So I must join the religion I wish to criticize? I find this to be utterly absurd.

I'm not telling you what you must or must not do. I'm telling you that it's almost completely worthless to classify people as religious and non-religious. I'm telling you that organizations classified as secular are no less prone to, and active at committing atrocities, and violence of basic human rights, than those classified as religious. People asking themselves.."What organization am I a member of, and what role does it play in the causing of problems?", I argue, is a drastically more wise approach than thinking that our worst problems arise from a poor deluded group separate of course from the exemplarily virtuous one we ourselves belong to.

So tell me then why should I treat religion any different? Why should I give religion special consideration, that I do not afford to other organization or institutions that I consider to be misguided, ill-informed, or corrupt?

Read your question closely and pay attention to how you are using the word religion. Are you talking about a specific organization? No. You are talking about religion in general. I spot a fallacy of equivocation here. I don't think a religion should be treated differently than any other organization or institution (and vice versa!). What of "secular" organizations, who are super efficient at indoctrinating impressionable youth to believe that a great deal of killing is the only way to a better world? How do they escape the same widespread criticism leveled at the "religious" ones who do the same thing?

If my criticisms were sincere then why would I belong to such an organization or institution?

If you belong to an organization or institution that is misguided, ill-informed, corrupt, and regularly violates basic human rights, simply declaring that you "don't belong" is an attractive cop out. Certainly more attractive than accepting the highly challenging (though much less lame)role of reformer.

Why should religion be granted a special treatment?

I am not saying it should

I Rebuke your insistence that I should limit my freedom of speech.

I am not insisting that you do or not do anything. I am telling you about what I see as a waste of time.

If I see a problem, then I am going to say something.

And well you should.

You can dislike it all you want, you can call it lame but you are a fool.

Me being a fool doesn't mean that my argument is without merit. :)

What government authorities do or do not do is irrelevant to this discussion. Stop trying to deflect the issue at hand.

I think it's you who's trying to deflect the issue at hand.

It's foolish to ignore the relationship between religion and government. It's foolish to fail to recognize what most religions and governments have in common.

False Dichotomy. Being whipped doesn't preclude losing your home or job. This is a fallacious argument.

What I presented was an analogy so you might see how you give preferential treatment to "secular" organizations. Saying that I presented a false dichotomy, that my argument is fallacious, and strangely pointing out that one can both be whipped AND lose their home or job, is plainly out of place. I am learning not to expect better from you.

So then we should limit our free speech to what makes sense to you?

I'm saying that if you want your speech to matter, you ought to be concerned with your audience understanding you. If you just want to whine, join the crowd.

Many anti-religious folks have done precisely that.

Ok. Name one. And who did they think the worst offenders were?

That some anti-religion advocates don't, does not make all anti-religious rhetoric Lame.

Being against religion is just as naive as being against government. How many different ways do I have to word it for you to get my point?

On what? That religion is given special treatment? Do you deny that it is?

Which religions? Ones that promote an "us vs them" mentality, and a culture of violence and killing, (including ones that aren't thought of as religions)? No. I do not deny that they are given special treatment.

Here is a good example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ libertycentral/2009/jul/09/ireland-blasphemy-laws

That is an example of legislation meant to limit free speech. Free speech has legal limits!

What type of organizations are more active in the suppressing of free speech, governmental or religious?

I can rally support from like minded people, and perhaps sway those who are on-the-fence or undecided. What is lame about that?

You already have the support of like minded people. And of those who are on-the-fence or undecided, you are promoting that they reject as a whole this ambiguously defined "religion". It's a waste of time, and therefore lame.