The French report calling for a ban on women wearing Islamic face veils worries me, for a number of reasons. Don't get me wrong, I think the world would be a better place in general if religion ceased to exist, but I don't think banning it, or specific religious practices, is the way forward.

I'd base my reasoning, in part, on John Stuart Mill: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”. The wearing of a veil, when done willingly and without coercion or manipulation, harms nobody; therefore, it should be permitted.

The supporters of the report claim that “it is the symbol of the repression of women”; while ending the oppression of women is a goal I'd wholeheartedly support, I'm not entirely convinced that fining women for being oppressed is a particularly helpful solution. Punish men who force women to wear the burka; don't punish women who are forced to wear it (and, for that matter, don't punish women who wear it by choice).

The report also recommends that anyone showing signs of “radical religious practice” be refused citizenship or residence. Again, not necessarily a bad thing, assuming for the moment that “radical religious practice” is harmful to others; however, I suspect that the burka is a much more obvious symbol of “radical religious practice” than anything that might be worn by men, leading to disproportionate punishment of women.

In discussion with members of TermiSoc, I took my position further: though in many cases, religion is harmful to liberty, banning or restricting religion and most religious practices would be in contradiction with the Harm Principle quoted above.

It does not hurt others, for example, for someone to believe that the world was created by an omnipotent being. It does not hurt others, even, for someone to believe that the world was created in six days 6014 years ago, any more than it hurts others for someone to believe that the sky is green or that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. They are almost certainly incorrect, but they have the right to be.

The point at which it becomes legitimate to oppose religion is the point at which it begins to affect others. When people demand that children are taught about the orbitting teapot as if it were fact, or at least likely, oppose it: being taught something as if it is fact when it is not is harmful. When people demand that women wear robes that covers their entire body aside from their eyes, oppose that, and oppose violence against women who don't wear it (in fact, oppose violence against all women) – but don't, as explained above, punish the victims for being victims. Conversely, when people try to demand that someone not wear a symbol of their faith, oppose that – a crucifix or turban harms nobody, and thus there are no grounds on which to forbid it.

When people try to pass laws based solely on their religion, oppose them, because while people may opt into a set of religious laws if they like, such laws shouldn't be enforced upon others. In fact, any laws that are not simply an application of the Harm Principle should be opposed: government has no right to exercise power over individuals for any other purpose, and neither do other individuals.

This was written for week 4 of project52, see others .

Ed writes that he finds atheists depressing when they throw away the "real message" of religion.

As an atheist, I have to agree — though it depends what "the real message" is. I grew up believing that Christianity taught that being a good person was what got you into heaven; it was only when I started university that I learned that actually, it’s believing in Jesus that gets you into heaven (or, more accurately, they redefine "good" to mean "believing in Jesus"). This is what put me off religion, long before I ever read The God Delusion.

You can’t even, unfortunately, argue that that’s an issue with the Church and not the religion, since it has its roots in a verse from the Bible, where Jesus is quoted as saying "nobody gets into heaven except through me" (more or less). The problem is, though, that despite the reasonable moral guidance provided by religious figures such as Jesus, they get overshadowed by the bits that give the Church power to control people, and that is why I object to religion.

Sure, you may say that the crappy church is not a good reason to avoid religion as a whole — but what other reason is there to pay any attention to it? Morality doesn’t require some Israeli carpenter/hippy to make it moral, or a Saudi merchant, Nepalese prince, or Prussian writer, and it’s perfectly possible to live a moral life without paying attention to some cosmic Jewish zombie and his imaginary friend.

So, serious question: what, exactly, is religion needed for? Answers on a postcard.

It is often claimed that there are no contradictions in the Bible. It is also often claimed that this is a lot of bollocks. Just to add weight to the latter argument, compare Matthew 1:1-16 with Luke 3:23-38. Both passages are accounts of Jesus’ paternal ancestry, and both are different; they can’t even agree on the name of his grandfather. If the Bible can’t agree on something so trivial, how can it be trusted to be correct on anything else?

I’ve started a list of contradictions. Please feel free to contribute.