- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Entertainment
Salt and Ice Challenge: 12-Year-Old Pittsburgh Boy Burns Cross Into Back, Posts Video on YouTube
An unnamed Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, boy joined a dangerous new meme this week when he burned a large Christian Cross on his back using salt and ice and posted the video on YouTube.
The 12-year-old zealot took up a challenge sweeping the internet that instructs young Christians to draw crosses on their backs using regular table salt and press an ice pack against the design. The process induces an endothermic reaction, which usually results in serious burns and scarring. The phenomenon, according to New York’s Daily News, is known in religious circles as the “salt-and-ice challenge.”
The craze has affected so many kids that officials at a Philadelphia middle school put out a PSA warning parents about the challenge in April.
“The injury is similar to frostbite that can result in mild cold injury but it could also increase in severity based on the time the ice is applied,” said Dr. Ariel Aballay of the West Penn Hospital Burn Center. “The patient [pictured] went for a few minutes, but there have been cases that went for six or seven minutes that resulted in third-degree injuries.”
The mother of the boy pictured drove him to the hospital a day after he participated in the salt-and-ice challenge. She told the press under conditions of anonymity that her son’s injuries were second degree burns and that doctors expected significant scarring.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
This is just a "fad". people
This is just a "fad". people will take any chance they get to criticize another's point of view . Gays are bad, blacks are bad, atheism is bad, pot is bad, tattoos are bad, Jewelery is bad, jews are bad, taking a dump is bad.......... this is no different than the "cinnamon challenge".
J. L.
There's no room on my back
There's no room on my back for any more freaken crosses.
Poor poor stupid kid...Loves
Poor poor stupid kid...Loves the Lord, but doesn't bother to read the book: Leviticus 19:28 - 'You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD.'
I so wish people who claim to be Christians would read their holy scripture in its entirety, Old and New Testaments, and make a decision as to whether it really is something they believe...
Right, so I suppose people
Right, so I suppose people who "claim" to be Christians but don't bother to read the book would include those who shave?
Leviticus 19:27 "'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.'"
-
Another reason why I laugh at Christians who tell me I'm doing something wrong because God doesn't approve of tattoos. You can't claim to believe something and cherry pick the parts you like. Well, actually you can, it's just idiotic.
Most of those biblical
Most of those biblical traditions are from the Old Testament, which is Jewish, not Christian to begin with.
@TheFatalEpic. I copied this
@TheFatalEpic. I copied this from another area here on OV. This explains why OT Law does not apply to Christians.
The question of whether a Christian should follow the interpretation of the Law as developed by the Rabbis of the post-secondary temple period, then it should be obvious that Christians are not subject to any authority that rejects the True King of Israel. (I.e. Yeshua the Mashiach).
This situation of a guy feeling discriminated on when looked at from a realistic view is nothing more than an opinion. He could have gone anywhere to pick up a church bulletin. The argument that Christians flock around someone and make them uncomfortable is baloney. Our church gives out food and feeds the poor. We do not try to get them "saved" or into our church. The food is freely given as Christ said do, in His name. They know it is a church, they come anyway, if they want to talk about the Lord then we talk, if not we don't broach the subject.
"Our church gives out food
"Our church gives out food and feeds the poor. We do not try to get them "saved" or into our church. The food is freely given as Christ said do, in His name. They know it is a church, they come anyway, if they want to talk about the Lord then we talk, if not we don't broach the subject."
Then your church is the exception to what has become the rule. That makes you and your church truer Christians than the ones that we run into most often.
Perhaps your church should do more to teach that behavior to the rest of the Christian community that is out there busy preaching OT hate-mongering and dominionism.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Well trying to teach other
Well trying to teach other Christian groups sometimes falls very flat unfortunately. It took us quite a while to find a church that didn't have membership requirements, and that didn't become offended if we visited somewhere else. I completely understand what you are speaking of.
I'm not sure what you are
I'm not sure what you are referring to, my post was just in reference to Christians I have encountered. I've personally known a handful of Christians that are not hypocritical.
