[loser]

Like every organized religions, it means disabling critical thinking and be happily blind.

No, quite the contrary. Christianity requires extremely critical thinking, the blind are rarely ever happy.

Another point anoying me is that it claims to have a copyright on morality and values, which is wholefully stupid.

It's humanism that makes that claim. The Christian religion says that morality and your values are written in your heart, that no laws written in stone can guide you how to live. It says that no one can tell you what is right and wrong, that understanding is in your conscience (your own heart and mind and soul). It all comes from within.

I suspect all humans need some way to help them make sense of those things in life which seem mysterious, unfair, illogical, coincidental and just plain odd.

If not, snake-oil salesmen like Darwin couldn't foist their perversions upon unsuspecting men.

Christianity, like all religions, is just a more formal, codified attempt to make sense of the parts of life that defy easy explanation.

Actually, it's the instruction manual for mankind. As incredulous as it seems, it explains exactly what God's intentions are and it explains all of the craziness that is our lives. It's not some book that some questioning human concocted. It's an account of humanity's encounter with his ET Creator.

Unlike private explanations, religions also involve forming a community of like-minded individuals. The communities of believers add a dimension that individual explanations often lack.

Communities are NOT religious-dependent and are rarely like-minded. What forms communities are common needs. Individuality is present in all communities, religious or otherwise. Nevertheless, like-minded people do tend to form groups, as in birds of a feather.

The weak point of religions are their teachings that they posses an "ultimate truth" applicable to everyone everywhere. This puts them at odds with each other as well as non-believers.

Substitute the word 'humans' (or even scientists or evolutionists or any other 'community' word) for 'religions' in your sentence and see how aptly it fits them all.

Christianity, like Islam, has become as much a political force as it is a religion. This presents complications for those who live in countries where these faiths are accepted by the majority of the citizens but not unanimously by all citizens. Majority rule can become rule by force, and the force Christians are exercising is the force of law. I do not welcome America becoming a theocratic state. I think it would be detrimental to the citizens and disastrous for the country.

Here, I agree. This was the same subterfuge that Jesus revealed in the Pharisaic teachings. Christianity hasn't fallen far from the 'tree'.

I don't care what people believe in the context of their own lives any more than I care what they do in bed. I do not, though, think that Christianity should become the default religion of America any more than I think heterosexuality should be mandated for all our citizens.

Although the Church of England broke from under the yoke of the pope (Catholicism), it came under the yoke of the king (or queen). The founders of the government in the New World of America worked hard to see that this didn't happen here. Theocracy puts the subjects at the mercy (and whim) of the ruler(s).

My opinion is that few christians place enough stock in the actual words and teachings of Jesus, and that if they made his teachings and words the core tenets above all else then they would be a much more peaceful and tolerant, and advanced religion.

You are correct, sir!

But really, even if a religion is extremely good, human nature dictates only the people who are ALREADY GOOD will do that goodness justice. The lesser people will pick and choose what they find suits their agenda best and make that "the religion". Really religion does not create the man at all, it does not define him. He defines the way he perceives his religion. One man can be a christian and be peaceful, kind, and generous, one man can be a christian and be bigoted, mean-spirited, spiteful, hateful, and war-like. Is either the "true christian"? You could defend either one using evidence from the bible and have a pretty good case either way.

There is a whole lot of truth in this paragraph but just a slight misconception. I think the Bible could well indeed portray Judaism as "bigoted, mean-spirited, spiteful, hateful, and war-like" but I don't think that you would find it portraying Christians in that light (although, without proper exegesis, one could falsely conclude as much).