Neither of those examples goes against medical science I cannot actually fathom how you could even try to spin it that way.
Basically what you are saying is that having an opinion could mean you won't get neutral scientific treatment.
Now if your could show that Christians in general were against a new drug that cured cancer because if was the "devil's magic" (there would be a few but not many) you could argue the point.
I have no idea what to make of your post. Abortion is not medical science? My mind is full of fuck.
Yes, your paraphrase, while trying to downplay what I said, is spot-on. I wish you'd realise just how much "having an opinion" can influence your chance at getting neutral treatment. Another example (which isn't related to medical science but does concern hospital employees) is the Christian stance on euthanasia. Euthanasia is a long administrative process that involves a lot of contact between the patient and his caretakers. I would trust a nurse who is sufficiently secularised to leave her crucifix off during work with negotiations on euthanasia, but definitely not one who insists on bearing her religious symbols despite the uniform policies.
That is ignorant and how is religion holding for example the USA back?
You should know how big a role religion plays in making sure gays are still discriminated against in US law. The US is two and a half miles behind on the rest of the developed world when it comes to gay rights.
In Netherlands are there districts of muslims where the police are afraid to go? or esle not?
No, I haven't heard of anything like that happening. The state has no problems upholding the monopoly on violence over here.
Godwin's Law working already.
By your logic vegetarians, non-smokers and fans of Wagner are of the same level.
You should have known better than to respond to an argumentum ad Hitlerum, ha ha. It is one of the most common deliberately used association fallacies ever.