"MAGIC SKY DOCTOR FATHER JESUS HAS TOLD ME TO KILL FAGGOTS." - All people who believe in the Bible.

This idiot is confusing acceptance with tolerance I have to tolerate that religious people are idiots and live in my city, I don't have to accept their stupid fucking drivel. Good job trotting out several famous religious figures to try and show that you're good people is a facile argument. I can trot out just as many intolerant bigots who've done horrible shit in the name of your false Abrahamic prohhets as you can 'good' people.

Rev. Currie--

I think you might gain more traction if you send this letter to the Religious Right as well. They are the ones giving you a bad name, not Portlanders or Mercury readers. Tell the RR that they can't define "Christian" anymore.

Well, that's a hard act to follow, but I have a sincere question. Mirk's post and Currie's letter both refer to "many" comments that were bigoted or intolerant of Christianity as a whole. I read all the comments in the thread linked at the beginning of the post and didn't see any that were bigoted toward religious people in general. All the harsh words I read were clearly directed toward Driscoll and MHC. I do see there was a comment pulled at #52, so that's one, maybe. What gives? Please list the numbers of the comments that were hateful toward all Christians.
And I wonder where the bar is set for anti-religious bigotry. If someone says that religious belief is irrational, and therefore a stupid thing to cling to, that's a valid opinion, not bigotry or intolerance of people of faith.

Who's defining all Christians as hateful, fringe kooks? If that were the case, every church in Portland-of which there many-would be home to a weekly protest.

I actually blame mainstream Christians and their lack of intolerance for any confusion. Quit letting the fringe define your religion. Stop penning ineffectual letters asking these churches to "open their hearts" when what they really need is someone of influence in the fold forcefully telling them to go suck it.

Rev. Chuck wants to whine about hostility directed at people of faith? Well boo-fucking-hoo, Chuck, y'all been running the world into the ground for the last couple millenia. Maybe it's time humanity gave rationalism a shout.

Blind belief ("faith") in supernatural beings based on the beliefs of one's parents and the literal reading of incoherent ancient texts is absurd.

Not only is it absurd, it is responsible for much of the strife among humans.

It's not the religious right that gives "people of faith" a bad image, it's their magical thinking and belief in childish mythology that discredits them (Christ's immaculate conception; a winged steed carried Mohamed from Jerusalem to Mecca; God spoke to Moses from a burning bush, etc.).

I invite all believers to shut the fuck up about their Gods, no matter how just and merciful they may imagine them to be.

"But general intolerance and even hatred toward people of faith is just as evil as hatred directed at people because of their sexual orientation or color." [!?]

How strange! I noted the exact same bizarre comment as StopReadingTroll and copied it out to comment on it before clicking on the comments tab and seeing the quote.

What a very strange concept! Intolerance of those who promote the bizarre muttering of bronze age schizophrenics is not 'evil' and in fact it is the opposite of evil. In a society based on reason and the inherent dignity and rights of each individual, criticism (and ‘intolerance’) of those who would suggest and promote control by some force outside of humankind’s own rational faculties should be welcome.

Why would we ever listen to *anyone* who claims that they have a particular connection with and can speak to and are guided by some divine force that they read about in some old fantasy book? Is it intolerance to suggest that people with such delusional beliefs should seek medical and mental health attention? Then call me intolerant.

You say you “are due the same respect and tolerance that we would hope would be extended to any citizen of Portland regardless of background” ? That’s fair. I will treat you like any irrational or mentally ill person attempting to involve themselves with public policy or discourse. Ignore them, treat their participation like damage, and route around it. If they have something useful or rational to say, like “don’t be racist jerks, dudes” (not an actual quote from MLK, but a decent summary, I think) or "be kind to others and help out the poor and destitute, amigos" (that is an actual quote from Jesus) I will of course get behind that statement. But when they want to talk about deities and all that with amens here and there and wear weird collars in a public debate, I’ll just sit their embarrassed for them and get back to the real world as quick as I can.

You say Invisible Sky Daddy wants us to act in manner X or bad thing Y will happen. I say prove it. 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’. Until then, stay away from my children*, start paying your property taxes like the rest of us, and give away your property (and fancy buildings that sit empty most of the week) to the poor like that zombie Jesus character from your favorite fantasy novel. Oh and to get back to the main point, quit whining about intolerance and try life out as a person of color, an immigrant, or a homosexual or an atheist in this country. Then you might learn a little about what 'intolerance' is all about.

