You know, you kind of have a point there, Poly. But as your remark seemed more directed at my hijack than at the original thread discussion, I felt I should clarify. Feel free to resume.
One, as several people have pointed out, the fact that they were Fundamentalists has been incidental; however, when speaking of things that are specific to Fundamentalists (i.e., praying aloud, speaking in tongues, etc.), it does factor in. But, again, as people have been saying, there could just as easily have been threads about drumming Pagans, overly amorous homosexuals, or any other group-specific activity that would be inconsiderate to those outside that group. Two, I’m getting more and more the impression that people who read something and assume that it applies to all people of a certain group, even when they point out that they’re merely defending those that don’t pertain to that group, are the ones with the issue. Only a few people have read into the thread for it to mean that all Fundamentalists engage in this activity, when most people rightly assume that some do, some don’t, and some are somewhere in between. Remember, stereotypes exist for a reason - some people do display some of those attributes. I don’t know of any Buddhists who engage in speaking in tongues - that’s a wholly Fundamentalist phenomenon.
Just my observation.
Esprix
Esprix,
I don’t see that anything useful would be accomplished by my continuing the discussion, as I would just be rehashing the same points ad neuseum. I am content to let the matter rest here and (barring new developments) let the points made so far speak for themselves.
Despite the forgoing debate, I do find you to be a sincere fellow, and I enjoy hearing your perspective, even when we disagree.
Izzy has a point. I find the regular letters to the editor in the few gay publications I read complaining about “Christians” as a monolithic entity composed of self-righteous homophobes to be equally annoying. However, the original tangent (as opposed to original post) related to the behavior of some conservative Christians (probably but not necessarily fundamentalists).
Esprix, you do the charismatic movement an injustice in suggesting that glossolalia and the like are the characteristics of all and only fundamentalists. There are spirit-filled Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans (a scary thought!), and so on, and many fundamentalist groups are strongly anti-Pentecostal (the Church of the Nazarene is one I happen to know of in particular). Secondly, the meditative trance state (presumedly suitable for communing with God) resulting from a group praying in tongues, or in particular singing in tongues, differs but little from a group Om, or the chanting of the Ave Maria repetitively (as in Carmelite spirituality) or for that matter of the Money Hum. This I can attest to from my own experience, having participated in all four. I would venture to guess that there are even charismatic UUs, though the intellectualized faith that is stereotypically characteristic of the UU church, so far as one can pin that down (old joke: Asked what precisely UUs believe in, a UU pastor thought long and hard, and finally answered, “Well, at most one God…”), probably means that there are few UUs with that style of spirituality.
Ditto, but I have to ask - you earlier intimated that you perceived me as being bigoted towards fundamentalist Christians. Does that still stand?
Esprix
Polycarp, I stand corrected. I still think they’re a buncha wackos, tho. 
Esprix
Esprix,
I am aware that I used the term bigot in a previous post, and perhaps I should not have, given the many possible interpretations of that word. You do not strike me as a hater, or an anger filled person, and have consistently been quite civil, despite some provocation. So I’ll retract the word bigot and try to put it differently. I would think there is a high likelihood that you do not have the same degree of tolerence and acceptance for Fundamentalists as you would have, and advocate, for certain other groups.
How’s that?
Eh, I’m not sure how much better that is, because it’s basically saying the same thing without using the hotword “bigot.”
I do not have the same degree of tolerance and acceptance for Fundamentalists who intentionally provoke or disturb me as I would have, and advocate, for certain other groups who don’t. I’ll admit that if I saw a gay couple kissing at the terminal, I might find that cute, whereas a family praying together I might roll my eyes at, but then I have a lot more in common with the faggots than the Christians. Now, if a gay couple were making out like they were never going to see each other and were visibly making others around them uncomfortable, that would make me uncomfortable as well. Similarly, a family praying loudly together and making a public nuisance of themselves, knowingly annoying those around them, would make me just as uncomfortable. I don’t think this either makes me a bigot, intolerant nor unaccepting.
However, I do see your point about the Pit thread in question, and I understand where you’re coming from - I just don’t agree.
Esprix
**
Actually I do think, in IzzyR’s defense, that there is a difference. Let’s refrase that. I do not have the same degree of tolerence and acceptance for toddlers as I would have, and advocate, for certain groups. That doesn’t make me a bigot. It just means they try my patienece. I would wholehardily agree with IzzyR’s statement. I in fact have far less tolerence for Christians than I do for other religions. That doesn’t mean I’m more bigoted against them, just that I’ve had to put up with their crap for longer and my tolerance for shit from them has likewise decressed. Same goes with Moonies, I’m not bigoted against them, but I have far less tolerence for screaming Moonies than I do for chanting Hari Krishnas.
I think his assesment of you is accurate here.
Semantics - I disagree. But no harm, no foul.
Esprix