Trying to understand?

Are they really trying to understand, or is it just the old worn argumentation of pseudo rationality of convenience?

I found this "letter to the editor" in the newspaper today:

"What a hole of fundamentalism we live in (a reaction to a debate article that had been written against the abortion).
Sure, it is good that the author (of the said article) can have freedom of speech, in order that one can react to it! Bylander (the anti-abortionist) is surely concerned with the abortion law, but while doing that, he throws weapon wildly around at various directions. I want to address the latter.
I do not believe that Bylander has really understood the relationship between human rights, marriage and the foundation for values. I do not think he understood that sexuality is much more than procreation. If one were to follow his norms, one would only have sex those few times one were going to procreate, in a heterosexual manner.
To deny the homosexuals the right to natural (my stressing it) and free life in the society is crime against human rights. If the church wants to be a part of society, it has to adjust her view to the modern foundations of values, which means that no one may be excluded. It is not a crime to not to be homosexual.
What is there so dangerous with the homosexual couples' weddings in church? It does not pose any threat to the heterosexual weddings.
I want my children to be educated in a school where the teachers understand that there is a plethora of views and ideas in the world and that everybody has a place in it, no matter what religion or political views they follow.
To live together in a society is about taking and giving, about being able to look beyond your own horizon and to discover that there are many other ways of life.
I am looking for other voices from the church that can confirm the existence of space for fellowship, tolerance, and love, for all. This is what religion should be about, if it is going to take the aspiring role in a democratic society.
signed by Heterosexual agnostic"

My commentary
(which I should send to the editor, but I will not)

I feel very glad to see that agnostics care about religion, especially Christianity, even though they have no idea what they are talking about as well as no desire to learn. Their arguments are very emotional and humanistic, and their shaking their fists to God is so obvious, so well-recognized, that it has become boring. Suddenly they think that the term "fundamentalism" is going to be perceived as a pejorative word. Suddenly religion, according to an agnostic, is a social enterprise which can be adjusted to human needs, and the criteria for "natural" are being set dependently on trends and wishes.
In other words: God needs to get upgraded, He is too dull and old-fashioned, time to rock&roll, right? At least...

"If the church wants to be a part of society, it has to adjust her view to the modern foundations of values, which means that no one may be excluded."
Really? Well, it depends what we understand as 'the church'. And who is giving the definition.
An atheist? And who cares what an atheist thinks about these things? Another atheist, probably, i. e. another God-hating rebel...
Rational arguments? Hardly. But convenient, for sure. Religion is for us, another comfort next to a psychologist, a lover, an addiction. Let's bend it to our needs - because we say so. And if those 'fundies' don't listen - let's slander them with intolerance and narrow mindedness. That will
teach them!