On both points you make an excellent catch against my working. It’s my intent to state that, while I may object to how another religion behaves or acts, or to how people in another country act, I do not get to apply force to them except under particular circumstances. Effective force in defense of someone else is acceptable, I believe, though I look for other means first.

I’m trying, in a short presentation, to suggest that I can criticize, but do not have the right to control. I think I missed some of the details in the way I presented my points, and your criticisms are quite valid.

So it’s OK for them to use force to impose their views on other people and other countries as long as it doesn’t affect me directly? Did you really mean to imply that?

“If protesters want to burn down pieces of their own countries, that is the problem of those countries and those people. And yes, when Muslim countries deny rights to women, or impose cruel punishments on their people, it is appropriate for people to condemn those activities and those laws.”

OK, you do condemn Muslims who oppress women and impose cruel punishments. But do you really think it is OK for them to “burn down pieces of their own countries“, often including churches among other ways in which they persecute Christians, and that is only their own problem and not for us to condemn? When innocent bystanders suffer, and even more when they are our Christian brothers and sisters, isn’t that our concern as well?

But most of this was a great post, thank you!