Criticizing Islam is racist?

[MTL]

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.

Well, I will readily admit that I do not claim to be an expert of the American Constitution;

you make at least a partially-valid point, here....I will own my ignorance, and acknowledge your point that the structure of the Constitution may be such that it prevents complete and total Christian Theocracy from occurring;
However, that does not make my argument a red herring, or disingenuous;
although it may make it poorly informed.
My arguments come from a very sincere place
and I'm not setting out to mislead anyone with red herrings or strawmen.
You sort of demonstrate my point, yourself, when you acknowledge,

Right now, atheism and agnosticism aren't protected to the extent that religion is.

I am trying, very sincerely, to say, (in what might admittedly be an unversed approach)
is that I maintain that religion/dogma have very obviously abused their privilege and constitutional protection
to manoeuvre and manipulate the laws until they work in their favour, and to the disadvantage of Atheists, to a shocking and sad degree.
That wall of separation seems rather thin.

you said,

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. 

(bold, mine)  and then said,

They are forbidden, Constitutionally from enacting their religion into law.

(bold, mine)

....okay, then I'll need some clarification, here, because those two statements seem opposing to me.

you said,

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.

To answer your direct question:  No.  I wouldn't like it.

To address what is really the kernel of my point:

It almost doesn't matter, because that wall of separation seems to be protecting Atheists
from the way that Theists abuse their Constitutional religious protections
the way hiding in a tent would protect you from a hurricane.

Example:

I believe it is that wall of protection that at least in part contributed
to the Supreme Court ruling on LGBT marriage rights.

yet when Kim Davis refused to issue licenses to gay couples,
there was no direct enforcement of THAT ruling;
they arrested her on another charge, did they not?

Question:

Is there any other provision in the Constitution, other than this "wall of separation",
that one party may not abuse their constitutional protections
to the extent that they encroach upon the freedoms of another?

And if Yes, why isn't Christian America kept in check by it,
in their campaign against the LGBT
and against Atheists?