"all religions are capable of extremism and prone to abuse and to single out one of them for special treatment is to be part of that abuse."
.,,.

And more on this idiotically ingenuous [or DISingenuous] point of Jim's ~~

There is only one religion which has a political as well as religious dimension, one religion which is simultaneously effectively the governing authority of sovereign states within the world community. And in pretty well every one where it is, its rule is tyrannical oppressive, "medieval" [for want of a better word] in its penalties and sanctions for crime; which crimes are largely not even illegal in more rationally governed countries. Just show me the country where you will be hanged if you say you really would rather stop being a practising Christian or Jew or Buddhist or Hindu or Flying-Spaghetti-Monster-Worshipper. Stoned to death for what they call adultery, which isn't even in its true meaning illegal here, and they only mean 'fornication by it anyhow', and not many of our young people would even survive adolescence if...   

Just one. Go on. ONE?!

Obviously, in world terms, such a one must be 'singled out for special attention' from the community of nations; and 'singled out for special attention' to make very sure that its compulsion for spreading its word universally is not allowed to obtain too much leverage in nations where it has not contrived to get the upper hand yet.

"What "abuse", for crying out loud, does Jim see such considerations as "part of"?