Criticizing Islam is racist?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

Kindly stop putting words in my mouth, Thumpalumpacus?

My apologies; you want it stripped of constitutional protection. My objections based on freedom of conscience stand.

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.

None of that is an answer to my question: How would you feel if theists forbade your expressions of doubt by using the power of the State?

Answer the question. Right now, atheism and agnosticism aren't protected to the extent that religion is. The vast majority of Americans are theist. If an amendment was passed overturning the "wall of separation", and your protections were stripped, how would you feel?  You wouldn't like that, would you?

We're not talking about the nature of their beliefs versus yours, we're talking about legal protections.

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)

Organizing for the sake of politics is the right of every American, and we are free to do it on whichever basis we wish, including a religious basis.  They are forbidden, Constitutionally from enacting their religion into law. Your concern here is not only poorly founded, it is a red herring. Stripping religion of its Constitutional protections because you're worried about a hypothetical theocracy when we already have Consitutional safeguards against such an outcome in place is disingenuous.

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

Bullshit.  Here is what you wrote:

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.

[Bolding added – Thump]

You are clearly tarring them for the actions of others whom they do not know and cannot control.