Excuse me now, I have to get the crumbs out of my keyboar.

(refer you to the old son, I don’t want a nickel, I just wanna ride my motorcicle,
I don’t want a dime, I just want to ride my mo….tor cy….cle!)

Sometimes I think that the atheists of all religions, such as myself, have simply learned by the example of others. I mean, if the Protestants and Catholics didn’t have a 30-year war, if they tolerated or accepted each others’ differences, and if this was the norm for theists, I think that atheists would have been greatly influenced by such goodwill.

I don’t mean to excuse atheists bad behavior. Since so many religious people are so nasty does not mean that atheists have a right to be. I simply understand why some atheists are.

I always support religious people finding common ground. It would be very nice if people of all religions, and no religions, would abandon religious strife. No more bombs, no more tracts, just hugs and handshakes.

What I wish we could do is to see the sin, rule on it,then see the good in the person, if any, and then go with it. Mostly everyone wants to throw the baby out
with the bath water. We’re all going down the drain, if that’s the case…me included, and goodness knows I’ve TRIED to be good.

Yes, nobody likes snooty atheists, especially when they willfully caricature, rather than try to understand, others’ beliefs. But such caricaturing is no less “rude” when non-atheists do it, as perhaps with the “carbonated beverage theory” of life’s origins.

Let her who is without sin cast the first aspersion.

Other than that, I am okay with whatever people believe, as long as they don’t believe they’d like to do something rude to someone else.

Thanks for letting me make that point uncensored.

Are you suggesting that society shouldn’t tolerate Jane saying such discriminatory things?

Seems to me, though, that both “censor” and “tolerate” are capable of big-time misunderstanding. Censorship, for me, is about preventing people from saying or writing or seeing or reading or hearing things, as opposed to dissing what people say or write. Thus one might deplore or despise or dispute — but not censor — the utterances of, say, Rush Limbaugh. Conversely, a parent might forbid children to watch certain movies or read certain texts — censoring them, in some sense — without necessarily disputing them.

“Tolerate” is another tricky word — as the exchange just above illustrates. When Kiffi asks, for instance, that “society not tolerate prejudicial evaluations of other people …” I agree completely — if the point is that “society” should not prevent those who disagree from voicing their disagreement. But I would disagree, just as vehemently, if “not tolerate” is understood in any way that comes close to “forbid”. It’s tricky …

Good…You seem to agree that John, or anyone else for that matter, can say whatever he wants in this forum except if violates Griff’s guidelines.

I clearly differentiated between the freedom to say something, “misguided” or not, and the tolerance of letting such a statement just stand without challenge… so I do not censor the speech, and I do not censor the speaker.
I ask that society not tolerate prejudicial evaluations of other people based on personal matters such as their sexual orientation.

I do not believe in censorship except where violations of law harm innocent people.

I think it is quite obvious that you misunderstand me, and perhaps I also misunderstand you; therefor it is better that we do not engage in a spitting war… sorry I replied to you.

However, I do not misunderstand John’s statement in the context within which it was made, and will continue to hold it as an example of discrimination, religion based or not.

Once again, you make my point…

You say that this forum (representing ‘civil society’) should censor the statement, “not all homosexuals are pedophiles.” Should the statement…”not all heterosexuals are pedophiles”, likewise be banned? You would censor words that are completely factual?

Of course your objection is to what you believe to be the implication of John’s statement. But rather than respond to the reasoning behind his statement, you would have it banned. Never mind that by doing so so you eliminate your opportunity to enlighten those who might share John’s misguided reasoning. Let me assure you that not all the tenets of the “Kiffi Summa World View” are universally accepted, so censorship is not really advancing your cause.

Jane…
Responding (in the strongest terms you would have), and ‘shouting down’ are very different. Shouting down is censorship and simply destroys debate. “Shout” as much as you like, but allow others to make their point, however misguided it may be. Censorship does not defeat prejudice.

I’m sorry, but I cannot forget that John said, and I quote: “… not all homosexuals are pedophiles”.
That kind of comment should not be tolerated in society, whether based in a religion or not. It can be ‘allowed’ as a precept of the freedom of a person to say it; but should not be tolerated by a society striving to be civil.
I can’t imagine any thoughtful religion ‘thinking’ that it is OK to Harm those whom they consider to be ‘Other’.

As an adult who happens to live with a child that is not my genetic offspring, I appreciate your consideration in now opting for omission, rather than commission in this regard. It is a slight improvement -- although I am still curious about your opinion on whether adoptive parents can simply be called parents, or if they need to be referred to as “parents”?

But back to the matter at hand…
I find it hard to respond to your questions without understanding your assertions. Perhaps you could explain what you meant by:

“But, in reality, it looks like some unthinking adults wanted to get into a fight with the Catholic Church.”

Maybe you’ve read more on the subject than I, but I don’t recall that such a motive has been established.

But, in reality, it looks like some unthinking adults wanted to get into a fight with the Catholic Church. It would be different if this were a public school where officials are prevented from favoring any specific creed. But, this is a Catholic school. What part of their thought process would tell them that this was good for their child?

How about a little tolerance for a faith that teaches children are the product of a man and a woman?

Similarly, would you introduce me as the “parent” of my daughter?

*: if any.

What strikes me about the stories is why a parent/adult would ever voluntarily put their child in the middle of an adult dispute.