"The argument that Christians flock around someone and make them uncomfortable is baloney." Maybe, but I've had many "Christians" tell me that I'm going to hell because of my tattoos, or ask me how I would explain myself to Jesus. It's hilarious really. I point out the laws in Leviticus because it is the only section that mentions tattoos. I hear time and time again, "God doesn't approve of that" and other variations. One cannot, without being hypocritical, claim that God does not approve of tattoos - but condone shaving sideburns and trimming beards.
LOL okay yeah I have caught a
LOL okay yeah I have caught a little flack about my tattoos as well. I guess some people believe that God can raise you from the dead but can't get past the ink on your skin.
I got a kick out of the
I got a kick out of the skinhead below who criticized the Jews. Kind of like the Iranian diplomat who recently told the UN that there are no Jewish drug addicts because Jews make other people into drug addicts. If you guys have people among you who think like that, then what good things can you expect but self mutilation for absolutely no meaningful reason?
"If you guys have people
"If you guys have people among you who think like that, then what good things can you expect but self mutilation for absolutely no meaningful reason?" You are kidding, right? So the fact that there are people who call themselves Christian or Jewish or whatever and are nutjobs means all Christians and Jews are nutjobs? What a very logical train of thought.
Wow, so glad to know only
Wow, so glad to know only Christian kids are doing this! I guess all suicides, all cutters, all anorexics and bullemics are that way because Christianity teaches it.
It is an internet sensation that targets Christian children, not the church or their parents. To blame religion and not the stupidity and conformity that goes with being young is not only hypocritical, it's obtuse.
You are right harleypig, truth is not their objective. Their hatred is all consuming....you know......bigotry. Any Christian is not a person, they are an object to be ridiculed and insulted. Some things don't change.
So, that wasn't a cross the
So, that wasn't a cross the kid burned into his back? And you're saying this story should have been about self mutilation in general, rather than a specific current news event?
Well, yes. That is what I am
Well, yes. That is what I am saying.
Looking on the Internet the only one making a connection with this and religion is yours truly here who write this inflamitory article. One kid had a cross and that didn't make him a 12 year old zealot.
To further clairify, I am not religious in any way, shape or means.
My only aim is to point out in which people are quick to presume and latch on to their own agenda.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." —Herbert Spencer
It isn't a Christian thing
It isn't a Christian thing look up the facts. It is a fad that is going on all over the US by teenagers. Here is an example. SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A growing game among kids and teens is causing a lot of pain and sometimes permanent scars. It involves a little salt, a little ice and a little time. It's called the salt and ice challenge and in the past 24 hours more than 20 videos - videos that include a lot of yelling and screaming - of the challenge have been posted to youtube.
He's only 12. He may evolve.
He's only 12. He may evolve.
All things considered, I'm
All things considered, I'm surprised they didn't use branding irons.
Idiots do stupid things like that.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Now I want one of these
Now I want one of these religious reich idiots to ask, "What's the harm in religion?"
Remember, not to condemn something evil is to condone it. Religion condones a lot of evil things, so what is one more?
Ooh, I call "Godwin's Law" We
Ooh, I call "Godwin's Law" We get Hitler and religion in one shot. You look on any "real" news sources before exercising your liberty to make me hear a load.
Or will you not care for listening to me tell you what you do not want to hear.
I do not care to hear you, or
I do not care to hear you, or anyone, spouting mindless nonsense with no supporting evidence. Then, when did I mention Hitler? As usual, a theist sees what he wants to see and never mind useless things like facts.
I'm no theist, diest, or any
I'm no theist, diest, or any other -ist.
Show me the facts, like this was in anyway other than an Internet fad. I'll wait. YOU see what you want to see. I gave supporting evidence in my posts (see July 2) more than the author or anyone else here.
Liberty to speak oneself but all others shut-up, unless in agreement, you mean?
I mean you are an
I mean you are an intellectual coward. I asked specific questions that you declined to answer. Like, "When did I mention Hitler?"
This time, "When did I tell you are anyone else to shut up?"
I see what is, not what I want to see. I see that you refuse to answer direct questions. I think I know why that is, you don't have the answer and to admit that would also be admitting you lied.
