I’m a little surprised that this comment has gotten so many upvotes.

Would you apply this same logic to the real world? For example, imagine if a manufacturing facility for Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics was bombed and thousands of working class Americans died. These people are building bombs that are being used in an ongoing genocide.

Would you consider this a heinous terrorist act, or a noble strike in the fight for freedom?

But what about the terror group known as IDF? They have unlimited free reign to spread their genocidal message and recruit followers. They also buy ads, and have a budget larger than all the terror groups you mentioned combined.

Hiding and denying the anti-Biden news is what got us to this point.

Compare the polls now to 4 years ago: Biden is 10-15% behind where he was when he (barely) won. To win now, Biden needs a miracle.

Our only hope of stopping Trump is to replace Biden ASAP.

Saying “maybe people are the problem” is reductive and unhelpful. But I agree with you broadly, religion is just a system or a tool, it can be used for good or evil.

To judge if religion is a good system or a bad one, we can use a cost benefit analysis. This is what we have been attempting to do in this thread.

But when it comes to sensitive subjects like religion, many people have a tendency to avoid, overlook, and deny the associated costs.

Anti-science, misogyny, etc may be bad independently of religion, but they aren’t independent of religion. Religion is a source of these problems.

You can imagine a hypothetical religion that is simply a “social club” or whatever, but here in the real world religion comes with baggage.

Religion is why my cousin’s children have never seen a doctor in their life. Religion is why my gay friend in high school tried to kill himself. Religious indoctrination has led to lifelong shame and trauma in many of my friends.

And this was just from a “moderate” sect of Christianity- the millions living under fundamentalist religion have it even worse.

What you said is all true, but you are ignoring the negative aspects of religion.

Religious influence, both on their followers and on government, is anti-science, misogynistic, and anti-LGBT.

Religions are funded like pyramid schemes, with the most desperate and vulnerable as their victims.

Religious indoctrination is child abuse.

International courts have told Israel to stop many times and they rarely, if ever, listen. Why would this time be different?

I would start with MLK, collected essays, no one writes about protest more eloquently.

A Peoples History of the United States by Howard Zinn gives a great broad overview.

Death in the Haymarket by James Green is a great history of the first decades of the labor movement.

Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Leadership in Turbulent Times goes in depth on LBJ and the civil rights movement.

On the Duty of Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau for the classic philosopher’s take.

We’ve Got People by Ryan Grim details the successes and failures of the movement in the last decade.

You should educate yourself on the history of protest. The media has always been a serious impediment. There was never an “entire population” uniting or a “simple goal that others could get behind”. It was always extremely difficult. It often looked hopeless. Many people were killed in the streets, and others were brave enough to replace them.

Overall I think feeling helpless in the face of monumental challenges is normal. But closing your eyes and telling yourself “nothing can ever change, so why bother” is self-soothing and pathetic.

Things can change, and you can be a part of that positive change if you put in real effort.

What are we gonna do, vote?

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal” - Emma Goldman

In the last 100 years, protest movements have given us women’s suffrage, workers rights including the weekend and overtime pay, gay rights, civil rights, etc. History shows us that we can have positive change, but it’s not as easy as just voting.

We can see right now how protest movements are moderating the Democrat’s support of Israeli war crimes.

But don’t you feel a responsibility to the rest of the world?

Say if, for example, your tax dollars were funding an ongoing genocide and starvation campaign, wouldnt you feel a bit responsible to change that?

Maybe NYT should question how a Zionist ideologue with no experience was put in charge of this important story, or how her uncorroborated opinion piece got past the editors and sold to the public as real news.

But of course they wont, and the damage is already done. Genocide deniers will be pointing to this discredited article in perpetuity.