When I say “I am loyal to christians” for the same reason I am loyal to children, women, and men of low ability: because they are my kin.
Loyalty between the feminine childish theological, the practical male traditional, the rational male philosophical, and the martial male empirical, is sufficient for group success.
Though we must always remain a trifunctional people with the force of the polity, law of the market, and faith of the family each constraining our claims to the competency of the context of polity, market, and faily.
Conversely, I do not expect loyalty from children, women, or men of low ability. This is what separates paternal elites from commoners: we pay the cost of loyalty ont he behalf of all, to compensate for the incompentency and disloyalty of children, women, and men of low ability.
And? Do you require people to agree with you in order to be loyal to them? I am loyal to children, women, and men of low ability. That’s what elites do: compensate for the immature, the emotional, and the incompetent. It’s called paternalism: responsibility for those who are less able. All you do by demanding others agree with you rather than demonstrate loyalty to you is demonstate you are ‘less able’.
No wonder you fail.
So, more correctly, find no problem being loyal to Christians. It’s when they use the Abrahamic method of deceit to justify some cowardice, irresponsibility, or falsehood that it’s offensive. Loyalty is enough.