Re: Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?

[Tank]

This place is not a run-of-mill flame war forum. Here is the first sentence of the forum's mission statement:-

At HAF we know that atheists are often happy ethical people just like anyone else. It is our goal to help dissolve negative stereotypes currently held towards atheists and facilitate productive dialogue with those of differing viewpoints.

Let's look at a couple of elements of the mission statement.

'dissolve negative stereotypes currently held towards atheists'
Do we all do this as often as we can, as well as we can? I know I want to try, I know I won't always manage it as I'm human. Could we do it better? That's a question for each person to answer for themselves. I would not presume to tell others how to behave. The only thing I can do is try to lead by example. I will do my best not lose my temper with somebody who is making assertions from their world view that I frankly find abhorrent. I will not rant at a person for the views they hold.

'facilitate productive dialogue with those of differing viewpoints'

I personally have great difficulty not seeing a theist as being as daft as a brush. There I said it, that is my prejudice. I don't necessarily see them as dangerous but I do see them as 'odd'. I see their beliefs before I see the person and I think that is wrong and I should not do it. One can't have a dialogue with an ideal, one has to talk to the person. I would contend that a truly productive dialogue only happens when two people engage with each other and are willing to stand back and try and be as objective as possible about their own world view and accept from the outset that it may stand some modification. If one does not accept that one's world view my not be perfect then one simply becomes a dogmatic individual.

Each of us is a unique combination of Genes and Memes rolled around in one's particular lifetime of experience. I don't think anybody can know everything there is to know as our brains don't have the capacity, and even if they did our lifespan is too short to take in all the information there is. Thus each and every one of us can not say their world view is perfect as it is based on a sub-set of all knowledge and a different unique sub-set. To have a true dialogue each interlocutor must accept their fallibility.

I don't like being told what I think based on the fact I call myself an atheist. I don't like being dealt with as a strawman, yet it happens. So should one Christian be held responsible for Christianity any more than one atheist be held responsible for atheism? Well there is a fundamental difference between atheism and Christianity (or any religion). Atheism has no dogma, it is not a collective world view, it says nothing about a person except they do not think there is a God, any God. To 'buy into' atheism one takes on no other theological baggage. However when one calls oneself a Christian one does inherit a huge load of theological baggage. But should one Christian be held responsible for Christianity?  I say no, they can not be held responsible for the whole of a religion. Like any individual they should only be held responsible for their world view and how their world view incorporates Christianity.

I would contend that when in a dialogue with a person calling themselves a Christian one should not assume how Christian dogma informs that particular individual's world view, one should ask them. By asking them, rather than telling them something one can not know, one sows the seed of dialogue rather than strikes the spark of a flame war.

So I would contend that to support this forum's mission statement people should see other people first and their world view second. We should ask questions about why somebody holds a particular view on a particular subject rather than presume to tell them based on prejudice and past experience with other people as we are unique and should be treated and respected as such. That's what I will try to do, I will of course fail at times as I am simply a fallible ape.

[radicalaggrivation]

It seems unlikely to me that there are a great deal of atheists who discount Christians as equals because they are Christians. In the same breath, I believe that if you say you are a Christian, one must accept the baggage that comes along with that. I understand your point but Christians should be held accountable for what they believe and that includes all the genocide, rape, God condoned atrocities, and head-scratching dogma. If I said my world view was based in the racial superiority of Blacks and began to babble about how every other race was doomed to oblivion, would you see me as a person first and then consider my world view? You may very well do that but many others would not and they would not be wrong for that. Christianity is a world view in that same context. At it's core lies the fact that it expects all of us to consider it a legitimate way to view the world we live in. Christians take for granted the idea that their world view is accepted as a proper set of beliefs, when the reality is that it is a spiritual and factual scam. Just because a vast majority of Christians are uncritical followers does not mean that they should not be held accountable for the world view they claim to understand and follow.

Is it just me or is it too easy to back Christians into circular logic or contradiction? Before an argument gets to that point, the majority of us skeptics have to deal with the arrogance and ignorance of absolute certainty, that oozes from the uncritical followers of the Christian cult. We all know what horrors can be committed with total absolutism and unquestioning faith. The world view can change very little from being a liberal follower of Christ to picketing the funerals of our nations KIA. Whether we like it or not, it is the job of the informed to combat ignorance in all it's forms. I would say that we could just leave them to their devices but it seems that Christians are not content with occupying one-third of the world with it's fairy tales. The nature of Christianity and all "one true God" cults is to universalize their beliefs. It is the epitome of convincing everyone else of a lie, so that you can further convince yourself. It's dangerous and perversely human to desire such a thing. That is exactly why Christians should all be held accountable for their beliefs.

