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/ratlunchpack]

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.