Preaching to someone about beliefs they have no interest in is annoying and rude whether it's religion, your favorite brand of car or which football team you prefer.
However, the idea that "sacred" beliefs should be somehow protected from discussion is an absurd and out-dated concept. We can talk about whether Ford or Dodge makes the best pickup, whether Canon or Nikon make the best cameras, who is most likely to win the Superbowl or the Tour de France but because you label a belief "sacred", no one is supposed to talk about whether or not the concepts have merit? Says who?
Do names like Reverend Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones or David Koresh have to be raised before people remember that there is potential for damage? If people believe things which are potentially harmful -- no matter what the basis of that belief -- I think discussing the relative merit (or lack of merit), to such ideas is not only proper, but beneficial. That doesn't mean they should be cornered and forced into a discussion in which they have no interest. But that's not something I can recall ever seeing occur. What usually happens is that people go on and on about their specific beliefs, and as soon as someone attempts to offer any failing of any of those beliefs, the one who started the discussion starts screaming about how they shouldn't be forced to listen and how their beliefs are sacred and should be protected against anything they personally assess to be disrespectful.
If someone thinks the Earth is flat, no one is prohibited from offering them the evidence to show that it's a spheroid. But if they hold "sacred" beliefs that the Earth is flat, no one is supposed to correct them even after they keep tossing their flat-Earth concepts in everyone's face? That's just prejudicial, evasive and ridiculous.
I see it like this; if you don't want to talk about it, then don't talk about it. But if you start it and keep throwing it in people's faces, then you have opened the door and that door is now open for both sides.
Throwing your "sacred" beliefs at people and then proclaiming they have no right to demonstrate counter-points only suggest to me that both realize the counter-points exist, but one side is attempting desperately to avoid seeing what they know to be true because without that level of denial, their "sacred" beliefs cannot be held as true.
If someone held the "sacred" belief that cannibalism lead to a more homogeneous collective consciousness for mankind, I would have no problem in attempting to demonstrate the failures of such a belief. And if they put that belief on the table by tossing it in anyone's face, then they have no business hiding behind the out-dated idea that the label "sacred" makes any concept beyond discussion.
So I think simple courtesy is the key. If you don't want others to put their beliefs in your face, don't put you beliefs in their face. But unfortunately, the current system relies only on majority. Those with majority beliefs believe they have every right to continually project their ideas into every conversation, but rely on their outrage and emotionalism the moment anyone attempts to take up the counter-point side.
That's just wrong.
