I NEVER said I tolerated INTOLERANCE

I guess in the world of blogdom operating a blog means never having to say 'Goodbye'. Well, at least in Pastor Mike's case. Yesterday, he claimed to be officially signing off and ending his blog with a final message to "friends and foes" alike. However, today, he has installed a new blog entry in a parting shot to "Phil the atheist". (aka yours truly).

The entire entry is actually a long, fulsome exercise (mostly 'copy and paste' as is his custom) in his caterwauling about how terribly I have treated him, how disrespectful and abrasive my blog response to his "final' blog was. To support his case, he cherry-picks about twelve of my more acerbic comments about him (all out of context of course) and insists he wants my "disciples" to see that I am not the kind, tolerant soul I portray.

However, I have never portrayed myself as that person. And given how much of his time Mikey has (evidently) used to read my blog it's truly amazing he never picked up on that. I am not "tolerant" to idiots - political, economic or scientific- nor am I tolerant toward blustering intolerant, wannabe pastors who call down their demigod's wrath on any religion or people they despise. In other words, I am intolerant of intolerance.

Now, this is a card the intolerant have often played. Their insistence is that since we (free thought types) espouse a kind of implicit tolerance toward all - Muslims, gays, abortion providers, dwarfs, the disabled, lesbian black disabled dwarfs...etc. ..we are bound to extend it to ALL (even Hitler wannabes) - else we are hypocrites. Never mind those Hitler-wannabes would exterminate us (along with all residual sources of tolerance) in a hearbeat along with our "free speech"! Thus, by tolerating the intolerant we'd de facto assure the extermination of all tolerance!

Thus, the end of tolerance for us is the onset of counterfactual self-reference, i.e. in "tolerating the intolerant". So we must, to enable tolerance for the widest population, be intolerant to intolerance and the intolerant. To make it concise: one cannot demand that tolerance tolerate intolerance because that enables the elimination of tolerance. In a sane context, one does not approve or enable that which will extirpate oneself.

Let's examine why: Bear in mind the intolerant, embodied by the likes of Pastor Mike, want to stamp out all speech they see as "blasphemous" or which denies them their claim to a theocracy- based on their KJV bibles. As some of you may recall, when I cited certain biblical passages (mainly from Deuteronomy) in a blog some time ago- to show the KJV bible allowed executing a son who disobeyed his parents, or slaying children who disrespected an elder, Mike chimed in by asserting the "6th commandment" actually means: "Though shalt not MURDER!" not 'Thou shalt not kill'. (Thereby destroying in one fell swoop his whole claim that one must interpret all the scriptures literally- since he reinterprets the 6th commandment- actually the 5th for many Christians.)

Thus, it was perfectly fine for the son to be taken to the village elders and stoned to death for mouthing off to mom and pop, just as it was perfectly fine for the kids who yelled "Thou Bald one!" at an antiquated prophet to be set upon by She-bears and rent asunder. After all, these acts were not "murder" but simple killing which the KJV allows!

So, in other words, by tolerating an intolerant like Mike, what we would be doing is giving assent to his whole upside down world of biblical morality, and enabling a kind of Christian Sharia. Imagine what that would mean! Well, one person (Joe Conason) did in a Playboy piece appearing in 1992, entitled 'With God As My Co-Pilot'. What it amounted to was a Christian Theocracy in which concentration camps and mass-extermination applied to abortion doctors, gays, porn purveyors, atheists and millions of others. To tolerate that would be tantamount to signing our collective death warrants. So no, one cannot be tolerant to the intolerant or to intolerance. Call it the tolerance "paradox" if you wish.

By the same extension, on the basis of his consistent intolerance toward atheists - as signs on his blog incessantly declare: "SEND ATHEISM TO HELL!" Mike has declared his intolerance to me, and can expect nothing more than that back from me.

In addition, by foregoing any claim to kinship (brotherhood) and admitting that after 16 years he merely made renewed contact with me to "save me" - he has foregone any claim to my respect, or gratitude, or civil treatment. (Especially after asserting in his blog against Science of Mind that he hopes my father-in law, a decent, kind and loving man- will "burn to a crisp in Hell".) Thus, my referring to him as an obnoxious psycho or whatever, is perfectly legit. Because, truth be told, he has conducted himself like one - especially in his blog images, as when he depicts the sacred books of others in toilet bowls, and depicts Catholics (including our parents) as tiny images roasting in Hell and being stabbed by demonic pitch forks).

Nor have I exhausted here all instances of slander leveled at: Margaret Sanger(using fake, photo-shopped images of her at a "KKK rally"), or Charles Darwin, or Barack Obama, or the Pope, or the Dalai Lama...and on and on. Even before that, on his I-Net church "False doctrines' page he regularly attacked our parents religion even going so far - on more than one occasion -of holding the hellfire threat over them if they didn't toe the line and change to his evangelical cult.

I still have one letter sent to his I-Net "mailbox" that I copied and saved. It showed how even another born-again was becoming disturbed by Pastor Mike's offensive cant:

"Pastor Mike, one thing we are taught as born again believers is to be fair and also not judge. I find your comment about your atheist brother interesting but I don't think it is fair to him unless you allow him to respond to what you say. Otherwise, it may be best to omit anything to do with him. I have atheist friends here in Memphis, but they are turned off by most of your site, and doubt that "non -believers are welcome".

I think if our faith is that strong, we can allow other opinions and then use that as a learning experience by challenging them and teaching truth. If we disallow those we look weak and that is how my atheist friends perceive it.

Please think about it, Pastor Mike!"


On more than one occasion, sane and sober evangelicals actually took him to task for his ornery and contemptible ways (including one gentleman who submitted to Mike his own interpretation of the good Book's key citations), but he dissed them as badly as he did atheists, Mormons and Jews. For some of his more over the top highlights, check out these links (and be aware he can remove them at any time!):

http://www.pastormstahlschurch.com/index.php?p=1_80_AN-OPEN-LETTER-TO-MY-CATHOLIC-FRIENDS

http://www.pastormstahlschurch.com/index.php?p=1_162_EXPOSING-CATHOLICISM-

http://www.pastormstahlschurch.com/index.php?p=1_30_-CATHOLIC-HERESIES-AND-HUMAN-TRADITIONS-

http://www.pastormstahlschurch.com/index.php?p=1_132_WHO-IS-THE-GREAT-WHORE-

http://www.pastormstahlschurch.com/index.php?p=1_28_Is-The-Pope-the-Vicar-of-Christ-

http://www.pastormstahlschurch.com/index.php?p=1_76_CATHOLIC-OR-CHRISTIAN-


And now, after all that, what? He expects to be treated civilly and along the lines of Marquis of Queensbury rules? Sorry, doesn't apply and don't look for it! You made your choice months ago when you said essentially you preferred blog war to brotherly love.

I call them as I see them, Mikey. And what I have said in my last blog amply applies to you. If you can't see it, that's tough. But again, I never said I had to be tolerant of the intolerant, and you made a gross error in ever assuming so.