In making this argument, it is important to note just how frequently Christians try to "evolve" the interpretation of the doctrine to fit the times. That is not a device of Christianity so much as it is a device of Christians. The doctrine is not changing. The Old Testament and the New Testament can no longer be changed without notice. Used to be that if you needed to address a new situation or challenge to the text, you could just create a new epistle and tell everyone that it had always existed. Seems that literacy has done away with that practice. So we are left with documents that can no longer be evolved in definite terms. Christian beliefs, practices, dogma, tradition, and annoying line for line quotations, are all a product of the texts. Now that the text cannot be changed, Christians must continually change their stories to fit the times. Each new discovery of evolution and our solar system makes it necessary for Christians to come up with more elaborate ways to interpret their text. This practice is the sole dominion of lies. They fuel this continued charade. They have an increasingly finite amount of ways to re-imagine their "good books" to fit the facts.

This makes it easy to say that it is not Christianity that needs to be held accountable but Christians. Most Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to believe in. Despite the fact that most semi-rational Christians will admit that many parts of the Bible are antiquated, they find ingenious ways to keep the texts from becoming totally obsolete. Did I say ingenious? I meant irrational. The more excuses they make, the more we should be willing to call them out. It seems that belief for the sake of belief has become the status quo. No one thinks they will go to hell for working on Sunday or even for cheating on their spouses. Christianity has moved past it's prime and atheists can speed along it's demise. I won't go door to door with pamphlets but we need to hold Christians accountable for the illogical ways they continue to keep their religion afloat and in everyone else's lives.

[Tank]

It seems unlikely to me that there are a great deal of atheists who discount Christians as equals because they are Christians. In the same breath, I believe that if you say you are a Christian, one must accept the baggage that comes along with that. I understand your point but Christians should be held accountable for what they believe and that includes all the genocide, rape, God condoned atrocities, and head-scratching dogma. If I said my world view was based in the racial superiority of Blacks and began to babble about how every other race was doomed to oblivion, would you see me as a person first and then consider my world view? You may very well do that but many others would not and they would not be wrong for that. Christianity is a world view in that same context. At it's core lies the fact that it expects all of us to consider it a legitimate way to view the world we live in. Christians take for granted the idea that their world view is accepted as a proper set of beliefs, when the reality is that it is a spiritual and factual scam. Just because a vast majority of Christians are uncritical followers does not mean that they should not be held accountable for the world view they claim to understand and follow.

Is it just me or is it too easy to back Christians into circular logic or contradiction? Before an argument gets to that point, the majority of us skeptics have to deal with the arrogance and ignorance of absolute certainty, that oozes from the uncritical followers of the Christian cult. We all know what horrors can be committed with total absolutism and unquestioning faith. The world view can change very little from being a liberal follower of Christ to picketing the funerals of our nations KIA. Whether we like it or not, it is the job of the informed to combat ignorance in all it's forms. I would say that we could just leave them to their devices but it seems that Christians are not content with occupying one-third of the world with it's fairy tales. The nature of Christianity and all "one true God" cults is to universalize their beliefs. It is the epitome of convincing everyone else of a lie, so that you can further convince yourself. It's dangerous and perversely human to desire such a thing. That is exactly why Christians should all be held accountable for their beliefs.

In making this argument, it is important to note just how frequently Christians try to "evolve" the interpretation of the doctrine to fit the times. That is not a device of Christianity so much as it is a device of Christians. The doctrine is not changing. The Old Testament and the New Testament can no longer be changed without notice. Used to be that if you needed to address a new situation or challenge to the text, you could just create a new epistle and tell everyone that it had always existed. Seems that literacy has done away with that practice. So we are left with documents that can no longer be evolved in definite terms. Christian beliefs, practices, dogma, tradition, and annoying line for line quotations, are all a product of the texts. Now that the text cannot be changed, Christians must continually change their stories to fit the times. Each new discovery of evolution and our solar system makes it necessary for Christians to come up with more elaborate ways to interpret their text. This practice is the sole dominion of lies. They fuel this continued charade. They have an increasingly finite amount of ways to re-imagine their "good books" to fit the facts.

