I didn't claim that all religions or any specific religion was inherently peaceful. I'm not particularly fond of religion. Most religion has inevitably led to conflict. Most religion has been justification for war and has contained principles that we in modern Western life find appalling. But most religions were not created in modern times, they were created in times when all the things you've mentioned above were aspects of everyday life for all humans. The only thing I'm defending or promoting in any way is a person's right to practice any religion that doesn't come into direct conflict with freedom and liberty.
A thousand years from now, people will look back and see a bunch of nonsense, but I don't think anyone will be shocked.
America isn't perfect, and I haven't claimed it to be, but it's the best system currently available.
As far as propagation, no one's conducting an "inquisition" in America.
Yes, there have been wars fought by Buddhists, but that wasn't my point. My point was to illustrate the absurdity of the OP's claims. Where is the "straw man" argument? I asked a few questions. For the OP to have mentioned "inquisition", he seems to be implying that a religious state is terrorizing the masses and torturing or killing anyone who opposes state religious doctrine.
To which conflict are you referring when you say "Christianity vs. Islam", and in what context, and where, and how is it being incited and by whom? And where is this Christian "war on women"?
Religion is a right because people are allowed to have thoughts and feelings. To remove the right to practice religion is to disallow thoughts and feelings. It is to disallow the spoken and written word. Tell me who gets to decide for all people what they should think and feel and where that road ends.
Politics falls within the realm of philosophy, as does religion. I'm not saying these things shouldn't be addressed philosophically. I'm saying that the OP isn't addressing them philosophically.
I didn't claim anarchism was any specific thing, but certain forms of it can be simplified to total individual autonomy. My point was not how I view anarchism but how the OP views Western society.
Since there was no philosophical position by the OP, I can't possibly be "straw manning" anything. I'm seeking clarification on some of things mentioned and presenting that other things mentioned are absurd. I'm pointing out that proselytization and blatant dishonesty shouldn't be equated with philosophy.
You seem to be making assumptions about me, misconstruing my comments and arguing points that I never claimed or agreed or disagreed with in the first place.