We should be able to take different perspectives when it is suitable; people seem to follow dogmas and religious doctrines blindly, without much critical thinking. That is not to say that we should never be dogmatic, because dogmatic perspectives may be necessary at times–“if it’s a lie, then we fight on that lie.”
Christendom and Christianity are not entirely separable because they are at least partly a reflection of each other–like Islam and Islamic culture(s)–they cannot be completely torn apart. God and His religion, glorified by His believers as the ideal perfect abstraction that man can never attain, is absolved of any kind of blame for the circumstances and conditions of existence, while His religion’s followers and cultures absorb all of the blame for any kind of imperfection in their empirical reality. This line of thinking is not only logically unsound, but rather silly in the big picture, because it takes us back to the anachronistic Platonic mystifications that pit essence up against existence–“the essence of religion is perfect and pure, while its existence on earth is flawed and impure. God is perfect and man is doomed to his fate.”
As Karl Marx so bluntly and accurately stated, the foundation of irreligious criticism is: man makes religion; religion does not make man.