The idea that Christians should 'hate the sin but love the sinner' is a popular defense of Christian attacks on homosexuality, abortion, and other behavior which they consider abhorrent. Critics rightly point out that hating the sin can quickly become hating the sinner as well, something which many Christians appear to indulge in when it comes to gays, for example. Is this a problem with atheist critics of religion can succumb to as well?
Skepticism of the paranormal and skepticism of religious and theistic claims are often treated separately - but they shouldn't be because both criticisms generally stem from a common commitment to a naturalistic and materialistic view of the universe. Both atheists and skeptics reject the paranormal, supernatural, and magical thinking which underlies both theistic religion and popular paranormal superstitions. Skepticism and atheism have far more in common than many realize.
Politically and socially, secularization is the creation of institutions independent of ecclesiastical authority - the authority of churches and religious groups. In the past, religious figures held the authority to govern, deliver medical care, and educate; today, such responsibilities have been taken over by non-religious authority figures who deliver the services independent of church structures. Independence from the church, though, also means independence from superstition.
The most common interaction between science and religion seems to be conflict: science finding that religious beliefs are false and religion insisting that science mind its own business. Is it necessary for science and religion to conflict in this manner? Albert Einstein seems to have felt not, but at the same time he often recounted just such conflicts occurring. Part of the problem is that Einstein seems to have thought there existed a 'true' religion that couldn't conflict with science.
One of the most common complaints made by liberal and moderate believers is that atheist critics are focused on versions of theism and religion which are too 'simplistic' to be legitimate. Atheists are ignoring 'sophisticated' versions of theism and religion which happen to be immune to atheists' arguments. At best atheists are therefore just theologically illiterate; at worst they are targeting a straw man in order to make a weak position look stronger. Is this a fair objection?
Why do some state laws ban publicly desecrating the flag instead of banning it in private as well? Why do some specify that it doesn't matter if you deface your privately owned flag? What does it mean to make it a crime to 'cast contempt' upon or 'speak evilly' about the American flag? Why do some state that a crime occurs only when an act outrages the 'sensibilities' of those watching? Why do some states make it a crime to deface or cast contempt upon the Confederate flag?
For whom was Mark writing? It is easier to make sense of the text if we read it in light of what the author intended, and that in turn would be heavily influenced by the audience he wrote for. Mark likely wrote for one specific Christian community, the one he was part of. He certainly can’t be read as if he were addressing all of Christendom down through the ages, centuries after his own life ended.
Although the concept of 'seven deadly sins' no longer holds the same authority as it once did, the degree to which many of them have come to be viewed positively is remarkable. Even anger, one of the few which Jesus is recorded as specifically speaking out against, is treated as having positive value by Christians today.
Christian anti-Semitism has a long and sordid history. Many Christians would like to believe that Christian anti-Semitism has had primarily cultural or political causes but the truth is that animosity towards Jews and Judaism is firmly rooted in religion. Indeed, it's arguable that eliminating anti-Semitism from Christianity would be difficult at best.
It's become common in America for religion to be used as a political football. Implicitly or explicitly, there are many who argue that a person should receive or be denied people's votes based upon the candidate's religious beliefs. There is actually a long tradition of this in America - but it's not one that anyone should want to be part of.