What is so wrong in applying the rule of scrutiny. If a person asks me to respect something, I believe I am justified in asking this same person the reasons why I should do so. If the answer is satisfactory (ie based on good evidence) then I will do so. If it is not, I won't. Example: the laws of the road. Society expects us to respect the laws of the road. The reason being that if we don't we put ourselves and others at risk of serious injury or death (and there are numerous cases which bear this fact out). Good reason, we judge that these laws are worthy of respect.

For what reason should I curtail my freedoms? Because our book is holy! Why? Because it was written/inspired by God! Can you prove this? No So I just have your word for it? Yes Ergo, I am under no good evidence based compulsion to respect your book. End of exercise.