Deflection.Way to go off
Deflection.Way to go off topic. Did I hurt your ego? On to personal attacks because you never proved your position as you question mine, which I proved? Is that the problem? And you call _me_ the intellectual coward. The liar?
Reich= Oh, you're right. No Direct quote, just inference. Semantics and cheap. So when did _I ever say_ you told anyone to shut up? I merely comment on your signature, what you have said you don't wish to hear yourself.
Consider your questions answered, such as they are.
Basically I have spent way to much time on a useless endeavor. You don't want discussion. You want argument. You want to dance around the subject. You want the last word to save face so you throw in distractions. Misdirection is the lie.
I will happily concede, apoligize and bow out should you go _back_ to the original disagreement on your part— that this is a religious conspiracy, a 12 year old zealot, that this isn't a prejudicial article with inflammatory lies just for the controversial impact, and why your personal opinion on religion matters and why you think just because I point out facts I must be a theist. (Actually it is just my personal opinion that you are angry at being suckered in by this article, not so much as angry at me... but you aren't the only one.)
All responses on your part change have been personal attack, not facts.
I'm sorry that you are so
I'm sorry that you are so mentally challenged that you cannot understand sarcasm and simple facts.
"Religious reich" is a play on "religious right". It has nothing to do with Hitler, as you so erroneously supposed, but with their right wing nut politics. But that seems to include you, too.
Exactly how does my signature tell anyone to shut up? I have never told anyone that. Not even you. YOu gather an inference from that signature that I don't want t hear anyone but myself. That's ludicrously absurd.
If you haven't noticed, when I reply and ask direct questions, such as I have many times, that is wanting to hear what others have to say. If they don't reply or ignore the questions, is that my fault? Maybe it is, because I ask question they cannot or don't want to answer?
You have given Pathetic answers and only demonstrate your own failings.
How have I danced around the subject? By asking those questions or requesting verifiable proof of claims? How do I want the last word? All I ever ask is answers and proof of ridiculous statements. If I get those, I acknowledge it and the discussion may be over. That's not seeking the last word, it's called being polite. But you may not understand that, either.
When have I said it was a religious conspiracy? I said burning a cross into your body must have a religious foundation. Are you saying religion has nothing to do with it?
Yes, my personal opinion of religion does matter as does anyone else's. I am also free to express that opinion just as anyone else may express theirs. I think you are upset because I have the gall to use facts and to back up my opinions with facts.
What you regard as personal attacks are statements of observed fact. When I see an obvious lie, an amazingly ignorant statement of a message of hate and bigotry, I point them out. If you don;t like that, perhaps you should consider your statements more carefully/
Lol. Me thinks you doth
Lol.
Me thinks you doth protest to much. (okay, paraphrased!)
Message of hate and bigotry...right wing nut...burning crosses naturally assumes Christian kid based on what? Perhaps you need to consider MY statements more carefully. I am seeing a pattern here.
. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." —Mark Twain (attributed, but for me works in this case!)
FYI, Mark Twain was talking
FYI, Mark Twain was talking about religion when he made that statement. Maybe you would rather just "take it out of context?" That's the excuse christians always use when confronted with babble verses that embarrass them. Perhaps you were not aware that Samuel Clemens was a well-known atheists, even in his own time. Or maybe you prefer to ignore that as you do any other fact that doesn't support your beliefs?
I see your pattern, too. You feel diminished and frightened whenever anyone shows the dark side of your religion.
Are you claiming burning a cross into your back has no basis in religion? I've asked that and no one has answered. I don't have to wonder why that is.
And what religion would that
And what religion would that be?
Perhaps I chose that quote for a reason applying it to you? FYI, the quote is attributed to others as well. It isn't verified as Twain's, (as I clearly said). Really doesn't matter what Twain's views were. Maybe this is more appropriate? “Some people think that all the equipment you need to discuss religion is a mouth” ~Herman Wouk
What was religion to you was in actuality a fad. If your non-believer feelings got hurt, it was nothing I said. How could that be— I was the one championing the non-believing aspect here! More hyperbole.
