Criticizing Islam is racist?

[MTL]

Thumpalumpacus wrote:

MTL Wrote:

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.

Thumpalumpacus wrote:

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?

Again, did I say "outlawed"?  No.  Of course not.

Kindly stop putting words in my mouth, Thumpalumpacus?

I do take issue with their right to dogmatize and mislead others being constitutionally-protected.

I do NOT take issue with their right to believe in God being protected, however.

You said,

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"?

First big difference:

My being an Agnostic is an individual thing, unlike Religion.
I am not a member of an organized religion that gets tax breaks,
owns real estate, and has administration and lobbyists.

Second big difference:

I am not on a mission to convert others to Atheism.

I don't approach Theists and engage them on the subject....only when they engage me, do I respond.

Christianity and Islam, once again, ARE on a mission to convert others to their religion
....and seek, in significant measure, to oppress the rights of those that refuse to convert.

I merely question, and only when approached by a Theist, why they would consent to be part of a violent religion,
when they could just as easily be something closer to a Deist?


And it's funny you should raise that point, anyways:

There ARE right-wing Christians
who opine that Atheists should NOT enjoy the same rights as Theists, in America.

There is a section of Christian America who unapologetically wish to convert America to a Christian Theocracy.

Hence, my problem with the Constitutional protection of "Religion" (or Dogma)

(as opposed to the protection of mere personal faith in God)

...because when you protect the "Religion"/dogma,
you need to consider what the specific requirements are, of a dogma, that you are protecting.

It can be like saying,
"we protect your right to assimilate, harass, and oppress those who don't believe what you believe".

Finally, you said,

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?

Again, I am not holding them responsible for the actions of others.

In the specific case of WBC and their Christian counter-protestors,
I would tacitly applaud their counter-protest, for, at the very least, not being idle in the face of bigotry;

but...and again, only when engaged...I would still point out to those counter-protestors
that while Westboro's bigotry is ludicrous and reprehensible,
their Biblical position is actually well-reseached and supportable;

AND that for them to criticize Westboro's interpretation
is no worse, in principle,
than Westboro criticizing their own interpretation;

and therefore, once again,

return to querying why any decent person
would choose to be part of a religion based on a book so full of such vitriol;

and why any decent, intelligent person would insist on remaining aligned with a religion
which is supposed to be in service to a Divinity,
and should therefore be perfect, unified, and unassailable,

...yet so obviously is not.