You couldn't be more correct. Even conservative Christians, such as myself, believe this kind of person to be a complete whackjob.

Of course, Dan Savage has some words of wisdom about this:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/07/09/pat-robertson-the-bible-is-terribly-wrong

Excerpt:
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that LGBT people aren't asking conservative Christians to do anything they aren't already doing. We're asking conservative Christians to ignore what the bible says about homosexuality just as they ignore what the bible says about slavery. (They ignore what the bible says about slavery so thoroughly that many don't know that the bible says anything about slavery at all!)

Christians moved in their "conception of the value of human beings" before and they can do it again.

So... The First True American:
Argued that the scientific advice of the time was a'myth', refused to accept standard scientific measurement, and brashly set off to foreign destinations to try to prove false information to be correct.

Next you'll tell me Columbus was a fanatical right wing conservative christian, hated any form of taxation, and thought the Spanish military was too small and needed significant over investment.

Hmm. I'm an atheist, but I kinda disagree with them on this one.

It is an elective course. Don't like it, don't take it -- just like they said. And yes, I would say the same thing if it was an elective course about the Quran or Sharia law.

I took an elective "World Religions" class in my public High School. It was very cool -- we talked about comparative numbers of adherents of various religions and non-religious people, regional and national religious trends, religious shifts over time and what caused them, etc. etc. This was in Kansas, so it could easily have been some conservative Christian right-wing nut just trying to push an agenda, but it wasn't. In my opinion, it was interesting and objective.

However, even if it wasn't, it still would have been an elective class. Hell, even in required classes, I had people pushing subjective opinions down my throat as though they were facts. "Shakespeare was the greatest Western writer in history." The best thing that I learned from classes like that was that sometimes opinions differ, and that is OK -- don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise.

>> ^messenger:
So could you please watch the whole thing and then comment? You've spent more time doing research and replying to comments than it would have taken to just watch the thing through. And please do so with an open heart. In a nutshell, Matthew makes the argument that scripture actually does not forbid gay Christians to have gay sex. After watching it, you'll see that your comments about homosexual activity being a sin might not be scriptural, which is why nobody in this thread thinks you've actually watched it through. To claim scripture says it's a sin after watching this means you haven't watched it. That's why I invited you.

Well, I've finished watching and I have a really hard time believing that he has spent "thousands of hours" researching this, because you could copy and paste everything he has said from gay apologist websites, almost verbatim. So, there is nothing new here; just the usual twisting of scripture and dishonesty that is to be expected from people trying to justify what the bible clearly condemns as sinful. I'll give you an example of the dishonesty.

One of his arguments was to say that the destruction of Sodom and Gemmorah actually had nothing to do with homosexuality. He says that the attempted gang rape of the angels was actually just a condemnation against rape and not "committed, loving consensual homosexual relationships". He then points out that out of all the mentions of Sodom, sexual sin is only mentioned a couple of times. Which is true, but what he fails to mention is that most of the mentions aren't talking about Sodoms sins at all, but rather are spoken in a prophetic context. He then cites Ezekiel 16:49 which says

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Matthew then says that this proves that the sin of sodom was not homosexuality but arrogance and not helping the poor. It might prove that, except that this idea is contradicted by the very next verse:

Ezekiel 16:50

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

As we know from Leviticus 20:13, God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, which then cements the connection to Sodom. To leave verse 50 out in his exegesis shows his total dishonesty and MO.

The crux of his argument is in trying to overcome Romans 1:26-27, which is the strongest NT passage in condemning homosexual relations. He first tries to weaken it by putting it in the broader context of idolatry, which is actually a correct interpretation. Paul did intend to contrast it to idolatry. With idolatry, man exchanges the natural worship of God to the unnatural worship of false idols. In the same way, man exchanges the natural relations with women to unnatural relationships with men. Yet, what Matthew tries to interject here, is that this only applies to heterosexual men who abandoned their natural predispositions. He then asserts that, based on his opinion and nothing more, that because homosexuals naturally desire other men, it doesn't apply to them. Not only is this position not based in scripture, but it directly contradicts Pauls intended meaning. When Paul is speaking of natural, he doesn't mean someones psychological predispositions. He means what God intended when He created men and women. This is further evidenced by his usage of the words arsen and thelys for male and female, words that are relatively unusual in scripture but are used in Genesis 1:27, which is suggesting that same-sex relationships are a violation of the created order. We also have the fact of biology itself. It is unnatural by definition.

