It is unjust to prove or disprove someone's religion.

1) Religion claims answers and truth. A) Religion claims to be true. For the religious, the truth of their religion is arguably the most important aspect of it. If you take truth away from religion, then you're left with mythical stories. It makes sense that the religious would claim that their beliefs are true, since believing in something you don't believe to be true makes no sense. This takes me to "B". B) Truth is objective. While your understanding of a truth can differ from mine, an objective truth does exist. To truly believe you know the truth on matters of religion and not share that truth is selfish. If there is no true religion, then there are billions of brainwashed people in need of help. If a religion is true, then that's arguably the biggest discovery of humanity, which takes me to "C". C) Religious truth should be shared. If my accepted understanding of the world is going to sentence me to an eternity of hell, then I'd like to know. Likewise, If I'm spending my life believing a lie, then I'd like to know. By not challenging other's religious beliefs, with all religions and the lack of any religion considered, you're necessarily doing one or both of two things. You're either denying truth to the brainwashed and/or you're denying salvation to the damned. 2) Religion has real consequences. A) Religion sometimes impedes progress. Religion has, at times, stood in the way of scientific advancement. One well known, recent example of this is the religious objection to stem cell research. Stem cell research has the potential to positively impact diseases and afflictions including stroke, respiratory disease, diabetes , neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, and some birth defects. In cases like this, disproving aspects of one's religion, if not the entire thing, releases science from religious chains. B) Religion can be used to justify racism. Senator Theodore Bilbo, who claims that racism is a sincerely held religious belief, is one reason religion should not be exempt from direct challenge. Another example is the Appleby Baptist Church in Nacogdoches, Texas arguing for a biblical precedent for strict racial segregation. I find it hard to believe that anyone would wish to respect these religious beliefs. C) Religion can be used to justify intolerance. Religious views on same-sex marriage, transgender operations, other religions, etc. emotionally hurt and sometimes limit the rights of others. Arguing against and trying to disprove aspects or all of a religion that wishes to limit other's rights can be arguing for equality. D) Religion often claims the possibility of eternal damnation. If eternal damnation truly exists for an existing religion, then, for its members, not proving the religion to others is akin to not telling the majority of the world that the water they're drinking is actually cyanide. 3) It's acceptable to criticize beliefs, with the exception of religion. A) Why should it be acceptable to criticize political beliefs, but not religion? Some people's political beliefs are just as strong as religious beliefs. However, it's not considered unjust to change someone's mind or prove someone wrong politically. There's no reason for the fine-to-disprove and not-fine-to-disprove difference between politics and religion. B) Why should it be acceptable to criticize a cult's beliefs, but not the beliefs of a religion? Cult members tend to be considered crazy, while religious people have faith. It's generally considered fine to tell a cult member they're wrong, but wrong to say the same thing to a religious person. This leads me to "C". C) Why should it be acceptable to criticize the beliefs of crazy people, but not the beliefs of religion? As Robert M. Pirsig said, "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called a Religion. " What one person considers "crazy", another could consider "religion", and vice versa. To say a religious person's beliefs deserve more respect than a crazy person's beliefs of equal conviction because it has a larger following is absurd. 4) At what point is it no longer unjust to attempt to disprove someone's religion? A) Is it when they're the Westboro Baptist Church? Is it when people are having their hearts ripped out for sacrifice? Is it unjust to convince someone their religion is wrong when their religion requires them to kill children? Is it unjust because their faith is strong and important to them? There comes a point when respecting someone's religious beliefs no longer comes first. This point simply comes sooner for some than others. However, whether you consider it to be immediately or later, the point when it isn't unjust to disprove someone's religion does exist. I look forward to seeing your rebuttal and continued arguments. Good luck. . http://stemcell.ny.gov... . http://thinkprogress.org... . http://www.alternet.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...