Why do we have such a notion as Desecration?

[QED]

I was reading a speech given by the late Douglas Adams back in 1998. In it he notes how the scientific method...

...rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn’t withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn’t seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That’s an idea we’re so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it’s kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is ‘Here is an idea or a notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about; you’re just not. Why not? — because you’re not!’ If somebody votes for a party that you don’t agree with, you’re free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’, you say, ‘Fine, I respect that’

Hence we have terms like Desecration defined as:
Profanation: blasphemous behavior; the act of depriving something of its sacred character; "desecration of the Holy Sabbath"

We never use such terms when discussing scientific or other empirical studies. What right do religions have to make such a fuss?

[harvey1]

Hence we have terms like Desecration defined as:
Profanation: blasphemous behavior; the act of depriving something of its sacred character; "desecration of the Holy Sabbath" We never use such terms when discussing scientific or other empirical studies. What right do religions have to make such a fuss?

I think we do have equivalent terms in science and empirical studies. For example, philosophers often raise the ire of certain scientists because philosophers are quick to point out some of the philosophical problems with a realist belief in a certain theory. It's really just a modern equivalent of certain concepts as being considered too holy not to profane with vain babbling.

[QED]

Ah, the apparently unbreakable symmetry between science and religion. Apparent that is until we come to quantify the magnitude of its effects in wider society. If I were to call adherents to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics a bunch of cretins for believing in spooky goings-on in the atomic underworld I'm pretty sure I could do so without fear of anyone issuing a Fatwa against me. But I don't dare speak so openly of other beliefs.

How many times does the Bible remind us not to seek out any other truth? It goes out of it's way to dismiss doubters and free-thinkers as intellectual inferiors. Such a defensive position is superfluous to any work of empirical knowledge for the data leading to any given conclusions are not closed-off from the inquisitive, legions of whom are always on hand to repeat the experiments and rubbish that which can be rubbished in an intellectual game of one-upmanship.

Let's just try rephrasing that to see if it rings true the other way around:

How many times does a scientific paper remind us not to seek out any other truth? It goes out of it's way to dismiss doubters and free-thinkers as intellectual inferiors. Such a defensive position is superfluous to any work of divine knowledge for the data leading to any given conclusions are not closed-off from the inquisitive, legions of whom are always on hand to repeat the conversations with god and rubbish that which can be rubbished in a spiritual game of one-upmanship.

No, that one seems pretty safe to me. Now I appreciate that I may seem unduly venomous about this but the truth is that I believe an unfair advantage is gained over free-thinkers in the sorts of discussions we have here simply because courtesy dictates that we can't call a spade a spade.