Okay, so... This has probably already been discussed. I kind of don't feel like bumping anything or searching though (I'm a bad seed). Came into this recent problem when trying to discuss Islam on social media (my first mistake, I know) after current events. I try to express why Islam has a lot to do with the recent massacre and as to why Islam is not good, one of the most violent religions, and I have even suggested that it is idiotic and has no place in modern society. Lots were/are appalled at me, of course, and call me out immediately for not bringing other religions into the mix... I am apparently incredibly xenophobic and ignorant if I only scrutinize Islam. If I talk about religion in general though, I'm well just an asshole. But not a xenophobic asshole. It is quite frustrating. I feel that Islam is a completely different religion than the others and that it needs to be talked about separately.

Oh, and might I add that whenever I express that Islam is bad, people always like to chime in with the list of Muslim people that they personally know adding that they are very nice people. It completely derails the conversation and makes it hard to talk about anything else. I find myself constantly digressing to hit all points when talking about Islam. Never a straight path.

So, my question is, is it bigoted, rude, or xenophobic to only discuss one religion? Or must you tackle them all? Are all religions equally bad?

P.S. Sorry if this has already been spoken about. I'm sure every atheist has come across this in one form or another.

I don't discuss any religion unless someone else brings it up. If that's considered xenophobic...I don't really care

I think it's important to make fun of and criticise Islam more until it catches up with Christianity in accepting freedom of speech, and to some extent rights involving gender and sexuality.

I suppose it depends on the verbiage, to my mind -- whether you're broad-brushing, etc -- rather than just criticizing the religion.

FF, yes, the abrahamic religions are tarnished as they have a history of violence.
But there's another religion that is far more deadly.

The religion of gun culture in the US.
The few who die via terrorism is a drop in the ocean, and hardly worth discussing.

#sarcastic_hat_off

I think it's perfectly fine to discuss and criticise a particular religion without having to talk about all of them. "Other religions are dumb too" isn't much of a defense. Yeah, they are. They're all dumb. So what?

If anyone generalises all Muslims though, I'm going to stop listening pretty quickly. You just can't do that. The only thing they all have in common for sure is that they call themselves Muslims. That's the only requirement, after all. No one has any authority to say who is and isn't a Muslim. Well perhaps one, but he's unavailable for comment.

My thoughts on this are that it's impossible and trivial to talk about Islam as a 'violent religion' in a vacuum, without talking about the geopolitical structures of the Middle East, without talking about the US and Coalition role in radicalizing young Muslims in these countries, and without taking into account the vast majority of Muslim people who are not violent and do not support the Islamist movement.

Look at it this way: if I lived in a place in the world that was majority atheist, and after a World War the people who fought it took a chunk of my land and then gave it to some Christians, then redrew all of my country's borders, then for some reason there was a violent popular uprising of atheist revolutionaries who committed an unspeakable act of terrorism in the name of atheism, then for 15 years I was afraid to go outside because there were soldiers from a foreign country patrolling the streets---soldiers who were trained to see me as a hateful piece of shit who is intent on killing them, and when they weren't there a bomb could drop out of the sky at any minute from an unseen drone miles up, it might be easy for an upstart faction to convince me that these people represented evil.

Go ahead and try to tackle all of the religious schisms. At the same time. When you're through we'll get you to Tantalus for some neutral neuralizer therapy.

We've forgotten (or been made to forget.....    ) more religion than we remember, and the ratio isn't even close.  Anyone who demands that you handle it all is asking the impossible (even if that anyone is you...thinking that maybe you should).  What do you think of impossible demands?  I don't think very much of them myself.

Granting the big three..or even the big 5, 6, 7....8.... by implication or simple convention of speech, the moniker of "all religion", is a disgrace to humanity in any case.

They all sound like slight variants of typical fallacies or anecdotal evidence you see here quite often.