I could go on, but the main point is, every reference in scripture to homosexuality is negative. There is nothing there to affirm any kind of homosexual relationship, but plenty to condemn it. Matthews presupposition that homosexuality is a natural and unalterable orientation for some is clearly refuted by scripture. He acknowledges that God at least once considered it to be abomination which alone refutes this idea.

I am open to solid biblical interpretation, and if someone could present an argument that doesn't have to twist scripture into a pretzel to make it even remotely plausible, I would embrace it. That was not to be found in this presentation. Secular people of course will embrace any interpretation that agrees with their liberal ideals. As a Christian who takes the word of God seriously, I cannot.

>> ^messengerPaul states it is better to be single.Better to be single than what? Can you give me the scriptural reference?

That it's better to be single than be married, because you have more of your life to devote to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28

Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this


>> ^messenger:
True they have higher disease rates, but I'll jump the gun and say all the other things are most likely the result of discrimination.

The Netherlands legally accepts homosexuality, but not because it's socially popular. The Netherlands is historically a conservative Christian nation at heart, but in terms of governance, they're extremely libertarian. So no matter how vile, sinful or immoral the population at large thinks something is, the higher cause is that government not interfere in people's personal choices as much as possible. Homosexuality is in fact not socially accepted in the Netherlands. It's more like the famous quote, "I may hate what you're saying, but I'll fight with my life for your right to say it," but applied to sexual freedom rather than freedom of speech.

You should have looked before you leaped:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands

The Netherlands was historically characterized by multitude of religions. Since the mid of the Middle Ages, the Netherlands was a predominantly Christian country until late into the 20th century. Although religious diversity remains to the present day, there is a major decline of religious adherence. Nowadays, the Netherlands is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe, with only 39% being religiously affiliated (31% for those aged under 35), and fewer than 20% visiting church regularly

If homosexuality were going to be accepted anywhere, it would be the most secular country in Europe. You cannot simply write off these statistics as discrimination.


>> ^messenger:
Why is it a "breakdown?" Why not just "discarding"? What families are breaking down because of men having sex? Remember that (at least by my understanding) a man's being attracted to other men isn't a sin on its own. So, what effect can gay sex have on the country? This is the part of the common argument that I have zero understanding of other than the disease angle, which alone isn't enough to label it "a behaviour harmful to society".

It's not just the disease angle, it is also the issue of domestic violence (many times more than normal), drug use, mental health, etc. This is a major drain on society, as well as a danger to children raised in homosexual households. When I say breakdown, I mean of traditional values. To redefine marriage in a society built upon the traditional (and biblical) values of marriage and family is to fundamentally transform it. The same goes with allowing gays to adopt children. This effects our entire concept of human relations and institutions. It erodes monogamy in that gays don't traditionally have monogamous relationships..in the Netherlands for instance, research shows that even in stable relationships, men have an average of 8 partners per year outside the marriage.

It also erodes the boundaries of marriage, and it's a slippery slope to polygamy. Many legal experts have predicted that laws establishing same-sex marriage will open the flood gates to polygamous relationships:

David Chambers wrote in a Michigan Law review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).

I think this article does a good job articulating this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

I agree with Krauthammer, that the homosexuality angle is only tertiary to the real problem with marriage, which I see as the abandonment of biblical morality back in the early 60s.

It's bad for children in that the family structure of two biological parents in a low conflict marriage is the ideal for raising children, and the farther you get away from that, the more problems you encounter. Consider these statistics from a federal study "Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States"

Children in nuclear families were generally less likely than children in nonnuclear families
• to be in good, fair, or poor health [Note: these three categories are considered “less than optimal”];
• to have a basic action disability;
• to have learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;
• to lack health insurance coverage;
• to have had two or more emergency room visits in the past 12 months;
• to have receipt of needed prescription medication delayed during the past 12 months due to lack of affordability;
• to have gone without needed dental care due to cost in the past 12 months;
• to be poorly behaved;
• and to have definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties during the past 6 months.

Children living in single-parent families had higher prevalence rates than children in nuclear families for the various health conditions and indicators examined in this report. However, when compared with children living in other nonnuclear families, children in single-parent families generally exhibited similar rates with respect to child health, access to care, and emotional or behavioral difficulties.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/federal-report-confirms-nuclear-family-best-for-childrens-hea lth-48997/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

>> ^messenger:

>> ^shinyblurry:

Paul states it is better to be single.

Better to be single than what? Can you give me the scriptural reference?
>> ^shinyblurry:
As far as homosexuality doing no harm, I beg to differ. People who practice it have a higher rate of disease, as well as alcohol and drug abuse, depression, suicide and domestic violence.

