Is there a duty to expose wrongdoing?
Human nature favours the person who lets evil happen over the person who
directly does the evil. The wife who lets her husband beat the children will be
more favoured in society and by more people than her husband will be. Believers
take advantage of this irrational quirk to foist belief in God on the unwary and
on those who should know better. Evil is disorder and it disguises itself as
good and attractive. Thus the being that lets it happen, is consenting to the
lack of control it implies. This being is worse than the person who does evil
because the doer of the evil imposes some control over it and can stop it. A God
who does evil would be hugely superior to the one that merely allows it to
happen. An evil you do has more control imposed on it than an evil you allow and
it will be a specific kind of evil. The murderer of the woman might not murder a
baby. Allowing evil means you are willing literally anything to happen. The
intention is far more evil.
The rule is that nothing should ever be done that may be harmful. If religion or
a religious may do harm, it should be abandoned. Nobody must suffer or be hurt
over religious faith. This principle has some implications. If you are going to
condone evil that is done by a God, you should then be far more keen on
condoning evil that is done by a human person.
Expose wrongdoing so that it may be stopped, and if not stopped then at least it
is exposed and can be prevented in the future. The wrongdoer cannot accuse you
of doing wrong by exposing him - he should be worried about his own evil not the
evil he imputes to you.