Faithful, you seem to be under the unfortunate misconception that relativism amounts to anarchism: that freedom has such "absolute" value that anybody is allowed to do anything at all, and without criticism.

Standards of conduct can only exist in relativity to the civilisation in which they occur. For example, our current knowledge and technology allows us to maintain much loftier ideals than were possible in the early days of humankind, when we huddled in caves with only the most primitive of stone tools to hunt and gather with. Now, however, we have an abundance of food, and can care for our sick and disabled, and can afford to suppress our characteristic xenophobia because our civilisation protects us.

You wail about lack of tolerance, but it is you who are being intolerant. And not of some vicious, violent man. Nor a political figure, shouting from a podium, whipping the masses into a hateful frenzy. No, the intolerance is of a novellist/historian entertaining people with a typewriter.

He is free to speculate about the past, just as Christians are (and do). We are free to contradict his assertions, too, but mostly I see attacks upon the man, and arguments of "offensiveness".

This "privilege" of non-criticism you say is denied to Christians is actually denied to everyone... and the level of vilification here is far lower than what occurs between competing denominations and religions.

Faithful
You seem to hold that relativism preaches tolerance for everything & then relativists attack the christian viewpoint. Sorry but that's not so.

Relativism asserts that every view EXCEPT intolerance should be tolerated. That is hardly a contradiction. Are you implying that the christian viewpoint is, by its very nature intolerant?

P.S. In case you're wondering I am not [nor have I ever been] a relativist. I consider relativism logically self-contradictory; But NOT in this area. So why am I writing this? Because I have heard this pleading for tolerance of christian intolerance before. Should anyone [including christians] be allowed to be intolerant toward others? No! Of course not. I would have thought that the crucifixion of Jesus by the intolerant would have taught you that Faithful.

Bosk,
For any society to be unified and progressive in the values of the society they must identify views and values that diminish the effectiveness of and violate the goals of that society; so they will outlaw them as inferior and counter promote the values that enhance the values and goals of that society. Yes they are intolerant. A society that allows any values soon becomes weak, cofused and lost. There are social principles to a strong society and a healthy mind. Yes Christian are intolerant of evil attitudes and behaviours. He who accepts anything as valid will fail to achieve something of value.

Building a strong society means weeding out the destructuve, obstructive and socially sapping forces. For Christians it means looking for the ideal and building an ideal community. I could not imagine how drama would pan out if there was no conflict; they are the scripts that never get published. Christians are not there for dramatic effect, but they will conflict with unnacceptable views. You might prefer to live in a world without conflict, as we all would, but accepting conflicting views as equal validity is never going to happen. Yes we are intolerant of other views, and we accept this as part of the struggle for belief; even as others will with their views.

Philo “Building a strong society means weeding out the destructive, obstructive and socially sapping ”

So, who decides what is “destructive, obstructive and socially sapping”?

For me, one of the most ““destructive, obstructive and socially sapping” forces are those of organised religions partly because, as Philo also suggested “Yes Christian are intolerant”

Christians can be as “intolerant” as they want but I remember “do unto others as you would have done until yourself” as a solid and virtuous Christian value.

With “do unto others as you would have done until yourself” in mind, the horrors, intolerance and the depravity perpetrated by organised religions, especially the Catholic Church should be enough to disqualify them from ever being allowed to decide who was “destructive, obstructive and socially sapping”.

The strength of any society is only ever measured in the quality of life of its population.

Individuals are only subjugated by \political and religious demands to weed out ““destructive, obstructive and socially sapping” be it such demands are made by religious zealots or political fanatics, the outcome is a reduction in life quality and the destruction of the “purpose” of society.

I think you need to re-evaluate what sort of legacy of Christian love and tolerance you want to bequeath to coming generations Philo, because what you are preaching

“For any society to be unified and progressive in the values of the society they must identify views and values that diminish the effectiveness of and violate the goals of that society; so they will outlaw them as inferior and counter promote the values that enhance the values and goals of that society.”

Has nothing yo do with Christian Love.

What happens to those who support the view which you deem “diminish the effectiveness of and violate the goals” are they “outlawed”, treated as “inferior”?
I remember someone coming up with a whole race of people who were deemed “inferior” partly because of their religious views.

I see an obscenity akin the what the most intolerant religious and political extremists have tried to force upon society in the past

Col Rouge,
In any civilized society it is society itself, the law makers and the courts who decide who will be excluded from that society.

--- Part 1 of 2 ---
In the traditional sense of the word, Christianity is an extremely 'tolerant' religion. That is, if you take tolerance to mean: “The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.” [Dictionary.com] However, the modern sense of this word has become tied up with the idea of ‘embracing’ the beliefs or practices of others.

I can fiercely disagree with your point of view or way of life, while at the same time respecting you as a person who has a right to make his/her own choices. Today's society labels our disagreement as 'intolerance', which is compounded by our stubborn refusal to reconsider and embrace opposing views. Therefore, given the modern day sense of the word, Christianity is extremely ‘intolerant’.

Quite simply, we cannot reconsider our position on moral and ethical issues because we didn't make up the rules - God did. Unlike what has been suggested, it is not any man or group of men who decided what is right or wrong. God decided this and revealed His statutes and ordinances in the Bible.

To claim that imposing Christian morality upon society is incompatible with Christian love is really quite ridiculous. The Golden Rule of love for one another extends to the imposition of morality over another person in order to keep them from harm. In this way, we are all guilty of imposing our own morality upon others all the time. Say for example had a roaring argument with your partner and he/she tried to throw themselves into the path of an oncoming car. Do you say ‘I respect your right to make (what I believe to be) a bad choice.’? Or, do you impose your morality and pull them back? Christians extend understanding by applying our morality to the social issues which pollute and destroy a healthy society. [Short of sparking a million other debates in this forum I am not going to provide examples of such issues.]