Thanks, Halda! : )

@Gianluca Fantuzzi I think the Soviet Union already tried that -- it didn't go very well. Conversely, the United States -- rooted in the belief that human beings are created equal with certain unalienable rights granted by God -- seems to have a pretty good system.

@Gianluca Fantuzzi Yeah... well, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on the religion thing. As someone who believes in God, your statement is oxymoronic to me. A world that does not have a creator is not a world at all -- and I don't think you'd really want to live in a world in which no one believes in God. Regardless of personal life, you must recognize the utiility of Judeo-Christian values. Perhaps you don’t wish to live in the United States, but I am sure you can see that the world would be flooded with darkness without it. I'd wager that if it were not for the United States and the stability it provides to the world, your top 30 list wouldn’t be such lovely places to live.

I love you Shauna, but this guy views religion as a tool for personal use; like he's searching for the best style yoga studio for himself. He doesn’t seek truth, but mocks churches who assert their beliefs to be true. He seems to view God's love as an affirmation of the self -- but love is not an affirmation. He says that churches who demand things of you are "drunk off their own power," but Christianity is fundamentally about doing what God asks of us. He says he seeks a church with humility, yet he repeatedly appeals to the argument of authority by referring to himself as a biblical scholar -- in order to dismiss the claims of churches with which he disagrees. He fundamentally misunderstands some basic things about mainstream churches and how they operate. I think he throws away churches when he is offended by their teachings, until he tries on one that feels good. And a progressive church will surely offer him something that feels good. But that's not how truth is found. And as a side note, mainstream Christian churches welcome everyone -- atheists, agnostics -- all are welcome to come pray and learn and receive blessings. All people -- believers, non-believers, sinners of all sorts, are welcome in Christian "communities" in that sense. In fact, Christians of mainstream denominations would generally be thrilled to see someone who is agnostic or atheist come to church with an open heart. Christianity, however, does require something of us and we must meet those requirements to be called Christian. Christianity is not something that we mold to ourselves, and that's how this guy views it. That is how progressive churches tend to view it. To use the term Christian in a way that is so flexible and ungrounded is to turn Christianity into something that it is not -- good vibes and golden rules and a love that accepts everything about oneself -- giving no reason to change oneself or anyone else.

@Naré Bars That's right. It's "racist" to suggest that there is something about Islam that leads many of its followers to violence. As if Muslims are a race.

@Daniel Bell Fair questions. And you're right -- the term Leftist can be misleading or ambiguous to some. In this case, "they" are the people that do the thing -- that is, use Islam as a tool for political gain by viewing Muslims as a marginalized group to be tethered together with other "marginalized" groups for political power. The people who do this thing are described as Leftists -- people who share an ideological view of the world. In this worldview, people are viewed not as individuals but according to group identity. To Leftists, the individual is incapable of acting as a sovereign being because the individual, in this worldview, experiences the world entirely through the lense of their group identity. When it comes to social and political matters or systems of government, truth or goodness cannot be sought for its own sake, but only for the benefit of one’s own group as individuals are constrained by their group identity. This postmodern worldview (i.e. this "attitude of skepticism") challenges the narrative used to uphold social, political and economic systems by suggesting that the system is only in place because it benefits certain groups. In other words, "they" (Leftists) might say, "you don’t support Western civilization because it is good, but only because it's good for you." This relativist worldview in which human beings are simply groups vying for power, blinded and driven by group identity, underlies today's progressive movement. It is propagated both wittingly and unwittingly, through support of progressive social and political ideology; by those who consciously embrace this worldview and those who are naive to it. Leftism can thus be promoted by people who not are truly "Leftists." Well intentioned liberals, unaware of this relativist ideology that masquerades as compassion, often side with their further left progressive counterparts and participate in the destruction of the West. A good indicator, I think, of a purebred Leftist is someone who has progressive values AND aggressively shuts down dialogue with opposition (because the worldview that underlies the Leftists' social and political views does not allow for good faith dialogue -- again, because it defines human beings according to group identity, which constrains one's ability to reason independently from one’s group identity and drives motives based on the interest of one’s identity group).