Criticizing Islam is racist?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

While I agree that all interpretations may well be scholastically equal, that does not, repeat not, mean that moderates are responsible for the actions of extremists. If you truly believe that, then I think that you are in fact a bigot -- tarring the entire group for the actions of a few.

Blacks in America all labor under discrimination. Does the fact that non-criminal blacks understand better than whites why black gangbangers are in in prison from social circumstances mean that they are apologists for the crimes of their fellow blacks? No, of course it doesn't. And in the same vein, having been raised in the same culture, moderate Muslims can both understand the anger of the extremists at the same time they disavow the results of it.

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).

However, that doesn't mean that all Christians share WBC's views, nor do all Christians approve of their actions. Many, if not the vast majority, don't ... because they place more stock in different verses.

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 completely disagree. The freedom of conscience is the very essence of social freedom. Just because you think someone is deluded, their thinking should be outlawed?

What would happen if American Christians took the same attitude towards your atheism? What if they outlawed this very forum based on your own standards of "self-deluded" and "irresponsible"?

And to drive the point home further, asserting collective guilt is one hallmark of bigotry. Trying to make all Christians responsible for the actions of WBC not only flies in the face of facts (Christians who partake in counter-demonstrations of WBC actions), it flies in the face of the idea of being responsible for one's own actions. If an atheist commits a crime, should you carry the onus for it?

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.

Right, now we're up against freedom of assembly. Here in America, people are able to gather as they please for whatever peaceable purposes they have in mind, given prudent limitations on gathering size affecting non-group-members. Part of faith in some faiths, notably the Christian faith here in America, puts a premium on sharing the experience, however vapid you and I both find it.

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)

And I think you're wrong, for reasons given above.

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.

Collective guilt again.

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.

Objecting to the lack of integrity of many theists is very different from wishing to enact collective punishment of all of them for the actions of a few.

I find your views here repugnant, and after this post I am convinced that your bigotry is not against Muslims, but all believers.

It is still a bigotry, insofar as you wish to blame all for the actions of a few, and take steps to enact collective punishment for individual crimes or misdeeds.

Abaris was absolutely right; you are unable to see the believer apart from the text.