Historically speaking, this is incorrect. The Filipino/Thai/Malaysian Negritos, the Taiwanese aborigines, the Japanese Ainu, did not get pushed to the fringe of society by Christian white men.

I'm pretty sure we could find other non-western examples.

If we were having this discussion in the 14th-19th Centuries maybe you'd be raising a point. Meanwhile it isn't some fringe group that supports death for apostasy and blasphemy in the early 21st Century.

....and his assumption (based upon, and I am assuming and am guessing here, some personal grudge against Christianity-at-large) that Westborough Baptist Church represents a large segment of Christianity-at-large, is complete and utter nonsense. They are a fringe-element example, trumpeted and showcased for their abject insanity in media and the internet usually with a view to touting an 'Atheist-is-the-Ultimate-Sanity paradigm.

Then Bryan noticed the kid's friend holding his iPhone the wrong way and Gus Fring'd him.

Thank you @shinyblurry for the contribution. Even if I disagree on the basic message, it was interesting input that this discussion was IMO lacking so far. Now somebody's might post something dismissive now (I have to admit, asshole that I am, my fingers are actually itching in way trolls know too well) but I found that worth reading. Which brings me back to the point Mitchell made.
The issue is dialogue and how disruptive the selfrighteousness of those who found their definitive answer can be. We can argue semantics even further than already done here but it doesn't matter how gnostic or theistic one is. There is a silent majority consisting of various levels of belief and disbelief and at the fringes of both sides people tend to get loud, sometimes unbearably so.
What the screaming people at the edge like to do is to get bogged down into dogmas and discussions of detail but in the end both kind of extremists would like to force their worldviews on everyone else. I think it is certainly not acceptable to insist that people seeking solace in religion must be idiots who don't know how the world works. If a woman who just lost her child wants to tell herself that this is part of gods plan then I have no right to walk up to her and tell her she's full of shit. Even though I know this to be true. We all live in a world we're poorly equipped to understand and have to make sense of it somehow.
The problem starts once you force yourself onto somebody. The point I made before is that one side's extremists is assholes who walk up to grieving women and tell them their full of shit, the other side is people executing that woman for praying to the wrong god. It's easy for me to pick a side here.
However, most people aren't that extreme. Most people are more civil than that and I believe/know that a more civil and understanding approach is better. It necessary to push back against those who are harmful in executing their beliefs, be it Osama Bin Laden or Rick Santorum (Santorum he he) but everyone else is better dealt with in a respectful manner. Antagonism doesn't feed dialogue well.
That is why I resisted my urge to make fun of the deeply religious guy posting here. I really wanted to because I disagree with his worldview so strongly but all he did was stating his journey to where he now in his life and on top of that, he did it without telling anybody else here off. I would be the asshole if I would react like a Hitchens. I'd rather behave like a Tyson (not the rapey one). LIke most humans, I want to be one of the good guys. It's just not that easy to figure out how to be one.
In the end it all boils down to this (and several posts in this thread truly showed it): Why can't we be friends? Why can't we get along?
Because we're humans. That's how we roll.

Glad to see fewer and fewer 'NRA bad (cue chimpanzee sounds)' comments here as well VoodooV. I would also point-out that the 'new west, cops and robbers' scenario is much more frightening a prospect considering that it's the intentional breeding grounds for absurd levels of criminal activity that is the systemic result of the insanity of a once prosperous country's hijacking by political/totalitarian criminals since the 60's 'hippies' sold-out and became corporate lackeys and lawyers of and for, the criminally insane.

"NRA soundbite of "buy a gun! pew pew pew! bad guys dead, live happily ever after!" would be one interpretation of the NRA's message, another would be, "Hey dumbass? Arm yourselves against being one of the first to go when the government fails you and the future you thought you had disappears overnight."

@Sundamx-He won, he's alive and the bad guys are dead. Five people dead IS a win if those 5 people still walked the planet the broken, unrepentant, criminal thugs that they were destined to remain.

You're ill-informed if you think that 'no amount of training will stop a bullet' besides, that sounds like a sound bite from an idiot and all-to-vocal fringe of semi-conscious do-nothings.

Not so much dumb luck in this scenario when you crunch the outcome and consider the body count.

Untrue Sage. Completely, entirely, untrue. We put term limits in Florida and guess what? We became FAR MORE corrupt. Why? Now it's a mad dash to impress lobbyists! So why should we put in term limits for more corruption?

We should disband fringe (terrorist) political parties. We should make it to where corporations cannot donate funds. We should do a lot--but not term limits. (Some of our best, sadly, were the old-school oldies who just didn't give a fuck about what others had to say.)

Had to share this one on FB: "...even the so called "rabid atheists" (Dawkins et al) of the present day simply aren't comparable. The lunatic fringe of religion is well documented (WBC, al Qaeda, etc) as is the harm caused by even mainstream religion (ban on condoms, hiding pedophiles).

There simply isn't anything comparable from even the most evangelical of the new atheists. Even dickheads like Pat Condell are small potatoes compared to the other side.

