This smells like the "with us or against us" crap of George Bush. 

First, you should have realized by now that I am not anything like most theists. Either that or you haven't read most of my posts.

 Secondly, your logic is faulty. You are essentially saying that if Joe has faith that motivates him to do something and if John has faith, then John is responsible for how faith motivates Joe.  What a load of crap.

Where have I defended Christianity? I'm pointing out a flaw in logic. Considering that the strongest arguments against theism rely on logic then it seems fair to expect logically vaild arguments in this thread. And you are associating all theists with Christians - another fault in your reasoning. I do not support contemporary Christian fundamentalism. I will be glad when it finally fades into obscurity.

Radicals don't need an umbrella from moderates. They are driven by a singular obsession with what they believe and don't give a damn about what other beliefs exist. In fact, extremists revile moderates. Moderates are condemned by fundamentalists as "luke warm". Jesus will "spit them out of his mouth". The whole premise that moderates give cover to extremists is flawed from the outset.  Some moderates are repulsed by extremists. By the reasoning offered here, the way to get rid of extremists is to first get rid of moderates. What a crock. This reasoning is extreme in and of itself. So let's get rid of reasonable atheists. Then when that's done, we can focus on the extreme ones.

Until you know my beliefs can you even say I'm a moderate? 

I'm not writing here in defense of Protestant style fundamentalism.  While I agree with fundamentalist definitions of those activites deemed as sin, I take exception to some of the practical and political programs they would enact to "correct" these deficiencies in the human condition.

While it is often quite satisfying to engage in mental masturbation and verbal gymnastics to justify wrong beliefs and actions, one should be careful when considering making a blanket statement which is not supported by the historical record.  A brief examination of the historical record will help to illuminate the incorrectness of Genesis' sweeping statement to the effect that Christianity is at odds or opposed to the concept of individual rights.

If the reader will concede that very little occurred in life during the Dark and Middle Ages without, if not the instigation of, atleast witht eh consent of the Church, then:

The basic Christian tenet that all men stand in equality before God has been a driving force in the development of the political quality of all men in the realm of government.  It is the recognition of this doctrine which leads to the slow evolution in the European countryside away from the old Roman system of chattlery, that is the outright ownership of labor by the lords of lands, to serfdom to a landowning peasantry.  In the towns, where a much lower percentage of the population lived following the collapse of the Empire, this slow move is effected by the labor guilds which regulate  not only commerce and trade, but the working conditions of the artisans and craftsmen.

The first crude instances of representative government appear in the Swiis cantons and the Hanseatic League and spreading outward, albeit slowly throughout the rest of Europe.

Courts are established, in which ideally, but imperfectly the equal rights of men before secular government is seen in its most nascent form.

Great documents are promulgated, such as the Magna Carta, limiting the powers of kings and their governments over at least major portions of their subjects.

The Church assumes resonsibility for the care of the sick and the indigent.  Primitive, but locally effective systems of public welfare and assistance based on the incomes of abbeys and monasteries are established to care for the needs of the indigent widows and orphans.  Hospitals are established where the sick and dying are entrusted to the care of monks and nuns.

The Church, either independently, or in conjunction with local kings and rulers founds the first of those schools detined to become the great European universities for the collection, excahnge and dissemenation of knowledge.

That there were abuses within all of these systems, that they were imperfect, is undeniable.  Such corruption and abuse continues to this day.  That these systems were some of the first steps in the overall improvement in the lot of the average European is likewise undeniable as well, though.

The contention that Christianity is opposed to individual rights just doesn't hold water.