The following people are in line to apply for a tax exemption for their respective organization; a Jew, a Catholic, a Mormon, a Muslim, a Scientologist, a Protestant, a Jehovah’s Witness, and a Flat-Earther. Everyone except the Flat-Earther gets their application approved. Why is that? Shouldn’t their belief be respected and tax exempt too? Flat-Earthers believe their teachings as seriously as any other religious person. Perhaps they’re rejected because there’s sufficient verifiable scientific evidence to prove that the Earth is actually round. The religious get an exemption because you can’t scientifically prove the existence of the supernatural. Divine invisibility also makes it impossible to disprove. Does the lack of evidence to support a particular belief warrant respect?
What about those who believe in unicorns, ghosts, Santa Claus, aliens, mermaids, fairies, Sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, dragons, or whatever mythical creature? Each of these beliefs have just as much lacking evidence as the case for God, but none of them receive government protection or respect. If someone proclaims the genuine belief in a fictional bedtime story myth, it’s acceptable to challenge or ridicule their childish fantasy. But if someone believes in Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, or Noah’s Ark, then God forbid I ridicule that nonsense because it’s sacred.
A belief in imaginary myths is rather benign. No one has ever killed “In the name of Sasquatch” or discriminated because “Aliens told me to”. However, not all beliefs are harmless. Some people believe vaccines cause autism as opposed the actual life saving immunity proven by centuries of verifiable science. White supremacists believe their race to be the best despite any evidence to support their claim. Many cultures and religions believe women and men have divine differences and separate responsibilities and treat each gender accordingly. Mormons believe it’s ok to interview children one on one behind closed doors about sexually explicit topics. Many religions believe gay sex is an immoral sin and justify discrimination against LGBTQ people. Climate change deniers continue to impact the delicate environment of our beautiful Earth. People who opt for holistic, homeopathic, or spiritual healing are putting their health at serious unnecessary risk.
I imagine we can agree that not all beliefs deserve the same amount of respect, but how do we draw the line? What level of bat-shit-crazy do we intervene and create policy to stop the harmful beliefs? Buddhism is quite peaceful, but Mormonism is a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, deceptive cult disguised in a delightful sheep’s clothing. Any member within a system of belief will courageously defend their religion as sacred while at the same time rejecting every other belief. I know you’re wrong, but what am I? All this conviction is founded on anecdotal feelings and absolutely zero verifiable empirical evidence.
My main point is that no belief should be immune from scrutiny. Each belief should be considered on a case by case basis. If any particular faith is causing harm or holds to immoral teachings, then their freedom of religious expression should be revoked. I can respect someone who passively believes in Unicorns, but if they genuinely believe that homosexuals are sinners, it’s cause for reprimanding. Truth withstands scrutiny while Fiction crumbles. Religion is Fiction.
Comentarios