A wacky fundy (if you want to read for yourself, just e-mail me and I'll e-mail you a link, he doesn't like for me to link to him) just did a piece on how non-Christians unfairly bring up the Crusades and the Inquisition, and the rampant hypocrisy of many Christians…and he points out that the failure of humans doesn’t make the Bible or the Gospel any less true.

In other words, you can’t say that when people violate a philosophy, that proves the invalidity of the philosophy.

I guess you can’t disprove a tautology (people who are not good examples of a philosophy are not good examples of a philosophy)…but where does that leave us?

And anyway, he misses that fact that when people raise the Crusades and the Inquisition, and pedophile priests (and the people who constantly excuse their behavior), they are not usually arguing against the assertion that the Bible is 100% literally true.  That is usually done with provable, demonstrative facts (evidence saying the earth is more than 6,000 years old, evidence that evolution happened, etc.)

The anecdotal evidence of Christians behaving badly is a direct contradiction to the constant, hubristic claims that religion should rule the world because it makes you a better person, improves society, and is responsible for everything good in the world (Christians have publicly claimed that there would be no medical advancement without religion because Christians built hospitals, for instance, or claim that slavery was the result of atheism, but Christians did away with it; they have even lied about Darwin, saying he approved of slavery and that his theory validated it, when it is explicit in his writings that he stood against it – supposedly, Christians have a moral foundation against lying, too)

Its a repudiation of a concentrated effort to "take over" America for religion...not an attempt to disprove the factual basis of an ancient document.

It's like saying "Those silly non-religious people, they keep using screw-rivers to turn screws...don't they know that screwdrivers can't do ANYTHING about driving in nails?  They are so stupid".

Trying to re-direct this evidence from the claims it effectivly addresses, and trying to make it address a tautology may be good enough for people who already want to believe, but it actually just makes them look dumb, especially when it is from someone who constantly accuses others of using strawman tactics, and then complains when people characterize their apologetics as “irrational”.

Isn’t it good enough to allow that some people DO find religion useful, individually, in their private lives? That they CAN, find a way to make that tool build something good, but that it has NOT, historically been beneficial for humanity as a whole when made the centerpiece of a culture?

The very fact that David Barton has to invent quotes to “prove” the founders wanted a theocracy seems to invalidate the claim that “returning”  to those roots (which never existed, or you wouldn’t have to fake the evidence)will benefit us in any way.

Finally, he points out that he shouldn't have to feel responsible for things that happened a long time ago, that he didn't do.

Absolutely.

But that's not the purpose of bringing it up now.  The purpose of bringing those things up now, is to point out that if Christians continue to support a group of people working to create a theocratic plutocracy on our country, they WILL BE responsible for the things they do...and history tells us that they things they do will not be good.

[Update: and so it begins with mob rule, and don't forget, the fundies believe "all your law are belong to us" (Michele Bachmann says the judges do not have the authority to interpret the law - a common conservative misconception).  Also, more lies to incite violence against the media.  Ann Coulter will be so happy when they finally fulfill her dream of open season on the press.  Remember:  You can run, but you cannot hide.]