Mr. Jack writes:
It's a difficult question. There is, I think, a divide between actions taken by the Catholic church as an organisation, the typical Catholic in the street and the crazed lunies within the Catholic church.
Of course most Catholics are benign, as are most people in all religions.
The problem with Myers is that his actions are in no way targetted towards the problematic elements.
He knows very well who Donohue is, and what he represents. Most of Myer's conflict with religion is with the protestant creationists, but Donohue is the Catholic equivalent, and refers to the "King Kong theory of origins".
As for "intolerant by nature", yes, the Catholic church has a massively bad track record on that front, but that doesn't mean that all Catholics fall into that category (q.v. Quest) or that there isn't potential for change.
I agree.
Tolerance isn't about organisations; it's about people.
Membership of organizations like the Catholic Church is voluntary, I'm sure you'll agree.
I did not "take sides". I said Myers behaved badly.
We all have our differing views on what is and isn't bad behaviour. I agree that we're emotional creatures, as you implied in the post before, and I think that Myers was certainly showing emotion.
I have to say that I've lived in the U.S., and I can understand how its religiosity can get to people like Myers.
I think a bit more verbal "intolerance" of religion would be a good thing all round, and especially in the U.S., and perhaps this is where we differ. But I don't mean intolerance between the religions, or the victimization of the smaller ones.
I think that a bit of controversy that might lead some to examine what they really are believing about crackers tends to do more good than harm, and that these small spats help a society to evolve culturally and politically. Lots of little changes make evolution, so that, hopefully, revolutions are never necessary.
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.