The other day a religious person asked the originator of the neutral-inclusive Norm why 'e was opposed to beliefs which could not be proved or made plausible in an empirical or logical way. The questioner tried to argue that such beliefs which are not grounded on a 'natural' explanation can nevertheless be totally harmless or even beneficial. Since humans are mortal beings, susceptible to all kinds of suffering, why did 'er partner in the discussion not grant them the pleasure of believing in the goodness and greatness of something or someone more powerful than themselves?

"First of all," the originator began, "people have the right to believe and not to believe or not to believe anymore whatever they want, provided that they grant others the same right to believe and not to believe or not to believe anymore. And as far as human suffering is concerned, i am not against anything that will reduce it, provided that it will reduce it and provided that what reduces it will not make others suffer or suffer more."

"When you suggest that human suffering can be alleviated or even stopped by religious fiction which goes beyond the bounds of reason and experience, you assume that the suffering in question is not caused or perpetuated by religion, and you are offering people a coin with a picture on it. The picture may, indeed, be a beautiful one of a garden created in love and hope, where there's no pain caused by the workings of nature or the actions of other human beings. But what you forget, or hide from me, is the picture on the other side of the coin. Both in the stories and in the historical records of religion that picture shows the hateful discrimination, oppression, wounding and killing of other believers and nonbelievers; it shows the mental exploitation and physical mutilation of children and simple-minded adults; it shows the ignorance and obscurantism which slows down or even halts scientific, technical and artistic advances."

The originator's religious opponent had to admit that unfortunately the belief in the supernatural and the acceptance of supernaturalism as something respectable was, in general, cursed with a less attractive side too. 'E had to admit that, for anyone who wants to, it is as easy to imprint the image of a god on the coin as it is to imprint the image of a devil or some mixture of the two on it. Nonetheless, 'e said that one could acknowledge the existence of a merciful Creator of heaven and earth and that one could envisage that we, mortals, would later live on in His heaven forever, without claiming simultaneously that there must be a devil and that others deserve some hell for the same length of time. And 'e assured 'er partner in the discussion that those who long for such a heaven do not necessarily create a hell on Earth.

Then the originator replied: "Just as neutrality or moderation is the first victim of extremism and relevance or inclusiveness the first victim of exclusivism, so veridical truth is the first victim of supernaturalism, both of the supernaturalism which is to your liking and of the supernaturalism which, i expect, is an abomination to you as well. The minimization of all suffering is something to strive for, but so is this truth. And as you refer to the belief in a heaven and to human beings that are purported to live on after death, let me tell you how, more than a millennium ago, a supernaturalist prophet tried to defend that belief against fellow townspeople who had their doubts about it."

"The prophet in question taught, not unlike many of 'er contemporaries, that there is a creator of all things, who put together heaven and earth in six days, starting from a moment when suns and revolving planets and therefore 'days' were not even supposed to exist. And without the least sign of fatigue at that. However, supernaturalism breeds supernaturalism, and 'e also taught that one day all human creatures will return to life, after which they will be subjected to a final judgment, which is, i hope you realize, at once an exciting promise and a terrible threat. Now, when asked by the doubters how it would be possible to make matter breathe and bones stand up again, 'e answered that they could not deny that the same being that had been able to create all things would also be able to recreate them and to make them rise again. Thus, after first having topped the one unnatural belief with the other, 'e subsequently made an appeal to the former in order to support the latter."

The anecdote was an illustration of a cultural phenomenon which has occurred all over the world from time immemorial: that those who choose to follow the path of supernaturalist belief do not know the end, that they may even be forced to continue following that treacherous path. They walk on while piling one existential lie on another, throwing worse money after bad. If lucky, they are united by the same creed, but more probably --the other side of the coin-- they are separated for eternity by serious schisms which result from the convenient but competing religious claims sold to gullible people. (In the supernatural market the one figment of the imagination is as cheap as the other.) For the sake of pleasure or power they have always found room for another far-fetched proposition, beneficent or innocuous, sometimes; obscure, ignorant or maleficent in a multitude of other cases. For the sake of pleasure or power they have not ceased abusing their language and raping truth on their way, individually or collectively.

And this the originator of the Norm added: "It makes all lovers of truth suffer".

58.NML-61.NMY