Islam is not the predominant problem in the US. Really not. Nearly half of US Americans don't believe in evolution. Christian fundamentalism causes much more harm at the moment than islamists.
i believe in evolution, but you need to get over the idea there is some kind of innate golden age waiting to happen if only those annoying chiristains would believe in evolution.
unless you are a biologist, believing in creationism has no impact on your life or how you do your job. i dont care if my brain surgeon believes in creationism. you know what i care about? how well they do brain surgery.
Disbelief in science in general has a massive impact - causing deaths.
Even disbelief in evolution causes deaths, e.g. if we don't do enough to deal with antibiotic resistance.
I wonder if this is true? What is correlation of Americans who "don't believe in evolution" who would reject the notion of antibiotic resistance in infectious diseases if you explained it to them? I wonder how many would reject the notions of husbandry, e.g. if you continually breed for a certain trait, like agreeableness, that the offspring will be on average more agreeable than the previous generation.
There is the religion of Christian Science, which rejects taking all medicine, but even there, that would only seem to be beneficial in antibiotic preservation practices.
How many bombs have been dropped on other countries because of the choices of those millions of uneducated voters?
Could you elaborate? You state this like it's obvious, but it isn't (at least to me).
If you look hard enough you can certainly find christian evangelical leaders who will call for the destruction of people who attack their faith. It's simply not normal and doesn't represent the vast majority of believers.
You don't have to live in a country under Sharia laws to get a fatwa against you. I mean, check this short list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatwas#Fatwas_promotin...
For the rest of your post, I'm not sure to see how it's a response to my comment.
edit: I will clarify. I was reacting to "Actively campaigning against the rights of gay individuals to marry or raise children". I'm for gay marriage. I'm also for allowing other people to campaign against my opinions.
We have, for at least the past few decades, opted to largely ignore certain types of civil liberties, and just about every American is willing to infringe someone else's liberties to get something out of the democratic process that they care more about. I agree that gay marriage is good, and doesn't hurt anyone, and that so long as marriage is an institution, every American who wants to partake in it should be allowed to, whether gay, straight, trans or whatever -- but let's not pretend that the infringement of civil liberties at the ballot box is a trait unique or peculiar to those voting against gay marriage.
If banning an AR-15 doesn't infringe my right to gun ownership, then in the same way, a ban on gay marriage doesn't infringe my right to marriage. I can still marry anyone (of the opposite sex) that I choose.
Like I said, I'm not arguing on behalf of those who would ban gay marriage -- I think it's a very wrong-headed position to take, but that dosen't invalidate that it's quite a common position to take, and that the infringement of rights we don't like is a ritual practiced by left and right alike, and that the exploitation of the democratic process to effect those goals is not only common, but _routine_.
The point is that despite democracy, the constitution and its provisions against being able to impose unconstitutional whimsies on populaces we don't like are supposed to encourage a tolerant society. The tolerance to let another person live their life in a way that you don't approve of is a pre-requisite to America functioning correctly. I'm not a historian, so I can't say if we've forgotten it, or we never really knew it, but it's definitely a lesson we need to learn or re-learn as appropriate.
Tying back to OP, at least one manifestation of that ideal is perhaps not in routinely making fun of the whole rest of America to which you don't belong. Of course, it is your right to do so, but disparaging ideas with which you don't agree (as opposed to making substantive arguments through engaged civil discourse) is perhaps not the best strategy to prevent against the continuation of those routine infringements.
I am Jack's stunning lack of perspective.
People have a right to religious beliefs. They do not - must not - have the right to turn that into a legal enforcement of those beliefs on people who do not share them.
I would add "... at the moment".