True they have higher disease rates, but I'll jump the gun and say all the other things are most likely the result of discrimination.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You might say that is because of discrimination, but you would be wrong. In a place like the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legalized and broadly accepted, the rates are actually worse.

The Netherlands legally accepts homosexuality, but not because it's socially popular. The Netherlands is historically a conservative Christian nation at heart, but in terms of governance, they're extremely libertarian. So no matter how vile, sinful or immoral the population at large thinks something is, the higher cause is that government not interfere in people's personal choices as much as possible. Homosexuality is in fact not socially accepted in the Netherlands. It's more like the famous quote, "I may hate what you're saying, but I'll fight with my life for your right to say it," but applied to sexual freedom rather than freedom of speech.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That's really just scratching the surface. We haven't gotten to the impact that the breakdown of traditional values and the family has on the country as a whole.


Why is it a "breakdown?" Why not just "discarding"? What families are breaking down because of men having sex? Remember that (at least by my understanding) a man's being attracted to other men isn't a sin on its own. So, what effect can gay sex have on the country? This is the part of the common argument that I have zero understanding of other than the disease angle, which alone isn't enough to label it "a behaviour harmful to society".

>> ^hpqp:

So let me paraphrase:
Derp: "Hey herp, stop protecting your kid, I want to torture it, kill its friends and make it hate you for abandoning it."
Herp: "Sure, torture away!"
Million dollar question: is Herp a moral person/being?
Bonus question: if Herp is all-powerful, what is he protecting his kid from in the first place?


I agree 100% with what you wrote here. The Book of Job presents a major contradiction to the idea of a benevolent, omniscient God. Which is why I think Dan Barker majorly dropped the ball here on what should have been a slam dunk.

>> ^hpqp:

But the whole point here is that the religious mindset causes an otherwise moral person (they all agreed the first scenario was wrong) to condone an immoral action if it was for religious reasons. Case in point: suicide and murder in Islam, both major "sins", are seen as okay if part of Jihad.


See, if this was Dan Barker's point, I think he screwed it up royally. He's comparing apples and oranges. I can do the same thing he did and get the same results with a completely non-religious issue:

Let's say someone breaks in a family's home in the middle of the night and terrorizes them--holds them at gunpoint, ties them up, and tortures them (similar to the original example). After having his way with them for some time, the criminal starts to kill each family member in front of the others, starting with the kids. After killing the wife, the criminal is about to kill the husband when the husband is able to break free of his bindings. A struggle ensues and the husband overcomes the criminal and ties the criminal up.

Now, remember, the criminal is secure. The husband makes sure the binds are tight and the criminal can't go anywhere. Instead of calling the police, though, the husband picks up the criminal's gun and shoots the criminal right in the head, instantly killing him. Is the husband a murderer?

I think you would find a majority of people who say yes.

The criminal was subdued and no longer a threat. In the American legal system, the husband would most likely be found guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter. It was clearly a revenge killing and the only thing in question really is the mental state of the husband at the time it takes place: was he upset enough that it was manslaughter or did he do it in cold blood?

Now, let's change the scenario slightly. The husband never breaks free. The criminal gleefully and cruelly kills him. After fleeing from the scene of the crime, the criminal later is captured by police and put on trial for his crimes. He's found guilty on all counts due to overwhelming evidence and is sentenced to death. After a lengthy appeals process that takes over a decade, the death sentence is carried out by the state.

Question: Is the state guilty of murder?

You will find that far fewer people are willing to say that the state is guilty of murder. But why don't they? Isn't it the same situation? The criminal is just as guilty of the crimes in either case--the trial just made the guilt official. The criminal has been apprehended and is secure in prison. Surrounded by thick walls, steel bars, and armed guards, he no longer represents a threat to the public. At his execution he is tied down and given a lethal injection (which is dissimilar from being tied up and shot in the head really only in the amount mess that needs to be cleaned up afterwards).

So what's different? What's "clouding the moral judgment" of the people who declare the husband guilty of murder but won't declare the state guilty of murder? Aren't they contradicting themselves?

No, not really. The answer is simply that people attribute different rights to people than they do to government. Almost any basic definition of government requires that government be authorized to use force to obtain compliance from the governed (see Weber's theory)--up too and including lethal force. People who don't believe the state to be guilty of murder believe the state has the right to deprive those who commit serious enough crimes of their life (for a variety of stated reasons such as discouraging other criminals, providing justice for the victims, etc.). An individual, on the other hand, does not have such a right. In other words, it's immoral for the individual to redress the wrong themselves, but it isn't immoral for the state to do so, according to death penalty proponents, on the basis of individual and governmental rights.

