Criticizing Islam is racist?

[MTL]

I would prefer that moderate was all that any religion EVER was.

Once again, if religion wasn't so atrocious, I probably wouldn't waste my time opposing it, at all.

But since the Abrahamic religions, at least, are NOT usually moderate, at their core, whatsoever,
it baffles me why decent, ordinary people think its okay to align themselves with it, whatsoever.

There is no need.
None of it has been proven to be true.
They can still believe in God without all the dogmatic garbage, if they want to.
And since it is supposed to be in service of the Divine,
ignoring the flaws in its integrity, to me, is incomprehensible.

If you're talking about the flaws in their books, I agree. I also think all three of them are equally atrocious, and singling out Islam on that basis is curious, to put it mildly.

No one here is supporting any of those faiths, so I'm not sure why you replied to that effect, having quoted me.

I don't single out Islam.  I have always said Christianity just as bad.

(The only thing I really like better about Judaism is that they are not on the same mission to recruit,
that Islam and Christianity are on;
...plus the Jewish people are not just a religious group, but an ethno-religious group,
and I don't take issue with ethnicity).

I am merely pointing out that I would agree with you about moderation in all things,
except that if you allow the moderate theists to get away with cherry-picking,
you must allow the extremists to get away with cherry-picking, as well.

If Religion was really a pure service to the Divine,
it wouldn't need cherry picking on either direction.

I will generally treat decent, moderate, ordinary theists
to use an expression of yours, Thumpalumpacus,
in the coin tendered;

however, my original point was that, when it gets down to brass tacks,
all those moderate, decent, ordinary, everyday theists
must ultimately own that they either condone, or wink at, the evils done in the name of their religion,
as long as they consent to continue to be a part of it.

(Especially if it is a religion that seeks to recruit,
and passes off its dogma as "truth" without being able to prove such).

They can't just squirm out from underneath responsibility for consenting to be part of such a group,
by saying that extremists "misinterpret",
as long as the extremists are able to defend their actions clearly using the holy writ of that particular religion,
because one follower's interpretation should be as legitimate as another's,
if you are going to allow for different "interpretations" at all.

Look at Westboro Baptist Church.

They assert that the entirety of Christianity, outside of themselves,
has it backwards when they profess "God is Love".

Westboro asserts that GOD HATES.

And I think most Atheists would have to agree with all the many verses that Fred Phelps & Co.
went to the trouble of mining from the Bible to justify their position.

(Which is why we're Atheists....we refuse to pull the wool over our own eyes and believe that God is Love when the Bible is filled with such appalling ideas).

I am Agnostic because I find religion repulsive, evil, and lacking in integrity and sanity.

I find those moderate, well-meaning Theists might be far more sane, kind, and well-intentioned,
than their extremist counterparts,

but I also think that, when you get down to business,
they are also a bit self-deluded...and, consequently, a bit irresponsible.

Therefore, I don't feel it is right for "religion" to be included in the list of constitutionally-protected aspects of individuality, such as race, age, gender, orientation, etc.

Because religion is so corrupt.

I would have no issue with protecting a person's right to have faith in God.

But protecting their "religion", their right to dogmatize, their right to attempt assimilation,
is, to my mind,
what led to many abuses of power over the centuries,
...the Kim Davis situation is the most recent to leap to mind...
and will continue to do so, in the future.

And therefore, I do not think it is bigotry to ultimately hold the "nice" religious people "accountable"
(albeit in a very thin, theoretical, inconsequential way)
for for their free choice to belong to a group that IS guilty of atrocities,
....simply because they "meant well" or cherry-picked a pretty version for themselves.

Or, at the very least,

It is no more unfair for me to ultimately hold moderate theists responsible for choosing to belong to a hateful religion,
when they are otherwise very decent, kind, reasonable individuals,
who, themselves, object to bigotry and hate;

than it is for you to hold me accountable for "bigotry" because I object to the lack of integrity of theists,
when I am otherwise a very decent, kind, and reasonable individual,
who, myself, objects to bigotry and hate.