Having a belief that oppressed people should be assisted is meaningless if you don't interrogate why they're oppressed. In many cases, oppression is due to Christian cultural norms and values that have been forced on people for millennia.
For many reasons, Christianity is unavoidably fascist. Fascism is just the application of Christianity's structure to government:
Unquestionable authoritarian leader. Questioning the moral character of their god or Jesus, and the truthfulness of them is seen as a significant offense.
Loyalty is rewarded over personal values. The most loyal--say, pedophile priests--can get away with breaking any of the rules they wish to, and they'll be protected. As long as they continue to profess loyalty and serve the needs of the unquestionable leader.
There's an outgroup to feel superior to. This is the heart of modern missionary work: to convince the "savage" that their culture is inferior so they'll assimilate. It's also behind some arbitrary "sins" used to create a subclass: things like being left-handed (who were hit for it as recently as my parents' generation), or LGBT.
The core tenet of "conversion" is just a soft term for genocide. It's driven by the premise that all other cultures are inferior and need to be destroyed. Christians say the idea gently now, but the goal of conversion is still the same as it always was: "convince" everyone to follow a "better" religion and abandon their own. This is why conversion is often violent and bloody: the bodies buried under Canadian church schools are not an aberration.
It's not possible to separate Fascism from Christianity, because they share a structure and core values.
Christianity is also inherently fascist because you can't meaningfully remove the bigotry from it, either: it will always be a force of oppression even when some members say the right things.
For example, they all agree on the false idea that being gay is a sin. Some sects add on a "but that's ok," which led to a common bad faith saying, "love the sinner, hate the sin." It's like saying, "being blue-eyed is a criminal offense, but that's ok." It perpetuates bigotry, while dishonestly pretending it's not: it's trying to say the right words to appear civil without meaning it.
This same behavior also works as a shield for those who are more violently bigoted. "I'm one of the good ones. I don't hate you for your sin, it's only the fake ones who do that. Isn't Jesus great? You'd love him if you knew him." It's a redirect that they're culturally trained to engage in, as a conversion tactic.
The whole notion is meant to prevent Christianity's victims from ever addressing the root cause of their oppression. When a "good one" stands up to say "no it wasn't us, it was just one fake Christian who's trying to make us look bad," it is to create a barrier that protects their religion from having its damaging and dangerous elements examined and corrected. It's meant to refuse responsibility for behavior that you know you're engaging in.
And let's take a moment to consider the purpose of your response. Let's say your country has a law that allows arbitrary arrests of journalists if they write anything that makes the government look bad. It happens frequently in some states/provinces/counties/cities, rarely in others, "not at all" in some, and there's even an area that has openly elected officials who were journalists.
A journalist complains that he is upset about these conditions that may or have caused him harm. Do you:
Admit that the potential for harm is real and work to overturn it in all areas of the country, without bothering him about it;
Disavow the law and work hard to shield him and other journalists locally;
Speak up against the law without complimenting how progressive the local government is so he knows he's safe;
Or tell him he's wrong to question your great city because they would never do such a thing. It's not the law that's the problem, it's not used the same way everywhere and it's really not enforced here anymore. And doesn't he know the local government has a journalism charity so it can't be that bad. He should just be nice and stop criticizing when it's really not so bad here.
Personally, I think number 4 is an asshole who's making things worse. Number 4 is personally making life harder for the journalist, and is actively supporting the anti-journalist law in practice. The attitude number 4 demonstrates is the main obstacle towards real reform that can actually protect people.
