Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Small vindication on Rhode Island

That church is Rhode Island is still having its pagan pride day. You can read about it here, in an article that all but admits what I surmised a few days ago.

From the article, which ironically I found because Robin Edgar was using it as an example of UU awfulness:

In a letter being circulated among members, one critic called the scheduled series of pagan workshops...

This is reporter talk for "You know that controversy we wrote about last week? There's really no there there. It's just one nutjob with a knack for publicity who didn't like the festival and managed to make himself sound like an organized opposition by passing some copies of his rant around and then calling my boss and making me write about his one letter as if it represented an actual controversy. But the story was fun to read, wasn't it?"

Grr.

Are there humanists who don't like pagans? Sure, and vice versa. But I still maintain that the majority of both groups get along and are minorities within their own churches. I don't get much out of pagan rituals myself, but I don't have to go.

I don't see Paganism as taking over UUism or trying to, despite, yes, the one sermon I attended where a pagan minister preached that this was the plan. (That guy creates a lot of bad blood. If you're a pagan and you know who I'm talking about, you might want to do yourselves a favor and ask him to take it down a notch.)

But in Rhode Island?

It was just one cranky dude who knew how to manipulate local media.

CC

12 comments:

The Emerson Avenger said...

Wrong CC. You are engaging in DIM Thinking again. . . Yes that insidious blend of obvious Denial, apparently willful Ignorance, and undeniable Minimization of the anti-religious intolerance exposed in the article. You are quite evidently misrepresenting the facts as they are presented in the article itself. It clearly speaks of more than one "critic" albeit without specifying just how many there were. It is true that ONE of these critics circulated a letter to church members that was clearly and unequicocally intolerant towards the Pagan Pride Day event but the organizer of the event also received other emails from other anonymous "critics". The article proves that fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us are still going out of their way to intolerantly attack and undermine "spiritual" U*Us, pagan or otherwise, which is exactly why I posted it. The dynamic of anti-religious intolerance and bigotry exhibited by "Humanist" U*Us in Providence Rhode Island is little different in principle than what I have experienced at the Unitarian Church of Montreal and other U*U theists and/or pagans have experienced throughout the U*U World as it were.

Chalicechick said...

One peice of criticism is from a UU, as for the rest, we don't know.

Christians have been known to criticize large pagan gatherings, too. I suspect the contact person for a pagan festival gets all kinds of criticism from all kinds of people.

You're assuming that more than one peice of criticism comes from the UUs, but the article doesn't say that.

Had I been writing the article, I would not have explicitly pointed out that one guy wrote a letter and handed it out if there really was a pattern of criticism.

CC

The Emerson Avenger said...

More DIM Thinking CC. . .

The sub-headline clearly states -

*Some* Unitarian Universalist church *members* are questioning why the congregation is hosting a day to "educate the public about what paganism is and isn't."

The article states -

The First Unitarian Church plans to host a Rhode Island Pagan Pride Day tomorrow, but not everyone in the church is pleased.

The daylong program has drawn fire from *critics* (non-U*Us I think not. . .) who say that Unitarian Universalism is a rational congregation that has tried to steer clear of superstition.

Steele acknowledged that she said she has received *some* anonymous criticism of the event. Upon receiving one of the anonymous *complaints* (note that it is plural) by mail, she said, "I used it to line the bottom of the cage of my guinea pig."

sisterbecky said...

I am no expert of the situation. But, I am a Pagan UU that attended a "humanist" majority congregation for several years. I do know that not all humanist UU's are comfortable with Paganism, and that intolerance does exist. But, I think that it depends on the congregation (each church has a personality of its own). Some churches are more Pagan- friendly than others. When, and if (and I have heard from fellow Pagan friends that it has happened) a fellow UU is being out right intolerant- it does need to be pointed out to them. Respecting each others beliefs is part of makes us UUs. Even if their beliefs seem "flaky" to them. (I think it is perfectly okay to feel a little squeemish during a Beltane ritual. If it's not "your thing," that is okay.)