This makes it easy to say that it is not Christianity that needs to be held accountable but Christians. Most Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to believe in. Despite the fact that most semi-rational Christians will admit that many parts of the Bible are antiquated, they find ingenious ways to keep the texts from becoming totally obsolete. Did I say ingenious? I meant irrational. The more excuses they make, the more we should be willing to call them out. It seems that belief for the sake of belief has become the status quo. No one thinks they will go to hell for working on Sunday or even for cheating on their spouses. Christianity has moved past it's prime and atheists can speed along it's demise. I won't go door to door with pamphlets but we need to hold Christians accountable for the illogical ways they continue to keep their religion afloat and in everyone else's lives.

Thank you for an interesting and detailed response. I still think that a person can only by held responsible for their own actions. One person who calls themselves a Christian is not responsible for the actions of another person who calls themselves a Christian and therefore can not be held responsible for the actions and activities of Christianity as whole. Although I grant that their individual behaviours may well have been influenced by how they have integrated Christian dogma into their particular world view.

And this is the point of entering into a constructive dialogue with any person. One can't expect curious Christians who come here to see how the other half live to have the capability to defend Christianity as a whole, it would be impossible. I therefore contend that on this forum with it's aims, stated above, that we have an obligation to engage each other at the level of the individual. Thus I may ask Denny why he believes 'xyz' to be true or reasonable and what I want to hear is his voice. Not a dogmatic assertion. I want to understand why he believes what he believes. That does not mean I will agree with him or that in due course I won't debate the validity of his belief. However I do want to try and understand what Denny thinks and go from there. I don't think Denny should be held responsible for Christianity and in particular things that he had no control over such as the Crusades or the Inquisition he wasn't even alive then. I think he can be held responsible for actions he takes or opinions he holds that he took from dogma and incorporated into his own world view as he is responsible for his world view. And that is what this place is all about, dialogue between individuals.

[Tank]

23 views 2 responses  

[The Magic Pudding]

Most people condemn the worst excesses of fundamentalism.
Some atheists harangue moderate theists for not taking their book literally.
Some atheists are rabid in their attacks, mention any belief and it's out with
the baby eating and paedophilia accusations.
I prefer to leave dogmatic and intolerant attitudes to theists.

The tone of argument here seems reasonable to me.
Religion does harm that I would like to see minimised.
Rabid atheists, fired up by Dawkins words, but with none of his subtlety, are not helping to reduce harm.

After a forum encounter I have seen visiting theists and deists, left thinking Atheists are a bunch of assholes.  
Forum regulars keep the thread going long after driving off the visitor, congratulating themselves like an
adolescent street gang.

I have made posts here lacking in subtlety, I will try to do better.

[KebertX]

I will be honest: Religion fascinates me. Just the psychology of it is so interesting to me.  How do people convince themselves that this is true? I used to think that the only possible reason someone could believe such absurdities was that there was something underneath.  Some sort of spiritual goodness at the center of every religion that draws people in.  On some level I still think that religion provides spiritual nourishment, but lately I'm starting to see that there's no intrinsic force drawing people into belief, it's just indoctrination.

People say their morality is based off of wanting to go to heaven, and they are afraid to go to hell. It's pre-conventional morality: Do whatever makes your parents give you a cookie, don't do what makes them give you a spanking. We're supposed to grow out of that mindset around the age of seven! I hear grown people talking as if they were children, and I can't help but think they're somehow less intelligent than me.

And I know all religions have their problems, but I am specifically biased against Christianity.  I have Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and Pagan friends, and their religions seem fine to me.  The most arrogant and hateful set of beliefs I've encountered come from Christianity.  I'm not a Hindu, but I love Hinduism. I'm not a Muslim, but I love Islam.  I used to be a Christian, and I hate Christianity. I get a lot of crap from Christians and Atheists for this, but not all religions are equal, and Christianity belongs at the bottom of the ranking (just above Scientology).

I think Tank is absolutely right.  No one person should be held accountable for Christianity. Everyone believes different things, and it's unfair to judge anyone based on the official dogma of the belief system they belong to.  In the end, it all has to answer to logic, and it will finally fail that test.  but it's just not fair to say: "You're a Christian! You like Rape and Genocide and Stoning People to Death!"  I would never imply something like that in person, It's the anonymity of the internet.  If I get caught putting words in someones mouth, or taking something out of context, I just read a negative comment, make a mental not to do that again for at least an hour, and move on.

