“Do you believe a religion is good which has, as a built-in mechanism, a means for punishing all non-members of the faith?”
It depends whether you are restricting your statement to worldly physical attacks, or beliefs in general. Do you consider hell to be “a means for punishing all non-members of the faith”?
“explain to me the goodness inherent in demeaning, degrading or defaming other religions that neither do nor wish harm to you or your faith”
Please define “demeaning, degrading or defaming”. Euro-style countries have laws that ban such generic morphable concepts, and in practice those terms are used to mean anything the unjust government wants them to mean. They are, for example, used to bring Mark Steyn before a kangaroo court, or to prevent Christians from evangelizing.
Something is either true, or it is not true. It does not depend on whether we consider it to be nice and easygoing based on our view from the 21st century. One of the greatest insights I have ever had is that my attempts to define the world in my own terms were utterly insufficient.
“It depends whether you are restricting your statement to worldly physical attacks...”
My remarks were concerned only with Earthly religions and the people who embrace them.
“Please define demeaning, degrading or defaming.”
I define them as the dictionary defines them.
“They are, for example, used to bring Mark Steyn before a kangaroo court, or to prevent Christians from evangelizing.”
And wrongly so, because it is not the government’s business whether a person decides to demean, degrade or defame another, unless it can be shown that the offenses of libel or slander had been committed.
Moreover, what Steyn did was simply report the truth - as he understands it - about Islam. If what he wrote or said was not essentially truthful and supportable by facts, he would be subject to libel and/or slander laws like anyone else.
The same applies to those who denounce homosexuality. Simply holding an opinion against a particular activity is not a crime - at least it shouldn’t be. So-called hate speech laws are inherently unjust and fascistic. No one has a right to not be offended.
But all that aside, what I was talking about was what I consider to be basic good behavior or quality of being, and I never said that my opinions should be codified in law.
“Something is either true, or it is not true.”
Yes, and something is true when the evidence supports it, and not necessarily so when the evidence is unclear.