But, I question the idea that "The article probes that fundamentalist atheiest "Humanist" U*Us are still going out of their way to intolerantly attack and undermind "spiritual" U*Us, pagan or otherwise..." that Emerson Avenger mentioned. You are certainly free to have that opinion. But, I think it is best to be cautious about lumping all the Humanist UUs together with these bad apples. It sounds like you have had some VERY bad experiences, and have a right to be upset. But, newspapers DO like to fan the flames, and make a big story where there may not be as much of one. And, (at least our local papers) some newspapers get the facts out right wrong. The Rhode Island church MAY be full of anti-religious intolerant. I don't think you can tell from one article in a newspaper. I think that the PPD organizer did the right thing with the complaints- lining the guinea pig cage with them. If someone does not feel comfortable putting their name on a complaint (they where anonymous), than they shouldn't be complaining at all. Who knows if they are even church members if they are anonymous? They may just have trouble makers in town.

The Emerson Avenger said...

:But, I think it is best to be cautious about lumping all the Humanist UUs together with these bad apples.

I am not doing so actually. The very reason that I specifically refer to "fundamentalist atheist" "Humanists" is to distinguish these dogmatic, militant, intolerant and bigotted atheists aka "Humanists" from the mainstream of atheism/Humanism.

:It sounds like you have had some VERY bad experiences, and have a right to be upset.

Thank you for acknowledging that fact. I have indeed had some VERY bad experiences and am exercising my right to complain about them.

:But, newspapers DO like to fan the flames, and make a big story where there may not be as much of one. And, (at least our local papers) some newspapers get the facts out right wrong. The Rhode Island church MAY be full of anti-religious intolerant. I don't think you can tell from one article in a newspaper.

I agree and neither I nor the newspaper are in any way suggesting that a majority of the congregation opposed Pagan Pride Day. On the contrary it is quite clear from the article that it was a minority of intolerant U*Us, albeit a vocal one, that opposed PPD.

:I think that the PPD organizer did the right thing with the complaints-lining the guinea pig cage with them. If someone does not feel comfortable putting their name on a complaint (they where anonymous), than they shouldn't be complaining at all.

I agree one hundred percent. Anonymous complaints, particularly ones that are symptomatic of ignorance and/or intolerance are of little value.

:Who knows if they are even church members if they are anonymous?

Well there are ways of determining that from what is written.

:They may just have trouble makers in town.

Knowing what I know about the U*U "religious community" I think that we can be pretty sure that the complaints about PPD being held at the First Unitarian Church of Providence Rhode Island came from inolerant U*Us.

Chalicechick said...

You don't like it when other people diagnose you. So please don't diagnose me with DIM thinking.

First of all, on almost all newspapers the person who wrote the headline and subhead is the editor or copy editor, not the reporter. I really don't see any evidence in the article that more than one person actually did anything. The paragraph about the letter strongly implies that one guy wrote a letter and handed it around.

There are ways of telling who wrote an anonymous letter, sometimes, but you haven't seen any of the anonymous letters. You're just assuming that they are written by UUs.

You don't think there's half a dozen evangelicals in the whole town who wouldn't like the pagan festival and have time to waste writing protest letters?

Also, writing an anonymous letter would be a really stupid thing for a church member to do.

Which letter is going to carry more weight, a signed one that begins:

"As a dues-paying member of this church for twenty years, I am dismayed to see my contributions going to pay for logistical support for a festival I so firmly disagree with..."

or an anonymous one that sounds more like:

"I'm not going to tell you who I am, but I think you shouldn't have your stupid festival"


The first letter, coming from a member of the church, might mean something to somebody.

And finally, that cranky humanist, knowing what he knew about pagans, made a whole bunch of judgements without fully knowing the facts.

You, knowing what you know about humanists, have made a whole bunch of judgments without fully knowing the facts.

Sounds to me like you and that humanist should have lunch. You'd probably get along great.

CC

The Emerson Avenger said...

:You don't like it when other people diagnose you. So please don't diagnose me with DIM thinking.

I am opposed to false and unfounded diagnoses of mental illness by people who have no qualification to make such diagnoses. If you engage in obvious Denial, obvious Ignorance and obvious Minimization than I can quite justifiably accuse you of DIM Thinking.

:First of all, on almost all newspapers the person who wrote the headline and subhead is the editor or copy editor, not the reporter.

I know that but they get the information for the headlines from the article and the reporter. It is very clear from the article that more than on U*U complained about the Pagan Pride Day event being associated with the First Unitarian Church of Providence.

