Would you vote to disband all religious cults that can only

[Gnostic Bishop]

Would you vote to disband all religious cults that can only grow their tribes by violence?

When Christianity became a true religion of jihad and Yahweh a true God of War, --- as well as a state religion that none could ignore or stay out of, --- the doom of all religious and political free thinking was to be discouraged with death. Islam and Christianity thus both have in common the fact that both were born from War. Not conquest by positive example or showing a better social system.

Thus Constantine and Christianity became co-tyrants to the Western peoples.

The champions of the mystery schools were dominated by Gnostic Christian sects. The best heretics so to speak.

If Gnostic Christian sects were the best of the free thinkers, and today most of the world professes to be freedom seekers and free thinkers, then why is Gnostic Christianity not the largest religious group in any crowd?

At the end of the movie, ---God on trial, --- Jews who had found God guilty of breaking his covenant, and thus recognizing God’s evil nature, those who survived came away praying to God. I see that as a great fear of not having a God. This would be quite idiotic if not for the fact that to the old Jewry, God was a man.

What man having faith in God truly is, is man having faith in himself. Think Jewish Divine Council.

We are natural animals. An animal’s bias always favors it’s own. A man’s God can never be other than what his own Father Complex tells him what characteristic his ideal God should have. These character traits will always be what a man has. Man in God’s image is the same as saying God in man’s image.

Why do cults like Catholics, Protestant Christian, Evangelicals and Islam all try to take man’s inheritance of being the greatest force on the earth away from men?

Why do these immoral, homophobic and horribly misogynistic cults persist in trying to force their God down the throats of free men and women?

Why do free people allow such cults to even exist when all they want is death to all free thinking?

Separation of state and church must be maintained worldwide as all who want theocracies are using war to get it. These are all Catholics, Protestant Christians, Evangelicals and Islam. War mongers all.

I would vote to disband all cults like Catholics, Protestant Christians, Evangelicals and Islam who work against freedom and can only grow their tribes by violence and not good example of good living.

Would you vote against such a proposition and maintain the status quo of having these homophobic and misogynous cults continue to slow our evolution to civilization?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4

Regards
DL

[shunyadragon]

At present violent religious cults are illegal pretty much everywhere. It would be difficult to compare 'religious cults' as such with the oppressive Christian State Religion of Rome in the first millennia. A better comparison would be the Christian and Islamic nations that were oppressive against other religions and churches through history.

To attempt to forcibly disband all the churches and religions on your list would advocate an oppressive violent government. Considering the list it would be similar to what Stalin and Hitler did to some religions and churches.

[Gnostic Bishop]

At present violent religious cults are illegal pretty much everywhere. It would be difficult to compare 'religious cults' as such with the oppressive Christian State Religion of Rome in the first millennia. A better comparison would be the Christian and Islamic nations that were oppressive against other religions and churches through history.

To attempt to forcibly disband all the churches and religions on your list would advocate an oppressive violent government. Considering the list it would be similar to what Stalin and Hitler did to some religions and churches.

So you think that a government that insures that the non-homophobic and non-misogynistic laws of the land is not denied it's citizens by homophobic and misogynous religions , by having religions adopt the law of the land in their theologies, or be disbanded is to show itself as an oppressive and violent government.

Do I have that right?

What I hear in your words are that the government should not enforce it's equality or anti-homophobia laws.

That would mean that the religious laws, like Sharia, or Biblical law are protected, --- even if they are immoral and are retarding our civilization. Right?

Regards
DL

[shunyadragon]

So you think that a government that insures that the non-homophobic and non-misogynistic laws of the land is not denied it's citizens by homophobic and misogynous religions , by having religions adopt the law of the land in their theologies, or be disbanded is to show itself as an oppressive and violent government.

Do I have that right?

What I hear in your words are that the government should not enforce it's equality or anti-homophobia laws.

No you do not have it right. Enforcing secular laws would relate to the civil society and individual behavior, and not the beliefs of religions and churches. In the separation of Religion and state, beliefs are protected, behavior that negatively impacts the community and violates civil law would prohibited and prosecuted.