*I realize that the child abusers are the catholic priests and the faith healers in Oregon city and the repressed republican congressmen, not necessarily you personally, Rev. Not *all* religious people are physically dangerous to children. (They’re just mentally dangerous by filling their heads with nonsense and visions of hellfire)

I love all of these comments!

There is so much wrong with this letter.

First of all, your persecution complex is patently offensive. Your feelings are hurt because some bigots make your whole religion look bad? Get some fucking perspective. Nobody gets assaulted simply for being a Christian, yet homosexuals still have to fear violence against them in this city, in 2011. Nobody has to fear getting ostracized by their families, getting discriminated against, getting told they are going to hell, or getting tied to a trailer hitch for being Christian. Why do Christians always - and I mean ALWAYS - get a persecution complex whenever somebody stands up against persecution against them committed by Christians?

Secondly, your letter does no better than provide cover for the bigots. You are asking us to pretend your religion isn't dominated by bigots when it so obviously is. Instead of whining to us about how some of you aren't as bigoted as the rest, and that we should be nicer to the bigots so as to not hurt your tender feelings, how about standing up to the bigots yourself? How about asking them to tolerate us instead of asking us to tolerate their hateful beliefs? How about you stop tolerating their hateful beliefs yourself?

PLEASE NOTICE THAT I DIDN'T SAY YOU SHARE THEIR HATEFUL BELIEFS. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.

Discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation is distinct from discriminating against people who willfully believe in magical sky cake.

Assaulting or voting to deny rights to marriage, health care, and happiness for homosexuals is distinct from ridiculing Christians who pray to a historical fiction and who are planning on setting up shop in a liberal hotbed like inner SE.

Did you read hostile comments directed at people of faith? Oh boo hoo. Why don't you go home and cry into your big fluffy pillow of civil rights.

Unsolicited tip to a lot of people in this thread: Are you really trying to sway anyone to your point of view, or just pointlessly let off steam? If the former, you've gotta come across as less angry and more rational than the religious crazies; otherwise, you'll look like the zealots.

re: Geyser: I thought I did a pretty good job of speaking directly to Currie, which was my intended audience, rather than just ranting wildly. If he wants to change Christianity's image, he's the Christian, he should do it.

"Way to go guys- you just proved Chuck's point." Uh, what point is that? That ridiculing magical thinkers is somehow on par with advocating across-the-board legal discrimination against entire groups of people based on how they're born? Shut the fuck up. Seriously. Dawkins is right; it's the "moderate" believers who are the biggest problem, in that they rationalize the irrational and legitimize the otherwise easily-dismissed wingnuts. Oh God, save me from your idiotic, sanctimonious followers.

I am the change I want to see in this world. Which is a complete absence of crazy fucktards believing in their MAGICK SKY FATHER DOCKTOR JESUS.

Wow...fanatic atheists may quite possibly be just as annoying on the internet as fanatic christians.

The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.
Eric Hoffer
(1902 - 1983)

@guspasho: I didn't have your post in mind with what I said. I found your comments entirely reasonable, especially about the persecution complex. I ask again, where was all the alleged hatred toward Christians in general that inspired this letter and post?
And yes, the way for progressive Christians to distinguish themselves from the bigots is to wholeheartedly join like-minded non-Christians in fighting religious bigotry

The comments that sparked my letter this morning were left on Sarah Mirk's original story regarding Mars Hill Church that she linked to above. Ms. Mirk wrote today that "the hateful anti-Christian responses to the hateful anti-gay church struck me as over the top bigotry" and I concur. I feel the same about many of the comments left in response to my letter today.

Do progressive people of faith have a responsibility to counter act the Religious Right? Yes, we all do. Would anyone with any knowledge of my work call me a moderate in this area? No. The only people who could would be those who comment without doing any homework.

Is there bigotry directed at religious people simply because they are religious. Yes. And that is reflected in the comments here today. The failure to see that reality is a sad one, I think. But I also believe that those who comment here represent a small, though important, slice of life in our state and that Portlanders in general are perhaps more tolerant.

In a pluralistic society it is incumbent on us all to see those areas where we allow prejudice to slip into our lives and to seek correction. This is true for Christians and for everyone else as well.

