Zone1 Should false religions be banned?

[hjmick]

I hate it when people have ideas so ridiculous they hide behind the Zone 1 rules...

 

[BreezeWood]

I'm confused. What forgeries are you referring to?

the etched tablets claimed heavenly by moses that were destroyed by him before ever being witnessed by anyone - they are in the preamble for all three desert religion bibles making all three religions forgeries.

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[Leo123]

~S~

Carlin, a man with no answers making fun of folks who have faith. Cheap comedy. Projecting falsehoods on others beliefs and then making fun of them. Unfunny.

 

[Stryder50]

If one reads a religious source text, such as the Bible, in its entirety, one can see that many religious groups and adherents have based their beliefs off of a small part of it, but that it is often taken out of context or misinterpreted, while being ignorant of the whole, and therefore, in my view, false.

If we could compare the specific religious beliefs of individual adherents or groups, and show that they bear little resemblance to the entirety of the source text they claim to have originated from, I would consider them false religions.

It'd therefore be in favor of stripping them of their protected status under the law, if not outright banning them in some cases, in order to preserve true religion which is authentic to its source texts and prevent it from being corrupted.

As an example, the cult known as the Westboro Baptist Church is heretical to the Bible and the theology of John Calvin - ignoring most of it, particularly God and Christ's emphasis on love, and simply takes bits and pieces out of context to justify existence. Therefore, I'd be tempted to argue that they shouldn't qualify for religious protection under the law and that it should be legal for the state to ban them.

I'd suggest you get to know an assorted range of Muslims and look deeper into Islam. Though Islam has it's assorted, few factions, the main text and dogma is that it is the only TRUE religion and all others are false.

If you know your history, the Islamic position on religion has been a source of regional to global wars for the past 1400 years+.
For that matter similar can be said about the many numerous and various flavors of Christianity, whom have also been source of many wars for the past 1700+ years.

And the list becomes ever longer when you include all other "religions" past to present.

You have already set yourself up as an apostate and false prophet since you fail to note or mention that the Old Testament of the Bible was mostly invalidated by the New Testament.
Yet many Jews will say the New Testament is the invalid one, a phony story/fable and the parts of the Old Testament that match their Tora are the Real Religion of God~YHWH.

There are a number of pitfalls to the theme of your OP and thread here, but most obvious to many of us is that you are guilty of much of that which you would persecute others for.

You may want to take a few months to years to learn more about history and the many religions of Earth, Past to Present,and re-think this half-baked (fully baked ?) idea of yours.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

If one reads a religious source text, such as the Bible, in its entirety, one can see that many religious groups and adherents have based their beliefs off of a small part of it, but that it is often taken out of context or misinterpreted, while being ignorant of the whole, and therefore, in my view, false.

If we could compare the specific religious beliefs of individual adherents or groups, and show that they bear little resemblance to the entirety of the source text they claim to have originated from, I would consider them false religions.

It'd therefore be in favor of stripping them of their protected status under the law, if not outright banning them in some cases, in order to preserve true religion which is authentic to its source texts and prevent it from being corrupted.

As an example, the cult known as the Westboro Baptist Church is heretical to the Bible and the theology of John Calvin - ignoring most of it, particularly God and Christ's emphasis on love, and simply takes bits and pieces out of context to justify existence. Therefore, I'd be tempted to argue that they shouldn't qualify for religious protection under the law and that it should be legal for the state to ban them.

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling

 

[Cougarbear]

If one reads a religious source text, such as the Bible, in its entirety, one can see that many religious groups and adherents have based their beliefs off of a small part of it, but that it is often taken out of context or misinterpreted, while being ignorant of the whole, and therefore, in my view, false.

If we could compare the specific religious beliefs of individual adherents or groups, and show that they bear little resemblance to the entirety of the source text they claim to have originated from, I would consider them false religions.

It'd therefore be in favor of stripping them of their protected status under the law, if not outright banning them in some cases, in order to preserve true religion which is authentic to its source texts and prevent it from being corrupted.

As an example, the cult known as the Westboro Baptist Church is heretical to the Bible and the theology of John Calvin - ignoring most of it, particularly God and Christ's emphasis on love, and simply takes bits and pieces out of context to justify existence. Therefore, I'd be tempted to argue that they shouldn't qualify for religious protection under the law and that it should be legal for the state to ban them.

What do you mean qualify for religious protections under the "LAW?" Are you talking about the Johnson tax provision and whether they can be tax exempt? I believe that's just been set aside by this administration. The IRS, July 7, 2025, court filing, the IRS stated that it would not pursue legal action against churches that endorsed political candidates during religious services and through their usual channels of communication. This was part of a proposed consent decree to settle a lawsuit challenging the Johnson Amendment. It still allows for other non-profits to be enforced.

So, who are the false religions and what is your criteria? The Constitution is specific that each person has an individual personal right to believe in what they want to believe in. You sound like a Catholic Communist.

 

[Midnight FM]

What do you mean qualify for religious protections under the "LAW?" Are you talking about the Johnson tax provision and whether they can be tax exempt? I believe that's just been set aside by this administration. The IRS, July 7, 2025, court filing, the IRS stated that it would not pursue legal action against churches that endorsed political candidates during religious services and through their usual channels of communication. This was part of a proposed consent decree to settle a lawsuit challenging the Johnson Amendment. It still allows for other non-profits to be enforced.

So, who are the false religions and what is your criteria? The Constitution is specific that each person has an individual personal right to believe in what they want to believe in. You sound like a Catholic Communist.

