no where in the bible is it saying to condemn others, rather to love them unconditionally because we are all eqaul sinners.

You must have a different Bible than they do.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-14.htm

http://biblehub.com/luke/9-5.htm

http://apprising.org/2011/03/21/jesus-does-condemn-homosexuality/

I have no problem with other people's business but I do object to people using their 'rights' to limit the rights of others. My wife is a Conservative Catholic and I say so what? Her religion is none of my business. My daughter went to that Catholic sort of pre school and I let that go for the same reasons. My only goal is to turn her into a free thinker. I do strongly object to people trying to make other people change their ways and despising those who are different and this is the glory of the church it's goal. I was raised by a Bible thumping hypocrite and my first problem with the church came from observing the way Christians act in real life. Words are pretty but it's actions that count. Actually the return of literacy among the people returned with the Enlightenment which was a rebellion against the church and aristocracy. The church did maintain those pieces of writing they agreed with, but kept it to themselves. They had little use for serfs. The church has burned many more books than they saved. I am happy that you have a faith that helps you, but I'm afraid that history proves the church to be a monster.

Well I can see where you feel that way, but it's salvaged humanity as well as hurt it.

The Catholic Church has horror without names to its legacy in a way that few organisations compare. If I look our own history, in the 40s and 50s they found out that Canada paid much more for metal patients than orphans and since they only had orphans, maybe they might turn them into mental patients. It's as horrifying as it sounds. Many died, some even died after being sold to be performed medical experiments upon.

I believe the only reason the responsible parties didn't swing at the end of a rope (which was the sentence in Canada at the time for truly heinous crimes) is that they were of the cloth.

Yes, you personally can feel however want. Human suffering is subjective, nuanced– to say the least, and therefor difficult to quantify with a monetary value. and i'm not responding to your comment to debate semantics, but i do hear (more often than I would like to) leaders/thinkers in contemporary American politics/government citing christianity (and the bible specifically) as the root or seed theory to the united states political philosophy concerning supreme law and foundation of this countries government, and I don't disagree (not entirely) with this widely supported ideology. However, the ramifications of christian implementations to US law and global international policy is very measurable and undeniable. I personally feel restitution for all unjust [christian] enrichment is long overdue and a moral obligation our government no longer can ignore, it's the christian/right thing to do. I think all governments and influential global religions need to take this first step. And so I find the second sentence in your response, particularly the word "more," to be indolent, IMHO; I've read some of your other comments, you're better than that friend.

Since there are far more victims of the radicalized Christian Right than of radicalized Islamic groups in the US, we'd be better off helping the ones we can reach first.

Think globally, act locally.