The reason why atheism is unique over other belief systems is because it isn't one. There is no atheist tract or creed that must be upheld. There are simply people who reject attempts by others to force them to comply with their particular belief set.

Now, if an atheist terror group appears tomorrow and starts bombing churches or even if an atheist political party* demanded the outlawing of religion, I would condemn them, but that hasn't happened.

Put simply, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and say "have you heard the word of Dawkins?"

*what would that even look like, given that atheism has no political affiliation?" ...because I enjoyed it that much. Thanks C.

It's not so much that dangerous fundamentalist atheism is impossible. As you said, Stalin and Mao proved otherwise, although an argument could be made that their zealotry was politically based, but I digress.

It's more that even the so called "rabid atheists" (Dawkins et al) of the present day simply aren't comparable. The lunatic fringe of religion is well documented (WBC, al Qaeda, etc) as is the harm caused by even mainstream religion (ban on condoms, hiding pedophiles).

There simply isn't anything comparable from even the most evangelical of the new atheists. Even dickheads like Pat Condell are small potatoes compared to the other side.

The reason why atheism is unique over other belief systems is because it isn't one. There is no atheist tract or creed that must be upheld. There are simply people who reject attempts by others to force them to comply with their particular belief set.

Now, if an atheist terror group appears tomorrow and starts bombing churches or even if an atheist political party* demanded the outlawing of religion, I would condemn them, but that hasn't happened.

Put simply, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and say "have you heard the word of Dawkins?"

*what would that even look like, given that atheism has no political affiliation?

Let me translate. "As someone who pretty much doesn't take a position and is either afraid to deny or not faithful enough to believe, or just likes that fringe belief, I can take the high ground and avoid conflict."

And no, I am not speaking of you per say. I am speaking of the agnostics on the "soapbox" who can be every bit as preachy about their lack of reality as the religious and the atheist.

@NinjaInHeat what would you say are the biased bits? I don't recall if he embellished in the commentary that much but the footage was pretty damning in itself. With the governmental ministers raving about infiltrators?

I'm sure not all of israel is like that, but i have to say that with a people so historically persecuted you'd almost expect the good israelis to show up to lambast the ignorant ones and/or raise them better, shame them in their own communities for being xenophobic. It's the same thing that i think of when it comes to terrorism. Surely terrorists are best tackled by the community and family and people that they come from, and if so then surely it will become less and less of a problem over time. If not, then maybe the overwhelming amount of good people from wherever you're talking about should be more proactive in stopping minority lunatics doing what lunatics do.

When nice people stand aside and allow some fringe element to politically and socially ostracise an ethnic minority based on colour or creed, things like world war 2 happen before it's resolved. And that's only if you're fortunate enough to have people in other countries to come and stand up for you. I'm not being funny, but i really would expect a jewish person to appreciate that.
(2nd and 3rd paragraph not directed at you specifically towards you ninja, speaking my general thoughts there)

And lo, the "stunning inferiority complex that fears education and intellect in the 21st century" rears it's ugly head....

You really are disconnected from reality aren't you? Hell, you're not even connected with what you're currently watching/reading.

This explicitly does not say that democrats are nice guys.
It doesn't even say that republicans are bad guys.
Hell, the main character even outlines what he perceives to be the positive fundamental tenets of Republicanism, and then derides how those philosophies have been hijacked by a lunatic fringe.

Now, I don't agree with those philosophies or those who espouse them, but I can at least have a rational debate with them.

The tea party on the other hand? Put it this way... when he had that rant about how they were the "american taliban", for most of the world that wasn't controversial. Most of us just nodded and went, "yep, they're completely deranged nutters".

The US is literally being held hostage by a fringe group of ignorant, stupid, little shits called the Tea Party. The time to be civil and rational is long gone. These morons don't understand logic or history.

Sorry, but the whole "we were all in it together during the depression" thing is bullshit. Sure, everyone banded together and looked after each other.... unless you were black, gay, Irish, Jewish or even female.

He's totally right about wage repression though.

Also,I'd point out that his list of resentments: the poor, black people, immigrants, unions, intellectuals and government; that's a list of resentments of the right.

Sorry, but this isn't some vast idealogical gulf between fringes. It's a gap between a centre-right party (the democrats) and insane people.

@ChaosEngine, believe it or not, I actually agree with you. I don't think kids are the property of their parents. I also don't think people are the property of the community or any other group of people, parents or otherwise.

The hard fact, however, is that only parents can choose to have a child, not a community. The child is solely the parents' responsibility, I believe, because it was solely their choice. And I do believe they should have some fundamental rights to their children, such as making decisions for their family that the majority of people may or may not agree with.

I'm an atheist, and I'm, too, bothered when people use God as a reason to not treat their children for an illness, but that's the fringe minority, isn't it? But when you write "You have the privilege of raising them, but only if you treat them right." Who is the judge of what is the right treatment? You? Me? The majority? I believe the majority thought slavery was pretty groovy here in the States at one point.