on religious tolerance

Since there’s been a LOT of debate about ‘religious tolerance’ on the net these days, here’re my $0.02, a day after everyone else’s and in bullet points (I also have not actually *read* any of those posts, so apologies if I repeat things and/or got the title misinterpreted):

Tolerance: a good thing!

Monotheistic religions: historically really really *not* good at being tolerant of anything, externally or internally.

“Religious tolerance” thus: bit of a misnomer, but, you know, here’s to utopia – it sure would be good to have

God: might or might not exist

If god exists and likes the intolerant stuff done in his name: god = giant plonker, not worth following, avoid

If god exists and does not like intolerant stuff done in his name: god not giant plonker, but probably really upset with 90%+ of his followers (and a bad communicator, or absent, or not bothered, or …)

Conclusion: human made mess, all along

PS: Also: original sin and being born guilty etc? God a) either vengeful idiot to steer way clear off, or b) that interpretation = really nasty screwup on human side of equation. Personally, I’ve no idea if god exists, but if yes, then I vote for the latter. And, you know, if its the former and only the people that follow the wording of one precise religion, get into heaven, and not people who actually lived a decent kind of life being decent to other people, then, well, heaven will be filled with lots of scary people I do not want to spend eternity with at all, and lets have a party in hell. Right?