Rev. Chuck Currie
http://www.chuckcurrie.com

@RevChuckCurrie: So after milllenia of the Abrahamic religions persecuting and killing all kinds of groups, you expect those oppressed groups to just forgive you because... because why exactly? You've sown the wind, now reap the whirlwind.

Chuck - there are a lot of us out there who appreciate all that you do for civil discourse, human rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc. Thanks for being an active example of what we all should be, Christian or not.

Jesus, Graham.

Graham, Jesus.

Now you two can duke it out while the rest of try to discuss things in a somewhat civil and thoughtful manner. There are atheists, Christians, Muslims, religious Jews, pagans of every stripe (and tartan) in this country, among other belief systems...and there will be long after we (and Blogtown) are no more. We aren't going away (I'm counted among the atheists) and neither are they. Where rights are infringed there will be political and legal battles. But other than that we should respect the rights of others to hold beliefs that we think are wrong or even foolish and harmful...unless they are actively harming us. And we should expect the same from them.

Religion persists and creates a societal group that, in numbers, bullys everyone else. Political groups harness these common belief populations and push and twist their ideals onto everyone else making it seem like all people in the population are the same. However, everyone is different and ranges (for example) from extremist Christian to Athiarchist.

To quote Bill Hicks: forgive me.

Okay. I've thought about it and here's the thing. In my comment in the original thread I say: "I'm all for people expressing their views. I'm Fruit enough to take it. But I really find these beliefs repugnant."

That's tolerance. I don't agree with the beliefs (as stated in the Mercury article). In fact, I find them disheartening. But I don't insult them and acknowledge there's room enough for them in Portland. They don't threaten me and I believe that knowledge and reason will, eventually, win the day in the struggle for civil rights (for all people great and small).

But this open letter is insulting. The writer is a member of one of the largest groups of people assembled on the planet. With a belief system espoused to be founded on total love and harmony (with a long history of behaving in contrary). I say, grow a thicker skin, sir. The opinions posted in this online blog are tame by the standards set by your peers. And frankly, I've seen more heated comments in a Apple vs. Windows (or hell, Gibson vs. Fender) debate. No one needs a "shame on you" finger wag: guilt trips are something I gave up along with faith. If you're really concerned with your image, encourage your peers to stop bringing your god into the voting booth.

In sum: What is dead can never die. But rises again. Harder and stronger.

wow.

i thought the letter was well-thought and honest. it admitted the flaws in Christianity, Touted some of the virtues, and asked everyone to be a little more tolerant of each other.

i thought the responses were mean-spirited and idiotic. Mocking people for their beliefs and giving your reasons to disagree with them are irrelevant. It's like responding to an "open letter for gay tolerance" by saying, "i don't like gay sex, therefore anyone who does is an idiot"?

I'm not a Christian (although Jesus seemed like a good guy). I am pro-enviornment, pro-taxes, pro-gay rights, and pro-choice.

But reading this thread of comments showed me that liberals and progressives can be as closed-minded, prejudiced, and discriminatory as any tea-party conservative.

I hope Pastor Currie realizes that the angry and intolerant people on this blog area also fringe hate-mongers. And I hope that the people who posted on this blog realize that they are intolerant hate-mongers. I hope that people can learn to respect each other regardless of race, gender-orientation, or religious belief.


- Don't complain about the snow on your neighbors porch when your own doorstep is unclean - Confucius

PROTIP: One of the most important bedrocks of the current Jesus-based offshoots of the Abrahamic religions is the false notion that they are always being persecuted by everyone else. They will make up lies out of wholecloth (see: War on Christmas) and bear false witness to anyone who will listen. So when Rev Chuck Currie attempts to wrap himself in the flag of oppression he doesn't even know that he's being rude and offensive to those that his people have attacked. It's just dog-whistle politics to other religious wackos in an attempt to show that he's just like one of them too.

So Rev Chuck, how do you expect to convince a class of people that have been oppressed for centuries by your religion that somehow you're their friend now? What concrete things have you accomplished to make their lives better? And I'm just going to come right out and say that making your own congregation "welcoming and affirming" just smacks of an attempt to open your prosthelytizing to an even wider audience.

So I'll leave you with this: 2 Timoth 3:1-5 "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."

Take this as an opportunity for all the evangelicals to turn away from such as us.

So Chuck, a basic tenet of UCC faith is salvation "for all who trust [Christ]." Does that mean you think I'm going to hell for explicitly rejecting Christ? If so, why should anybody who doesn't share your particular brand of magical thinking listen to you?

