And it's totally fair to call out for questioning those instances where a religious persons right to religious expression interferes with the freedoms of another member of a community.

That would include Druidism and Quakers, and the harm that they do I guess?

@Geoffrey51 Take it for what it's worth.

Hellz yeah. Religion is something that's ok for people to have and cultivate in their own personal sphere, but they also have to know the boundaries and respect the other spheres of others. It has to be known that by appealing to the government to make up special rules for them on the grounds of personal religion is unfair to others belonging to other religious groups and the irreligious. And having special religious status that gives them special priorities to do or not do certain things is an afront to the other members of the community, and I know this implies that the actual benefits that religious communities receive from government amounts to basically nothing, but the religious have to learn tolerance of other ways of life in the same way tolerance is given go them for their beliefs on the world. There was an xcample of an orthodox Jew who refused to sit next to a woman on the plane. If we regard that practice as something worth protecting as a religious privilege or freedom, we're effectively creating a safe space for that person to have that weird backwards practice that allows him to have control over the presence of women in a public or shared space. No religion can deny anyone else their basic rights and the religious most of the time don't respect those rights. If there's conflict, ordinary humanitarianism comes out on top.

If only all of the religions didn't command their followers to go out and proselytize but they do and they also command their followers to attack non-believers. I see no reason why any free thinking person should accept such abuse.

@Surfpirate Actually they don't. Proselytising is basically a Western traditional idea routed in the Abrahamic traditions, Judaism excluded. A devotee of Shiva doesn't care one iota if Vishnu gets more flower petals and butter. Sikhs don't want you to join. Ancestral worshippers don't want you muscling in on the benefits bestowed on their line by their forefathers, Jains are quite happy going about their ahimsa without Westerners nitpicking about what is a valued life and what isn't. That being said 2/3 of the population of the planet do adhere to proselety. What to do? Probably go about your business doing the best you can for whoever you can.

couldn't disagree with that at all. well said. Having said that, what do you define as Islamophobia (or phobia of any other religion for that matter). Do you think it is possible to criticise ideas with out discriminating in an unreasonable way?

@RobH86 Islamaphobia is most similar to anti-semitism, imo. Both have been seen as culturally bogeyman, and have been attacked and sidelined because of their religious identities. Of course you can criticize Islam and Judaism without being discriminatory, but as the outsider and ignorant party is starts with a question, or a simple “tell me about what the Koran says about .....because I don’t know”. Or “what does (jihad) actually mean?” You will be able to have a sensible conversation, perhaps disagree, but probably have a new friend.

@Livia that seems reasonable. Unfortunately you then have the problem of interpretation. Also, what about people who have read religious books (qua-ran, or the bible for example) and decided it was incorrect information about our universe based on the evidence. If this person also read quotes that seem sexist, homophobic or discriminatory in anyway, shouldn't that person have the freedom to criticize those ideas with being labelled as a racist/antisemetic/islamaphobic etc?

@RobH86 If someone tries to Bible/Torah/Koran bash me and argue that gays are an abomination, adulterous women should be stoned, or any other fucked up interpretation, they can eat my fist. All of them should know that it is their religious obligation to not judge (all of the Abrahamic religions basically say “only god judges” and to say nothing if they cannot speak well of others). I would certainly call out religio-fascism.

@Livia I think this where we do have the right to argue against such ideas, specifically against people who choose to interpret the scripture that way.

@Livia I don't know what sort of rose colored lenses you're wearing that allows you to cherry pick the good passages and turn a blind eye to all the malicious ones. Are you that oblivious? Don't need your sugar-coated apologetics.

@Rossy92
I am not a sugar-coated apologist- I am a archaeologist and theologian who is atheist.
There is no such thing as cherry picking good and bad passages- there is only understanding their historical, cultural and literary context, and type of interpretation itself. Look up “redaction criticism”. It might enhance your perspective. And yes, I am being deliberately patronizing, as I find your comment stupid and rude. Good day!

