No, this is what a naturalist has a right to say.

You forego this right when you maintain that Jesus could defy the laws of physics and biology.

When you, a theist, use naturalism for a frame of reference and criticise those who draw on supernaturalism for their worldview whilst you yourself think that Jesus walked on water, multiplied bread, rose from the dead, then you are a hypocrite.

This is a straw man.

One can believe in God and that he, in very special circumstances, can "enter history" and intervene by overcoming natural laws(or enable natural laws that are unknown to man), and still maintain that, 99,9999999% of the time, physical laws work as expected and that the world was created and still operates through them.

You can make up as many rules and blanket statements as you like, such as "if you're a theist you can't use logical arguments of physical evidence for your position", that doesn't make them true or valid. Fact is, most theists believe miracles are one-in-a-billion events and it doesn't stop them from becoming excellent doctors, mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers, physicists or what have you.

Your thoughts are utterly simplistic and your conclusions naive. As I said: You put me in a spot in an arbitrary spectrum, and think from there on you know what my position ought to be in all subjects, and what I have "the right" to say or not. Sorry, but the world and human beings are more complex than this. What's really funny, is that you "reject" a possible ally in all sorts of very important real-world matters, because...I don't have "the right" to support the...correct position! As if all my knowledge comes from the Bible, or as if a theist is all I am. Seems to me you care more about the controversy and lumping people into convenient categories than the actual issues here.