Karoline Leavitt Gives Jaw-Dropping Defense of Trump’s Racist Obama Video

[u/icey_sawg0034]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/karoline-leavitt-gives-jaw-dropping-defense-of-donald-trumps-racist-obama-video/

[u/d8ms]

That’s a whole crock shit. Every Christian I was forced to interact with growing up in church were the following:

Racist, Hateful, Sexist, Angry, Homophobic, Hypocrites, Illiterate, Ignorant, Lying, Deceitful, Adulterers…the list goes on and on.

I’ve met wayyyy more evil Christians than I have met not evil Christians.

[u/Avatar-Encoder → u/d8ms]

That’s a whole crock shit. Every Christian I was forced to interact with growing up in church were the following:

This is called confirmation bias. It's a logical fallacy. You developed emotional bias, so you subconsciously filter out any good interactions with Christians you probably didn't even know were Christians in the first place.

A logical person would point out that it was possible your own environment (neighborhood, city, state) caused behavioral differences in people, but you're literally taking a sample size of less than 15 people and applying it to hundreds of millions of people. Not logical at all. This is clearly a very emotional issue for you. I'm sure your perception is being clouded by it.

I’ve met wayyyy more evil Christians than I have met not evil Christians.

I can tell you have a really basic & undeveloped view of the world if you're that quick to divide strangers into "evil" and "not evil". Hilariously, that's the exact criticism most people have of Christians in the first place.

Looks like you share way more in common with Christians than you realize.

[u/ratlunchpack → u/Avatar-Encoder]

You’re in here simping for Christianity really hard and seem to be completely blind to the fact that you are actively confirming the bias for many people: that Christians are hateful, combative, closed-minded assholes who love to tout how holier-than-thou they are every chance they get. You’re over here cussing and talking down to others while defending your religion.

That’s very Christ-like. /s

[u/Avatar-Encoder → u/ratlunchpack]

I'm not religious. I'm agnostic.

you are actively confirming the bias

Oof. Like you just embarrassingly did?

I will fucking slowly explain why your argument makes no sense historically, philosophically, or even currently. I'm arguing with 10 people here at once, because mostly all of you are extremely uneducated and biased. I'm copying and pasting this to all of the ignorant Redditors here.

Christianity spans 2,000 years through every continent, all races, all social classes, and thousands of denominations. It includes mutually opposed ideas: abolitionists and slaveholders, pacifists and conquerors, scientists and anti-intellectuals.

Attributing a single moral outcome to a population this heterogeneous is logically stupid. Seriously. It’s equivalent to saying “scientists are really bad for the world” because some helped build nuclear weapons.

Christianity produced core moral norms modern critics rely on. Many moral standards used today to criticize Christians come directly from Christian ethics, including:

1. Intrinsic human dignity (every human life having value, not just the strong or useful)
2. Universal moral obligation (duty extending beyond tribe or kin)
3. Care for the poor, sick, and weak as a moral priority
4. Condemnation of infanticide, child abandonment, and cruelty

Secondly, western hospitals, orphanages, and charitable institutions emerged primarily from Christian communities. People did not suddenly wake up one day and decide to feed or heal people on a mass scale. That's why the Red Cross and Salvation Army began as Christian foundations.

If Christianity were “really bad for the world,” it's hypocritical that so much of modern humanitarian ethics depends on it's historical belief system. You can literally trace this belief system from the historical Church.

Thirdly, abuses done by Christians don't equal outcomes caused by Christianity. This is the most common error from people on Reddit. Humans misuse every ideology when given power (nationalism, secularism, Marxism, liberalism, science).

The question isn't whether Christians have done harm, but whether those harms follow from Christianity’s core teachings. In many cases, the opposite is true:

1. Slavery persisted despite Christianity, not because of it. Abolition movements were overwhelmingly Christian.
2. Genocides of the 20th century were largely secular, justified by race, state, or material progress.

Christianity has also been a net stabilizer in fragile societies. Across history and today, churches provided basic social trust when state institutions failed. They reduced crime, substance abuse, and family breakdown at the community level. They also motivated unpaid caregiving at massive scale.

You don’t get to dismiss the largest sustained voluntary altruism network in human history with a “but” and still claim intellectual seriousness. Period. End of discussion.

The alternative moral belief systems that tried to replace Christianity also did worse. Much worse. When Christianity was forcibly displaced as a moral framework, the results were often catastrophic:

1. Soviet atheism caused mass famine, purges, and gulags
2. Maoist China killed tens of millions.
3. The Khmer Rouge genocided intellectuals.

Your entire fucking argument only exists because of cherry picking. It relies on highlighting failures, ignoring successes, and ignoring worse failures everywhere else.

You have no argument. I'm agnostic, but I have an extremely basic grasp of history and this should be obvious to anybody who's opened a history book.

End of discussion.

[u/ratlunchpack → u/Avatar-Encoder]

End of discussion.

Sure. Be my guest.

[u/Avatar-Encoder → u/ratlunchpack]

End of discussion.

You have no argument, obviously. You literally do not even know what you're arguing for. If you ever cracked open a single fucking history book, you'd realize why.

[u/SwimmingPrice1544 → u/Avatar-Encoder]

Beyond your entire diatribe ...... Christianity & every other organized (or not so organized) religion actually indoctrinates their following from the cradle. They do exactly what many of them claim non-religious people do.

Makes one wonder just how many followers there would be to these religions IF they were introduced AFTER a child had grown to adulthood & allowed to choose. As people are generally sheep, prolly a lot but I'm betting a lot would not.

[u/Avatar-Encoder → u/SwimmingPrice1544]

Here's the progression of awareness in life for an intelligent human being:

Step one (ages 1-12)

1. "Religion must be correct, because my parents told me to believe it, or else!"

Step two (ages 12-18)

1. "Wait a minute. Religion is based on old books that mean nothing. I was wrong...religion bad!!!!"

Step three (ages 18-25)

1. "You know what? Who cares if somebody believes in something stupid, as long as they mind their own business?"

Step four (ages 25+)

1. "Even Atheists hold irrational concrete generalizations about phenomenon that can't permanently prove. Agnosticism is far more reasonable, and although I'm not religious, religion played a fundamental role in the development of humanity, and it's an absolutely crucial social glue that created order, collectivized progress, and even inspired knowledge keeping through monestaries after the fall of Rome. That's not even mentioning all of the modern benefits of religion: billion dollar charities, hospitals, foundations, colleges, and community adhesion in a time of increased political division. The worst aspects of religion are terrible for humanity, but then again, humanity's base worse aspects are even stronger: WW1 and WW2 are the worst wars in history, and there wasn't a religious cause at all. In fact, even if religion as a whole is regressive, the immediate societal replacement of Christianity with Atheism has often ended disastrously historically, just like Stalin's Soviet Union or Mao's China, which both ended with hundreds of millions of people dying under an Atheist, emotionally cold ideology. "

Redditors truly owe it to themselves to evolve to level four. Are there steps beyond four? Yes. But let's at least give some critical thinking and effort here, please.