Mmm, I would like to come between the two "fighting parties" there, e.g. Strungintandum and Trieste, and say that Strungintandum's original message was indeed not very well written, to a point that I did not understood it until Strungintandum's later clarifications.
He writes: "Unfortunatly, they often practice what they preach a little too much. If the actions of these theists seems horrific and nonsensicle, it is likely because what they actually believe is horrific and nonsensical."
Reading this, one can easily conclude that "they" of the message are "theists", in general, whose theistic beliefs are in general horrific and nonsensical.
It makes, howerver, the rest of Strungintandum's message inconsistent, as he further writes "These sorts of descisions have no real basis in their proclaimed holy book". So, in effect, the second part of the message might be read as a defence of the "holy book", which is being slanted by the all-too-human "lack of sense", "immorality" and "idiocy", which is shared by the "holy book" proponents.
We see thus, that the original assault of Strungintandum was not against the theists per se, but against the idiocy in general. However, his manner of writing was offensive, and his way of expression - elusive.
In his defence, where he tries to clarify his innocence in assaulting the theists, he keeps the elusive form, never prooving his statements but presenting them as obvious and laying the burden of proving him wrong on his opponent. This method of discussion, as we can see, wasn't constructive or convincing enough to Trieste, who continued to press Strungintandum for something more solid, adding her administrative status to the pressure.
I think, maybe, to resolve this, Strungintandum would have to be more forthcoming with explaining his original statements and admitting that they allowed for a wrong interpretation.