That would mean that the religious laws, like Sharia, or Biblical law are protected, --- even if they are immoral and are retarding our civilization. Right?

The civil secular law is the law that is enforced in the land. Beliefs in religious laws, like Sharia, are protected as a matter of belief and individual codes of conduct within the religious institution only. Example: The right of marriage by people of the same sex is a right now progressively protected under Civil Law in the USA, and it should be. Individual religions have the right to refusal to perform marriages between people of the same sex.

[Gnostic Bishop]

So you think that a government that insures that the non-homophobic and non-misogynistic laws of the land is not denied it's citizens by homophobic and misogynous religions , by having religions adopt the law of the land in their theologies, or be disbanded is to show itself as an oppressive and violent government.

Do I have that right?

What I hear in your words are that the government should not enforce it's equality or anti-homophobia laws.

No you do not have it right. Enforcing secular laws would relate to the civil society and individual behavior, and not the beliefs of religions and churches. In the separation of Religion and state, beliefs are protected, behavior that negatively impacts the community and violates civil law would prohibited and prosecuted.

That would mean that the religious laws, like Sharia, or Biblical law are protected, --- even if they are immoral and are retarding our civilization. Right?

The civil secular law is the law that is enforced in the land. Beliefs in religious laws, like Sharia, are protected as a matter of belief and individual codes of conduct within the religious institution only. Example: The right of marriage by people of the same sex is a right now progressively protected under Civil Law in the USA, and it should be. Individual religions have the right to refusal to perform marriages between people of the same sex.

"beliefs are protected, behavior that negatively impacts the community and violates civil law would prohibited and prosecuted. "

Homophobia and misogyny violates the spirit od civil law does negatively impact the community. That was my point for disbanding religions that will not comply with our law of the land that says we are not to discriminate against gays and give women full equality.

I think we agree.

Regards
DL

[shunyadragon]

"beliefs are protected, behavior that negatively impacts the community and violates civil law would prohibited and prosecuted. "

Homophobia and misogyny violates the spirit of civil law does negatively impact the community. That was my point for disbanding religions that will not comply with our law of the land that says we are not to discriminate against gays and give women full equality.

I think we agree.

Regards
DL

These (Homophobia and misogyny) principles have anecdotal judgment factors as to degrees of these social problems. Modern civil laws are moving toward protect the 'public' against the extremes of these problems. The members of the churches and institutions you accuse of 'Homophobia and misogyny' do not share your extreme view. The churches and institutions you list do not necessarily believe in the extremes you describe. Spiritual laws prohibiting homosexual relations and marriage within these institutions is voluntary for their members voluntarily belong to these churches and institutions and believe in them. The problem comes when these churches and institutions try to enforce their beliefs on the public in general outside the institution. In the past this was the rule in the laws of many nations including the USA, but fortunately modern laws are moving toward a separation of church and state and giving people the protection under secular law. I believe this is the way to go.

What you are proposing is on the road to tyranny like in oppressive governments in the past including past oppressive laws of the US government.

[Gnostic Bishop]

"beliefs are protected, behavior that negatively impacts the community and violates civil law would prohibited and prosecuted. "

Homophobia and misogyny violates the spirit of civil law does negatively impact the community. That was my point for disbanding religions that will not comply with our law of the land that says we are not to discriminate against gays and give women full equality.

I think we agree.

Regards
DL

These (Homophobia and misogyny) principles have anecdotal judgment factors as to degrees of these social problems. Modern civil laws are moving toward protect the 'public' against the extremes of these problems. The members of the churches and institutions you accuse of 'Homophobia and misogyny' do not share your extreme view. The churches and institutions you list do not necessarily believe in the extremes you describe. Spiritual laws prohibiting homosexual relations and marriage within these institutions is voluntary for their members voluntarily belong to these churches and institutions and believe in them. The problem comes when these churches and institutions try to enforce their beliefs on the public in general outside the institution. In the past this was the rule in the laws of many nations including the USA, but fortunately modern laws are moving toward a separation of church and state and giving people the protection under secular law. I believe this is the way to go.

