Please visit this thread about my sig line.
This looks like it could head for the Pit in no time flat. Care to restate the question in a general way so that everyone might participate(i.e. the non-personal level)?
Thanks for asking slythe, but the only alternative was:
“Christianity is a symptom of the disease it’s trying to cure.”
If the alternate meets your specifications better, please switch the thread title to it.
If not, please do not hesitate to shift it to the pit. Trust me, that I would rather have had the discussion remain civil.
However, I do not fully anticipate it.
Thank You,
Chris
Zenster, you started a whole thread just to get people to come visit my thread?
Flattery will get you lots of places. 
Here ya go, Zen’ems, a response to the OP…
“Religious Tolerance” isn’t necessarily an oxymoron. It depends on how you look at it. If the majority of religions followed their doctrine (I’m generally referring to major Christian sects here) of tolerance, it’d be accurate. However, there’s a difference between official doctrine and what the individuals of that religion actually practice. While a person may claim to follow a religion that preaches “tolerance, acceptance, love”, that individual’s own actions may bely “intolerance, alienation, hatred”.
As a result, the oxymoronical nature of the phrase “Religious Tolerance” is bred from the individual believer’s hypocrisy.
If we begin with the postulates that 1) religious beliefs are among the most important or primary of beliefs; and, 2) that these beliefs do not exist as abstractions in a vaccuum but instead tend to generate political perspectives on a wide variety of volatile issues
…then “religious tolerance” should not be EXPECTED to reach any farther than political tolerance, should it? And political tolerance (of differing opinions) ranges from absolute zero (in some totalitarian quarters) to “I respect your right to hold damn fool opinions and to speak out in favor of them and even to vote in favor of them, but if your damn fool opinions start to catch on I’ll do everything in my power to discredit them”.
Yet, is not a church truly composed of the body of its believers and not merely its doctrine?
Fear not, we are in complete agreement SPOOFE, I only ask that you might cross post to the thread debating my sig line with, perhaps, a mention of the “Oxymoron” title of this thread.
I would tend to say that we are violently agreeing AHunter3. As with SPOOFE, please feel free to post this over in the thread about my sig line, with reference to the “Oxymoron” title of this one.
Thanks for the input.
I’ve been on the receiving end of religious intolerance myself, mostly from atheists, pagans, or people who don’t follow any particular religion at all, although I ran into a Fundie on the bus last week who felt the need to get her digs in when she handed me a tract and I told her I was Catholic.
It’s mostly to the effect of, come on, this is the twenty first century what do you want to go believing in that medieval stuff for? Or they throw out the pedophile priest issue- I haven’t brought up the fact that most pedophiles are married men, but next time, I’m going to.
As a devout Agnostic, I nevertheless will defend to the death your right to have whatever faith you happen to choose. The freedoms that we enjoy in these wonderful United States are so precious as to defy expression.