All the whining oozing forth from the "moderate" Christians (or *not* moderate? WTF, Chuck?) reminds me of the old white-male-as-endangered-species mania that was trotted out, oh crap, how many election cycles ago was that?

Anyway, the point is, you white male heterosexual Christians (and other magical thinkers) run the world. Quit bitching about being victims of bigotry already.

First, thank you to the later folks who have made positive and helpful comments. I appreciate that.

In response to Steve R., I want to say that, no, I do not believe that non-Christians are going to hell for not believing in Christ. To begin with, the United Church of Christ is a non-creedal denomination. We don't have "tenants" that must be subscribed to.

http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/

- Rev. Chuck Currie
http://www.chuckcurrie.com

Come on, Chuck.

From "United Church of Christ Statement of Faith:"

"[Christ] promises to all who trust him forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace, his presence in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in his kingdom which has no end. "

http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/statement-of-fa…

Maybe you don't consider that a "tenant" (sic), but is it not a core belief of your faith?

Do you believe acceptance of Christ is the ticket to heaven or not? Or are you a Universalist? Or is Christ merely an allegorical figure to you?

Christ as sole savior is a basic tenet of Christianity, whether your branch is "creedal" or not. You can soft pedal it (to the chagrin of the fundies), but you really can't get around it.

If you accept Christ as savior, what about those billions who reject Him? Does your reading of the Bible have some non-hell, but not-quite-heaven place for those who reject Jesus?

If you reject this basic Christian tenet, what do you believe about salvation, and how do you reconcile it with your professed Christianity?

Our Statement of Faith - which is just that, a statement - not a test of faith - does not say that non-Christians are of any less worth to God.

I believe, as many do, that there are different paths to God that one can find.

http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/…

Your problem, with respect, is that you lack any real understanding of the great diversity within Christian tradition. And you are a jerk. But clearly, that's part of your act. Fine.

Do I believe atheists are of any less worth than believers? No, not in any way - social, political, etc. Think what you wish.

Rev. Chuck Currie
http://www.chuckcurrie.com

*With respect* the Right Reverend Currie calls me a jerk. Brilliant. I love it.

Thank you, Chuck. I consider this a badge of honor coming from you, Portland's great preacher of liberal, tolerant "Christianity."

Your problem, with respect (heh heh heh), is that you, like other "men of the cloth," are fundamentally disingenuous, selling a facile system of self-validation to the credulous.

You make no attempt to justify your apparent rejection of John 3:16, but instead resort to ad hominem attacks when confronted with the hypocrisy of your contorted belief system.

Of course, there is no rational, logical defense for irrational beliefs cherry-picked from a wildly incoherent and self-contradictory ancient text, so that's about all you've got. Fine.

Do I believe magical thinkers are any less worthy than rationalists? In a debate, certainly they fall short. As humans with universal rights? Certainly not. Think what you wish. Just don't get all hurt when rationalists point out absurdity when they see it.

There you go again (and I'll leave it here, Steve R.):

You say that I'm rejecting John 3:16.

What I reject is a literal interpretation of Scripture. You are letting the Religious Right define Christianity for you. You're letting them set the terms of what is acceptable thought. That's dumb. Christianity is what you've let Pat Robertson tell you it is.

But I'm never going to get you to believe that the faith of MLK deserves respect, tolerance or acceptance.

For whatever reason, you've let Jerry Falwell or Mars Hills Church or whoever set the terms for how you think.

- Rev. Chuck Currie
http://www.chuckcurrie.com

There you go again (quoting Ronald Reagan?).

No, Chuck, I've let the history of Christianity define Christianity for me. Despite you calling me "dumb" (another badge of honor!), I know a thing or two about that history. Modern fundamentalists do not aberrate from this historical arc. The real "fringe" elements in the continuum of this ancient faith are those few who reject the basic tenet of Christ as savior.

My final word here, just to wrap it back to your original sin in writing this ridiculous, sanctimonious, finger-wagging letter: You want us to tolerate bigots, and equate ridicule of their magical thinking to bigotry.

Modern human society has no responsibility to tolerate retrograde thinkers who advocate categorical infringement of basic human rights based on irrational beliefs. In the public policy sphere, whether domestic (basic rights) or foreign (religious wars), we have a responsibility to oppose them at every turn, for the good of human civilization.