I know plenty of very smart Christians, and plenty of those Fred-Phelps-ish nut jobs. It's easy to think we're smarter than them, because we are more logical.  But we're not. Atheists can be just as arrogant as any theist.  I find it disturbing that so many atheists treat atheism as if it were a religion. Proving God doesn't exist is more simple than concluding that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, or that there has never been a Global Flood. The Bible is like a Straw Man that the religion built itself, it's so easy to knock over. But don't let yourself think you've toppled the God argument that way.

[Kylyssa]

I think individual Christians are responsible for the parts of Christianity they support.  I think they also bear some responsibility for the wrongs being currently perpetrated by fellow Christians under the flag of Christianity that they are aware of but don't so much as peep at.  If they are aware of the American Christians urging Ugandans to commit genocide against homosexuals and don't even voice their disapproval then I think they bear a little of the responsibility when that genocide comes to pass.  If they are either actively or passively supportive of anti-gay bigotry, they bear some responsibility.  If they teach their children to be religious bigots they bear even more.

I probably take a harder line about Christianity than most atheists because I've had the full-on American atheist experience.  I know that sounds a lot like "my sister/mother/female canary was raped by a (fill in the race, creed, or ethnicity) person so I now hate that kind of people" but I think there is a distinction.  The things I've faced have been ongoing and often severe.  They are not isolated incidents and Christianity has been used to support them all.

It started with getting beaten when I was outed as the child of an atheist and continued with years of harassment and abuse by adults and schoolmates.  I still bear the physical and emotional scars.  On the streets, I saw the way many Christian missions offer shelter, food, and other assistance with Christian strings attached.  

I listened to the stories of homeless teens and young adults discarded by their parents for religious reasons.  Yet American Christians turn their heads (or yell profanity and plug their ears) at the approximately 400,000 American teens discarded to the streets for religious reasons.  Young adults are discarded for those reasons, too, as are spouses, siblings, and parents.  

I took 17 of those teens and young adults into my home.  I took some of them to the ER for the physical injuries inflicted upon them by their Christian parents.  One boy who came out as Pagan had to get pieces of his mother's fingernails removed from the deep, scarring wounds she made on his cheek before they could get stitches.  Another boy who was suspected of being gay was beaten until he had broken bones and physically pitched into the street.  An actually homosexual boy was kicked out after a beating that left him vulnerable and weakened.  He was raped the same week.  His parents told him he deserved it.  I held him in my arms when he believed it.  A 13 year old girl was discarded because her parents thought she was possessed because she was "willful and disobedient". I had to almost "tame" her of her terror of adults (with food and quiet speech over the course of about five days) to get her to come with me to DHS because her parents had beaten her and she'd been sexually assaulted on the street.  I could go on.  Once you meet one of these kids your life changes forever.

In the trenches you can see that so many innocent lives are destroyed by religion.

I think that Christians who are aware of this and say or do nothing do bear some responsibility.  If they don't show disapproval when members of their family and church discard their children they are supporting it, though through inactivity.  

All that said, I don't think all Christians bear responsibility for the repulsive actions done in the name of Christianity.  I know and love many Christians who are fine people.  I have worked with Christian activists who fight these injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.  I live with a lovely Catholic woman who has many of the same views I do.  

It helps me to put things into perspective to realize that most of the ones who are harmful didn't choose to be indoctrinated.  They were raised with a version of religion that warped them.  I was abused as a child and it has left me screwed up.  They were abused as children and it left them screwed up in a different way.

[radicalaggrivation]

I think individual Christians are responsible for the parts of Christianity they support.  I think they also bear some responsibility for the wrongs being currently perpetrated by fellow Christians under the flag of Christianity that they are aware of but don't so much as peep at.  If they are aware of the American Christians urging Ugandans to commit genocide against homosexuals and don't even voice their disapproval then I think they bear a little of the responsibility when that genocide comes to pass.  If they are either actively or passively supportive of anti-gay bigotry, they bear some responsibility.  If they teach their children to be religious bigots they bear even more.

First off Kylyssa, that was a very touching post. Heartbreaking to hear and even worst to see. Your quote summarizes a point I should have elaborated on much more. I do not expect contemporary Christians to all refute or accept every aspect of Christianity. It is clear that much of the Biblical issues are not followed closely, let alone practiced. Much of it is outright ignored. Then what is the point? It seems to me that Americans, in particular, are more pseudo-Christians than real ones. They believe in the practice and participation of their religion but do not truly acknowledge it for what it is. This would not bother me one bit if Christians did not try and force their religions down everyone's throats but they do. As soon as you try to make me and my children digest your verbal and political diarrhea I start to have issues.