:I really don't see any evidence in the article that more than one person actually did anything.

More Denial and Ignorance and Minimization of the what is clearly stated in the article. You might as well try to claim that nobody did anything. . .

:The paragraph about the letter strongly implies that one guy wrote a letter and handed it around.

That is correct but it is clear that there were other letters from other people.

:There are ways of telling who wrote an anonymous letter, sometimes, but you haven't seen any of the anonymous letters.

Well I've seen ONE anonymous letter. . . Right?

:You're just assuming that they are written by UUs.

Wrong. The article clearly states or strongly implies that the letters (thanks for acknowledging that there were more than ONE. . .) were written by U*Us. Why would non-U*Us specifically complain about Pagan Pride Day taking place at the U*U church?

:You don't think there's half a dozen evangelicals in the whole town who wouldn't like the pagan festival and have time to waste writing protest letters?

Well there are obviously some "evangelical" U*U "Humanists" who didn't like the pagan festival and had time to waste writing protest letters. . . Right? Christian evangelicals would not complain about the event being sponsored or associated with the U*U church. They might even use that fact to try to attack the U*U church. . . Am I wrong?

:Also, writing an anonymous letter would be a really stupid thing for a church member to do.

Tell that to Anonymous U*U and all those other U*Us who write anonymous letters. . .

:Which letter is going to carry more weight - snip

The latter letter obviously which is why I generally do not post anonymously.

:The first letter, coming from a member of the church, might mean something to somebody.

And then again it might not. . .

:And finally, that cranky humanist, knowing what he knew about pagans, made a whole bunch of judgements without fully knowing the facts.

Indeed he or she did.

:You, knowing what you know about humanists, have made a whole bunch of judgments without fully knowing the facts.

No I have not. It is you who are ignoring and denying the facts that are presented in the article. Everything I have said is backed up by what is stated in the article or my other knowledge and experience of the anti-religious intolerance of fundie atheist "Humanist" U*Us.

:Sounds to me like you and that humanist should have lunch. You'd probably get along great.

Not likely. I have not in fact made the kind of ignorant assumptions that that cranky U*U "Humanist" has made.

Chalicechick said...

If I ticked off the symptoms of a mental condition and yold you that you matched them, you would be upset with me. I don't diagnose you, so please give me the same level of respect.

Stop diagnosing me if you don't want to be diagnosed yourself.

As for the anonymous letters at the end of the article, the article states "Steele acknowledged that she said she has received some anonymous criticism of the event."

"Criticism of the event" does not sound like criticism of where the event is. It sounds like criticism of the fact that the event exists at all.

Your insistence that anonymous "criticism of the event"
MUST BE Humanist UUs writing letters protesting where the event is hosted is not based in fact, but in your own dislike of humanist UUs.

CC

Ps. Inventing a new fake name and posting to beliefnet talking about yourself if the third person is pretty close to an anonymous letter, and we all know you did that, Godknowswho.

The Emerson Avenger said...

:If I ticked off the symptoms of a mental condition and yold you that you matched them, you would be upset with me. I don't diagnose you, so please give me the same level of respect.

I am not diagnosing you CC. I have not ascribed ANY mental illness to you. I am simply truthfully and accurately describing your behaviour when it is characterized by obvious and all but undeniable Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of certain issues.

:Stop diagnosing me if you don't want to be diagnosed yourself.

As I said I am not diagnosing you at all just describing actual behaviour that you, and rather too many other U*Us. . . clearly and unquivocally engage in when you Deny, Ignore or Minimize very real problems within the U*U "religious community", particularly those that involve very real injustices and abuses such as the definitely anti-Pagan, and possibly more broadly anti-religious. . . intolerance of the U*U "critics" who offensively opposed Pagan Pride Day in Providence.

:"Criticism of the event" does not sound like criticism of where the event is. It sounds like criticism of the fact that the event exists at all.

Correct but allow me to remind you that the article begins by saying -

*Some* (not just ONE. . .) Unitarian Universalist church *members* are questioning why the congregation is hosting a day to "educate the public about what paganism is and isn't."

and

The First Unitarian Church plans to host a Rhode Island Pagan Pride Day tomorrow, but not everyone in the church is pleased.

