totally agree. I don't think this is as impossible as it seems. we established and enforce standards of moral responsibility in criminal culpability all the time, why can't we do it in this area. maybe the answer is more conspiratorial
How many times solutions were worse than the problem. Both those churches are sizable - property and influence. It would take a sizable willingness to risk enacting action needed "to put them down".
...well consider you succeeded at it though.... then what?
Your success would move the bar higher... so who or what would be next?
When does the "putting down" end if younger others take after your successful action to "clean up" sociological intolerances?
Possibly a better attitude would be to grow a better civilization and let the ones you mention die off on their own.
Which "solution" would take longer to actually accomplish? Which one is easier? Which one feels right in the aftermath period? Which one do you want to participate in, in the aftermath period?
In the better civilization these churches would be improved towards your ideals or they would die off.
But they won't die easy in this civilization as it is now.
This civilization supports them. This civilization has a NEED for wrongness to exist... so after you have raised the bar, there will be other churches, other organizations that come into the cross-hairs of ones who seek out wrongness.
There is the internal need for SOMEONE SOMEWHERE to be wrong.
It just seems like a lot of effort to keep putting down the next set of un-desirable churches which this type of civilization will erect.
Which concept is more enjoyable for you:
To know you are right AND everyone else is right too?
Or to know you are more right because someone else somewhere is more wrong than you?
Thanks for reading this.