(For the record, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. If you're interested in my reasons, please ask me on my profile rather than derail this thread).

And that is why Dan got the audience response he did. People agree that a human butchering another human is immoral, but ascribe a different set of rights to the Biblical God. In particular, in the more conservative Christian traditions, humans are seen as "belonging" to the Biblical God and to be done with as He pleases.

So I wasn't surprised at all at the response that Dan Barker got. He compared apples and oranges and then seemed surprise when people weren't willing to claim an apple was an orange. Given how ripe the Book of Job is for criticizing many of the basic tenets of Christian belief, I kind of face-palmed when I heard his argument. He had a great chance here to make some keen points (the ones @hpqp raised above) and he completely missed it, I think. What he certainly didn't show was that the audience condoned immoral actions by humans in the name of religion. He simply showed that Christians ascribe different rights to their god than they do to humans. He seems outraged by that, but--as I just showed above--many of us do the same sort of thing with non-religious institutions like government so I'm not sure why he seems so shocked.

So in summary--I didn't upvote because I found the argument to be weak-sauce.

>> ^petpeeved:

I find it interesting that many of the same constituency (Conservative Christians) who play the "what if it isn't true" card in climate change arguments and are in general what I would describe as science skeptics, make frequent use of the "what if it is true" card (Pascal's Wager) in debates with non-believers.


I really appreciate this comment, 10 upvotes if I could. The hypocrisy and general disservice denialists do to future generations is astounding, appalling and makes me (in cases where the denialist is a christian,) disgusted and ashamed that I used to call myself christian.

Here's a great site for any questions, or nagging "what ifs" people might have.

I find it interesting that many of the same constituency (Conservative Christians) who play the "what if it isn't true" card in climate change arguments and are in general what I would describe as science skeptics, make frequent use of the "what if it is true" card (Pascal's Wager) in debates with non-believers.

Being the biggest backers doesn't mean it's being done for religious purposes.

I'm not debating some see it that way. You also have a bunch of people who didn't, too.

Where in that link did Tony Blair was quoted saying this was part of a Christian struggle?! It's loosely about believing it's a good versus evil thing. It's not about killing Muslims because Muslims are evil, or demoralizing Muslim culture to make room for Christian culture.. If you believe it was about killing Muslims, or advancing the interests of Christianity at the expense of Islam, you need your head examined. At no point was Blair ever on a Christian Crusade.

A VERY small group of evangelical Christian soldiers doesn't make the case.

Now, about Obama and Christianity. You do realize Obama at this point pretty much goes to church because it's a political liability if he doesn't. He quite possibly is the least religious president to ever be in office.

He is not intentionally trying to kill Civilians. #1. The statistics you sited are skewed concerning civilian casualties, although I'm not dismissing civilian casualties. Significant civilian casualties have been a mainstay in military action since WWII on all sides, after a brief reprieve in WWI and other wars leading up to it. You do the best you can to limit them while achieving your objectives. The reality is you won't achieve anything if you try to avoid any civilian casualties.

With that said, the article is discussing Predator drone casualties only, which is a small fraction of total casualties. And even then, you have a dispute on statistics, and I agree the US military is not going to give an unbiased number either. However, it's very difficult to tell what the accurate number is at this point.

See the above about civilian casualties as collateral damage. It would be difficult to achieve anything if the primary focus was to avoid them instead of achieving objectives.

Does all this add up to terrorism? No, for several reasons:

1. It isn't intentional, not any part of the objective in conducting them. Terrorist acts are specific explicit targeting of civilians. Often, the more civilians you kill, the better when you're a terrorist.
2. You sited bombings in Tripoli. Part of the objectives in that raid is to topple the oppressive regime in Libya, is it not? And yes, I completely accept that we're not just there for that. Libya has oil resources, etc. we're interested in, but it doesn't change the fact that part of the reason we're there is to free the Libyan people from an oppressive regime. It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large.

Extreme progressives are critical of Obama for many of the things you're siting. Obama isn't an extreme progressive, socialist, communist, etc. as much as QM and WP would love for you to believe. He's a moderate politician who leans to the left. If that's the indictment, I don't think anyone would disagree he's not the most liberal progressive politician since FDR. He's not. To say however he isn't progressive at all is not true either. Honestly, as much oil as there is in Libya, it's not worth military action. There's a bit of idealist progressivism to conduct air strikes against Libya.