The daylong program has drawn fire from *critics* who say that Unitarian Universalism is a rational congregation that has tried to steer clear of superstition.

Thus it is abundantly clear to anyone who is not in complete Denial of the facts as they are clearly presented in the news report, or willfully Ignoring them and Minimizing them. . . that multiple "critics" (not just ONE) who are clearly *members* of the U*U congregation in Providence were "questioning why the *congregation* is hosting" Pagan Pride Day. These U*U church members are reported to be saying "that Unitarian Universalism is a rational congregation that has tried to steer clear of superstition." That is exactly the kind of anti-religious intolerance that militant atheist "Humanist" U*Us typically engage in thus I have very good "rational" grounds to believe that the U*U opponents to the Providence U*U "Church" hosting Pagan Pride day were predominantly if not exclusively "Humanist" U*Us. Right CC? It is you who is being considerably less than *rational* in trying to pretend that only ONE cranky U*U opposed Pagan Pride Day being hosted by the First Unitarian Church of Providence, Rhode Island.

:Your insistence that anonymous "criticism of the event"
MUST BE Humanist UUs writing letters protesting where the event is hosted is not based in fact, but in your own dislike of humanist UUs.

Wrong again CC. My perfectly *rational* belief that it is predominantly or exclusively "cranky" fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us who opposed Pagan Pride Day being hosted by the U*U congregation is based on the information that is contained in the news report. In fact I do not dislike Humanist U*Us as you ignorantly have asserted here in another misguided effort to discredit me, I like and have a lot of respect for many Humanists (U*U or otherwise). I have said many times that some of my best friends are atheists as it were. I just have a bit of a problem with the obnoxiously outspoken, indeed remarkably "cranky". . . intolerant and outright bigotted fundamentalist atheist faction of Humanists (U*U or otherwise) especially when they go out of their way to make life unpleasant for me and other God believing people.

:Ps. Inventing a new fake name and posting to beliefnet talking about yourself if the third person is pretty close to an anonymous letter, and we all know you did that, Godknowswho.

Duh. . . It was not much of a "secret identity" CC. In fact I deliberately chose the username GodKnowsWho as pretty much a dead give-away to those U*U Beliefnet regulars who aren't competely brain dead.

indrax said...

Robin,
You need to learn to disagree with people without insulting them.

You are arguing about numbers, if you think she's wrong about the numbers, just explain why. Don't assume her motives and thought process and label her.

Here's my reading:
Some Unitarian Universalist church members are questioning why the congregation is hosting a day to "educate the public about what paganism is and isn't."

This is probably a sentiment held by a group of people at the church, and it is a perfectly valid sentiment, Especially given the scope of what this pagan pride day entails.
I doubt this church hosts many other day-long festivals with over 30 workshops. I can't even imagine a 'humanist day'.

This does not indicate that this group agrees with the letter quoted.

The First Unitarian Church plans to host a Rhode Island Pagan Pride Day tomorrow, but not everyone in the church is pleased.

This is a wash on the number really, one displeased person makes for 'not everyone'. In context, probably a group.
Even so, being displeased with the chruch hosting PPD does not make one a fundamentalist atheist. or bigoted, or even hostile.

The daylong program has drawn fire from *critics* who say that Unitarian Universalism is a rational congregation that has tried to steer clear of superstition.
Plural, but also not a quote.
I think I'd disagree on a factual basis with someone who said this, but that's another discussion.
I think a love of rationality and dislike of superstition is common enough among UU's, but that doesn't make them intolerant. Associating PPD with superstition _might_, but that would require another conversation.

(When he read this, a friend of mine said 'I didn't know Unitarian Universalism was just a congregation.' Perhaps we shouldn't put too much weight into the article's use of number words.)

So yeah, there's more than one person at the church who aren't thrilled with the church promoting superstition, and one person made a stink about it.

The quotes of the letter that are cited in the article cover enough ground that I'd like to see the rest of it, and know more about _this_ PPD, before making a judgement.
I mean, maybe they are flaky.

The Emerson Avenger said...

:You need to learn to disagree with people without insulting them.

Actually a whole lot of U*Us need to learn to disagree with people without insulting them. . .

:You are arguing about numbers, if you think she's wrong about the numbers, just explain why.

