^Never said that my proposal supports God. The key is whether there is any reasonable evidence to support theist claims, not whether one should support a theist deity if He/She/It is known to exist. Hence it is an issue of knowledge and understanding, not an issue of allegiance or morality. If there are indeed theist God/Gods we need to obey Him/Her/Them/It. However I know no such evidence now. I do believe that many of your ideas may make sense if your religion happens to be correct. However (no offense) most of your non-racial claims make no sense if your religion happens to be incorrect. Seriously even I will support monarchism (albeit something more similar to national socialism and a theocracy, I just don't like non-ideological hereditary monarchies that are usually too lenient) if certain religions happen to be correct and I know this fact.
Paugers can sometimes propose harsh resolutions. However I do understand where his ideas come from. Other than a little bit of dogmatism his ideas are reasonable, including the harsh ones.
I can foresee a potential biological exterminationist attack which does satisfy the interests of some. Condemning it makes no sense. Stopping it does.
The key is that if your position is religion-dependent you need to state this fact.
Most of my positions are religion-dependent as well. I assume that non-theism (atheism or deism) is correct and no theist deity is regularly acting in the universe in a supernatural way. This can be wrong and I will update my positions as evidence goes (I'm actually not very dogmatic).
For example I consider the issue of small-scale homosexuality a non-issue. However it will be a serious issue if any theist deity that hates it or loves it for whatever reason exist. For example if one Abrahamic religion happens to be correct male homosexuality needs to be banned. Still couldn't care less about lesbianism though unless explicitly banned by God. However if there is a theist deity that orders everyone to be homosexual this also needs to be enforced as well.
Serving god is the essence of anti-materialist, but nice shitpost commie
Serving God can be done diligently in all things. One of Martin Luther's biggest problems with the Catholic Church was their 'holier than thou' (paraphrasing greatly on that) attitude towards those who weren't directly involved in a religious life; thusly a lot of his writings and papers are against monks and monastery's.
Now, what I just said is essentially a strawman, but it does illustrate my actual point; monastery's are scarce now; communism is quite current, and during the 20th century, caused the death of 100 million people.
Communism, and the idea that "Everyone is inherently a good person", is the basis of the modern anti-materialist ideology. In the past, it WAS indeed that people gave up their material possessions to be closer to God, but now, the anti-materialists are giving one of the most anti-Christian argument's there is, being "Everyone is inherently good".