Manx

alansmithee -

The book mentioned delineates two types of people: the people that agree with the book and the people who do not agree with the book. The former are commonly called Christian Fundamentalists, the latter the book calls "secular humanists".

You defended the book by stating that the "amoral left" uses the same tactics. Are you referring to a group that is a subgroup of the "secular humanists" or are you referring to the same group the book is referring to? The difference is, in the former, you have jumped down in scope which destroys your argument because the book does not represent the scope you are discussing (I could do the same by listing a single ultra-fascist leftie and claim that single person now represents everyone who disagrees with the book, I'd be wrong, but I could do it just as you have). In the latter, you are wrong for the reason I outlined above: "secular humanists" do not want to force anyone to do anything. Take the example of gun control that you provided - there are staunch conservatives who are pro-gun yet still clearly fall into the category the book calls "secular humanists". There is no guaranteed portion of the definition of "secular humanist" that is an element of forceable control. There may be some people who are otherwise "secular humanists" who want to control, but the term as used (those defined by the book) does not require any element of control over others.

As for your last sentence, you're essentially saying that people who are intolerant of intolerance are the same as people who are intolerant of everything. Clearly that is nonsense.