting religious groups. That is making secular law conform to religious conviction and I'm not comfortable with that. Supposedly they will take up the marriage question in legislation at a later time, that is a significant downgrade from a mention in the constitution.

which would be the most generous interpretation.

you support their opposition to Gay marriage.

interesting.

And do you support the Cuban Government being intolerant of religion, especially when they see it as competition?

Interesting.

there are many governments around the world I don't support.

But I noticed you never responded to the reason behind the Church opposition to this Constitution, so it's easy to take tht as silent approval.

As I do in the posts on China.

And I often state my disagreement with the RCC on various positions.

that are bigoted toward LGBT people. Like the ones here who are trying to stop Gay marriage in Cuba.

Some evangelical Protestant churches aren't far behind, though.

Religion is intolerant, by definition. Christianity is one of the most intolerant of religions.

Believe as I say or burn in Hell for eternity!

Now, that's intolerance!

Not particularly.

How many officially secular governments are there, gil? You have 2 now that you are infatuated with as somehow proving that religious intolerance doesn't exist. Compare this to the vast number of secular governments that aren't totalitarian. You are making a false comparison because it serves your agenda. I will never stop pointing out your dishonesty.

But more importantly, I will ask just one question that I'd like you to answer, even though I know you will refuse, because you are too afraid.

Would you rather live under an officially secular government, or in an official theocracy?

In the same spirit, are you in favor of repression as long as theists are the victims?

Now answer mine.

Would you rather live under an officially secular government, or in an official theocracy?

I would prefer it.

But the question here is one of intolerance, not secular versus theistic.

Why would you prefer to live under a secular government instead of a theocracy, if the fundamental problem is just people being bad, and religion is never a factor (as you believe)?

This is gonna be GOOD.

Which is why I bet you won't answer.

that are used to divert from the actual topic.

Your history precedes you.

but you admit all things being equal, you'd rather live under a secular government than a theocratic one.

I find that fascinating, and so I understand why you're launching ad hominem in response.

are not repressive? What current religious governments would you live under?

When he sees a ? It's like

I suspect he wouldn't like a theocracy, since he appears to be just a short step away from atheism, himself.

Rhetoric for the sake of rhetoric.

But to admit so would be to admit there might be something wrong with this religion thing. And in his mind, it's never religion, it's people. But if it was the people, then secular and theocratic governments should be equally rotten... and round and round.

Look at the RCC: Only men can have authority. Women cannot even govern their own reproduction. Once married, you cannot ever divorce. Priests are immune to prosecution for sexual crimes against children. The Priesthood cannot reproduce. People who don't follow prescribed sexual norms are disordered, despite a priesthood that is required to refrain from sex altogether.

That's intolerance, by definition. That's not anything like recognition of reality.

But believers like guillaumeb grant special exceptions to religious beliefs.

Or if it applies to you. If you and yours are intolerant, that's a different matter altogether.

That short step of which you speak.

In my opinion, your view of theists is far too simplistic. But your focus on Biblical literalism is the surest indicator of your view.

Did you forget that? It's, you know, there in the First Amendment. Congress shall pass no law...etc.

So, now are you going to shift to Cuba in your posts about how bad atheists are mean to Christians? Is that your plan?

Oh, well...

Oh well.

is it not?

Other forum participant: "Let's talk about the religious aspects of this particular topic here in the Religion group."

guillaumeb: "But whatabout secular/non-religious instances of the same thing?"

He still either doesn't understand that the Statement of Purpose of this group is to "Discuss religious and theological issues", or is so bothered by any attempt to do so, he reflexively uses whataboutism to try and squelch any legitimate discussion of the specific role religion plays.

to be able to have much of a discussion.

Right now, intolerance is that person's top issue. But, only from the point of view of intolerance of religion. Now, as for myself, I'm tolerant of all personal religious beliefs, I don't really care what anyone's religious beliefs are. Why would I even know anyone else's religious beliefs, really?

I'm far less tolerant of religious behavior that exhibits intolerance of other ways of thinking. It is behavior that interests me, not beliefs. And far too many religious people are highly intolerant of anyone who doesn't share their particular beliefs. I find that noxious.

I'm not a fan of intolerance, whatever its source. I'm not a fan of the Chinese system of government, either. I have nothing in common with it, except for my nonbelief in deities and other supernatural claptrap. But that common ground has nothing to do with my behavior with regard to other people's beliefs. China is intolerant of religions that object to its social and political structures. That's not a good thing. The mass of evangelical Christian churches is highly intolerant of women who want to control their own reproduction and of people who want to have relationships that are not similar to those of the majority of the population. Both are intolerant. I don't agree with either.

Some people are intolerant of atheists, for whatever reason, and try to find ways to argue, even when there's nothing really to argue about. Just more intolerance.

I'm intolerant of intolerant behavior. That's about the only thing I'm intolerant about. What someone believes is irrelevant to me. How they behave is not irrelevant. If someone's religion encourages intolerance, then I'll have something to say about it.

I don't talk about China here, because this is a place to discuss religion, and China doesn't really have a religion at all.

I like logical discussions. I don't like conclusions drawn through sophistry. I don't like random insults. So, sometimes, there is a conflict here. So be it. I have a tough skin.

is most disturbing to the Christian activists in Cuba, according to the article?

Well, the truth comes out.