More to the point, Christians seem okay to violate everyone else's rights and freedoms so long as they are the golden constituents in this country. Gays cannot get married or be treated equally because of religious bigotry. If that wasn't the case Americans would go to the polls and allow homosexuals the same rights as everyone else. While not all Christians are against same sex marriage openly, the majority clearly refuse these people their rights based off of a false premise, that is rooted in their religion. That is the issue though. They have to believe it. They have to treat these people like their are dogs because it is in the Bible. If you are a Christian you cannot openly speak against that because to do so is to speak against God. So be moral and be responsible, is to reject something so vile and inhumane and if you don't you are responsible for the issues that arise from this. It is the same when after WWII everyone was asking how so many people could be complacent in the murder of so many. The typical answer from German soldiers was, "I was just doing what I was told." Well that just isn't a good enough explanation. If you are part of the group that commits these crimes against humanity and you do not speak out against it, you have furthered that cause. Why? Because when you do not speak out you strengthen the group mentality that allows people to siphon responsibility to everyone else but them. No one is responsible and yet horrors are still being committed. We can be polite as skeptics and treat Christians like they are just innocent and confused but to frank I won't do that. The problem today is that we do not have enough atheists willing to take the hard line against this. We should stand firmly and aggressively against such immoral behavior.

[KebertX]

I look forward to the day the cross sits discarded beside the swastika as just another reminder of the dangers of blind faith.

[Heretical Rants]

^I think that the swastika is actually a pretty cool symbol, and that it's a shame that the nazis ruined it.

[Tank]

This part of KebertX's post resonated with me.

{snip}How do people convince themselves that this is true? {snip}

I think people are gullible in that sometimes they want to believe something, so they do. I have never wanted to believe there is a God, so I haven't. When is all is said and done and all the logic is thrown around and all the facts stated some people still have the ability to believe what they want to. The point about the 'pleased parents' and 'super Daddy' is an important one. As children we know no better than to do as our parents tell us and when arguing with siblings who has not made the 'appeal to authority', 'I'll tell Dad/Mum on you!' Thus trumping in one fell swoop the authority of one's sibling?

As we are all different it is reasonable to assert that some people will be more gullible and self delusional than others. It's the famous line 'There's one born every minuet.' but in this case it is the individual fooling themselves because they want to, because the world view they create is the most comfortable for them at the time.

KX also makes the very valid point that if one sees a lot of people saying something is correct it is very, very difficult not to think there is something in what these people are saying. There are classic psychological experiment where you put one person into a group of people (who is the subject of the experiment) and get everybody else (who are part of the experiment) to say something dumb is true, in the vast majority of cases the subject will go along with the group even when they know what is being said is dumb! It's safer to conform and have the protection of the group than to appear different and by ostracised, we are after all a social animal.

I have convinced myself things are true because I disparately wanted them to be true and reality was just to difficult to face up to.

[Tank]

Kylyssa

Thank you for every word of your last post. You have summed up my position perfectly. One should be held responsible for one's own actions, be they active or passive. There should be one hell for those that actively abuse and excuse their behaviours by hiding behind dogma, there should be another for those that stand by and watch and do noting. But one should always remember that the people in both these groups are victims of the lies of religion, that feed on the imperfections of our evolution and upbringing.

I do agree that people should be held accountable for their behaviour, I just don't feel it is right to presume a person will always behave in a particular way just because they have stuck a particular label on themselves. I think one should give the benefit of the doubt to new members here until they have shown their own colours and then one should engage with the individual on their individual beliefs.

On a more general point. Going back to the OP and expanding on it a little, I think that to have a useful dialogue one has to limit the discussion to the point at hand. If a person states 'I think xyz is wrong because Chapter 1 verse 16 says blah, blah blah.' it's not productive to ask why they believe in a zombie God. The fact that they believe in a zombie God is daft and may well pull the rug out from under their assertion but it isn't going to promote a healthy dialogue it'll just spark a flame war.

However if a person comes here and asserts 'I think xyz is wrong because Chapter 1 verse 16 says blah, blah blah.' and will not back up their claims in their own words and in the spirit of a constructive dialogue I would see them as a preacher and they should be shown the door pretty damn quick! There is no point in giving air time to arseholes, ones they have shown themselves to be arseholes.

