NOBODY is an actual biblical "litterlist" IMO, they are ALL essentially picking and choseing what to follow and what to ignore--and they probably have a complex series of post-hoc rationalizations all worked out to explain why.
My personal fav is--if memory serves, is the direct instructions on what to do if you need to take a dump---there is a specific number of paces to walk outside the village--the use of a specifically wooden paddle to bury the waste etc.
I have yet to meet ANY "litteralist" that has been willing to take things that "litterally."
Bible ALSO says "judge not lest yea be judged."
Again, how many people are willing to refrain from judgement and allow the Lord to judge for Himself?
There is also seemingly quite a bit of confusion between what is "sin" as in evil and what is "statutory" or rule breaking.
I always go back to the 10 Commandments----COMMANDMENTS, not suggestions, not stuff you have to look for and interperate--but litteral, direct commandments about what to do and what not to do.
If a person claims to be really following the good book then then its resonable to start a discussion as to how closely they follow those commandments and what is the proper punishment for failing to follow Gods direct "litteral" instructions.
Its does not require religion for one to demonize those that disagree---just look how the Left routinely treats pretty much anyone that dares disagree with THEM.
I suppose that one could argue that strong politcial/social views counts in most respects AS a religion.
-Demonization of the "other"
-Proscribed actions and speech
-A "creed" that requires one to adhere to specific sets of thought----and avoid other non-sanction thoughts/actions
-Rituals of punishment and redemption
-'Holy" books and "prophets" that are viewed as essentially "infallable" in terms of how they are treated
-Ritual "stoneing" of those that disagree with the "message"
-A "casting out" of those of the "flock" that commit "heresy" and take divergent views
-Rank hypocrosy in the ranks of the "faithful."
-Things like actual truth and rigorous investigation of the facts and ones opinions subsumeded by the need to "spread the word."
Indeed, things like "truth" conisdered to be expendable when opposed to the "saving of the soul"--or its equivlent.
-Differing standards of behavior for those "not of the body" and those that are.
-Dealing from a postion of emotinalism rather than facts.
-A sense of self-rightousness when dealing with "non-belivers" as if one stands in a special place, is privy to special insight and there-for is special themselves.
Not sure that "free society" thing would stand up to much focus either.
Would a society be any more or less "free" if it allowed a small minority to dictate to the majority what they are allowed to think/feel/sanction?
Your not happy with the way that the supposed majority thinks adoption/marriage should be---why would they be any more pleased if you were setting the rules?
Would that make them more "free?"