I'll tell you what you did with Atheists for about 1500 years. You outlawed them from the universities or any teaching careers, besmirched their reputations, banned or burned their books or their writings of any kind, drove them into exile, humiliated them, seized their properties, arrested them for blasphemy. You dehumanised them with beatings and exquisite torture, gouged out their eyes, slit their tongues, stretched, crushed, or broke their limbs, tore off their breasts if they were women, crushed their scrotums if they were men, imprisoned them, stabbed them, disembowelled them, hanged them, burnt them alive.
And you have nerve enough to complain to me that I laugh at you.
Only a fool would build a bridge between himself and the people who are actively trying to hurt him. Well, a fool or else a masochist. My default impulse is to play ambassador and take the diplomatic approach. I always try to be accommodating and conciliatory, but there are circumstances under which “building bridges” is a bad idea because certain people will only use that opportunity to hurt others.
Civil discourse is not always appropriate or possible. One must use their best judgment in each circumstance. I thought the article provided a helpful guide should having a mutually respectful conversation with someone who doesn't agree with you be your goal. The author lives in the bible belt in the US, which is not an atheist friendly environment from what I understand. He is a highly visible and vocal athiest in a trying circumstance, and I think it's admirable that he is so patient and level headed. I'm not really sure what the alternative is as I don't know a place on earth where there is no history of animosity between groups and everyone gets along perfectly. It's also worth noting that the author is a former evangelical Christian, so I'm sure that informs his opinion on this as well. I don't think he would be calling for civil discourse in a circumstance where there was any possibility of being so persecuted as the quote describes.
I'm going to go with Madalyn Murray O'Hair on this one:
The author does say:
Civil discourse is not always appropriate or possible. One must use their best judgment in each circumstance. I thought the article provided a helpful guide should having a mutually respectful conversation with someone who doesn't agree with you be your goal. The author lives in the bible belt in the US, which is not an atheist friendly environment from what I understand. He is a highly visible and vocal athiest in a trying circumstance, and I think it's admirable that he is so patient and level headed. I'm not really sure what the alternative is as I don't know a place on earth where there is no history of animosity between groups and everyone gets along perfectly. It's also worth noting that the author is a former evangelical Christian, so I'm sure that informs his opinion on this as well. I don't think he would be calling for civil discourse in a circumstance where there was any possibility of being so persecuted as the quote describes.