So the Pope is a marxist.... (wait for it)

[kandrathe]

You are correct. But you are still missing the point. This was, asked for, agreed upon, and "sponsored" by the church. It was "ordained" by the church, in a sense. This was bloodshed, with God's Blessing, and it wasn't "that long" ago, in a "historical sense" this is post AD here.

No, it was a long time ago in terms of moral sensibilities. Attitudes about warfare have changed considerably even in the last 100 years. Can you imagine using the US WWII tactics in any encounter today? Can you imagine the public opinion on sending 50,000 men into combat knowing most of them will be killed or wounded. How about charging out of a trench into barbwire, mortars, and machine guns in WWI? The indiscriminate carpet bombing, or use of agent orange of Vietnam? In the middle ages, warfare was glorious. Much has changed. That is not to say that "The Church" was not morally wrong in their support of killing the Turks in our modern sense of right and wrong. Ultimately it began in defense of Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who was being invaded. Unfortunately, due to the intermingling of church and monarchy of that time, "The Church" was swept into political affairs and acted more like a state, than the seat of Christian thought and teaching.

Some self proclaimed "religious" people say and do horrible things. Why? Because they are people. I would hazard to say that if you examined the population for crime, drug abuse, etc. that a person religious affiliation has little meaning. Just because you claim to be a horse, doesn't make you a horse.

I see this type of rationale quite often. And it's always when someone is bringing up the horrors of Christian Terrorist / Extremists. Are you willing to say then, that this same opinion applies universally, even to those of Muslim faith, who are decried by their peers? Are you willing to accept that Extremist Muslim sects are no more true Christian than the likes of David Koresh, the Christmas Day Bombers, the Rape the Gay Away Pastor, etc...?

Yes. David Koresh was not wrong to lead Branch Davidians, but he erred when he began to violate the laws of the state with regard to the safety of the minor children, and the procurement of illegal weapons. His resistance to the authorities directly resulted in their deaths. I blame Reno for her use of force, and Koresh for making that force necessary. I don't necessarily disagree much with Jihadists in their condemnation of the excesses of Western culture (e.g. Miley Cyrus as the latest poster child), except in their decisions to use violence. I do disagree with their views on individual liberty, rights of minorities and women, sharia law, theocracy, etc. As long as we can discuss them openly, and democratically, then I don't have issues with them. But, categorically, anyone who resorts to violence (other than self defense) is wrong in my book.

I could bring up Focus on the Family, there work with repression therapy, conversion therapy, their "shun, and isolation" stance for parents towards LGBT youth. In an age when suicide is the #3 cause of death for teenagers, (and while not explicitly supported by in depth analysis, because of the sketchy details in suicides, perceived to be higher in the LGBT teen population) they have a lot to answer for. We can start here if you would like.

In reviewing the FOTF site, I only see they have a position on "counseling unwanted same-sex attractions". The bottom line is how should most "people of the book" react to homosexuality when it is considered a sin? You may not agree with their views on it, and their approach to dealing with it. You suggest that they are complicit in teen suicide, but wouldn't that be true of any sin correction, like premarital sex, or teen pregnancy? If the "authority" of the church brands them with the scarlet A, regardless of why, I'm sure it causes those people to lose self esteem. In that case, wouldn't any judgment by any authority do the same? When Focus on the Family, The Anglican Church, or any pastor suggests that gender identity counseling is reasonable -- then you are disagreeing with their approach. I'm sure their intention isn't to drive people to suicide. Much of the press bruhaha stems from one FOTF editor, Candi Cushman who seems to be more concerned that tax payer funded anti-bullying education isn't co-opted to promote a specific liberal agenda. It also seems dated, since the articles of hers I read referred to Exodus Intl. which shut down last May. Personally, I think any judging of another, or showing a lack of compassion towards others for any reason is unchristian.

The record of at least 3 anecdotes who made the press.

I don't know if an ordained pastor being convicted, and 2 later backtracking and apologizing count as anectdotes, and like was previously pointing out, I was referring to "they" in a much broader sense. We can focus on the problems in the US, the mission field, where ever you would like, if you want more news. But that wasn't the point.

I started with talking about violence, and sort of veered off into the other shitty things like Focus on the Family when talking about "convicting millions". Because while Christian Extremism leading to violence may be a smaller pool of crazies than what Islam has, (and there are easily identifiable societal constructs that prevent that), it does have a very large pool of crazies.

• The extremists who would see LGBT people killed, assaulted,
  
• The extremists who believe that the USA should be a Theocracy
  
• The extremists who subscribe to the Prosperity Gospel
  
• The extremists who subscribe to creationist math
  
• The extremists who shun modern medicine in favor of praying the illness away, and watch their children die
  
• The extremists who believe that every new piece of technology is a sign of the trials and tribulations
  
• The extremists who believe that anything they don't understand is witchcraft

And on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

Ignorant people are ignorant, not all of these are extremists. I find the whole labeling of viewpoints as "extremist" mostly pejorative. Most of those things you list above represent the views of a slim minority of fundamentalist people in the US. We can remedy that with enlightenment and reason. Until we reach them with truth, we reject and vote against their ideas and hold up our constitution and Bill of rights (against theocracy), use the legal system to protect the innocent (violence, etc.), reveal the truth about technology, "creationist math", prosperity gospel and other obvious ignorance. My point was that violence is much more complicated than their prevalent world view, but that it relates more to ignorance, poverty, and other deprivations.

My main point, was that Christianity is not very pacificistic in nature. And we can point from the Crusades, to England / Ireland, to bombings, to assaulting people who are different Orientation, race, etc... as evidence, that throughout even modern, recent history, Christianity doesn't have a good track record of being pacifist in nature. But, at least in my opinion, that gets glossed over, as just a few crazies, because we live in it, while we point the finger at other religions, and say "SEE! SEE! THEY ARE VIOLENT!, when going by the numbers they aren't really that much more violent than 'murica's pet religion.

I feel you are pointing to a myriad of actions by people who might be identified in some group, without considering all factors or any filter of adherence to the tenets of their self proclaimed world view. For example, OBL didn't act like a devout Muslim when you get right down to his lifestyle. Is it fair to attach his inspiration of violence to Islam? No. I think it is better stated that people don't have a good track record of being pacifist in nature, even when their proclaimed world view advocates peace.

My neighbors divide into factions, but not on religious grounds. My co-workers divide into factions, but not on religious grounds. When I was in high school, we were divided into factions, but not on religious grounds. Cliques or tribes are innate behavior for us. " Humans evolved to be innately prepared to commit to the institutions and projects of their tribes but culture dictated how to recognize who belonged to the tribes, what schedules of aid, praise, and punishment was due to tribal fellows, and how the tribe was to deal with other tribes — allies, enemies, and clients. " [Richardson]

And I still personally feel that sectarianist behavior, and attitudes, pushes this to the extreme. Sectarianism takes the tribe mentality that humans have developed throughout history, and pushes it to a "finding a reason to be superior, searching for faults, searching for the differences" mentality that looks to create rifts between a populace.

For me, it's just as unacceptable as the bullying we all witnessed in high school, but it takes place on a much more grand level. We used Sectarianist behavior to start, fund, and rationalize over a decade of "war against terror".

The implication was that the "superiority" was also a natural human behavior, or why else would you remain in your tribe. Some differences are obvious, like racial, ethnic, or language -- but, some are less obvious, like income level, school district, or professions. The bigotry begins with stereotyping THEM. Like, "those Christians are violent, ignorant zealots."

For me? I'd love to see it all gone. All the religion, the politics, the bullshit as I'd call it. I'd love to live in a world where people could be trusted to "be civil", and work together to make a better world for those who will inherit it from us.

I would say that is impossible. People will have a world view, either one inherited by their family, one adopted from their peer group, or a made up one.

I raise my children with that in mind. I raise them to evaluate things based on the idea that every person has value, and that value isn't found in their religion, their orientation, their politics, their skin color, or any other "box" that we can categorize people with. I want them to have a world view, in which we don't have the tribe mentality. Because it's a flawed outlook to have. The Tribe mentality leads to those who are with you, and those who are against you. It's crippled this country's political system. It's crippled discussion here on the lounge.

Belonging to a "tribe" or having a disparate world view doesn't make one an intractable "crippled" bigot. It's only when one refuses to a) acknowledge that theirs is one of many, or b) engage in respectful honoring dialog with those different than themselves.

Obviously, people will disagree, but that doesn't mean that it should devolve into a "they disagree because they're a [insert some BS categorical adjective here]". It drives me insane, and it's something I've been guilty of as well.

Me too. I try to keep the discussion on the thoughts, rather than the thinker.

I saw a snippet of another post of yours...

Individuals are held accountable for their crimes. My point is that we don't convict groups of people for the aberrant actions of individuals, unless there is a conspiracy to commit a crime.

Oh, if only that were really the case, things would be a lot different right now.

Maybe I should say, "We try to hold individuals accountable for their crimes." It often doesn't work out that way.