You are allowing a group of Christians - the "mainstream" ones to define the terms of the debate. I say to hell with that.

I'm not asking every Christian to defend the beliefs of every other Christian. I am asking that they respect the wishes of others to self-identify as Christians. If we do otherwise, then why not allow every other Christian group the same luxury - Protestants don't view Catholics as real Christians and vice versa - oops I can't refer to both groups as Christians - one must be "real" and the group who can define the term for once and for all.

Meaninglessness is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

I disagree with your view on religious taxonomy - so I must be in line with creationists - great.

Biologists study real stuff. Christians make shit up.

Anyone who calls himself a Christian is a Christian in my book. I take the same approach to Christians that I do to anarchists (another diverse bunch that is always excommunicating each other). As an outsider it is not my job to figure out who is a what.

Where did I say that my opinion of Romney was influenced by whether or not Christians accept him? Or that I thought you were a fundy? - I know that atheists/agnostics/free-thinkers disagree - I'm one of them after all - and I'm not going to tell someone else that they can't use the term atheist or whatever.

I don't think that we should allow mainstream Christians groups to have a monopoly on the use of the label "Christian." Christians already use the No True Scotsman fallacy too damn much.

Americans have quite sensibly returned to the original Latin spelling of 'flavor', 'labor' and so on, as opposed to the vulgar Romance (i.e. French) spellings. It's a classical education thing.