To be honest I'm not really into Christianity myself but I think your statement is a bit prejudice. For instance some people I've met in this country are total bastards and others are really nice; they're all British, but I wouldn't say 'but an English person is still an English person - or a white person is still a white person - or an Islamic person is still an Islamic person.

People are people and you always get nut jobs no matter what they decide to label themselves, but it's not fair to blanket label them. You can't compare an 'End of the World, we're all doomed' crackpot who's decided to proclaim our fate in the name of Christianity with the Vicar of Escrick village (just an example) who gives advice to grieving widows, helps out at the local hospital and raises money for Children in Need. Technically they're both Christians but you wouldn't call them the same. Furthermore I notice people always seem to use the lowest common denominator to a benchmark for the rest of a group, I mean why do people often choose the mentalist 'God Warrior' as an example of Christians over the vicar of Escrick-type people? Or why choose the infinitesimal minority of Islam-labelled terrorists as a sweeping example of Islam as so many people do, fuelled by the media no doubt, instead of the countless others living respectable lives?

It is funny to watch that woman proclaiming others are 'dark-sided' but, even though humans like to create 'them' and 'us' groups, it's not fair to use her as a typical example of a Christian because she is far from it. And it's even more unfair to millions of others to say 'ah maybe but a Christian is still a Christian in the end' like some antiquated Roman imperialist sending people off to be fed to the lions.