And again, I fail to see how that's relevant to the debate of the religion of this guy. He is a Christian, there's no doubt about it. Granted, he's got a warped Christian ideology, but it is Christian. You can't say someone isn't Christian just because you don't agree with their interpretation.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?


And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:
-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)
-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)
-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)
-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)
These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.

As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)
Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)
Is this not terrorism?
Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?
There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)
Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)
Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

>> ^heropsycho:

The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?




And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:

-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)

-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)

-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)

-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)

These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.




As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)

Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)

Is this not terrorism?

Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?

There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)

Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)

Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

I stopped watching after they appeared at the ball in "pretty dresses". First off, God and the Bible teach, quite clearly, that women are not to adorn themselves in that way and to do so is the practice of harlots and prostitutes, and therefor a sin. That's the first clue that the people in the video practicing these "purity balls" have no clue about what God wants for his children. They are horribly and falsely representing the Christian faith.

Secondly, it's completely misleading and false for the reporter to put this sort of thing on the "conservative Christian movement" like it's all some neat and tidy ball-of-wax that involves EVERYONE who's conservative and/or Christian. Holy crap, talk about a COMPLETE LIE! Fucking Al-Jazeera bullshit.

For the "insano" cocksuckers who think you should "test drive" your mate before you get married... you're as brainless and inhuman as they come. Marriage is about everything BUT sex, you worthless pieces of shit. You people are proof that the theory of evolution is a joke, because you obviously haven't evolved beyond the pond scum that existed "billions" of years ago.

"Right wing christian terrorism" is what this is, just like Oklahoma was. Let's all start saying it over and over, at least every time you hear the abusive over use of the words "Islamic terrorism", reply with "right wing christian terrorism", it's just as, if not more scary. The fanatic Muslims at least TELL you they're coming to kill you, the right wing tells you they're here to protect you (with their gun to your head and bomb in their car).
Is it time to start burning churches and threatening right-wing 'conservative'/christian public figureheads? I hope that mindset suddenly seems less acceptable.
Isn't that what christian/right-winger/'conservatives' tend to do when a member of a group (Muslim, immigrant, left-winger, non-affluent & white) does something unforgivable? Attack the group and the mindset, not the misguided violent nutjob individual or violent subset?
Maybe the answer is to outlaw all religion.
Just saying.

Because aside from abortion, the conservative Christian right has worked relentlessly to abolish slavery, beat down on the Klan, support civil rights for women and black people..

The Konservative Khristian Koalition: Always at the right side of history!

@gwiz665 well, again, your argument against Christianity sounds awfully similar to your defense of libertarianism. Sure, if you follow all the tenets of libertarianism, massive evil results, but that's why people should be more picky and choosy about it and focus on the good stuff. But if Christians do the same with their beliefs, it somehow makes them illegitimate.

I guess my real problem with what you're saying is that you're unfairly singling out Christianity. It's not really any better or worse than any other imperfect moral doctrine. To me, I see a lot of problems "caused" by Christianity are really problems caused by conservatism (libertarianism's abusive father).

For example, I'd say most Christians don't take the bible literally, they don't believe in hell, they don't think Jesus would want nutrition programs for children cut so the rich can get a tax cut, they don't think we should be trying to bomb Muslims into worshiping Jesus, they don't even oppose letting gay people marry each other.

It's true that the conservative Christians you hear about a lot on TV are stupid fucks who believe in one or more of those, but IMO they've already left Christianity far behind, and started worshiping at the altar of conservatism. Lots of Christians don't buy into the hate.

I think in terms of the broader sweep of history, there's a lot of suffering you can lay at the feet of Christianity and religion more generally, but I'm not really sure how much bearing that really has on the role of Christianity in the here and now. Political and economic ideology seem to have largely supplanted religion in terms of rallying people to the cause of inflicting human suffering on a large scale.

I guess what I'm really saying is that Christianity per se isn't really the problem. It's the general tendency of people to take rigid deontological moral frameworks and use them as a justification to inflict suffering on people they deem unworthy. There are Christians who do that, but most don't anymore. In fact, a lot of modern Christianity explicitly argues against that.

Conservatism and libertarianism, on the other hand, seem to be philosophies entirely crafted for the purpose of justifying doing harm to the people they deem unworthy. Still, you do occasionally find conservatives and libertarians for whom the infliction of suffering is something they feel some regret about, though of course they still believe it must be done. After all, it's for their own good...