You know, if you had read _all_ of my posts and had read them closer, you would have found all accusations nullified, all questions answered—whether you liked the answer or not— all cites referenced, and other than an impartial observation, such as the one above on reading comprehension, I have exhibited rationalism, reason, reality and patience with your attempts to make an issue made halfway through the 'discussion', ( a term I use loosely.)
One more time. Yes. I am claiming cross on this kids back has no basis for religion. I have proven it wasn't. There hasn't been an interview with the mother, a site on the Internet and in any background of religion on this kids part, has it been anything to do with religion. No. You haven't proved it was. You made a non-issue.
To ask about a hypothetical motive of a non-identified person having nothing to do here in this story (besides being POOYA) is irrelevant and to even hold someone to an accusation of not playing your game is immature.
J’y suis, j’y reste
That would be the christian
That would be the christian religion and even you should know. Being purposely ignorant doesn't serve anyone well.
Yes, all you need to discuss religion is your keyboard. You need no facts, logic, or anything resembling thinking. That's all good for you because you don't seem to have access to any of them.
What religion is to me is a scam, not a fad. My feelings are not hurt. It's my respect for the truth and rational thinking that's offended.
You're lying again. You have never answered any of my questions or responded rationally to any accusation. I would have liked it if you had at least tried to give an answer. Instead, you have used evasions, distractions, and denials.
You have never tried to discuss, but only to lecture.
You can claim anything, that doesn't make it true. You have been asked several times, how can burning a cross into your body not have a basis in religion? You consistently ignore my question that, if it had been a swastika, would you claim it had nothing to do with a political position?
You're a liar and a mental and moral coward. Answer the questions or slither back under your metaphorical rock.
Fodo-o
This is your brain on
This is your brain on religion.
Religion: not even once.
The religious constantly
The religious constantly proving why they should not be allowed to breed. What else could be expected from a loony with an imaginary friend.
Those that can't or won't defend themselves can only be slaves.
Don't go blaming ALL
Don't go blaming ALL religions. We aren't all fundamentalists or Christians or Muslims or even monotheists.
Some of us don't believe in this kind of stupidity and actually think for ourselves.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Don't bother ... the atheist
Don't bother ... the atheist zealots are the same as the rest of the zealots. The truth has little to do with their world view.
How are atheists the same as
How are atheists the same as other zealots? You make a charge with no proof. The truth has everything to do with our world view. The fact that I just asked you for proof should be evidence of that.
Instead of accepting as true something for which there is no supporting evidence is how religion works. Requesting verifiable proof and changing our position if new proof becomes available is embracing truth as a world view. Refusing to admit to new facts and having a single explanation for everything "god did it" is a theist world view. Truth certainly has nothing to do with that approach.
If you'll re-read my post,
If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I said 'the atheist zealots are the same as the rest of the zealots'.
Richard Dawkins is a perfect example. He's a brilliant man, but his contempt for religion is so strong he can't give a lecture without making snide remarks about how whatever topic he's speaking on actively disproves what he thinks religious people believe. It's as bad as sitting through some talk and having to constantly hear 'Praise Jesus' and the like.
"The truth has everything to do with [the atheist] worldview." No, the scientific method has everything to do with atheist's worldview. If it can't be reproduced using the scientific method it's invalid. Atheists equate results from the scientific method as being the only way to gain truth, yet, just like religion, those truths change over time. Something which atheists point out with relish, while ignoring their own changes (sounds familiar).
I realize, which most rabid atheists (zealots of any stripe, actually) do not seem to realize. Stuffing an entire belief system into a few words, such as "refusing to admit new facts [...] is a theist world view" is a fallacy. A fallacy that allows them to dismiss with prejudice anything anyone they include in that little pigeonhole might have to say on a particular topic.
People who are zealous about their chosen belief system (atheist, christian, hinduism, whatever) just point to zealots of other belief systems and claim they speak for the entire belief system as a way of dismissing them.
So, I stand by my initial statement. Atheist zealots are the same as any other zealot.
FYI, the scientific method is
FYI, the scientific method is a search for truth. I'm sorry that you are unable to comprehend that.
