Religious writings’ sole purpose is to establish & promote a belief system, based on subjective values.
Anti-discrimination laws’ sole purpose is to dissolve the practice of belief systems that objectively cause interpersonal harm.
These are conceptual opposites in many ways. But if I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal”, then I am able to conflate the two.
You call it a "general concept", I saw it's a common understanding of reality. Hyperbole is used to poison further discussion.
eg I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal”
Within your own post, there is misattributed hyperbole (sometimes called uncharitable discussion). Someone asked a question, I answered and all kinds of random assumptions were made about it.
Certainly writing things down can make it easier for concepts to stick around, but I don't think the dynamics are the same for something written down to call out that it's bad. And holy texts are a totally different ballgame.
> holy texts are a totally different ballgame.
They are not. Historically, written concepts endure longer than unwritten concepts. Again, this is commonly considered self-evident.
> I also don't think that speaking directly about a belief makes it stronger, particularly for discrimination
It may be worth it, but the hyperbole of denying the effect:
eg "How would it extend longevity?"
is the dissonance that I have pointed out.