Yes you are. This is the difference between "bash" and "criticize".
I think you're splitting hairs over a losing proposition. A person is either a dolt and knothead or they are reasonable and sane. Similarly the ideologies that embrace knuckleheaded ideation don't need to be sheltered.
The issue isn't religion, it's bashing.
The issue is "what's wrong with religion". And that specifically refers to the modern fundamentalist/evangelical/creationist who is expressing pathological markers on a very large scale, very overtly. You would first have to acknowledge that this is actually happening. Without that, then this is just a thread about denial.
Civilized cultures criticize, not bash.
The gloves came off when the fundies invaded the academic and scientific arenas. Now we fight fire with fire.
But modern culture is the most despicable, intolerant culture in the world,
Specifically, the religious sects that perpetuate lies and propaganda in order to win the vulnerable minds of their megachurches are a threat to the peace of thoughtful people worldwide. The have usurped the public policy agenda and inserted their idiotic claims and demands where serious matters should be receiving public attention. Further, since the folks I'm referring to express the homophobic/xenophobic attitudes of Victorian Christians, it is they and they alone who are being intolerant. For the same reason we may freely say "the KKK are cowardly morons" without concern for propriety, nothing will stop any thoughtful person for using the same frank language to describe the same religious reasoning once used to openly declare that blacks were animals. Are you with me now? The folks I'm talking about are either practically allied with the Klan, or else we may say they are a new incarnation on an old theme. This is certainly not limited to racism. The idiot who proclaimed that "God wanted those women raped" is the same class of person I'm referring to. They are religious people of a very specific cultural identification, who freely interpret what their God is thinking, whom their God detests, and they shape their thoughts, feelings and behaviors around that very specific world view.
These groups are using religion as a springboard for very real and very harmful kinds of intolerance, nothing like the harmless speech you are referring to. There is a huge difference. If you stand with them, then you're standing on the side of hatred and intolerance. So you need only decide for yourself what you are, as must all the fanatics who are under siege by education and common sense. This is pretty simple; it's like distinguishing black from white. You're either one of the good guys or you're not (you/they: the indefinite plural).
so it is only capable of bashing, not logically criticizing. In contrast, the Old Testament only criticizes, never bashes.
Get off the gas. The Old Testament reams every nation that ever opposed the proto-Jewish people, it curses them, and revels in fantasies about their destruction. It's incredibly xenophobic and sadistic in that regard. This is why it's so dangerous in the hands of mean, ignorant and esp. violent people.
But why are you promoting the Old Testament? Why leave out the New Testament, the Koran, the Vedas, the Dhammapada, the Mahavira, the Tao Te Ching, Confucian texts . . .? Do you really think one religion is superior to another? That same sense of superiority is what justifies racism, denigration of women, gay-bashing and all other forms of intolerance you're expressing concern about.
Conclusion: there is no sacred cow other than the universally sacred one, which is that truth -- not Biblical truth -- is sacred. Virtue -- not Biblical mores about circumcision, dietary restrictions or ancient taboos -- is sacred. Justice -- not Biblical acts of revenge and certainly not people pretending to be God's vigilante squad -- is sacred. Protection of the vulnerable -- not indoctrination, brainwashing and exploitation by propaganda -- are sacred. Pretty much the rest of it has to pay. We speak freely against every kind of intrusion into the natural harmony of a well ordered mind regardless of whether or not it operates under the banner of a protected religion -- regardless of whether or not it pretends to hold the divine right of immunity from prosecution.
How else does a sane rational person deal with meanness, stupidity and deliberate harm? You see, there really is nothing for you (pl.) to be defending, is there? We're not as stupid about you as our mild speech suggests. We know all the cons because you (indefinite you: they) people have been pulling the same pranks all of our lives. We're just holding you in check, that's all.
