I just want to pick up a few points here. You may have some legitimate complaints about things, but the main problem I see here is over-generalising.

Christians are not in the business of ostracising? It depends on how you define it. If you tell someone they are innately sinful because they are homosexual, and that they are living in sin every day unless they suppress it, is this not ostracism? What if they don't agree that homosexuality is sinful? In that situation I can't imagine many people would want to remain part of the church, presuming that the church hadn't already explicitly given them their marching orders.

The flavour of Christianity that seems to be on offer here doesn't seem to be very tolerant of "others" either. There are some venomous comments here about Catholocism -- why it's not even pure Christianity, as you say. You are careful to add the caveat that this applies to the church "leaders." Where does that leave your opinion of the poor misguided sheep who follow them then-? I don't see much respect for them here.

The larger-scale sectarian strife amongst Christians in various parts of the world speaks for itself too. The hatred between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and even Scotland here is deep and vicious. This doesn't seem to be of much immediate concern to Americans most of the time. You don't live here.

According to several Christians on this forum, anyone who does not accept your version of Christianity is misguided and just plain wrong. That includes all world religions that exist now, that ever have existed, as well as all manner of people who are not theists.

This may not be ostracism in the sense that you are not deliberately excluding people from your ranks, but it's a far cry from any degree of tolerance as well. I won't generalise, myself, and say all Christians are like this, I know they aren't, but some of the attitudes I've found in this particular place are pretty shocking.

Have you got it in for humanists as well? What don't you like about humanists? This term often started being applied to very deeply Christian Renaissance artists like Michaelangelo because of the love and awe of humanity that shone through in his (early) art.

So what's all this about anal sex being taught in schools? Whatever tabloid rag you got this story from, I imagine it would have been presented in school as a possible sexual choice some people make, including but not limited to homosexuals. I very much doubt they were telling the children to go off and do it as a sort of hands-on homework project. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but that's fine, you don't have to engage in it. I don't see a problem with children knowing about its existence. This is called sex EDUCATION. You only have a problem with it because of your fundamentalist notions about fornication. You think kids aren't likely to find out the truth anyway? Better to teach it in a straightforward, sensible and sensitive way in a classroom, than let kids pick up incomplete shady factoids from their friends, the media, etc. I think age 12 is an ideal age for sex ed. in school. By that age you might be surprised at what some of them already know.

I really despise an us vs. them approach from anyone. No one has to participate in it and blame their behaviour on how the "other side" is behaving. Why not rise above it and have compassion for them, even if you believe they are doing wrong. Surely this is what true Christianity ought to involve.