I understand what you're saying but I disagree that it is reasonable, despite sounding reasonable. I think you have one serious flawed assumption, which is that

I understand what you're saying but I disagree that it is reasonable, despite sounding reasonable. I think you have one serious flawed assumption, which is that it is possible to disidentify from your beliefs. There is no separation here, and particularly not in the case of religious beliefs. The type of belief a person can disidentify with, and evaluate objectively without emotional response, is basically a very narrow subset of beliefs that are limited to things that are 1) empirically falsifiable and 2) not fettered with excessive social attachments. almost no beliefs meet both of those criteria. the vast majority of people's beliefs, ESPECIALLY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, are core to identity and must be treated as such during discourse if we have any expectation of getting good political and social outcomes. I realize this is very disappointing to people who live a very rationalist, atheist, materialist world. The standards of discourse in that world are extremely different than in the world of religious belief. There is a huge difference between ecumenicism and rational debate. It's even more painful in that the irrational behaviors of some religious groups result in a lot of nastiness directed at non-believers. I don't like that either. It's not ok. However, the solution to it is not to be nasty back to them (or pre-emptively nasty to them). That only makes the already bad situation worse. I'm a political realist. I don't like that intolerant religious fanatics have as much influence as they do, but that is the situation we find ourselves in. I try to behave appropriately given the world we live in. Save myself and my loved ones a lot of grief while focusing on actions that can actually make a difference, and in particular not making things worse by provoking a group of people that is in a position to hurt you.