“My remarks were concerned only with Earthly religions and the people who embrace them.”
That doesn’t really answer my (pretty clear) question.
“the truth - as he understands it”
There is truth, and there is untruth. It doesn’t matter how you, me, or anyone else understands it.
“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.”
But what if 3 homosexuals call themselves a religion, and decide (much as you have just done) what constitutes reasonable behaviour, and they stay nicely within what society considers acceptable (ie. they follow your thoughts, above). If chooses denounce them and their “religion”, have they not broken your ?commandments?
“So-called hate speech laws are inherently unjust”
Of course they are. And they are based on words like “demeaning, degrading or defaming”.
“what I was talking about was what I consider to be basic good behavior or quality of being”
But what right do you have to do that? You awake one day, and find yourself on Earth. You recognize that you have a creator, you decide you don’t know who that creator is, or what his intents are, and yet you decide to tell everyone else what basic good behavior is?
“That doesn’t really answer my (pretty clear) question.”
Hmmm... perhaps you should ask it again in a slightly different way.
“There is truth, and there is untruth. It doesn’t matter how you, me, or anyone else understands it.”
Can a person not be wrong, due to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the facts, yet still be truthful in his heart? that is to say, if you believe something to be true, you’re not lying or trying to deceive anyone just because you’re wrong.
“But what if 3 homosexuals call themselves a religion, and decide (much as you have just done) what constitutes reasonable behaviour, and they stay nicely within what society considers acceptable (ie. they follow your thoughts, above). If chooses denounce them and their “religion”, have they not broken your ?commandments?”
In the first place, please don’t insult me by insinuating something that isn’t true. I’ve sought to command no one with my opinions, and I’m pretty sure you know that.
Secondly, as I wrote in my opening article, no practitioner of a good religion would seek to openly demean, degrade or defame the good religion embraced by another, even though one may strongly disagree with the latter’s method of worship.
Tell me, what good does it do you, your religion, or anyone else, for you to openly condemn a religion - assuming that 3 people can actually compose a religion - which means no harm to you or anyone else?
“Of course they are. And they are based on words like “demeaning, degrading or defaming”.”
So? The democrat party is based on slogans like “party of the working class” and “party of civil rights”, but just saying it doesn’t make it so. Just because some people misuse words to advance their own, selfish agendas, doesn’t mean that people of more noble intent shouldn’t use them.
“But what right do you have to do that?”
The same exact right as anyone else.
“You recognize that you have a creator, you decide you don’t know who that creator is, or what his intents are, and yet you decide to tell everyone else what basic good behavior is?”
I’m simply sharing my opinion of what good behavior entails in this particular context. Is that forbidden in your religion?