Christian marriage is normal marriage, except Christians in general are better at it than the rest of you. They tend to be more faithful to their marriage vows, report greater sexual satisfaction and tend to breed more.

Which IS the legal practice these days. The display of religious symbols, even if they are only being displayed for their historical significance, is prohibited. Opposition to ass-piracy is called a hate crime. Comedians on TV are cautious about mocking sodomites but have no problems taking shots at priests. Films & TV programs routinely feature and glorify secularists, atheistic scientists (as if such scientists have anywhere near the accomplishments of religious scientists), and fudgepackers or rugmunchers and their lifestyles. The only times a show is made featuring overtly religious people, it is restricted to children's programming & is a target of mockery and critical derision or else glorifies the religious characters' deviation from the norms of their claimed faith and the doctrines of their religion. Or they're Muslims.

Your satirical proposal to restrict religion to closed doors and privacy would only be satirical if you were not fifty years behind the times, and not "proposing" what is already the status quo.

No one has ever seriously proposed marriage to be limited to between Christians, or denies the rights of aetheists to marry. The proposed legislation regarding definitions of marriage all involves defining it as between a man and a woman. Regardless of their beliefs, practices or sexual orientation. Most priests and churches would probably permit aetheists to marry in their facilities if they like the decor or it was convenient for their families and friends to get to. I am sure many clerics would officiate at an aetheist wedding. My father's only wedding was a marriage of two secular people.

Yes, and teaching them the values of clothing, writing and buildings, children that mostly survive to age two, and growing a reliable food supply instead of finding it wild or on the hoof and starving when they can't. Do you want to call us destroyers of cultures? I say, "We are proud to be destroying these degenerate psuedo-cultures and rescuing the people these cultures keep one step above animals. We destroy human sacrifice and cannibalism and slavery and immolation of widows. You're welcome."

It was the secular authorities who enslaved Indians or took their land, while priests were protesting and smuggling letters back to the religious authorities back home complaining about what the military authorities of their homelands were up to.

Yeah, bullshit. As if that's happened even three times. Or is explicitly supported or taught by any mainstream christian denominations.

And yet you fail to provide one. The term refers to an exact enumeration, like the laundromat give you so you know why you are charged as you are. Prove this statement anyway. How many wars beside the Crusades have been initiated expressly for Christian-motivated goals? The fact that Christians have participated in wars for secular reasons does not make those wars Christian. Even the Thirty Years War involved long-standing issues of jurisdiction and authority for which the religious differences were an excuse. Absent religion, they'd have found another. Many claim the same thing about the Crusades, but even stipulating the religious motivations, they were defensive wars against Islamic invaders and conquerors, that has since turned the region that gave birth to civilization into a backwater wasteland, only of interest to the rest of the world because of the coincidental mineral resources which the higher technology of the Christian-founded world finds uses for.

Damn right!

As if that hasn't been tried before.

Since when? It is the teaching of Christ that says people without power even have any value. The universally-agreed worst religious people in the contemporary world are those priests who abjure or ignore the teachings of their religion - and engage in homosexual behavior.