“I very much doubt hicks has read Russell. But he’s certainly a fan of Richard Dawkins, who is currently in denial that these murders had anything to do with the victims’ religion.”

Since these murders had nothing to do with the victims’ religion, he can’t be “in denial” about that. In fact, he is simply correct.

We live in a world where certain groups are more targeted than others, so no, gutting special protections isn’t the solution.

I’m not sure if I was bad at making it or you missed it, but there was a point that isn’t what you’re talking about.

Religion should not be a protection for bad behavior. Nor should “anti-religion” be an excuse for bad behavior.

Religion is in effect, “licensed” activity and belief (privileged and protected) because the religious have demanded this. But this is unfair in reality, since only religion can do this. Free speech is free speech and deserves the same protections for all forms of free speech, including religion, anti-religion (atheism if you will), and other forms of free speech. But religion is the only form of free speech that receives special attention and protection. The artificial and capricious barricades that have been built around religion are quite absurd, unfair, unjust and dishonest.

Let’s briefly examine that protection given to religion, because it is very important. This protection includes the tolerance of bad behavior (oppression of human rights). This is wrong, but still tolerated (usually). There are absolutely countless examples of how religion is protected (by law and by custom) where if this activity was not “religious” it would be condemned and/or outlawed. Examples are vaccinations, spousal abuse, child abuse, indoctrination and many more.

The whole concept of “religious freedom” is dead wrong. And so is “religious protection”. Individual rights do NOT depend or require a religion and therefore, to ensure equal rights, and equal protection, there should be NO SUCH THING AS RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. There is only equal rights, and only equal freedom in other words, all which have the same and equal levels of protection (and expression). The “separation” created by religion is entirely bogus.

In other words, I have the same rights as anyone, being an atheist, or being a religious person. None of us have more rights then the other. But that is NOT how the real world works. Religious rights have trampled upon the rights of everyone by demanding (and receiving) inordinate and special protections and privilege (tax status is yet another example). This is wrong and has always been wrong.

Religions abuse their protected and privileged positions all of the time (all over the world), precisely because they have been given inordinate rights and protections that permit this. This too is wrong and an example of how misguided this protectionism really is.

What we have always needed is EQUAL protection, where there are no special privileges, no special exemptions, no special protections, and no special preferences, everyone, everywhere receives exactly the same individual or group rights (which for brevity I won’t got into here with a description, suffice it to say that they must ALL be equal). But it’s dead obvious, that is NOT what we have because religion has horribly abused this concept demanding special protections and special rights. This is bullshit and always has been.

The religious “argument” is a deflection of the real error here, and that is our tolerance, acceptance and codification into law the special protections for religion. This should have never happened.

No comment on Hicks (opinions and speculations about this are pointless).

Why does anyone feel the need to apologise?

Who has apologised? No-one here.

Is every other paragraph of the works of Bertrand Russell an exhortation to kill everyone who isn’t an atheist?

I very much doubt hicks has read Russell. But he’s certainly a fan of Richard Dawkins, who is currently in denial that these murders had anything to do with the victims’ religion.