@Livia What was so objectionable was the statement "All of them should know that it is their religious obligation to not judge (all of the Abrahamic religions basically say “only god judges” and to say nothing if they cannot speak well of others)." Should know? Obviously many don't. And how would they when there are so many passages which contradict that. I don't need to be an insider to make that criticism. SHOULD KNOW??? Then why do so many seem not to know? And how would you suggest they learn? And when do you begin to acknowledge that many of the passages in their holy books are the problem?

@Rossy92 Seriously- look at your response- you said they don’t know their own books. You are 100% correct. The faithful and their leaders should make it their obligation to understand their own scriptures and their origins.
Ideally their religious education would know that each book in the Bible and each passage in the Koran was subject to historical editing and even councils that decided what was in, and what was left out. All these books are a hotchpotch of collected “wisdoms” and “laws” over hundreds of years. Even millennia - and they are very relative to the societies that generated them and edited them. So, there is no problem in the actual books, only ancient history - the evil is in the interpretation and use of the book to serve power.
How do I suggest people learn? Well, not attending church is a start. Reading books that take a critical approach is another. Also, secular federally controlled and funded education is a must. I am amazed that schools are so free to teach absolute shit in America, and quite disgusted at how they are funded. Faith schools should be shut down and comparative world religion taught instead.

@Livia Though your answer seems sincere and well-intended, I find fault with your logic. It seems a contradiction to say their books are a "hotchpotch" and "very relative to the societies that generated them...", while in the next breath saying "there is no problem in the actual books." The solutions you suggest it seems would be helpful. But I still take issue with your reluctance to criticize the books themselves, and failing to recognize that valid arguments can be made which support the intolerant and violent teachings in these books. And surely you must be aware of the type of person the founder of this religion was?

@Rossy92 Over to you. Do you know the historical Jesus? Do you know the historical Mohammad? The more we dig, the less we know. I am in no position to say who these figures are, because of the lack of evidence from their lives, and the distortion of oral tradition and cultural influence on any sources about their lives.

About logic and hotchpotch- the gospels use a number of sources and the authors are not attributed to the name of the book. In other words the Book of Matthew was not written by a disciple or man called Matthew. There may have been more that one author and many editors. It seems that 3 books share a source in common, but each book has a source relevant to the population that revered it.
That is why some books are were written in the language relevant to the readership. So Mark was a book that had many sources, and maybe more than one writer. It may have undergone substantial edits. It was written in early Greek for a gentile audience, as the book of Mark’s author/s take care to translate and explain Aramaic terms and Jewish law/practice that was unknown in the early Hellenic world. Hopes that explains hotchpotch and relevance. The same process of sources, authors and edits applies to the verses in the Koran.

@Livia All of which is why I question you saying they "should" know better. Given the muddle of the texts, how could you possibly expect or trust a unified and civil result.

@Rossy92 Perhaps I expect too much from humanity. If I believed something I would investigate and learn about it. Not to judge is pretty basic thing to grasp.
I do think that if someone claims to be practicing any Abrahamic religion they should know - whether they can put it into practice is a totally different matter. In any case I don’t think Islam an evil religion. I don’t really think any religion is evil. I wouldn’t condemn an entire people based on their beliefs. I am just not a believer. Atheism is not about being against religion, for me, it’s just the absence of belief. I have no god. If others do, I don’t care, as long as they don’t preach to me. Christianity is the worst for that. I have to say, you are good at argument. ?

@Livia At least we agree on the Atheism part and that there is a problem with the interpretations. But I see the texts as the main issue. The harm these texts have caused is not simply due to their teachings being twisted and distorted. And no matter how progressive and enlightened becomes the interpretation, those harmful, intolerant, and violent teachings still remain a part of these texts, creating the ever present danger of the next individual or group reading them and acting on them.

@Rossy92 Our discussion reminds me of the “guns don’t kill, people do” argument - guns or people, religion and people - it’s a toxic mix.