What you are proposing is on the road to tyranny like in oppressive governments in the past including past oppressive laws of the US government.

Every law is oppressive in the sense that it asks us to discriminate against certain actions.

I think discriminating negatively against those who would go against the law of the land is a good idea.

Forcing women or gays into niches that they do not want or like is wrong and I think the government and all of us should discriminate against the religions that will not accept the law of the land.

If we do not collectively protect each other against religious bigotry then we are not free people nor are we doing our duty to our country.

I want a tyrannical law against any that reduce the legitimate freedom of citizens.

Let me know when the U.S. and Canada are free and working where there is a separation of church and state.

Look at your dollar. In God we trust. It should say in the people and our government we trust.

Regards
DL

[shunyadragon]

Every law is oppressive in the sense that it asks us to discriminate against certain actions.

I think discriminating negatively against those who would go against the law of the land is a good idea.

Forcing women or gays into niches that they do not want or like is wrong and I think the government and all of us should discriminate against the religions that will not accept the law of the land.

If we do not collectively protect each other against religious bigotry then we are not free people nor are we doing our duty to our country.

I want a tyrannical law against any that reduce the legitimate freedom of citizens.

This reminds me of this quote from Barry Goldwater: ' . . . extremism in the defense of liberty is no vise. . . moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.'

Tyranny in any form is a dangerous course in any form.

Replacing one tyranny with another is futile dangerous course throughout history.

Let me know when the U.S. and Canada are free and working where there is a separation of church and state.

Look at your dollar. In God we trust. It should say in the people and our government we trust.

Regards
DL

Even though I believe in God (Baha'i) It do not approve of this motto. The best route remains to develop secular laws to protect the rights of individuals, groups, and the separation of religion and state.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Every law is oppressive in the sense that it asks us to discriminate against certain actions.

I think discriminating negatively against those who would go against the law of the land is a good idea.

Forcing women or gays into niches that they do not want or like is wrong and I think the government and all of us should discriminate against the religions that will not accept the law of the land.

If we do not collectively protect each other against religious bigotry then we are not free people nor are we doing our duty to our country.

I want a tyrannical law against any that reduce the legitimate freedom of citizens.

This reminds me of this quote from Barry Goldwater: ' . . . extremism in the defense of liberty is no vise. . . moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.'

Tyranny in any form is a dangerous course in any form.

Replacing one tyranny with another is futile dangerous course throughout history.

Let me know when the U.S. and Canada are free and working where there is a separation of church and state.

Look at your dollar. In God we trust. It should say in the people and our government we trust.

Regards
DL

Even though I believe in God (Baha'i) It do not approve of this motto. The best route remains to develop secular laws to protect the rights of individuals, groups, and the separation of religion and state.

All who are victimized in some way want a government that is tyrannical in enforcing laws that it is mandated to enforce.

Anything less would be injustice.

Or do you think law enforcement should be an arbitrary whim where judges or police can just do as they like and not as the government has dictated they do?

Regards
DL

[shunyadragon]

All who are victimized in some way want a government that is tyrannical in enforcing laws that it is mandated to enforce.

Anything less would be injustice.

Or do you think law enforcement should be an arbitrary whim where judges or police can just do as they like and not as the government has dictated they do?

Regards
DL

If individuals or groups are truly victimized, than there are laws on the books that will prosecute, and they have a mandate to prosecute.

Differences of belief between groups, churches and religions is not victimization unless the beliefs reach out beyond the belief system itself.

The problem of considering some churches and religions cults or oppressive beliefs is that one persons belief is another persons cult.

I am a Baha'i and in Iran they kill Baha'is and they are banned as cult to forbid the practice of the faith. This is the type of tyranny I do not wish to practiced anywhere.

At this point we will have to agree to disagree.