A pleasure discussing this with you...I suspect we agree on many points (fundamentally?), concur on others for different reasons, and perhaps disagree on others.

Probably the biggest distinction may be on the role of parishioners. The old line "strike the shepherd and the flock is yours" should have been, "bribe the shepherd and you'll buy the flock cheap." Some blame may be appropriate for right wing Christians (all have sinned...), and some of that may have come from non-Christians...so much animosity cultivated and deployed to arouse even more fury in response...

But to follow a more scriptural formula as I see it -

(1) "the love of money is the root of (all/much/most) evil." +

(2) "whoever leads these little ones astray, it would be better if a millstone tied to his feet..."

=

Modern "rightwing" Trump-loving American Evangelicalism. Not 'Fascism' (Trump's face can and will be replaced by any other when necessary - though as a fat old man, Trump will die within a decade, and then his face can be used to mean whatever they wish). Not 'Nationalism' (love of country does not drive attacking the capital the way an incendiary mob can be generated and unleashed). Not doctrine (the biggest doctrinal commitment is to avoid, minimize, re-write or trivialize any portion of the Bible that questions their power).

That doesn't exclude your points, but fits a bigger picture of organized religion that I think we both share. Old white men trying to stay relevant? Exactly what created the trans-Atlantic slave trade to begin with (Prince Henry "the Navigator" had debts to pay after all - far easier to do if his expedition's enslaving was treated as though it were 'God's work'). Religious justifications always follow financial imperatives.

Organized religion is always suspectible to this problem. "The love of money..."

Disorganized religion - or the complete absence of religious institutions at all - is often worse. "The love of money" operates on individuals of all kinds, whether organized into a religious group or not. BUT when there is an organized religious group, at least some pretext to legitimacy is necessary...which may slow down egregiously monstrous behavior slightly. Columbus, Cortes, Pizarro, all the others might have taken a priest or two with them on their expeditions - but nobody remembers that priest's name unless they look it up: the priests were individual personalities, not an 'organized system' that could constrain the raping, pillaging, and enslaving of the leaders. The brutality came from worldly authority - unchecked by anything 'organized' on the ground. Those expeditions were led by 'disorganized religion' - and if they succeeded, those with the wealth 'reorganized religion' to suit their power.

I start there because your original post referred to the extent of Catholic power over this Supreme Court, and so far as I'm concerned, the 15th and 16th century Catholic power reflects a world-shaping epoch that we really ought to understand, BUT in understanding it, we should also not go too far and blame the Pope for what the Conquistadors did (though again, some blame may be warranted...). Organized religion MAY endorse the powerful and empower their brutality, but it MAY also check the powerful to some extent even after they give an explicit blessing. But disorganized religion is even more dangerous. Mussolini and Franco were quite nearly as monstrous as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and so many others - but both had to deal with an organized Catholic system that "endorsed/empowered' them (rather than defying them), but also limited them ever so slightly. (Not that the Catholic church helped the Libyans much during Italian occupation...but again, it wasn't organized in Libya, whereas in Ethiopia, organized religion TRIED to check the invaders...).

And that's where I think we most emphatically agree:

"...it was never about the practice of "Christianity". It was about practicing politics and power; in the guise of Christianity."

Indeed. A bunch of old men abusing a faith to take power - trying to assert themselves, coopt the faith, challenge and subvert it for their own ends. The same challenge Jesus faced in his lifetime - and which Peter faced - and which Paul faced - and which every church (and every faith) always faces. But the fact that many of us fail that test does not mean that the faith itself, or the organizations intended to help express it, are the problem. It could just be that 'the love of money' is about as tough a problem as it was reported to be by a pretty sharp observer.