"give money to orphans" is harmful to you when the target is your 90 year old mother for her social security check that would otherwise allow her to be financially independant. Doubly harmful when a very small percent, if any, actually goes to helping orphans and instead supports the continuation of the predetory practice.

So you mean when it means something entirely different?

If it were "force others to give money to orphans" or "steal money that's set aside for orphans" then you'd perhaps have a point.

Unless, you're trying to say it's impossible to have someone hold a [superstitious] belief that doesn't impact others negatively?

The situation outlined in the article isn't the "live and let live" kind. Where you do something for yourself or for someone else and don't expect anything further (donate to your cause). It's the kind where you wish your preferences be imposed on everyone else for your benefit (force everybody to donate to your cause). It's hard to decide what "harmful" is as far as superstitions go, everybody will see it differently.

And human nature makes it so most people only push things they don't see as a direct or major inconvenience and ignore the rest. I don't like to see sex on the internet? Nobody should see it.

How many people claiming they do something to uphold some values actually uphold more than the values they find easy or effortless? Superstitions or people's interpretation of religion are the same. It's always "don't walk through the black door", never "when you see a broken door fix it for free". It's "homosexuality is a sin", never "lying is a sin". Everything is ok as long as it falls perfectly within the framework you operate under, the values you consider worthy of appreciation.

"give money to orphans" isn't superstition - it's charity, and is being done for an actual good (amelioration of poverty).

Superstition by definition is when the true utility is zero, and the imagined utility is >0.

> Let's look at religion: if my religion says "give money to orphans" then you don't need to fight it, it doesn't harm you, if it says "make everyone who's not part of our group subservient or dead" then you must fight it.

Go and tell the legislators.

Where does the fight start, and where does it end?

And what's the consequence of "we (the people who don't believe it) need to fight it"?

I ask you these questions because they are really issues we are facing as a society based on freedom of speech (and religion).

I would say that fighting the mindset that leads to superstitious notions would be the most logical. It isn’t necessary to be superstitious if one is educated about biases and logic