Considering that from an outside perspective, it's all a bunch of nonsense that someone made up at some point or other, it seems odd to say that parts of it should be protected because they represent long-standing nonsense. Either you think peoples' religious convictions should be protected or you don't. Suggesting that some deserve protection while others should be discarded as "interpretations of convenience" seems pretty arbitrary to me.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|