Religion and its institutions should not be exempt from scrutiny

Johann Hari again takes on a topic that so many shy away from: that religion and its regime of enforced respect is something that no sane society should accept.

Yes, I understand some people feel sad when they see a figure they were taught as a child to revere – whether Prophet or Pope – being subjected to rational examination, or mockery, or criminal investigation. But everyone has ideas they hold precious. Only you, the religious, demand to be protected from debate or scrutiny that might discomfort you. The fact you believe an invisible supernatural being approves of – or even commands – your behaviour doesn't mean it deserves more respect, or sensitive handling. It means it deserves less. If you base your behaviour on such a preposterous fantasy, you should expect to be checked by criticism and mockery. You need it.

If you can't bear to hear your religious figures criticised – if you think Ratzinger is somehow above the law, or Mohamed should be defended with an axe – a sane society should have only one sentence for you. Tell it to the judge.

No person or institution should be deemed above the law, whether by institutionalised respect or by defense of tradition to look upon religious figures as "untouchable". While Hari's words may be strong, I can't say that I disagree with his assessment. There are reasonable and religious people out there, like Andrew Sullivan, who would love nothing less than a good objective debate, but there are also those who want you to mirror their unquestioning deference to the authority figures they respect.

This is one of the reasons why a secular space must be protected, because there is where rule of law reigns supreme, not injudicious faith and unexamined respect. The same should apply to all ideas, let alone the unforgivable crimes against children that have been permitted to happen under the Vatican.