[Tank]

Most people condemn the worst excesses of fundamentalism.
Some atheists harangue moderate theists for not taking their book literally.
Some atheists are rabid in their attacks, mention any belief and it's out with
the baby eating and paedophilia accusations.
I prefer to leave dogmatic and intolerant attitudes to theists.

The tone of argument here seems reasonable to me.
Religion does harm that I would like to see minimised.
Rabid atheists, fired up by Dawkins words, but with none of his subtlety, are not helping to reduce harm.

After a forum encounter I have seen visiting theists and deists, left thinking Atheists are a bunch of assholes.  
Forum regulars keep the thread going long after driving off the visitor, congratulating themselves like an
adolescent street gang.

I have made posts here lacking in subtlety, I will try to do better.

This was a particularly distasteful tribal behaviour at RDF and it is still appears at RationalSkeptisim where the majority of heavy posters at RDF ended up. Theists are referred to as 'chew toys'    I won't say I'm above that sort of behaviour, it's easy to get carried along with the crowd. But in retrospect it's not a good or productive way to behave.

[KebertX]

It started with getting beaten when I was outed as the child of an atheist and continued with years of harassment and abuse by adults and schoolmates.  I still bear the physical and emotional scars.  On the streets, I saw the way many Christian missions offer shelter, food, and other assistance with Christian strings attached.  

I listened to the stories of homeless teens and young adults discarded by their parents for religious reasons.  Yet American Christians turn their heads (or yell profanity and plug their ears) at the approximately 400,000 American teens discarded to the streets for religious reasons.  Young adults are discarded for those reasons, too, as are spouses, siblings, and parents.  

I took 17 of those teens and young adults into my home.  I took some of them to the ER for the physical injuries inflicted upon them by their Christian parents.  One boy who came out as Pagan had to get pieces of his mother's fingernails removed from the deep, scarring wounds she made on his cheek before they could get stitches.  Another boy who was suspected of being gay was beaten until he had broken bones and physically pitched into the street.  An actually homosexual boy was kicked out after a beating that left him vulnerable and weakened.  He was raped the same week.  His parents told him he deserved it.  I held him in my arms when he believed it.  A 13 year old girl was discarded because her parents thought she was possessed because she was "willful and disobedient". I had to almost "tame" her of her terror of adults (with food and quiet speech over the course of about five days) to get her to come with me to DHS because her parents had beaten her and she'd been sexually assaulted on the street.  I could go on.  Once you meet one of these kids your life changes forever.

In the trenches you can see that so many innocent lives are destroyed by religion.

I don't know what to say. This was heart wrenching. I was vaguely aware that things like this happened, but *Opens new tab and s it...* 400,000 is a bigger number than I would have ever thought. It's truly awful.  Thank you for sharing this, it has a certain profound effect to get a dose of reality like this from time to time.

I think that Christians who are aware of this and say or do nothing do bear some responsibility.  If they don't show disapproval when members of their family and church discard their children they are supporting it, though through inactivity.

I'm responding to this with another quote from Bill Maher's Religulous.

This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers.

[Martin TK]

I think individual Christians are responsible for the parts of Christianity they support.  I think they also bear some responsibility for the wrongs being currently perpetrated by fellow Christians under the flag of Christianity that they are aware of but don't so much as peep at.  If they are aware of the American Christians urging Ugandans to commit genocide against homosexuals and don't even voice their disapproval then I think they bear a little of the responsibility when that genocide comes to pass.  If they are either actively or passively supportive of anti-gay bigotry, they bear some responsibility.  If they teach their children to be religious bigots they bear even more.

This was ever so evident in Rwanda in 1994, when Tutsi minority was nearly wiped out by the Christian majority, and some of the genocide was led by a Catholic Priest and a Bishop.  The Bishop went to Kibeho and told a group of some 95 Tutsi school children that he had brought the police to protect them, three days later those same police slaughtered eighty-two of them.  The Vatican said NOTHING against the actions of the priest nor the bishop, even when the priest was charged with genocide after fleeing to France.  The hero of the Hotel Rwanda story remembers the priest calling his own Tutsi mother a "cockroach" the name the Christians gave to the Tutsis.  The Bishop was never charged, although he was seen as having participated in the genocide, because as one Rwandan Minister of Justice put it, "The Vatican is too strong and too unapologetic for us to go taking on Bishops.  Haven't you heard of infallibility?"  To my knowledge the Vatican has never even made a statement about the slaughter of those children on Mt. Kibeho where the Virgin Mary was supposed to have appeared and started the whole genocide.