I stand by my statement. Atheists want independently verifiable proof. Some may express their insistence upon that more forcefully that others, just as theists may express their beliefs more forcefully than other, even to the point of threatening violence, but it doesn't alter the core position in either case.
You don't think religion is a
You don't think religion is a search for truth? It is simply looking for it in a different direction.
Again, you apparently didn't
Again, you apparently didn't read my post all the way through. Or chose to ignore what I said.
I said, "results from the scientific method as being *the only* way to gain truth". I added the emphasis this time.
I'm not sure how you can equate that with not comprehending what the scientific method is.
And I stand by *my* original statement. Atheist zealots are just like any other zealots.
From where I sit, you're not a zealot, but you certainly are only seeing what you want to see. Or, you are deliberately taking what I say and adjusting it to fit whatever argument you are trying to make.
"Some may express their
"Some may express their insistence upon that more forcefully that others, just as theists may express their beliefs more forcefully than other, even to the point of threatening violence"
James, that actually DOES qualify as a zealot.
You are an adherent. You adhere to the principles of non-religious and factual, provable scientific process. Zealots do, too, but they also get uniquely aggressive about it, just as religious zealots do.
You did see one of my earlier posts, I think it was on another thread, about being victimized by "militant" Atheists, just as much as being victimized by Christo-fascists, didn't you?
I know what you are trying to say, but it may be that the way you are saying it is misunderstood; especially by the common Christian apologist.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
@Raptor. I have seen James
@Raptor. I have seen James Smith hijack other discussions to the point of making threats and telling people how he would use his martial arts to break their bones. He keeps saying that he has proven this and that, and the theme is "you are a liar" "prove anything I said as untrue" and so on and so forth. He hasn't read the terms at the bottom of the page.
Specifically to you, BA.
Specifically to you, BA. What have I said that is not true? How have i hijacked a discussion? By asking people for proof of absurd claims? I can understand how some people would resent being asked to back up their statements with verifiable proof.
What have I not proven when I say I have? If I say someone is a liar, it's because they have told a blatant lie. When it's true, it's not an insult, it's a statement of observed fact.
When violence has come into the discussion it's when people make unfounded insults or even threats and I point out they are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet to say things they would not say in person. If they insist they would, I offer to fly them from wherever they are to where I am so they can, for once, prove what they say.
When they learn I will not send them money or a ticket they can cash in or exchange for another trip, they suddenly lose interest or invent pathetic excuses.
I know that many people despise anyone that tells the truth, especially if it demolishes one of their favorite illusions. For example, in the baseball steroids scandal, the only person that told the truth was Jose Canseco. As a result, he was reviled, castigated and despised. Admittedly, there were times in his career he may have been kind of a jerk. But he did tell the truth then and was hated for it. I sympathize with him over that.
Maybe you would care to answer my questions and yes, provide proof of your statements.
@James. I apologize James; I
@James. I apologize James; I spoke and didn't explain what I said. I should have said there were times that your back and forth with some people hijacked the topic. I'm not saying that it was all you, the other parties fault as well. I just think that if the topic gets completely off track that the argument should be taken elsewhere. And you could use a little more tact even when dealing with people who are not agreeing with you, that would make people like me want to stay in the debate.
One other thing with the threats, I have known many experts in the martial arts, I have found that most of them have restraint even when dealing with complete idiots; it is hard to take you seriously when you fall into the trap of insults and so forth. I did go and look at your videos and such and found you to be entertaining and interesting, and in pretty good shape for a man your age, which you sometimes don't act. Please don't take this as an attack, because it isn't.
Your apology is accepted and
Your apology is accepted and appreciated. I agree that taking things elsewhere would be a good idea. I have offered to do that but it's rare that anyone will accept.
As far as "challenging" people, I never start it. WHen people become particularly obnoxious, I point out that they are hiding behind the internet to say things they would not say to anyone's face. WHen they say they will, I offer them the opportunity to do it with me. Not surprisingly, when they find out they will not be able to make money by stealing it from me or by cashing in or exchanging a ticket for a different trip, they either disappear or start inventing excuses.
I have freely admitted a character flaw in that, in my entire life, I have never dealt well with deliberate ignorance. What you, and others, may consider insults from me are nothing more than statements of observed facts.
