[Mrs. Don-o]

"Define "fundamentalist". Define "theocrat". Explain why the adjectives should not be viewed as offensive when applied to Protestants."

Oh, they would be! They would be, if

• the Protestant in question were neither a fundamentalist nor a theocrat; or
• if Zmirak were writing a straight description, i.e. his own Aspergers-Spectrum-Literal viewpoint.

Here these conditions are not met because

• the "Protestant in question" is a fictitious character who has these characteristics because he is a fiction, a cartoon, and
• an absurd figure is being constructed to make an ironic point: it's deliberately set up to elicit a "why, that's bullshit" response from the discerning reader.

In other words: Zmirak knows his readers recognize "fundamentalist Protestant theocrat" as a caricature. He assumes you and he would both agree that it's over-the-top.

Are you a discerning reader?

[Salvation]

Plus Zmirak didn't say 'Protestant'

 

He said: "Imagine that Duncan Paul's childhood mentor turned out to be a fundamentalist Christian theocrat."

 

That does not necessarily mean 'Protestant.'