Remember this -- Honest believers and con-men identify with one another,
complicating the semantics of the issue. Similar applies to half-con-men,
people who con themselves, and all the other varying conditions of mind
that
mutually identify -- the evil-doer and the truly compassionate man, also,
pass one another in the church under the same identity. Furthermore, the
otherwise truly compassionate man intellectualises that his morality comes
only from a god, affecting his view of non-believers, so the non-believer
looks upon him as a cruel bigot.

The reason I make the distinction is because it irritates me when
people(especially Americans) talk about Christianity, et all the cetera,
by
misdiagnosing it as nothing more than a commercial invention(just because
it's almost wholly commercial in America) or a single evil conspiracy,
under
the impression that they are painting a useful portrait.

What we have is, in fact, a *mess*, and talking in absolutes doesn't help.

The best way to summarise my opinion of organised religion in general is
not
to demonise it outright, as I would a random fascist regime, but to
compare
my feeling with those of modern Britons toward the British Empire.

The British Empire: Yes, often benign, sometimes beneficial, not without
the
odd set of good intentions here and there, somewhat bringing order and
co-operation, created a world language and a desirable degree of
globalisation -- a fact of life that stretched over centuries, rather than
one big evil conspiracy...

...but nonetheless crude, cruel, imposing, outdated, oppressive,
occassionally murderous, not without alternatives, bringing with it
unnecessary war, something largely regrettable that should be laid to
rest.