I think you are a little too preoccupied with the "far right,"...

Not really...I was merely using a familiar example of intolerance...as for "sloppy, casual generalization", I would humbly suggest that you look at your own guilt in using similar thinking to describe the government or "the left"...perhaps after some self-examination, you could amend that flaw in your own reasoning...that is, if you are a man of integrity...

Is cause we are sick of people without morals or principles running a country that was not designed to be run by such.

LOL. You couldn't be more wrong here, G.A. Our form of government was expressly set up by the Framers in order to counteract undesireable tendencies of human beings. We call it "checks and balances"--you may have heard of it. You may want to actually try reading The Federalist papers instead of relying on your 5th grade conception of what our government is. The notion that our government--any government--can only be run by moral or principled actors (Cheney, Rumsfeld anyone?) is a right-wing pipe dream along with the notion that, geez, in "the old days" people respected each other more, there was less crime, children knew their place, et cetera. Spare us the misremembering the fictional past.

And another question from this my friend:Do you think Jesus was tolerant?Or even our forefathers? A sadly misrepresented word this tolerance thing.

Jesus wasn't merely tolerant, G.A. He accepted the repented whore and fed the dirty poor. And, yes, this "tolerance thing" has been sadly misrepresented--by the intolerant religious right who feel that people (read: minority groups) should simply accept being looked down there nose at by their supposedly moral superiors.

Um, I think Floyd learned his from God and Hitchens learned his from man.

So, are you saying that Floyd learned to be smug from god? Well, isn't this the very problem of the religious right? Who, on the one hand, with smug, self-satisfaction claim that they're right and everyone else is wrong, but on the other demand that everyone treat them with respect? LOL.

Happy to fix that strawman for you...psst, by the way, if you want to talk of intolerance, look how the far right treats moderate Republicans, so-called RINOs...once again, happy to be of help...

Is cause we are sick of people without morals or principles running a country that was not designed to be run by such. Hell I'm not spiritually mature, 30 plus years as a liberal lifestyler, but mostly when I try to treat others as they treat others only to make an example It's satire, but most often it is to no avail, And I mostly end up feeling like a dick.But it so hard not to hit post, most of the time, but this is a flaw of not being spiritually mature and human.

And another question from this my friend:Do you think Jesus was tolerant?Or even our forefathers? A sadly misrepresented word this tolerance thing.

Think you could explain the difference between your obviously superior logic and Hitchens apparent sophistry?

Um, I think Floyd learned his from God and Hitchens learned his from man.

I do find more and more the left claiming Christians Christian Fundamentalists (especially those who peddle in ideas like Intelligent Design) are anti science or just don't believe in science at all.

Happy to fix that strawman for you...psst, by the way, if you want to talk of intolerance, look how the far right treats moderate Republicans, so-called RINOs...once again, happy to be of help...

The only quible I have (other than his being an atheist, of course ;))is in the cause he gives, "I have come to the conclusion that this has something to do with the justly famed tradition of Southern hospitality: You can’t very easily invite somebody to your church and then to supper and inform him that he’s marked for perdition." Personally, when I have similar feelings, its almost always more a matter of seeing someone I care about on an ultimately self-harming trajectory.

I'm also somewhat puzzled. Given what I've heard from him in debates, aren't "religious folk" responsible for every evil committed in the last two thousand years (Stalin's death camps included)? Are we off the hook now?

I do find more and more the left claiming Christians are anti science or just don't believe in science at all. Over the years many Christian scientists have explained how easy it is to be both a serious scientist and a Christian. AGW advocates are the same way, if you don't believe 100% of the theory or have reservations then obviously you hate science.

Let's face it, the left is intolerant.

I'd call that Swiss Cheese Christianity. Nothing like buying into part of God. It merely is a poor way to be "gods unto ourselves."

Don't pretend that the most conservative and fundamentalist elements don't do this as well - witness their contortions to get around statements like "faith without works is dead", as well as the Old Testament punishments and morality.

Hitchens spends his entire life fighting a God he claims doesn't exist. Real smart. If he keeps it up he'll convert yet.

Perhaps because he thinks secularism is important and something he really ought to get people - particularly religious people - thinking about? It's not as if this statement isn't loaded with hypocrisy, seeing as how Christian groups frequently send out missionaries designed specifically to pester people on their beliefs.

The confirmed secularist will always walk away from this argument, smug in his sophistry.

It's not sophistry if he's actually making a reasoned argument, and he is. Most of religion is fundamentally belief based on essentially nothing but subjective experiences. Members of one religion deny another's subjective experiences, even when there is no proof of their own.

I'd call that Swiss Cheese Christianity. Nothing like buying into part of God. It merely is a poor way to be "gods unto ourselves."

Hitchens spends his entire life fighting a God he claims doesn't exist. Real smart. If he keeps it up he'll convert yet.

However, I have discovered that the so-called Christian right is much less monolithic, and very much more polite and hospitable, than I would once have thought, or than most liberals believe

versus when Floyd says

The confirmed secularist will always walk away from this argument, smug in his sophistry. In the end, he is only a modern day Pharisee, enthralled by his own "superior" doctrine.

Think you could explain the difference between your obviously superior logic and Hitchens apparent sophistry?

In the end, he is only a modern day Pharisee, enthralled by his own "superior" doctrine.

Such a characterization could describe many modern-day secularists and religious people alike...