It is undesirable for a taboo to be exorcized, as do a number of European countries, by rendering it into a in law or as the Dutch prescribing it by jurisprudencel, ( it is already considered by the dutch Supreme Court to be subject to anti-discrimination laws) under which is forbidden to utter any scientific criticism of the absolutist contention that (1) 6 million Jews (2) by suffocation by means of gas chambers (3) according to a plan worked out in advance have been killed during the Second World War. In the course of f.i. German legal procedures, this means that not only are the scientists who challenge this assertion sentenced to custodial sentences, but also the lawyers that deliver such scientific evidence to prove the contrary or to exonerate of their defended suspects. See link This is not just an unfounded reversal of the burden of proof, but Rufmord (excommuncation) without the right of defense.

It is inappropriate to voice criticism of an alleged revelation of monotheism without expressing criticism towards other monotheismen. The revelations through books and so by language have to be interpreted and can thus only be understood with the (limited) human mind. Therefore, there is no absolute contradiction between revelation and rationality. It is therefore better to focus on the critical exegesis of the (alleged) holy books of monotheists than to call to incineration or modification of their texts.
Discussions on interpretations can and should be conducted without suspicions and insults. This presupposes that all people refuse to believe that their interpretation in time and place is the only possible. Prohibition and prosecution of views on the interpretation of (alleged) holy texts is undesirable. Even if the interpretation relates to dangers of strategic or ideological nature. Such prosecutions make people whether they are religious or not less resilient and critical, because like is the case with the above-mentioned taboo a truth is taken for absolute and therefore man is deemed to take the place of an (alleged) God, which by definition is always the only omniscient.