I would say yes, but go on to note that it depends on the context. For example, using religious doctrine as literature/evidence in an attempt to prove something in the scientific domain is pretty clearly inappropriate. Likewise, an attempt to use a scientific methodology to prove a religious/faith-based claim would be inappropriate as well. Take the existence of a god, for example. From a religious perspective, god(s) exist. That's what I like to refer to as a "religious truth", because it's only true within the domain of religion. From the scientific perspective, it's a null answer - neither yes nor no - since the existence nor non-existence of a god can't be proven. The problem arises when people who believe there is only one kind of truth have no consideration for the truths held in other domains and ride roughshod over them. However, what I do have a particular issue with is attempts at making a compromise between the two in other contexts. Some schools, for example, require students to be immunised to be eligible for enrolment, but parents are permitted to circumvent this for "religious reasons". I don't know exactly what that encompasses, but I do not think it is an acceptable excuse when such actions put everyone in danger.