Could you elaborate on how the given postulate of "very disparate cultural backgrounds" correlates with the assumed authoritarian outcome of convert to a set of

Could you elaborate on how the given postulate of "very disparate cultural backgrounds" correlates with the assumed authoritarian outcome of convert to a set of religious purity laws and rituals and (very long) list of groups and opinions that must be hated and shunned, at the point of a sword, or die? Am I missing the chronological component, perhaps today's revealed truth is permitted goodthink, but converts from historically variable backgrounds are permitted as long as there is absolutely no variation in current opinion, sorta a sinners redemption argument? "very disparate cultural backgrounds" should mean more than "how many angels dance on the head of a pin" level of disagreement between authoritarian fundamentalist sects, or in the context of the actual demographics of software development, which ivy league school a young wealthy urban coastal left wing white male attended. In a field suffering from a demographic crisis of non-diversity, it seems weird to propose a religious purity test to kick out the non-believers as some kind of inherent good, because the result of implementing a religious purity test can't possibly be good for diversity. The argument seems to be "If we just get rid of everyone who thinks differently than us using ever more elaborate formalized and authoritarian religious purity tests, then we'll have all the benefits of diversity with none of the costs" but I don't think the real world works that way. Historically trying to strengthen a dying movement by radicalizing it even further from mainstream has generally failed to revive the movement. Its an interesting chicken vs egg problem where dying ideologies and radicalization usually correlate, and the question is causation, which causes the other? I'm assuming, given your support for radicalization, you're on the team that sees dying ideology as a cause of radicalization. I realize using logic in a discussion about religion is irrational in and of itself, but thinking purely logically, if you see the legacy ideology as dying, then why not "switch over" ahead of time and be ahead of the pack if the legacy view is going to die out and be replaced anyway? Or do you see it as, yes 99% of the time, historically radicalization has destroyed the movement, but this time radicalization is the occasional rare situation where it'll work? And if so, why this time with this movement? There doesn't appear to be any observable reason to think today's movement is unusual.