Sounds like you knew what you wanted. Well done. Still, I bet you had to read The Republic and some boring Alan Bloom. Plato invented Political Science, dontcha know.

Your little foray into etymology was quite nice. The Pope was talking about the end of the world so I suppose there should be some good eschatological scatalogy thrown in with the etymology. Hey, shit happens.

He didn't invent political science, he was just the first one to make up words to label what was going on.

The Egyptians and the Greeks had texts describing the reasoning and methodology for picking leaders. Hammurabi sparked discussion on the nature of legislation.

Philosophers like to compare what's happening with things that don't (philosopher kings and all that). Political scientists like to compare what's happening with what should have happened. I can do these comparisons all day.

My PoliSci classes are more case study oriented than theory.

Next thing you know you're going to tell me that philosophers didn't invent philosophy.

Chicken and egg discussions aren't that interesting (if it is that kind of discussion).

It is after all political science that you're studying. If it is indeed science then there has to be some scientific inquiry going on. Some professional political scientists do merely theorize... some put it to more practical use. ;)

Pope is still poopy.

 I object to this view. Because some religions are considered very tolerant, others are not - and this is because it's built into their nature. Comrade Toyva happens to belong to a religion, judaism, that doesn't have mission on it's agenda (same with buddhism), and that's a big reason why they are seen as more "tolerant" and respectful towards non-believers or other denominations. While for example in christianity it's simply built into the faith to interfere into other peoples beliefs - God have ordered the christian to spread the message and to inform people about the consequences. So one could say that some degree of intolerance, violation of other peoples integrity - in this case to question peoples personal faith - is sanctioned by the religion of christianity. And if you are a sincere follower of this faith, you just have to accept it.

What I'm trying to say is that a respectful attitude on a personal level isn't the only factor, there's also the factor of the nature of the religion (or philosofy, world view, political ideology etc). Some religions are outgoing, some are more introvert. And it kinda sucks if people aren't aware of this.

Reading through this thread, I have come to the realization that I hate philosophers more than The Pope.

Gotcha . I don't believe in global warming. To be more specific... I don't believe that humans are accelerating climate change. I believe it is a natural phenomenon, dating back to pre-ice-age.

Sure there were other things forbidden, but the bible lists out gayness as an abombination, (NIV and KJV I do believe) andit also calls it some other word that I can't remember (It's been a while since I picked that book up -_-). But the point is that he is also going to a more contraversial phenomenon. For example, he could say "Porn is wrong", and I'd agreee with him, but... almost no-one would care... because it's not as controversial...

Actually, this idea is more coming from my brother, who, in turn, has read plenty o' those famous philosophers, so I'm not sure what relations it may have to which philosopher. 

What I'm talking about is more along the lines of taking positions on "reality", as it were (if that distinguishes it from what you're saying).  It's in response to the idea that something must be proven before it can be taken as a position.  My point is nothing can be proven about reality (external world, if that works (not saying the internal world is "I", either)), so to take the Bible as truth is no less an assumption than to, say, taking empiricism alone as truth...

That may not have clarified anything.

This does raise the interesting point of to what degree should things be tolerated, and exactly what is being tolerated.

 I tolerate people rather than ideas. So I totally agree with you....to an extent. Christianity in it's purest most obnoxious form of evengelical prosyletizing, the command that you have to go out and tell everyone that is different from you that they will burn in hell/die in Armeggedon or whatever other fear mongering punishment and indoctrinate their kids that there is only one truth, you don't need to spend any time thinking about this because I'm telling you right now if you disobey what I'm telling you you will burn in hell/die in armeggedon and even questioning this is a damnable sin ect ect ect....this is totally unabashadly wrong. For any number of reasons that I'm not going to rant on here, and furthermore they are obvious to most...except for the ones doing it of course.

However I won't use the blanket statement christians should not be tolerated, that would be absurdist and prejudiced and wrong. Because not every christian is that oldschool fire and brimstone ideal of christianity. There are many progressive, reasonable thinking christians that interpret the bible, their religion, the teachings of christ in such a way that it doesn't require them to be total dicks. And to say christianity as a whole is intolerable because of it's teachings is the kind of thinking that causes all sorts of problems. Jesus regardless of who he was, or to what extent he really existed was a great philosopher and humanist, why should I disrespect people that follow his teachings?

 I believe it was appolose that asked something along the line of "How can you respect people's beliefs but condemn them for acting on them". My answer to that is simple: if their acting on their beliefs is condemnable for infringing on the rights and liberties of others then I do not respect their beliefs. And if they willingly infringe on those rights and liberties no matter how much they think it's a good thing that they are doing it, they clearly do not respect the beliefs of others.

Intollerance should not be tolerated, as circular and contradictory as that may be. Pretty sure Jesus said something about doing unto others as you would want done unto you. And that's a two way road, because as you act, people will/should respond in kind. Those that are peaceful, respectful and tolerant are granted the same and deservedly so. But those that openly condemn others invite condemnation on themselves.

Well, here, what do you mean that "nothing can be proven about reality"? Nothing can be proven at all? How do you prove that? What do you mean by prove? What constitutes proof?

Homophobia is as dangerous as the destruciton of the rainforests