In general I agree with you that most intolerance is religious – my mate Paul showed pictures of the intolerance in Iran – but I just think you need to be clear that because some religious people interpret their religions in a particular way does not mean that that religion as a whole, or other adherents to the religion who may not follow that interpretation, should be tarred with the same brush. There have been cases where religious people have been persecuted by atheists.

I think I’d agree with Calvin that the problem is not so much the belief system as the desire to maintain power:

No orthodox church ever had power that it did not endeavor to make people think its way by force and flame. And yet every church that ever was established commenced in the minority, and while it was in the minority advocated free speech — every one.John Calvin

In this sense however, I would warn the humanist community (my own preferred term) to be careful to ensure that they do not fall into the same trap that many (most?) major religions have…

And I don’t think a preferred religion should be taught about in schools; you should either teach all of the major belief systems (including humanism/atheism etc) or none; because people should be free to choose their own beliefs, and not have beliefs forced upon them.

…that’s not to say I would ban faith schools, because these cater for people who specifically want there children to go there. But I wouldn’t like to see the ’state system’ requiring religious belief…

I don’t necessarily agree that religion shouldn’t have influence; if the people writing or enacting the legislature are religious then the legislature will be influenced by this (just as it would be if people weren’t religious). This “by the numbers” influence would usually reflect the religious makeup of the country as a whole and therefore I don’t see this as a bad thing.

I would however suggest that religion (CofE in the Lords etc) shouldn’t have a formal role in the process.

And I think you’re getting into dangerous waters comparing two intolerances and asking which is worse. You’re creating a false dichotomy. By choosing between two evils, I could quite legitimately put the question to you – is it better to publicly hang a gay man, or to keep black people as slaves?

Neither are correct. And that would be my answer to your choice of two evils.

You say that it’s alright for religious people to be religious “in their own homes and in their temples”. Does this not exhibit precisely the same intolerance that many people exhibit about homosexuality (“I don’t mind them, I just don’t think they should be allowed to do it in public…”)?

The other question of course is whether you would want to allow atheistic belief to be propounded in public? If you were going to be fair, equitable and tolerant, you’d have to ban public atheism too, otherwise you’d not have a level playing field…

Both “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are examples of political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light. “Pro-choice” implies the alternative viewpoint is “anti-choice”, while “pro-life” implies the alternative viewpoint is “pro-death” or “anti-life.”Term Controversy re:Pro-life

After all, who would want to define themselves as ‘dull’ or ‘dark’?
I’d have more sympathy for the movement if they would be prepared to use a neutral term, rather than have to use loaded terminology…
And I have no problem with much of the outlook of the Brights:

Persons who have a naturalistic worldview should not be culturally stifled or civically marginalized due to society’s extensive supernaturalism. Rather, they ought to be accepted as fellow citizens and full participants in the cultural and political landscape.

That’s fine by me. So long as you are prepared to be as tolerant of people who don’t have a naturalistic worldview.
If the Bright movement is willing to do this then it’s somewhat enlightened — and better than many of the ways in which religion is interpreted today. If it isn’t, then it’s just an atheistic fundamentalist organisation who insist that they are correct and sod everyone else – and I can’t approve of intolerance.

Mike.