The basic premise of the article, repeated multiple times, is that the root causes is the rejection of the authority of the traditional Church, and adherance to it's teachings.
And then the political realisms were brought up in the thread. Don't know the author, but I suspect that even she likely doesn't have a problem with cobbling together a political alliance with an atheist who's working against a totalitarian regime.
The basic premise of the article, repeated multiple times, is that the root causes is the rejection of the authority of the traditional Church, and adherance to it’s teachings.
Spirited: The essay speaks of many things: the true meaning of liberty, the nature of man, the existence of the transcendent, the existence of a spirit theater, the existence of man’s soul and the truth that he is made in the spiritual image of his Creator, the real existence of both heaven and hell, the mystery of man’s will, the pathological lies of Marx, et al, and much more besides.
Yet you’ve reduced the many issues the essayist speaks of to one absolutely false conclusion. Yes, the writer mentions the Church in passing as one of the reasons behind the rebellion. It is you who have falsely elevated the ‘mere mention’ to the absolute ‘be-all-end-all.