In the name of religion...

We live in a world full of differences: races, sexual preferences, opinions, truths, and religion. What's great about being an American is that legally no one can persecuted for having these differences. But, what about morally and ethically? The one thing about being a member of a society that allows all these differences is that eventually, you will encounter someone who disagrees with you. While disagreeing is perfectly legal and our right as Americans, some take it too far.
I'm currently reading Richard Dawkins' thought provoking book, The God Delusion, which, regardless of your religious preferences, forces the reader to examine where we all stand in regard to religion and what it means to be a part of any religious camp. So many things happen in the name of religion: wars, attacks, hate crimes--nearly all of which are of the negative. I've never understood how bombing or attacking another group of people in the name of religion is a good thing or something to be proud of. If that's the truth, then that is a God/religion that I don't want any part of, and that includes the people who follow it.
Luckily, in this country, very few groups or individuals attack entire communities or cities in the name of religion, but individual attacks occur on a much too regular basis. In a study from 2009, 51% of hate crimes are race hate crimes, with 69% percent of those being against blacks and crimes against hispanics are quickly rising (Hate Crimes in America). Not that it needs reminding, but there are also far too many crimes against people for their sexual preferences and for their non-christian and non-catholic religious preferences.
While some hate crimes are simply, pardon the conclusion, as black and white as "I hate all these people" most hate crimes occur because the "haters" believe their religion teaches them that this behavior or activity is wrong. In 2007, Arkansas republican group leader Patrick Briney stated that hate crime laws are flawed because it "punish[es] people for their opinions" (Five Reasons to Oppose Hate Crime Bills). I think what scares me the most is that he may be implying that it's okay to think that all homosexuals should die because "the Bible teaches us that homosexuality is a sin" you just need to control yourself enough to go ahead and not harm them, but know in your heart that god will punish them (FRtOHCB).
He also argues that hate crime bills favor certain groups in providing additional protection because of their differences, which is unfair and violates everyone else's protection rights. I say, it's easy for someone who's not a target to make a statement like that. When you don't have to worry about being a part of a group or organization that people feel is morally wrong because it's written so in an ambiguously written book from much too long ago, it's easy to say that people don't need extra protection. Yet, on the hypocritical flip side, after 9/11 any "brown" skinned person that anyone thought was al-Qaeda was threatened, assaulted, afraid to leave their homes because everyone else blamed them by association for the attacks. And he's saying that extra protection isn't necessary?
After all this time, I just don't understand why an individual can call themselves a devoted religious person, and then beat someone to near death because they are attracted to their own sex or because they remind us of someone else who has wronged us.
While I agree that as a country we are moving forward as far as being open and understanding to people who chose to live differently than the social norm, but I definitely see those who cling to religion as a reason to harm these people becoming more and more radical in their actions. It scares me. There's also not an equal level of freedom expression accepted amongst the populace. Dawkins writes about how religion is the one thing that people can't speak outwardly against without severe retaliation. I ask why? If we can put someone down for being a non-christian and feel okay about it, why can't anyone outwardly speak against religious activists? It's a strange tightrope to walk. Why can't people involved in the public be honest about what they really believe without scrutiny to the public? Do we really think an athiest president would do a worse job of being president than a christian? Are we really afraid an athiest teacher teaching in a private school will corrupt his/her students? These things show me that freedom and acceptance of differences is still set in the future.

In case you want to look into the statistics or anything else mentioned:
Briney, Patrick (2007). Five reasons to oppose hate crime bills. Arkansas republican assembly. Retrieved from: http://www.arragopwing.com/hatecrimesposition.html.
Dawkins, Richard. (2006). The god delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Publishing.
Leadership for Conferences for Civil and Human Rights. (2009). Hate crimes in america: The nature and magnitude of the problem. The leadership conference. Retrieved from: http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/nature-and-magnitude.html.