"I am partially imputing that; there are two possible options."

Actually, there's more. :-)

"Either some of the theistic population is complicit for refusing to consider that their texts should change"

If the text changes, you essentially debase the religion entirely. It no longer exists as a religion. Might hang on as a guiding philosophy of life, but it's no longer a religion.

"or the God themselves - if that religion is true - is complicit, for sending down a highly ambiguous text susceptible to wide misinterpretation."

Or, Option #3: The text, if read in the original vernacular and understood in the context of its own history, is not ambiguous at all; but when translations are made from precise languages (Hebrew, Arabic, Greek) to imprecise languages (English), ambiguity occurs AND/OR irresponsible clerics responsible for guiding their believer community do a shitty job and misguide them according to their own biases (big problem in Islam).

Bottom line is that errors are not collective. The Grand Mufti of Cairo can (and does) criticize Islamic terrorists all the time; but outside of words, he has no power to stop them. So, you can blame him, or Islam, all you like, but you're blaming somebody who has no ability to change the behavior of the others. It seems to me that "blame" can only be imputed if a person -- or religion -- has the ability to stop the heretical actor, but fails to do what it is in his power to do.

"Were it to be the case that religions did not affect non-religious people, I would accept the concept of 'minding my own business' - but that is not so. "

My point is that reasonable theists are always willing to discuss matters with nontheists which are possible to change. Sixty years ago, Saudi Arabia, IIRC, used to chain adulterers to the ground, drive up a dump truck full of gravel, and dump it on them, thereby "stoning" them to death. They don't do that anymore, because interactions with the West AND their own clerics noted that although stoning is *permitted* as a punishment for adultery (as it is in Judaism under the Law of Moses), it is not a *required* punishment for adultery, and changing the way they managed that part of Sharia sentencing would be beneficial to Arabia's place in the world community.

However, that flexibility does not extend to required precepts of the faith, one of which is the inerrancy of Quran. So, if you say "OK, you guys really need to change the Sword Ayat, because people misinterpret it" then the only possible answer is "MYOB. We can explain it until we're blue in the face, and insure that as many as possible know what the accepted interpretation is, but that's about it."

"Whether or not religious believers *intend* for a religion to be misused does not matter - it matters whether they choose to do anything about it, and most religions do not."

See above. Again, the larger question is if they are ABLE to do anything about it. Theists are free actors, just as nontheists are.

But, ultimately, there has been tremendous levels of organic change in the practice of all three Semetic religions over the ages; the problem is that "organic change" occurs at a slow rate. This permits both the religions and the nontheist critics of those religions to claim "they never change". What both really mean to say is "there has been no significant noticable change in my lifetime", which is probably true. Religion takes the long view, humans take the short view.

"However, if you attack what is considered to be essentially a settled part of a religion's beliefs, then yes, you'll encounter resistance. That's not "intolerance" but a firm committment to what is believed to be the Recieved Word."

"That is the exact definition of intolerance - a prohibition of anyone questioning one's beliefs or rules."

It's not the exact definition I use. Again, see above. Questioning happens all the time.

"In most historical times, I would be fortunate to question the truth of Christianity or Islam and live to tell the tale."

True. But these are not those times.

"I hope you understand quite how difficult it is to simply "emigrate". Most are not rich enough for this to even be an option, and it is not as though all countries welcome immigrants of any kind. For most, this is no more than a death sentence in disguise."

I am part of an extended family of immigrants, although I personally was born here. I have relatives who have emigrated to the US, to Sweden, to the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. Your description of emigration is hyperbolic. Emigration presents challenges, but everyone is happy and healthy and prosperous, some more than others, of course.

"hat a Muslim, Christian, or anyone else *believes* in their religion does not give them the right to say that only their religious belief is important - something that religions have often failed to do."

Of course they/we have the right to SAY it, or BELEIVE it; that's not where the line needs be drawn. It's when a religion attempts to coerce others that religion overreaches its authority.