I'm not convinced that people should have a right to believe in "whatever they want". A Satanist who believes in human sacrifice, for example.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

the Old Testament of the Bible was mostly invalidated by the New Testament.

While I agree with your post above......I do disagree with this part. Or I may be misunderstanding your meaning here.


The Old Testament is His Law and the New Testament is His Grace (from the law). You can't fully understand or grasp His Grace, if you know nothing of His Law. If you don't know what you've done wrong (broken the law), then how do you know the fullness of His Love & Grace. Without His Law, there is nothing to forgive (Grace). They don't block each other out, but go hand in hand.

The Old Testament (Law) is the foundation that we build our faith upon.

And from Ephesians 2:8,9

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Law is another name for works and the Pharisees were all about following the law, in order to earn their way to Heaven.......much like many Christians and Churches today

 

[Midnight FM]

~S~

There are so many problems with that, it's not worth commenting on.

"Religion" in the broadest sense isn't limited to Abrahamic religions. Churches obviously require money in order to operate just like any other business, and there's nothing wrong with that.

This also fails to address why an atheist would have a problem doing things such as raping and murdering. If an atheist believes that they "should" be loving and "should" not murder, then they believe that there is some inherent reason not to do such things or some consequence for doing so.

So I really wouldn't rely on Carlin quips. He's simply not very educated on the subjects he talks about.

 

[Midnight FM]

Yes which is why an official State religion doesn't exist in America.

I think we could get by with a state religion. The UK has a state religion, and, to my knowledge, it hasn't eroded human rights.

If it was based on an in-depth reading of the entire Bible and Christian source texts, for example, it would help to clarify which individuals and sects have false teachings, since the reality is that there are many of them out there.

 

[Midnight FM]

Carlin, a man with no answers making fun of folks who have faith. Cheap comedy. Projecting falsehoods on others beliefs and then making fun of them. Unfunny.

And the reality is that faith promotes being concerned about the welfare of one's fellow man. Not mindless consumption and greed.

So people will have to choose between faith and mindless consumption. They can't have both. And if they favor mindless consumption, then faith is a bulwark against it, so they would be better off trying to erode faith in any way they can.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If one reads a religious source text, such as the Bible, in its entirety, one can see that many religious groups and adherents have based their beliefs off of a small part of it, but that it is often taken out of context or misinterpreted, while being ignorant of the whole, and therefore, in my view, false.

If we could compare the specific religious beliefs of individual adherents or groups, and show that they bear little resemblance to the entirety of the source text they claim to have originated from, I would consider them false religions.

It'd therefore be in favor of stripping them of their protected status under the law, if not outright banning them in some cases, in order to preserve true religion which is authentic to its source texts and prevent it from being corrupted.

As an example, the cult known as the Westboro Baptist Church is heretical to the Bible and the theology of John Calvin - ignoring most of it, particularly God and Christ's emphasis on love, and simply takes bits and pieces out of context to justify existence. Therefore, I'd be tempted to argue that they shouldn't qualify for religious protection under the law and that it should be legal for the state to ban them.

How do you define a "false religion"? I'd say they're all "false".

 

[Leo123]

How do you define a "false religion"? I'd say they're all "false".

Belief is real.

 

[Leo123]

I think we could get by with a state religion. The UK has a state religion, and, to my knowledge, it hasn't eroded human rights.

If it was based on an in-depth reading of the entire Bible and Christian source texts, for example, it would help to clarify which individuals and sects have false teachings, since the reality is that there are many of them out there.

America denounced the Church of England.....Have you heard?

 

[Zebra]

what is a false religion?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If one reads a religious source text, such as the Bible, in its entirety, one can see that many religious groups and adherents have based their beliefs off of a small part of it, but that it is often taken out of context or misinterpreted, while being ignorant of the whole, and therefore, in my view, false.

If we could compare the specific religious beliefs of individual adherents or groups, and show that they bear little resemblance to the entirety of the source text they claim to have originated from, I would consider them false religions.

It'd therefore be in favor of stripping them of their protected status under the law, if not outright banning them in some cases, in order to preserve true religion which is authentic to its source texts and prevent it from being corrupted.

As an example, the cult known as the Westboro Baptist Church is heretical to the Bible and the theology of John Calvin - ignoring most of it, particularly God and Christ's emphasis on love, and simply takes bits and pieces out of context to justify existence. Therefore, I'd be tempted to argue that they shouldn't qualify for religious protection under the law and that it should be legal for the state to ban them.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So in answer to your question, no.

 

[Cougarbear]

I'm not convinced that people should have a right to believe in "whatever they want". A Satanist who believes in human sacrifice, for example.

There are laws on the books in every state, county and city against murder. Human sacrifice is not permitted. Neither is animal sacrifice by our laws. And, holding people against their will is also against the law for religious purposes. So, I'm still not sure why you think we should restrict the 1st Amendment? It's "Freedom OF Religion and not Freedom AGAINST Religion. The 1st Amendment was put in their because each state basically had majorities of different churches and the founders wanted every state to accept all churches and religions. Unfortunately, Satanism and their churches are also protected in the 1st Amendment even though I'm sure that's not what the founders were thinking of. They wanted to eliminate witch trials and stuff like that for sure.

 

[Woodznutz]

As an example:

The Bible says that God is Love, and that Christ was sent to die on the cross out of God's love for humanity.

Therefore, groups which call themselves "Christian", but which a reasonable person can see do not emphasize God's love are heretical, and should lose their protected status.

God's church is always a work in progress, the sum of its parts, the individuals that make up the church. A ragtag band straggling our way toward the kingdom.

 

[Votto]

.

And the religious cult known as leftism, as well.


.

One in the same