Religion should not have special immunity from criticism.

"The first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture... [and]... the second proposition, that the earth is not the centre but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith." - Judgment of the Inquisition of Galileo Galilei, 1616 Definition - Special: distinctive; unique. == In Australia recently, police were afforded new powers that allowed police to arrest and fine people for "causing annoyance" to World Youth Day participants and permit partial strip searches at hundreds of Sydney sites. The laws, which operated until the end of July, had the potential to make a crime of wearing a T-shirt with a message on it, handing out condoms at protests, or even playing music. == "The UN Human Rights Council is not allowed to judge religions, according to president Doru Romulus Costea of Romania. Criticism of Sharia law or fatwas is now forbidden. This ruling follows attempts by the Egyptian and Pakistani delegates at the Council to silence criticism of human rights abuse in the Islamic world. The representative of the Association for World Education, in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, had denounced the stoning to death of women accused of adultery and of girls being married at the age of nine years old in countries where Sharia law applies. The speaker, David Littman, was interrupted by no fewer than 16 points of order and the proceedings of the Council were suspended for forty minutes when the Egyptian delegate said that "Islam will not be crucified in this Council"; and attempted to force a vote on whether the speaker should be allowed to continue." == An open discussion of Islam is dangerous not only in countries under Islamic rule but also in the west. Those Muslims who disown or criticise their faith publicly are likely to be accused of apostasy, a crime punishable by death under Islamic law, a penalty enforced by a range of Islamic states, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. Islamic position on apostasy is essentially total disbelief that any person could possibly have a genuine reason for leaving the perfect religion. Essential aspects of our civilised humanity, such as freedom of speech and freedom of belief, are exemplified in Islam by those thinkers and writers it labels apostates. The significance of apostates and other religious dissidents is vital. Islam makes large claims for itself. In its art, there is intolerance against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet - designed to discourage idolatry - has now become absolute idolatry itself. Let a fine Muslim abstain these and other religious prohibitions. But if the claim is the right to make a non-believer refrain, it offers a clear warning and confirmation of hostile intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude to the inherent meaning - I claim to own absolute truth and I demand utter immunity from criticism. For in the future, you will do what I say and there will be repercussions if you do not. One of the most malicious forms of attempted censorship of unwelcome views isn't overt repression, but to convince people not to express those unwelcome views from the start. It's always more fruitful to head off the wrong thoughts before they are expressed, rather than deal with them after they are already out in public. Why use the blunt instrument of state repression if people are held to repress themselves? If we allow offense to be the base on which to act with reprisal or censorship, we simply give groups or individuals the control to suppress the speech of anyone with whom they happen to disagree. No group, no matter how virtuous or religious can claim an exemption from criticism or scrutiny; neither may any religion command that secular society adhere to its definitions of heresy or blasphemy. Whenever such policies are attempted, they ultimately lead to hounding, favouritism to power and the end of any meaningful freedom of speech and critical thinking. Inevitably the result is that some issues and ideas become off limits to any discussion - on a basis that is purely subjective and at whim to changes in perspective. This is exactly what we see happening with unwelcome criticisms of religion, specifically in the West where governments have little or no authority to formally censor material that is critical of religion. The most frequent justification is the claim non-adherents of a religion should not offend religious believers by criticising their faith. This arguments basis is the idea that criticism of a belief system is equitable to a personal attack on the believer. In some cases, such an association is valid, but for the majority it is not. However not only do the insulted themselves make a commotion; they are actively aided and encouraged by significant figures from other religions and the liberal establishment. It is not seen a challenge to justify beliefs like anybody else, the religious are granted asylum in the form of an intellectual forbidden zone. When Jyllands-Postens printed their infamous cartoon series, and after the resulting destruction to embassies, the catholic church..supports the rioters, blasphemy was the seen evil. Likewise when Salman Rushdie had a fatwa placed upon both him and all those related to the publishing of the book..religious leaders from the West, denounced Rushdies's efforts and supported his persecution. Believers are adamant. They and their religion should be respected and, therefore, that attacks on religion are not a legitimate use of one's right to free speech. Whatever respect a person might deserve as a human, though, doesn't entail that their beliefs deserve automatic respect as well. Beliefs have to earn respect - most earn disrespect. Beliefs that are true and valid will not be harmed by criticism - even by unjustified and mistaken criticism. Beliefs that are neither true nor valid will only be revealed through critical discourse. If we value the truth, we should welcome criticism even of our most regarded beliefs. If they are true then this can strengthen us - if they are wrong, then we will know and be free.