Religious texts [he says] are an important vehicle by which certain philosophical ideas are handed down from one generation to the next, providing people with guidance for how they are to live their lives. In doing this, these works have real-world consequences through the actions they sanction as good and call on the religious to perform.Those consequences should not be forgotten in a misbegotten sense of courtesy or respect for the undeservedly sacred.
You can probably already tell which view we generally take here at 'Not PC.' On this point I agree with Richard Dawkins that there's no reason for privileging religion over any other system of thought, that we should treat religious idiocy the same as every other brand of idiocy -- and in my case, I like to treat idiocy with as much derision as I can muster. Dawkins quotes Douglas Adams on this point in concluding:
Seems like a good policy to me."When you look at it rationally there is no reason why [religious] ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us they shouldn't be."... In the light of [the] unparalleled presumption of respect for religion ... I shall not go out of my way to offend, but nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion any more gently than I handle anything else.