Except perhaps Islam, I am not against any religion (that includes Mormons, Pagans, Seculars, Agnostics and Atheists) doesn't matter how or why. I am only against perverts that promote proselytization or holy war. I believe THOSE ideas are based upon erroneous religious beliefs and teachings.
To me it seems that these "ginned-up neo-apollo-puppy" are choosing/practicing their faith out of their own volition. I see no reason why I should oppose them based on the reasons you have stated. Doesn't this in your book go against the tenet of "freedom of religion" or for you is it only "freedom of the Christian religion" that you are concerned about?
I don't quite understand the logic that religion X should be given no space because its morally or spiritually incapable of resisting religion Y.
My point, my dear, is that most religions don't present a aggressive threat to me; I acknowledge the elements of truth and value in them, although I do not agree with their total view. The Apostle Paul expressed a certain appreciation for the religious sentiments of the pagan Athenians at their Areopagus (Mars Hill) shrine, and even quoted one of their poets with approval (Acts 17:22-24.)
However, if anyone, secularist, atheist, Islamist or whatever, wishes to threaten my liberty and my nation, I will certainly oppose them, forcefully if necessary.
"I don't quite understand the logic that religion X should be given no space because its morally or spiritually incapable of resisting religion Y."
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Amongst those who are non-aggressors, all "opposition" or "resisrance" is a far friendlier thing, and takes the form of dialog, banter, love, blessing, humor, example, and reason. Against this form of "opposition" --- which is actually friendly persuasion, or even rivalry in doing good --- there can be, I think, no objection.