I did explain why.

:Don't assume her motives and thought process and label her.

I am not assuming her motives which are pretty obviosu to anyone in any case. I am just truthfully and accurately describing CC's actual and well documented behaviour. CC is clearly in Denial of things that are clearly stated in the article. She is clearly Ignoring things stated in the article and she undeniably Minimizing the number of people opposed to Pagan Pride Day and thus Denying, Ignoring and Minimizing the problem of anti-pagan, if not more broadly anti-religious, intolerance that clearly exists at the First Unitarian Church of Providence.

:Here's my reading:
Some Unitarian Universalist church members are questioning why the congregation is hosting a day to "educate the public about what paganism is and isn't."

Correct.

:This is probably a sentiment held by a group of people at the church, and it is a perfectly valid sentiment, Especially given the scope of what this pagan pride day entails.

Fair enough.

:I doubt this church hosts many other day-long festivals with over 30 workshops. I can't even imagine a 'humanist day'.

Why not? It seems to me that a U*U Church could reasonably host a Humanist Pride Day every bit as much as a Pagan Pride Day to say nothing of a Gay Pride Day. N'est-ce pas?

:This does not indicate that this group agrees with the letter quoted.

I expect that some of them probably don't agree with the letter quoted.

::The First Unitarian Church plans to host a Rhode Island Pagan Pride Day tomorrow, but not everyone in the church is pleased.

:This is a wash on the number really, one displeased person makes for 'not everyone'. In context, probably a group.

Exactly. A vocal minority.

:Even so, being displeased with the chruch hosting PPD does not make one a fundamentalist atheist. or bigoted, or even hostile.

Correct in principle but not in terms of what appears to have happened in Providence, Rhode Island to say nothing of elsewhere in the U*U World. . .

::The daylong program has drawn fire from *critics* who say that Unitarian Universalism is a rational congregation that has tried to steer clear of superstition.

:Plural, but also not a quote.

Actually it is a quote, or paraphrase, it clearly says that multiple critics say that U*Uism is "rational" and "has tried to steer clear of superstition". This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that is regularly used by "Humanist" U*Us, especially in the characterization of any and all theistic religious beliefs as "superstition". This justifies my very rational belief that the opponents to Pagan Pride Day be hosted by the First Unitarian Church of Providence were predominantly, if not exclusively, fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us. N'est-ce pas? Heck, even if others subsets of U*Uism were involved I would still justifiably accuse them of engaging in anti-pagan religious intolerance.

:I think I'd disagree on a factual basis with someone who said this, but that's another discussion.
I think a love of rationality and dislike of superstition is common enough among UU's, but that doesn't make them intolerant.

Broadly characterizing a particular system of religious belief as "superstition" is intolerant. The letter that was distributed was clearly intolerant of and insulting towards pagans, U*U or otherwise.

:Associating PPD with superstition _might_, but that would require another conversation.

No it wouldn't. The letter clearly did associate paganism and Pagan Pride Day with "superstition". It is standard practice for fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us to put down any and all forms of theistic religion, including classic monotheistic Unitarianism. . . as "superstition".

:(When he read this, a friend of mine said 'I didn't know Unitarian Universalism was just a congregation.' Perhaps we shouldn't put too much weight into the article's use of number words.)

I don't see why not, especially when it did not specify numbers but let's agree that more than just ONE U*U was opposed to Pagan Pride Day being hosted by the First Unitarian Church of Providence. Let's reasonably assume that it was a small group of church members that was included a fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*U or two. . .

:So yeah, there's more than one person at the church who aren't thrilled with the church promoting superstition, and one person made a stink about it.

Hmmm. . . It would seem that you yourself are now equating hosting Pagan Pride Day with with "promoting superstition" here. Is that just a slp of the tongue or a Freudian slip?

:The quotes of the letter that are cited in the article cover enough ground that I'd like to see the rest of it, and know more about _this_ PPD, before making a judgement.

Well supposedly "the rest of it" may be read here.

:I mean, maybe they are flaky.

No flakier than a lot of the fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us I have the misfortune to know. Come to think of it no more flaky that you or CC or a whole bunch of other "flaky" U*Us. . .

indrax said...


Actually a whole lot of U*Us need to learn to disagree with people without insulting them. . .


