Lindy, I think the limits of tolerance end where actual harm is done to people. I am not talking about the "psychological damage" caused by a Christmas tree in someone's back yard on the block you drive down, or the emotional torture because someone was subjected to the words "under God" but more like the tragic beating and murder of someone because he was Gay. Violence unleashed on others because of their beliefs or unbelief is intolerable in my view. How those beliefs are made manifest is a different thing (to wit 911). The questions of tolerance seem to arise when political action groups exceed the boundaries of reason. By that, I include even the mundane like "social engineering;" by creating unworkable programs that were ill-conceived and poorly implemented. For example, the idea of artificially creating a distribution of races in a particular agency, public body, corporate setting or in academia, regardless of the availability of skills, is to my thinking unwise and unnecessary. Academic opportunities should be open to all who have the necessary intellectual capacity and self discipline, regardless of financial circumstances. The operative words here are intellectual capacity. Your story intrigued me. With regards to the Catholic and Protestant controversy over Holy Communion, the Catholics adhere to a theological concept of transubstantiation, which means that by divine mystery the Eucharist is transubstantiated into the essence of the body of Christ and the wine is transubstantiated into the essence of the blood of Christ. The theological premise of communion is the co extant relationship with the essence of God by the mystery of transubstantiation. The eating of the Eucharist is not considered cannibalistic because it is not transubstantiated a priori but rather a posteriori in essence. The protestant theological premise is predicated on the principle of consubstantiation, which means that the Eucharist is symbolically representative of the body of Christ and the wine is symbolically representative of the blood of Christ, and, therefore, the communion is symbolic and not actual as in the Catholic theology. It is not considered cannibalistic because it is also not actual ingestion of the body and the blood, but the ingestion of a symbol. The idea of election to Glory (going to heaven) or to Perdition (going to hell) being imposed on unsuspecting persons is unknown to me. Predestination is a theological concept that is more complicated than the story you have advanced here. These are controversial issues even within the religious communities across the globe. The authority for all predestination or salvation arguments obtains from St. Augustine (354-430 C.E.) and St. Paul (5-67 C.E.). The most popular view about salvation is that it is open to anyone who asks for it through prayerful petitioning of God's Grace. No works done by man can assure salvation (election to glory) lest any man should boast. I find the story that you have related to be a distorted abstraction of these ideas, which I have contraposed here. Nevertheless, I find no harm in your presentation. Am I being tolerant in this? I think not. I do not see it as a matter either of tolerance or intolerance. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression under the U.S. Constitution are sufficient to protect your right to the presentation of any idea. However, as Oliver Wendell Holmes, (1763-1837), said that freedom of speech does not extend itself to yelling fire in a crowded theater. This about "hate speech" which I believe is a short step to "hate thoughts" raises my indignation. Now, we must use B.C.E. for before Christian Era because we cannot say Before Christ. We have to use C.E. instead of AD (anno Domini, "in the year of our Lord.") And here we are, not with respect to tolerance but with respect to intolerance, and back to my earlier fundamental question which was not intended to be facetious. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist