Your defending your right to say something others find offensive, but criticize them for taking offense? Dude, this is getting silly. Can't we just agree to disagree?The problem I have always had with organized religions are that so many of them claim to be the only way, and point to the others as being wrong.. . . .
Does simply stating those beliefs suddenly make me offensive? And if I must hold my tongue on my beliefs, so as to avoid offense, where do you draw the line? Can I say my banana and pepperoni pizza tastes good, or that I found LillithThrall's Onion link hilarious, or would that be offensive to people who dislike pizza and found the link unfunny?
I was not criticizing you for taking offense, merely pointing out that your response seems to be of a like kind. I'm all for agreeing to disagree. That's the best way, imho.
There's no arguing it. I definitely am. A bottle of SPF 666 in my pocket. No worries.I studied that at HarvartiForget D&D. You're going to hell for THAT.
*POOF*
Here's your lotion, sir. Rub it on the skin. PUT THE LOTION ON THE SKIN!
*POOF*
I was not criticizing you for taking offense, merely pointing out that your response seems to be of a like kind. I'm all for agreeing to disagree. That's the best way, imho.Your defending your right to say something others find offensive, but criticize them for taking offense? Dude, this is getting silly. Can't we just agree to disagree?The problem I have always had with organized religions are that so many of them claim to be the only way, and point to the others as being wrong.. . . .
Does simply stating those beliefs suddenly make me offensive? And if I must hold my tongue on my beliefs, so as to avoid offense, where do you draw the line? Can I say my banana and pepperoni pizza tastes good, or that I found LillithThrall's Onion link hilarious, or would that be offensive to people who dislike pizza and found the link unfunny?
Of course, it's exactly this agreeing, more or less, to disagree that I have always found so problematic with organized religions. You are free to believe that those who practice a non-christian religion are sinners, or that they may even burn in hell, just as, for example, a buddhist will find your beliefs to be a hindrance to your own enlightenment. Whose to say either is correct?
There's no arguing it. I definitely am. A bottle of SPF 666 in my pocket. No worries.I studied that at HarvartiForget D&D. You're going to hell for THAT.*POOF*
Here's your lotion, sir. Rub it on the skin. PUT THE LOTION ON THE SKIN!
*POOF*
Why do you think he removes their skins, Agent Starling?
Why do you think he removes their skins, Agent Starling?There's no arguing it. I definitely am. A bottle of SPF 666 in my pocket. No worries.I studied that at HarvartiForget D&D. You're going to hell for THAT.*POOF*
Here's your lotion, sir. Rub it on the skin. PUT THE LOTION ON THE SKIN!
*POOF*
Excuse me, Mr. Lecter... you're required in another thread.
Some stuffOf course, it's exactly this agreeing, more or less, to disagree that I have always found so problematic with organized religions. You are free to believe that those who practice a non-christian religion are sinners, or that they may even burn in hell, just as, for example, a buddhist will find your beliefs to be a hindrance to your own enlightenment. Whose to say either is correct?
If you are asking me for proof, there isn't any. If any religion could prove the truth of its claims, there'd be no question - in fact, it wouldn't even be a religion, technically! If you rely on proof, you have to be agnostic... about everything!
For example, I see a computer screen before me, and feel the keyboard under my fingertips. But those sensations are (afaik) simply electrochemical signals sent to my brain. What proof do I have that the world I experience is really there? None at all. The "brain in vat" idea is older than the Matrix. In fact, Socrates postulated this sort of thing, with his cavern and shadow play.
I don't, however, act as though the world doesn't exist. Essentially I take a fideist position, saying, "I can't know, so I'll take it on faith that this is real." I act accordingly. Honestly, my religious beliefs are the same way. I can't prove anything... so I took one of them on faith. I made my choice on which one to choose on a variety of factors, including which one seemed most logical and internally consistent to me.
Now, are there people who are so convinced they are right that they are willing to target disbelievers with hostility and hatred? Yes. And that's a problem. But that's a problem with the believer, not the belief.
|
Wow, I still get goosebumps when i think that this thread was Godwined on the first page.
What's funny is "Godwined" or no, it holds true.
Hitler blamed the Jews for the social and economic policies that were facing post-WWI germans, and used the resulting anti-jew sentiment to rise to power.
Evangelicals are blaming homosexuals for the moral collapse of the country and are using this sentiment to gain more and more power.
Whether or not invoking Hitler in an argument is taboo, it shouldn't be when it is a fair comparison.
|
|
Now, are there people who are so convinced they are right that they are willing to target disbelievers with hostility and hatred? Yes. And that's a problem. But that's a problem with the believer, not the belief.
If this was a relatively isolated incident, i'd be inclined to agree with you. The problem is that time and time again throught history christianity has shown its true colors when it came to persecution of non-believers. The crusades, the inquisition, salem witch trials, endorsement of slavery using the bible; we even had a sitting US president (bush sr.) say that atheists were unamerican and shouldn't be able to serve in the military. Christianity's latest incarnation of oppression and hatred via their anti-gay agenda is just one injustice in a long line of injustices perpetrated by christianity.
Now, are there people who are so convinced they are right that they are willing to target disbelievers with hostility and hatred? Yes. And that's a problem. But that's a problem with the believer, not the belief.If this was a relatively isolated incident, i'd be inclined to agree with you. The problem is that time and time again throught history christianity has shown its true colors when it came to persecution of non-believers. The crusades, the inquisition, salem witch trials, endorsement of slavery using the bible; we even had a sitting US president (bush sr.) say that atheists were unamerican and shouldn't be able to serve in the military. Christianity's latest incarnation of oppression and hatred via their anti-gay agenda is just one injustice in a long line of injustices perpetrated by christianity.
Right, and other groups haven't shown a similar view (Stalin waves from the side). Where humanity exist, inhumane behavior will as well.
|
|
Right, and other groups haven't shown a similar view (Stalin waves from the side). Where humanity exist, inhumane behavior will as well.Now, are there people who are so convinced they are right that they are willing to target disbelievers with hostility and hatred? Yes. And that's a problem. But that's a problem with the believer, not the belief.If this was a relatively isolated incident, i'd be inclined to agree with you. The problem is that time and time again throught history christianity has shown its true colors when it came to persecution of non-believers. The crusades, the inquisition, salem witch trials, endorsement of slavery using the bible; we even had a sitting US president (bush sr.) say that atheists were unamerican and shouldn't be able to serve in the military. Christianity's latest incarnation of oppression and hatred via their anti-gay agenda is just one injustice in a long line of injustices perpetrated by christianity.
I never said christianity was the only group or individual guilty of this. How could anybody say this nowadays when muslim extremists are blowing themselves up and sawing off the heads of american captives? I simply wanted to point out that the man is delusional if he thinks that all of the wrongs commited by the church throughout history were the work of lone individuals rather than being endorsed by the church more often than not.
Now, are there people who are so convinced they are right that they are willing to target disbelievers with hostility and hatred? Yes. And that's a problem. But that's a problem with the believer, not the belief.If this was a relatively isolated incident, i'd be inclined to agree with you. The problem is that time and time again throught history christianity has shown its true colors when it came to persecution of non-believers. The crusades, the inquisition, salem witch trials, endorsement of slavery using the bible; we even had a sitting US president (bush sr.) say that atheists were unamerican and shouldn't be able to serve in the military. Christianity's latest incarnation of oppression and hatred via their anti-gay agenda is just one injustice in a long line of injustices perpetrated by christianity.
The Crusades and Inquisition were motivated as much by politics as by religion. The Catholic Church of this period was heavily entwined with the ruling structure. One of the reasons I'm for the separation of church and state - it isn't just for the benefit of the state! The Salem Witch trials were an isolated incident, and involved Christian-on-Christian violence. (They weren't persecuting pagans!) As many people used the Bible to oppose slavery as to endorse it. And even a president is a single person.
For every mention you can give to Christians being horrible, there are an equal number of stories where others were horrible to Christians, and another equal number where Christianity has changed lives for the better - in both the Christian, and those around them.
No, not every incident of church abuse in history was perpetrated by lone individuals, but every incident that went beyond a single community was largely perpetrated by people who had very unreligious reasons for their activities.
|
|
Thats a little cynical response. Be christian or whatever you want if your heart truly believes thats the right path for you. Thats my motto. Every human must act according to their conscience.
Right, and other groups haven't shown a similar view (Stalin waves from the side). Where humanity exist, inhumane behavior will as well.If Christianity is no different from any other group, then why be Christian?
When I go to a hospital, I expect that I'll get better health care than I will if I pay some random person off the street to provide it.
Christians claim to be so much better than everyone else by virtue of their religion being "the only right way"™. They have imposed a double standard that they cannot live up to so they try to find ways to demonize other groups in order to regain moral "superiority."
|
|
For every mention you can give to Christians being horrible, there are an equal number of stories where others were horrible to Christians, and another equal number where Christianity has changed lives for the better - in both the Christian, and those around them.
So because you've had it worse or you're less bad it's ok? What happened to turn the other cheek? The other guys are worse is a piss-poor excuse if you ask me.
Christianity (or any religion for that matter) has not done a single thing that couldn't have been accomplished with a little more self confidence and a little less reliance on an invisible authority figure.
Christians claim to be so much better than everyone else by virtue of their religion being "the only right way"™. They have imposed a double standard that they cannot live up to so they try to find ways to demonize other groups in order to regain moral "superiority."
Mmmmm, I love a good helping of hostility covered in blanket statements in the morning.
You might want to take a step or two back, it seems that aside from being on the opposite side of some issues, you just might be turning into that which you loathe.
|
|
Christians claim to be so much better than everyone else by virtue of their religion being "the only right way"™. They have imposed a double standard that they cannot live up to so they try to find ways to demonize other groups in order to regain moral "superiority."Mmmmm, I love a good helping of hostility covered in blanket statements in the morning.
You might want to take a step or two back, it seems that aside from being on the opposite side of some issues, you just might be turning into that which you loathe.
I know it's alot of posts to read, but if you look back you will see where i have said that i don't purport to have proof that god doesn't exist just as christians don't have proof that god does exist. I am simply saying that if you're going to hold the rest of the world to a certain standard, make sure that you meet it before you start those measurements.
|
|
The Salem Witch trials were an isolated incident, and involved Christian-on-Christian violence. (They weren't persecuting pagans!)
Also, how were they not persecuting pagans? Sure, the people they burned at the stake weren't (for the most part) actually pagan, but that doesn't change the fact that the people who did the burning thought that they were pagans.
And the Pot said to the Kettle, "Who you callin' black, fool?'
I know it's alot of posts to read, but if you look back you will see where i have said that i don't purport to have proof that god doesn't exist just as christians don't have proof that god does exist. I am simply saying that if you're going to hold the rest of the world to a certain standard, make sure that you meet it before you start those measurements.Christians claim to be so much better than everyone else by virtue of their religion being "the only right way"™. They have imposed a double standard that they cannot live up to so they try to find ways to demonize other groups in order to regain moral "superiority."Mmmmm, I love a good helping of hostility covered in blanket statements in the morning.
You might want to take a step or two back, it seems that aside from being on the opposite side of some issues, you just might be turning into that which you loathe.
I've read the entire thread, and even though I don't claim to be a Christian myself, I know a hostile blanket statement when I see it. The kind of language that, when it comes from the other side of the debate, is pointed to as proof of their intolerance.
I've seen one or two people simply state their beliefs with regards to disagreeing with the lifestyle choices of one or two others in this thread, but I only see aggressive posting from one side that is on the attack here, and that's not coming from his side of the debate.
|
|
I've read the entire thread, and even though I don't claim to be a Christian myself, I know a hostile blanket statement when I see it. The kind of language that, when it comes from the other side of the debate, is pointed to as proof of their intolerance.
I've seen one or two people simply state their beliefs with regards to disagreeing with the lifestyle choices of one or two others in this thread, but I only see aggressive posting from one side that is on the attack here, and that's not coming from his side of the debate.
I'll be the first to admit, i can be intolerant of conservative religious folks...the same way i'm intolerant of neo-nazis, KKK members, and black panthers. I have a problem with anybody who makes hating other people their way of life. That's not to say that every christian is a gay-bashing bigot, but of the one's i've met, they seem to comprise a majority of christians.
So i guess what it boils down to is the fact that i'm bigoted towards bigots.
I'll be the first to admit, i can be intolerant of conservative religious folks...the same way i'm intolerant of neo-nazis, KKK members, and black panthers. I have a problem with anybody who makes hating other people their way of life. That's not to say that every christian is a gay-bashing bigot, but of the one's i've met, they seem to comprise a majority of christians.So i guess what it boils down to is the fact that i'm bigoted towards bigots.
And blanket bigotry towards large groups of people is only okay when it comes from someone who is part of a minority subset, right?
This is one of those cases where I feel I've been fairly civil given the circumstances.
I mean, the highest rate of juvenile suicide is among gay teens and the number one reason gays are so heavily treated as second-rate citizens is Christians.
There's only so much courtesy possible under those conditions - at least by me.
And when they then add protest about being treated poorly when they, as a group, are spewing such hate, well, that pushes me over the edge. I respect their right to live as they want to, but we should call a spade a spade.
Nevertheless, I do feel like I've been reasonably civil even as I'm biting a hole in my tongue.[/QUOTE}All I read in the above was that it's okay for you, but not okay for them. A double standard that, given your position on this issue, might sound familiar to you both?
|
|
Pot. Kettle. Black.All I read in the above was that it's okay for you, but not okay for them. A double standard that, given your position on this issue, might sound familiar to you both?They can hate all they want, but i'm going to call a spade a spade or, in this case, a bigot a bigot.
You're right. I should have nothing but compassion for people who hate others based upon things which cannot be controled.
Jimmy Swaggart says he'd kill a homosexual
http://www.spike.com/video/jimmy-swaggart-would/2650343
Jimmy Swaggart doesn't post here, as far as I know. He definitely didn't post in this thread.
That has as much relevance as the following:
Gay man convicted of murdering parents
http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_10971.php
|
|
You're right. I should have nothing but compassion for people who hate others based upon things which cannot be controled.Sure thing Mr. Spade, every Christian fits into that wonderful stereotype you like to paint them with. Keep on ranting.
I know for a fact that i have said in this thread that not every christian is a bigot...reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.
|
|
Jimmy Swaggart says he'd kill a homosexual
http://www.spike.com/video/jimmy-swaggart-would/2650343
Jimmy Swaggart doesn't post here, as far as I know. He definitely didn't post in this thread.
That has as much relevance as the following:
Gay man convicted of murdering parents
http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_10971.php
The article doesn't say anything about the kid killing his parents because they were straight. So no, not the same thing at all.
The article doesn't say anything about the kid killing his parents because they were straight. So no, not the same thing at all.Jimmy Swaggart says he'd kill a homosexual
http://www.spike.com/video/jimmy-swaggart-would/2650343
Jimmy Swaggart doesn't post here, as far as I know. He definitely didn't post in this thread.
That has as much relevance as the following:
Gay man convicted of murdering parents
http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_10971.php
It has exactly as much relevance to the discussion as your link.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Christians claim to be so much better than everyone else by virtue of their religion being "the only right way"™. They have imposed a double standard that they cannot live up to so they try to find ways to demonize other groups in order to regain moral "superiority."
It is very difficult to read Paul, or Augustine, or Francis of Asissi or Benedict or Teresa of Avila or Julian of Norwich, etc ... and take from their writing any sort of moral superiority at all.
I am drawn to the conclusion that anybody claiming to be better than other people is probably not doing the "Christianity" thing right.
--+--+--
If this was a relatively isolated incident, i'd be inclined to agree with you. The problem is that time and time again throught history christianity has shown its true colors when it came to persecution of non-believers. The crusades, the inquisition, salem witch trials, endorsement of slavery using the bible; we even had a sitting US president (bush sr.) say that atheists were unamerican and shouldn't be able to serve in the military.
sidebar: the Inquisition was formed to root out people who claimed to be Christians but weren't following dogma. It was explicitly not going after non-believers; announce yourself a Jew, and the Inquisition has no interest in you. (These days, of course, we don't have "heretics". We have "Protestants".)
The New England witch trials, again, were not persecutions of non-believers.
The Christian nations in medieval Europe enforcing a society where non-Christians were second-class citizens, and trying to carry that over to the shores of America: those are probably better targets.
If Bush, Sr. claimed that atheists were unamerican, he was certainly not speaking as a representative of his church. If you're going to collect all the ridiculous things that anybody has said over the last two thousands years, and claim that the Christians among them were ridiculous because of the institution of the Church, you'll have a long, long list of stupid there.
My friend, the only part of your position to which I take exception is your claim that injustice is the Church's "true colors". I rather see it as a history of different people distorting the Church's mission and message.
|
|
It has exactly as much relevance to the discussion as your link.
Wasn't my link. And considering the previous link (i'm assuming this b/c i cannot access at work) has a religious leader saying they would kill a gay just for being gay, yeah there's a world of difference.
That just goes to show how prejudiced some christians are toward gays.
At the risk of getting pulled into a debate that I don't have the time to maintain, here's my 2cp...
First of all, I am Christian. Not evangelical, but then, I'm pretty sure I don't fit any single denomination. Eh, whatever. I have my beliefs, and I know what they are. Yes, I believe homosexuality is a sin, along with a lot of other practices today. However, I also believe in freedom of choice (note; my stance on abortion is a topic for another thread, please don't make that a subject here. Thank you for your cooperation). Anything you want to do in your personal time that doesn't hurt anyone else is fine with me. I have gay friends, straight friends, pagan friends, christian friends, and just about every level in between imaginable. I won't even say you have to hide it 'behind closed doors.' But it is a good idea to remember that fairness means equal measure, so if you practice either side of the belief in public, you must accept that those who disagree will do the same.
So, individual beliefs established, I'm going to agree with Derek on the side of 'Organized religious institutions are bad,' for the very reason Lillith mentioned about practicing a 'closet faith.' This goes hand-in-hand with my agreement on total separation of church and state. As to the point about Civil Unions et cetera, I actually have a very similar view. 'Legal' marriage (civil union) is the province of the state. Anyone should be allowed to marry whoever they want (assuming legal age/consent). Such a marriage is easily enough covered by paperwork, and there are plenty of those authorized to do so. 'Religious' marriage is, well, religious. It is the purview of the church in question (that is, the specific branch performing the ceremony) on whether or not to bless the marriage and perform such a ritual. If a specific preacher, judge, or official has a problem with the idea, then they can refuse to perform the wedding ceremony.
Simple restatement; Marriage in the courthouse is open to anyone and everyone. Marriage in a church is the business of the church in question.
I won't try to defend the atrocities commited by the Church in the past, I would in fact be one of the first to say it was wrong. Similarly, I won't defend the current Church when it comes to their actions on many socio-political grounds. Long story short, yes, there are a lot of bad people who use faith and religion as a way to get more power. It happens in every faith, and Christianity has seen more than its fair share of corrupt leaders (often as a direct result of its ties to multiple governments... go figure).
Lillith, in response to your comment about the doctor and health insurance... Why be Christian? Well, yeah, Christians are human, just like everyone else. If we were perfect, that would sort of undermine the very core of our faith... We are all searching for answers. No, that's not to say it's okay that we mess up, just that messing up shouldn't automatically mean what we try to do is wrong.
Now, I've ranted enough for one morning, but hopefully I will get back to this when I have some more free time.
God bless.
Yikes.
I've always found it fascinating that over the course of human history, there have been many religions that have sprung up and captured human spirituality in one way or another. Many are "original" and many are "spin-offs" of the Big Ones. Yet in all cases, those who truely believed in their chosen religion also believed that they had found the Way.
Think about this for one minute. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, (and others) all have believed that they have found the Way, and at times, have felt that the other "way" is incorrect, sometimes to bloody results. True, the name of faith has been (and still is)used to commit horrible crimes on other men. Its an easy way to get people on your side after all. But I ask myself this question:
If <insert religion here> is the one, true, Way, why doesn't it appeal to all men equally?
Answer: I don't know.
Part of the human condition leads to extremes in human condition. What appeals to me doesn't appeal to you. I have fiercely Christian friends, gay friends, Muslim friends, atheist friends, etc. Can't say that we've been able to figure it out either. But we don't all have dinner together at the same time, if you catch the drift.
There are NO groups, religious, political, or other that can claim to be completely innocent of persecuting some other group throughout their history. None. It is the nature of membership in an organization, that there will be some other group that is not acceptable to you. Muslim v. Christian, straight v. gay, Yankees v. Red Sox, Pathfinder v. 4e. It comes down to human preference and how you chose to act within the choices you've made.
Just 2 cents, I'm 42, Roman Catholic, and seen/heard/had this debate a million times.
Oh, and cheesy fries with chili, 22 oz Labatts draft...
|
|
sidebar: the Inquisition was formed to root out people who claimed to be Christians but weren't following dogma. It was explicitly not going after non-believers; announce yourself a Jew, and the Inquisition has no interest in you. (These days, of course, we don't have "heretics". We have "Protestants".)
So they weren't non-believers, but they didn't believe what the majority of the church believed? Sounds to be about the same thing to me.
The New England witch trials, again, were not persecutions of non-believers.
They thought they were going after non-christians (witches). Whether or not they were right about that and their victims ended up being christians after all is kinda secondary to their motivation and intent.
The Christian nations in medieval Europe enforcing a society where non-Christians were second-class citizens, and trying to carry that over to the shores of America: those are probably better targets.
If Bush, Sr. claimed that atheists were unamerican, he was certainly not speaking as a representative of his church. If you're going to collect all the ridiculous things that anybody has said over the last two thousands years, and claim that the Christians among them were ridiculous because of the institution of the of the Church, you'll have a long, long list of stupid there.
My friend, the only part of your position to which I take exception is your claim that injustice is the Church's "true colors". I rather see it as a history of different people distorting the Church's mission and message.
He may not have been speaking on behalf of the church, but he was the most powerful man in the world and a known christian. He was definitely speaking on behalf of the US.
If it is a history of individuals performing these acts and distorting the church's mission, why does the church not stand up and immediately denounce these "false prophets" and work toward the true mission of hte church?
There's nothing about Woodruff which indicates he killed his parents because he was gay. In point of fact, the prosecutor tried to use his sexual orientation to bias the jury.
Swaggart, on the other hand, made it very clear that he'd kill because the victim was gay.
You are comparing apples and oranges.You want to believe that the persecution of gays by evangelicals is equivalent to the persecution of evangelicals by gays. The thing is, though, that there is a very long list of gays who have been murdered and tortured by evangelicals for being gay in this country alone. Where's the list of evangelicals who have been murdered and tortured by gays for being evangelical in this country? I doubt you have one.
The two are not equivalent and it is foolish to try to argue that they are.
I'm not talking about some polyanna ideal world, I'm talking about here in the -real- world. The two are -not- equivalent.
And I've already told you that if there ever were a case where gays were doing to evangelicals what evangelicals are doing to gays, I'd be the first to shout out against it.
Your argument is equivalent to chastising the escaped slave for stealing property (himself) from the slave owner.
You are putting words in my mouth. I don't want to believe anything is equivalent to anything else. I was simply pointing out that earlier in this thread, someone stated their beliefs, and a couple of you went on a crusade against him with far more vehemence than was necessary, immediately trying to equate him with every hate-filled act of bigotry you could think of.
Also, please attempt to compare the plight of the modern homosexual with that of a life in slavery again, I could use another fit of laughter.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If it is a history of individuals performing these acts and distorting the church's mission, why does the church not stand up and immediately denounce these "false prophets" and work toward the true mission of the church?
Well, I don't know how to answer that, X, in any way that doesn't sound fatuous.
The Church does, repeatedly and continually, condemn wrongs done in her name and in the name of God.
See what I mean? You ask "Why don't they do this?" and I answer "They do."
You're right. I should have nothing but compassion for people who hate others based upon things which cannot be controlled.
Now you've got it! That's exactly right.
Also, please attempt to compare the plight of the modern homosexual with that of a life in slavery again, I could use another fit of laughter.
(raises hand) I'll compare those. In each case, someone is being denied the full expression of his humanity, and in each case, the oppressor is flinging about attempts to justify his actions through scripture.
In each case, the Gospels are very clear as to what our response should be:compassion for all involved, and support for the oppressed.
If it is a history of individuals performing these acts and distorting the church's mission, why does the church not stand up and immediately denounce these "false prophets" and work towarde the true mission of hte church
Sadly, the answer to that is, quite simply, poitics. Because the Church has become an organized institution, they are obligated to not say anything that could alienate its own members...
...at the cost of alienating nearly everyone else. Go figure. I hate politics.
See previous point; I dislike institutional religions. Organized is fine, but as soon as it becomes a social power structure, the idea of 'modest faith' and so on tends to go right out the window.
Oh, and before it's pointed out, I know it shouldn't (ideally) BE a risk of alienating its own members, but, unfortunately, it would take a lot more than wishful thinking to get rid of all the bigotry involved, Christian or otherwise. The fact that anyone can call themselves Christians tends to dilute the faith across a lot of people who don't deserve the title. (Note; from my perspective, Christian should be a compliment. It isn't, but that goes back to ideals versus reality).
There are NO groups, religious, political, or other that can claim to be completely innocent of persecuting some other group throughout their history. None. It is the nature of membership in an organization, that there will be some other group that is not acceptable to you. Muslim v. Christian, straight v. gay, Yankees v. Red Sox, Pathfinder v. 4e. It comes down to human preference and how you chose to act within the choices you've made.
Atheist, Agnostic, Wiccans?