Although the word religion can be used to describe a set of beliefs and values, the word religion has colloquial connotation to "a desire to understand the universe and/or the existence of the supernatural". For this reason ZM/TVP don't agree with this label.
As for beliefs and values, JF believes all opinions should go out the window, and people should just work on human intelligence.
I debated about the topic of human values for a loooooong time, perhaps i could share. For instance, JF talks about removing prisons and that people who commit crime are doing so as a result of their environment, either through reasons of social stratification or mental illness. Academics aside as to whether this is true or not, his proposal goes something like the following:
We would have laws and similar to current systems for a long time during implementation. Initially we would remove laws that don't make sense and keep laws to ensure people are safe from crime. Over a long period of time we would have no further need for imprisonment because it does not serve any productive effect.
Now that people get their food and other needs met, and arn't victims of social stratification, the theory goes much of the crime would vanish from society. This transition would continue.
Mental illness based crimes would be harder to solve. Now that people arnt employed with useless professions, much more of humanities time will be spend on understanding humans and our behavior. Hopefully over time the last of people being imprisoned due to sickness would be phased out with each behavioral remedy.
Now, whether or not this is achievable is extremely hard to say. I certainly agree that a large portion of crime is hypothetically preventable if the temptation is gone through the removal of social stratification and cures to mental illness. Its hard to imagine that people will not still want the "PUNATIVE" aspect of the criminal system though... which is that the law works to correct you (sit in a cell and think), and punish you (for the sake of the victim, and as an incentive not to commit crime again). Its an entire paradigm shift that one day people who are violated would want the offender to be healed rather than punished. I can see how this is possible but to accept the whole world will agree requires a complex projection on how society will change.
On a side note, I personally envision one day, way into the future, we would have software that could interface directly with the human mind and with the existence of this prevent behavioral issues and mental illness resulting in crime. It seems far fetched but I assure you that one day it will be possible, its just whether or not we decide to utilise it.
---
So with the above example, and many hundreds more discussions on values you will have, eventually you learn that JF says there are no 'values'.
People will act intelligently and do what they want. Any unintelligent act is a mistake which will be learned from, or society will help you learn from it.
These so called "mistake" are not subject to opinion, it is a fact for the relevant application of positive or negative effect on society.
I'm sure as soon as I say this you can list 100 things which you think are ethically grey areas that need to be debated, but I assure you they have all be done on ZM main. The only thing you will ever prove is that this concept is impossibly difficult to implement and not everybody will agree.
I suppose a similar exercise you could then assume is listing behaviors and whether they fall in to a category of negative or positive effects on society.
----
If you would like to test one, abortion, euthanasia or even something simply like theft and or juvenile violence, you are welcome to post it here or at ZM main and somebody will debate you on the merits of TVP.
