The problem is, there are two clear falsehoods, one on each side of the fence. On the one hand is the falsehood that is religion; on the other hand is the falsehood of subjective law. You have to decide which falsehood is the worst to support. The moral falsehood of destruction of the rule of law is the greater falsehood.
I missed this post.
Religion is not a clear falsehood in the sense that it is not understood to be a falsehood by most or even many persons. Subjective law is quite well understood to be wrong, even by those whose morality is based in religion. In ethics we discuss ad nauseum “vincible” versus “invincible” ignorance. Relative to reality, it is a mixed system, some good (the prescritption to honesty for example) and some bad (mysticism) such that the falsehoods get confustigated with the truths and many of the physically false things are true psychologically or “spiritually” as they say.
http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/09feb.html
This is because religion is not a simple one-element proposition. It is a (very) complex system of propositions, some trur, some false. As Objectivism shows, even if the existence of God falls, physical and moral absolutism still stands. Theft is still wrong and Man still earns his bread by the sweat of his brow.
However. Most religionists in the advanced areas of the world draw a dividing line between religion and science: “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”. Urban VIII’s “Proof destroys faith” was a new idea that was not part of theology in the Middle Ages when they were seen as complementary and is part of the same complex as the “Divine Right of Kings” as centrality was becoming the main issue, both in politics and intellectual activities, fuelled by the Renaissance and the belief in universality of ideas and authorities. We do not allow persons who sechew medicine in favor of prayer to indulge in such backward practices with their children. Laws that forbid the spread of clearly defined falsehoods seem to me to be based in objectivity.
Your observation was quite sharp in that it pointedly demonstrates how the contradictions of a mixed system come back to bite one. It also shows the real doctrine of relativism in action. “Relativism” and “situational ethics”, contrary to the common usage, refer the ethical doctrine that covers what to do if you have to chose between or among alternatives in a situation where none of the realistic choices is really up to par, such as the Principle of Double Effects, Choose that which does the most good and the least harm, and how to figure it out.
An underlying part of this problem has been that religion has tried to rely on philosophy to prove the existence of God. Most scientific “proof” looks to observation, hypothesis and testing to establish the truth of an idea. Philosphy is not about this kind of thing. it is about finding out how to think about establishing what is true or false. Beyond that. Rand clearly stated that one cannot “prove” the existence of anything, not even oneself. So until physically based Theology can be constructed, there is really no way to approach this subject in a fully rational way. Most of the arguments for the existence of God are negative in nature. the First Cause is based on “You can’t have an infinite Regression”, the Moral Argument holds that “Withoug God, there would be no reason for morality”, The Argument from Sustanence is “without God as a supporting principle the Universe would not remain in existence” and the Argument from Design holds that “without God (to enforce the Lase of Identity) the universe would collapse into chaos: Dogs would have kittnes, sticks would turn into snakes, etc”. In most cases, these rely on the fallacy of the Argument to Ignorance. shifting the burden of proof. Also, religionists have tolerated too much superstition that supported their postions among the common folk even though theologians have known better for centuries.