Criticizing Islam is racist?

[MTL]

Now who is guilty of a lack of nuanced thinking?

Can you really not differentiate between OUTRIGHT BLAMING a moderate, everyday American muslim for 9/11,

vs

Respecting the rights of an everyday muslim in every way,
UNTIL they engage me on the subject,
and only THEN asking them why they continue to be part of a religion that is so convoluted and violent???

Unless they themselves have been violent, you yourself are being an asshole.

Judge people based on their behavior, not because someone else cherry-picks the same fucking book in a different manner.

lol. 

But Thump, I am basing it on THEIR behavior.

I am basing it on their choice to be not only remain aligned with something evil,
but to make efforts to recruit for that evil.

moving on.

Just as I know many Christians support LGBT rights;
I am not blaming them for the gaybashing that other Christians might have done.

But here's what you said:

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.

You say you're not "blaming" them yet you wish to remove any protection they might have regarding freedom of conscience.

Forgive my skepticism, but it looks like you're trying to eat your cake and have it, too.

I kind of take issue with your accusation that I object to freedom of conscience.

I don't.

I object to freedom of religion.

I don't know about the States....but in Canada, this is not necessarily the same thing.

If someone wants to act according to their conscience, fine.
If someone wants to organize politically, based on their moral code, fine.

but in an earlier post, I asked for clarification on something you said about American law,
and I didn't get an answer;

MTL:

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.

So I still don't understand how people could be Constituitionally-protected
in their right to "organize, politically" based on their religion
....yet be prevented from enacting their religion-based politics into Civil Law.

In any event, I absolutely stand by my original point:

Religion should not be constitutionally protected, IMO.

Freedom to believe in God (as long as it doesn't hurt or detract from society in any way),
without risk of persecution for it?  Fine, yes, absolutely.  Protect that by all means.
(note:  Freedom to NOT believe in any God should also be protected).

Freedom of Conscience, which could occur without Religion...yes, certainly.

But to specifically protect Religion, carte blanche,
when the dogma of a said religion
could require of its followers to "kill all infidels" (just for example)....no.

Freedom to practice religious dogma, right across the board, should not be protected, IMO.
There's no reason to protect it,
and there are good reasons NOT to protect it.


That is not the same thing as freedom of thought, or freedom of conscience.

And protecting freedom of religion could quite arguably result in religions
placing themselves above reproach;

IE:  the Charlie Hebdo incident.

It could be interpreted as freedom to assimilate or oppress, depending on the dogma.

But I am saying to them:

You know these atrocious things have been done in the name of your religion, yet you are a good person.

How can you stand to remain part of the same club,
and doesn't it grate at you that your holy book can't be all that Divine
if it is open to such appalling misinterpretation?

Apparently you haven't been raised in a religion, and don't understand how hard it is to break the programming one receives in one's youth.

I'm quite frankly disappointed in some of your techniques, Thump.

In this thread, you have accused me of a lack of nuanced thinking,
yet you obstinately refuse to acknowledge the repeated examples I have given
of the rather vast difference between outright blaming someone for the actions of another,
versus questioning the integrity of cherry-picking and choosing to remain part of a hateful religion.

Also, in this thread, you have repeatedly put words in my mouth:

"Blame" "Punish" "Outlawed".

...which is, I believe, called the Strawman technique
(from a guy who loves to accuse me of Strawmen).

I never knowingly or intentionally use a Strawman.

And now you are resorting to flagrant presumptuousness about my upbringing.

I was raised in a devout Baptist home and was heavily indoctrinated, thank you.

And it may have taken me 25 years or so to do it thoroughly,
but I broke the programming on my own,
without any mentoring of any kind,
without reading any Skeptic authors or websites;
but just by my own critical  thought.

I know from personal experience
how extremely difficult it can be, for someone raised with Theism
to simply separate the concept of God, from the concept of Religion,
but that was the Eureka moment for me.

Hence, when you talk about de-fanging religion,
that is my approach:

to point out the concept of Deism (which many Theists are oblivious to)

to point out how not only is Religion not necessarily a BRIDGE to God,

but that, if God exists at all,
Religion may well be the single greatest OBSTACLE between Man and God.

Now, Thump,
You accused me of being bigoted right across the board, towards all Believers.

While I wouldn't mind if every Theist on Earth woke up tomorrow and decided to be Atheist or Agnostic,
but I don't require that, whatsoever....I'd be quite happy with Deism.

My approach doesn't seek to destroy their faith in God, at all.

It merely questions the integrity of belonging to a Religion;

both from the social perspective of how responsible it is to continue to promote and patronize a violent institution;

and from the personal, spiritual perspective of the Believer, themselves:

Religion doesn't actually serve God.

Religion serves Religion.