>Somehow there isn't a pervasive implication that being Catholic means that you're more likely to be a child abuser.

That stereotype largely only applies to Catholic priests, not Catholics. Also, to my knowledge, it's not a stereotype largely taken serious but is more of meant as a sly joke. Usually involving a choir boy in some way. Largely to mock the Churches cover-up of the issue years back.

>I believe the way to counter "lumping people together, generalizing and stereotyping" or othering is precisely to point out the flaws in logic and call it bigotry and hatred when you see it.

I don't know the statistics regarding this specific issue in a larger context (ie: Muslim Grooming Rings) and only saw the single article regarding the rather massive case not too long ago. But let's talk stereotypes and historical (and modern) facts.

Stereotypes happen because by-and-large they are true. It's how they form. Sure, there are the exceptions to the stereotype but few people speak in a manner as to make exclusions when exclusions are relatively rare compared to the blanket statement [^].

Why are "all Muslim's terrorists"? Because Islamic extremists are the most popularized, militant, and active terrorist groups. In my lifetime, I've never once heard of a modern-era Christian terrorist group. (Does "God Hates Fags" count?)

Even the Crusades, the closest thing to "Christian Extremists" that I can think of, was the reaction to a Jihad launched by a new Sultan (as was the norm of the time). The emperor of Constantinople requested help from the other Christians in western Europe because of Muslim aggression.

The Jihadists hadn't expected to meet such a large force - and when the Crusaders took back their lands they pushed back even harder. Political muckery and unheld promises turned the Crusaders largely against the people they originally set out to help, which is main reason for the divide between Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox to this very day. The demonization of the Crusades as a "black stain on Christian history" only came about in the 18th or 19th century (I forget which) because somehow it turned into a largely offensive war rather than a largely defensive war because the history behind it wasn't being taught.

Every single terrorist group I can think of off-hand, from Africa to the Middle East is a group comprised of self-declared Muslims [0]. Reading the Qur'an also shows the extremists are the "proper Muslims", like it or not. Selective choosing of which passages to follow are how you get the 'nice' Bible and the 'nice' Qur'an. Both books are full of evil that simply gets ignored because it is more convenient or "doesn't apply to people of our time" or "was the norm. in the past".

In our increasingly "liberal and tolerant" western world we're turning a blind eye towards issues because it would be "racist" to point to history or "intolerant" to call something what it is. A children's cartoon illustrates this perfectly [1]. What makes it all-the-worse is it is increasingly impossible to try and defend these positions or point to history. Nobody[^] wants to be a called a racist/sexist. So much as pointing to statistics or trying to explain why a position is wrong (ie. wage gap) is impossible. Defending such a position makes you a sexist and you don't want to be a sexist do you?

It's a form of societal control through coercive punishment (how many people have lost their jobs for making a possibly-sexist/racist comment now?) If you can't make people think like you, you can at least silence them. You trying to blanket everything as bigotry or hatred makes you part of what I see as the problem. Not everything is bigotry, not everything is racist, and pointing to history and statistics as backing for why a certain belief is held does not make one bigoted.

[0] Super-majority are Islamic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_g...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUdHA5liNec

[^] Nobody wants to be a racist or sexist, except the people that don't fit that stereotype. Just proving a point here about blanket statements. Do we usually exclude such people when making a statement like this? No.