If you can't handle ridicule of your faith, don't talk about it in public. Instead, "enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret." (Matthew 6:6)

It's hard to know where to begin in responding to many of these comments. I wish the hate-filled religionists and the hate-filed "atheists" could just go duke it out on their own somewhere and leave the rest of us to engaging in the real world. "Christianity" and even "religion" are such a broad terms that it is misguided (at best) to make quick (and bludgeoning) universal statements about what they mean and their influence upon human events.

Most of the anti-religion comments here (as well as those of a couple apparent literalist Christians) hew to a very narrow notion of what constitutes religion in general and Christianity (and, I might add, Judaism) in particular.
It's like letting 50 Cent define all of hip hop, or "Hollywood" define the full spectrum and impact of film. In short, it is based in ignorance. Religion is something that humans do, even by any other name. Richard Dawkins' religion is an absolutist form of anti-sky god philosophical materialism. As such, it is representative of much of the (mostly laudable) modern project: rejecting an untenable external "God" and hewing to the observable. Yet modernism had deep flaws of its own, reflected in an overly-intellectualized, instrumentalist, machine-metaphor approach to reality. Today a great many people are seeking a path beyond the vein-popping dualisms of the self-defined theist/atheist debate and the ravages of the materialist/consumerist paradigm. This movement is in fact the continuation of a long stream of conciliatory and humane voices in religion and human thought.

Many of these voices have been, in fact, some variety of "Christian", and many have been of other faiths and "no faith". To name just a few that come to mind:
Prince Gautama, the Buddha; the Hebrew prophets, Socrates, the authors of the Baghavad Gita, Lao Tzu, Patanjali, Plotinus, Jesus, Paul (yes Paul, no one has defined Love more succinctly and deeply,) Pelagius, the Talmudic Rabbis, Muhammed, Hildegaard, Francis, the Sufi poets, Theresa of Avila, Kabir, Guru Nanak,
George Fox, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Thoreau, the abolitionists, Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Ghandi, Abraham Heschel, Martin Luther King, Jr., and countless others who have enacted the gifts of love and compassion in their lives, enriching and indeed redeeming our world and the project of humanity. Nearly all of these people were in some fashion "religious", or motivated by values that transcended those of their contemporary society.

In critiquing a toxic theology like that of Mars Hill's neo-Calvinism, it is helpful to remember that there has never been a singular "Christianity" or "religion" writ large that is responsible for the ills of the world. The scale is equally balanced by the enormous and ongoing influence of people and movements of the sort I just enumerated. It's called humanity. We're all in it together.
I applaud Rev. Currie's efforts, and I intend also to be part of a considered response to both Mars Hill and the wider stream of intolerance that courses through contemporary society.

@danreedmiller: "Richard Dawkins' religion is an absolutist form of anti-sky god philosophical materialism."

So many logical fallacies, it's hard to pick one to start with. That one popped right off the screen, though. It demonstrates precisely the kind of "universal statement" you seek to discredit; it shows a profound failure to grasp the nuance of Dawkins' powerful expose of the delusion of faith.

Rejection of magical thinking is not a religion.

I don't care if you believe in magic. I also don't care if MLK or Gandhi believed in magic (their good works don't excuse the harm of the modern Christian Right or the Hindu nationalist BJP).

When magical thinkers push for retrograde public policy based on their specific magical beliefs, or when other magical thinkers argue for "tolerance" of them (even while disagreeing with them), I call foul.

In an accounting of the project of human civilization, God has been a deleterious and counter-productive factor on balance. I see no reason to welcome a more "progressive" version of Him to try to tidy things up. Believe in Him if you wish, but keep Him out of the public debate.

I'm seriously tired of "moderate" or "progressive" believers giving cover to those who would happily destroy modern civilization.

This is what modern Christianity has brought to us - the current GOP. And there is no forgiving that. We especially cannot forgive the people who align themselves with the religion that is the source of their irrational hate, while asking to be excused from all of the blame.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/20…

Steve R. - I'm reading this a week late but thank you for writing a little of what I was thinking, even if you did get called dumb, a jerk and intolerant for your efforts.

@Steve R., I'll just say that I also disbelieve in the same God that you disbelieve in, and leave it at that, except also to say that the motivation of an Emerson or a Ghandi (for example) has everything to do with their (sophisticated) understanding of the nature of reality, and nothing whatsoever to do with belief in a magical bearded sky-god.