Fuck no. A religion dictates:
- what you think to be true or false. I’m a human thus an ignorant; there’s no fucking way that I’d establish a system of beliefs that would be completely true. And the very fact that people would sheepishly look at my religion and say “its chrue cuz our faith says so lol” makes it counter-productive.
- what you judge as good or bad. Except that my moral values might not hold so well across the time. Worse - once you gather a thousand people, most of them braindead muppets, some will care about the letter of those moral rules instead of the spirit.
- what you do or don’t. I’d be effectively removing agency from the people who follow my religion, telling them what they should be doing, be it on rituals or whatever.
For my main thoughts on this matter, refer to this comment. I’ll only mention what’s different from this source to the other:
“Since some people kill puppies, just kicking one is totally fine” moral reasoning might perhaps give you some breach in countries following Saxon tribal law, but not in countries following Roman civil law. In those, what matters is the law, not how the relevant organs handled other similar cases.
The law in this case being the LGPD (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados - Data Protection General Law). If it’s found that Meta’s activities violate the LGPD, well, cry me a river, “I dun unrurrstand, Google does it worse, I’m so confusion…” won’t save Meta’s skin.