In my opinion, I am in more than "pretty good shape" as what you may have seen in a fraction of what I actually do. My habit is to understate what I am doing so that, if asked to demonstrate it, I can exceed what I claim. For example, I normally do more push ups, sit ups, and squats than I record on my chart. Also, I do not include martial arts-specific exercises or some upper-body exercises. As I explain in my book, "Fit For Free Forever" my purpose is to encourage people who may be doing little or nothing that they can improve and take control of their bodies and their lives.
If all wanted to do was show off, I would show everything and try to make people feel I am an exception and they have no chance to improve.
Okay sounds reasonable. Do
Okay sounds reasonable. Do you still teach, or do you just do informational stuff on the net? I have trained a little here and there and would like to train more, if I can find the time. I am recovering from a devastating back injury and certainly not ready to throw in the towel just yet.
Sorry about getting off the subject lol.
I live in Brazil now and I do
I live in Brazil now and I do sometimes work with the policia here in training in self-defense and other things such as interrogation and basic methodology like vehicle stops and handcuffing procedures.
Don't give up. There are rehab methods for back injuries. Some exercises and stretching as well as temporary aids such as braces and items such as flack jackets to protect different areas. I often use the zip up fishing vests for full-contact training. They work pretty well while maintaining good freedom of motion.
Sure, off the subject, but it's just us exchanging information. No harm done.
*slowclap* I don't have much
*slowclap* I don't have much to say here, other than, nice post.
Actually, James, there are
Actually, James, there are some Atheists that are as hostile to those of us who practice religion as the religious extremists are to others not of their belief system; some even more so.
Not that you are, nor have you ever expressed that sort of behavior here, that I have seen, but I have seen and experienced the name-calling and insults just for following a religion. Some of it bordered on stalking.
I blame it on the "new convert syndrome"; that point when someone adopts a new philosophy and takes it to extremes. Sometimes they outgrow it and, as is the case with many Christians these day (as well as other monotheists), they never outgrow it. And when the ones that never outgrow it, then breed, the kids grow up being as extreme as they are, thus you get things like this story, or you get cults like the WBC, DWOC, the "Jim Joneses" of the world and others like them.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Thank you for your reply. I
Thank you for your reply. I have often admired your reasoned, rational posts.
I freely admit I am opposed to religion when it attempts to impose its values upon everyone else. Otherwise, it makes no difference to me. As Thomas Jefferson said, "It neither breaks me leg, nor picks my pocket."
I also admit to a character flaw of long standing. I have little patience for ignorance. When it is willful ignorance, I have no patience at all. I also admit it is often amusing to me to post thins with verifiable proof and then challenge the religious reich to prove they are not true. Seeing them squirm and try to ignore or evade the question is predictable, but funny.
I completely agree with you about the extremists. Dwight D. Eisenhower said it very well, "Extremists are always wrong."
If I am extreme, it is in resisting ignorance and attempts to force the tenets of a belief system upon others. Someone else said, "To fight evil anywhere is to fight it everywhere." Sorry, I have no citation for that one. :)
You seem to equate being
You seem to equate being religious with being ignorant. So, it would follow that you have no patience for religious people. Your statement previously about theists being closed-minded and blaming god for everything indicates you pigeonhole anyone who is religious.
You close with a quote about fighting evil. Evil is a religious term, commonly meaning 'against god'. I'm confused. You claim there is no god, yet you claim the belief in god is evil?
Actually, evil is a very old
Actually, evil is a very old pre-Christian term and it means exactly what we still, currently understand it to mean; harmful and/or malicious.
Claiming that it is religious is just a form of religion-based ethnocentricity.
One need not believe in any deities to recognize evil behavior. And when it comes to Christianity, Christians cherry-pick the parts of their own teachings that they want to obey......and that is an EVIL behavior.
Maybe if they would dump all of the add-ons, intentional changes and reinterpretations, sticking the the core teachings of their Christ myth, then we would all be a lot better off. On a similar note, Islam suffers from the same problem; zealots following the add-ons and cherry-picking rather than the core teachings.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.