> The range of permissible debate is quite narrow in reality What? Christian apologetics meets atheists, Satanists, Darwinists, whoever. I don't even know ho

> The range of permissible debate is quite narrow in reality What? Christian apologetics meets atheists, Satanists, Darwinists, whoever. I don't even know how restricting apologetics to a very narrow permissible debate would work, unless like the MSM one can control which opponent gets on the mic. Christians enforce a narrow range of theological divergence acceptable as orthodox, but that is not apologetics. > You're basically defining all belief as religious belief No he isn't. He's defining humans as religious, and observing that the absence of affiliation with a major organized religion doesn't change this. I live in a Communist country in which the Party sometimes explicitly substitutes for a church. In the USA, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which means that naturally a state church will evolve that denies being a state church -- both the "state" and "church" parts. Humans being both religious and hierarchical, it's often tricky to determine whether state is running church or vice versa. The ball is always under the other cup. If you dare, I'm sure you can think of a few recently-invented blasphemies which if violated would result in censure of a progressively more official nature. Whoever can hunt witches, holds the pulpit, even if it comes with a press badge rather than a funny hat. Remember to recycle.