"And despite the false propaganda it was Christians who opposed it from the beginning in this country. Pseudochristian Democrat southerners wanted it to become the law of the land, so we had a Civil War to decide the issue and they, fortunately, lost."
What makes the pro slavery southerners pseudo Christians? In the thread on the Christian woman who was recently sentenced to death in Sudan, you admitted that you don't actually consider that woman a Christian. Yet, because she's being persecuted for considering herself a Christian and because others consider her a Christian, you're counting her as a Christian, even though you don't actually believe her to be one. Meanwhile, your attitude towards Christians who commit wrongs is the exact opposite. In cases where Catholics persecuted others, you've said that you don't count that as examples of Christians persecuting people because you don't consider Catholics Christians, even if they themselves do. This is a double standard. Every professed Christian who is persecuted for their beliefs is counted as a Christian by you, while almost every professed Christian who persecutes for their beliefs is not counted as a Christian by you. Based on this double standard, you reach the conclusion that Christians are greatly persecuted but have rarely persecuted others. Now you're saying that anti slavery Christians in pre Civil War America were Christian and pro slavery Christians were not Christians. On what basis do you draw this distinction?
"And you twisted the whole intent of what I said about Christians who are persecuted. Why not be inclusive in such a case? The RCC is not a Christian institution."
I don't mind you being inclusive when listing off persecutions against Christians. I do however, mind you being inclusive when listing off persecutions *against* Christians, but exclusive when counting off persecutions *by* Christians. Someone impartial would either be exclusive with both lists or inclusive with both lists.
Concerning the Catholic Church, of course they've done more things we consider wrong then Reformation Protestants have. That's because they have a longer history. They were the religious power in Europe from the end of the roman era to the Reformation (a long period of history that supersedes liberal notions of separation of church and state and individual rights). If you deliberately exclude most of western history, then of course the list of wrongs done by Christians will be much shorter then if you don't.
In any case, if your criteria for being a "real" Christian is being a Protestant, then what justification do you have for excluding pre Civil War American southerners? It appears that your definition of "Christian" also exclude protestants that did and believed things that are now considered wrong. That makes how you define Christian even more inconsistent and self serving: expanded to include any self described Christian who has been wronged, while simultaneously contracted to exclude any Christian who has done wrong.