Quite likely, including you. But you can't admit to that, can you?

I did explain why.
Please read what I write, not what you want to see. I said "just explain why". When someone is mistaken, correct them without insulting them.
This event could have been a golden opportunity for you to make friends, but you treat people like dirt because you think they miscounted.

Correct.
Yeah, I know it was correct, it was a quote from the article. Pay attention.

Why not? It seems to me that a U*U Church could reasonably host a Humanist Pride Day every bit as much as a Pagan Pride Day to say nothing of a Gay Pride Day. N'est-ce pas?

Oh certainly they could, but I doubt that they do. This is a major event that mainly serves one subgroup in chruch. My point is that 'questioning' it isn't bad.

Correct in principle but not in terms of what appears to have happened in Providence, Rhode Island
What appears to have happened is that one person sent a letter. That letter is the only thing cited in the article that might warrant the label 'fundamentalist aheist' and those odds are dropping fast.

Actually it is a quote, or paraphrase, it clearly says that multiple critics say that U*Uism is "rational" and "has tried to steer clear of superstition".

No, it is a paraphrase, NOT a quote, which means that it is quite possible that the critics never used the words "rational" or "superstition" at all, but that this was composed by the author. I am certain no UU said that UUism is a rational congregation.

Given that the article appears to have misquoted the original letter, I don't trust it to paraphrase at all.

This justifies my very rational belief that the opponents to Pagan Pride Day be hosted by the First Unitarian Church of Providence were predominantly, if not exclusively, fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us. N'est-ce pas?
Your justification is that you treat a paraphrase as a quote?

Broadly characterizing a particular system of religious belief as "superstition" is intolerant.
No, but we don't know that the critics characterized anything, they were describing UUism, the reporter put it together. we don't know the context.
Pagan pride day is certainly not 'a particular system of religious belief'. PPD may cater to any number of superstitions.

The letter that was distributed was clearly intolerant of and insulting towards pagans, U*U or otherwise.
I wasn't talking about the letter, I was talking about what the critics supposedly said.

I don't see why not, especially when it did not specify numbers
My point was that given the it called UUism a congregation, (and misquoted the letter itself,) we should not trust it to be accurate.
but let's agree that more than just ONE U*U was opposed to Pagan Pride Day being hosted by the First Unitarian Church of Providence.
Quite likely...
Let's reasonably assume that it [...]included a fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*U or two. . .

Let's not..
You are literally asking me to assume your conclusion, and implying that not to would be unreasonable.

It would seem that you yourself are now equating hosting Pagan Pride Day with with "promoting superstition" here. Is that just a slp of the tongue or a Freudian slip?
I meant exactly what I said. (Given the article I had,) That superstition is what the critics were upset about.


:I mean, maybe they are flaky.

No flakier than a lot of the fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us I have the misfortune to know.

How do you know? I didn't realize that Providence was the next nearest congregation to Montreal. Have you been to the Providence PPD? Did you have deep theological discussions? (about their beliefs, not yours) And so saw no flakes?

Come to think of it no more flaky that you or CC or a whole bunch of other "flaky" U*Us. . .

Again, needless insults. Do you have any real response to my suggestion that some people at PPD might be flaky? (or to really address the letter, that some spiritualities might be flaky.)

Well supposedly "the rest of it" may be read here.

KCarson said this author was a non-realist christian. The letter itself speaks of 'the last few decades of flaky “spiritualities”', This is consistent with the author having a spirituality they consider traditional, valid, and non-flaky.
I'm inclined to believe KCarson.

Heck, even if others subsets of U*Uism were involved I would still justifiably accuse them of engaging in anti-pagan religious intolerance.
Then do so.

The phrase "coupled with a medieval “Dungeons and Dragons” festival." has nothing to do with the religious aspects. Which makes the misqoutation in the original article an actual misrepresentation.
I don't know though, if the schedule really warrants a 'D&D Festival' description. That might be overblown, or might be bias against paganism leaking through. There's no way to tell without the schedule.

Most troubling were the banner suggestions. These were obviously intended to be humorous, but I don't think they were helpful.

In any case, the intolerant things in this story are from one person.

Even if you believe there is more than one very intolerant UU at FUCP, there is no sign of systematic intolerance.