People do not have the right to an absolute "freedom of belief"

It is my contention that human beings should not be allowed to exercise the right to absolute "freedom of belief", contrary to the popular opinions of most individuals. Indeed I would instead assert that there are certain beliefs within the spectrum of possibility that - as human beings - we should actively discourage from being supported or defended by our peers; namely those beliefs which survive without, and despite, scientifically verifiable evidence. It should be noted that this is a purely philosophical argument based upon moral grounds, and I have not intended to spark debate concerning fascism, socialism, communism, anything regarding the novel 1984, or Glenn Beck conspiracy theories. It should also be noted that this thread of inquiry is not addressing taboo ideas - ideas which are held in belief and practice, albeit conspicuously; but rather that certain ideas should not be allowed to simply exist or propagate. The crux of my argument therefore relies upon three principles founded upon a common moral thread: 1) Certain beliefs should not be held because they encourage / facilitate unnecessary or avoidable violence Evidence for this can be found among any number of religious conflicts. As these beliefs allow for the more efficient justification of harm to another human being who does not hold / recognize those same unverifiable beliefs, they should be discouraged as readily as possible from being held or practiced. E.g. You do not have the right to kill your neighbor, enslave his wife, and convert his children because he cannot "hear" the same supernatural voice you can. Furthermore, you have even less of right to believe in that for which there is no scientific, verifiable, or logical evidence to support. (See God/Gods/Flying Spaghetti Monster/ Quetzalcoatl etc.) Conclusion: You do not have the right to believe an idea without verifiable, objective evidence. You have even less of a right to act on those said unverifiable beliefs. 2) Certain beliefs should not be held because they prevent the collective and beneficial progress of the human species. Evidence for this can be found in within the modern scientific community. A most simplistic example would begin with the fact that some 200 years The Germ Theory of Disease replaced the Theory of Spontaneous Generation. Any scientist who continues to believe the Theory of Spontaneous Generation in the face of approximately 200 years of verifiable scientific evidence should be actively discouraged from doing so, and should be removed from any position of authority. Generalizing this example, just as the scientific community would not allow a Geographer to continue to believe that the world is flat; society has the moral imperative and intrinsic right to prevent human beings from holding such antiquated beliefs. Conclusion: You do not have the right to believe in something for which there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. 3) Certain beliefs should not be held because they encourage intrinsically dangerous and reckless behavior by the human species. It should be noted here that by "reckless" I am addressing not so much acts traditionally referred to as "reckless" like bungee jumping or skydiving, but rather beliefs which ignore the consequences of our behavior as a species in the long term; such as religious attitudes towards birth control. Indeed, the absolute opposition to birth control by most modern religions is not only medieval in terms of ultimate goals (more babies = more churches = more dominant religion), but also reckless when viewed alongside the continued existence of the human species. If we continue to reproduce exponentially, our planet will reach its relative carrying capacity and will be unable to support further life; thereby causing extinctions of less dominant life forms; in turn causing morally unjustifiable and preventable deaths of dominant life forms (Read: Humans) Conclusion: You do not have the right to believe in an idea which promotes clearly and unabashedly dangerous behavior that threatens the general well being of the human species. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd like to finish by summarizing my thoughts in a relatively concise statement: You do not have the right to believe in an idea without objective, verifiable evidence; you do not have the right to believe in antiquated ideas in spite of such evidence to the contrary; and you do not have the right to believe in ideas or behaviors which threaten the common welfare of the human species. Thank you.