publication. Hard to believe that there was not an anti religion purpose for its publication and its quote here.
A more specific and accurate term for the blend of religion and fascism/terrorism on the right is "fundamentalism" or the "relious right." It's a better term, too, than "evangelicals." Same is true of the terrorists who are Muslim. Much more accurate to use a specific term like "jihadist" or better yet, "fundamentalist Muslims" since modern Muslims who are not fundies regard jihad as meaning a personal spiritual struggle, not a physical attack on others.
After all, as Dems, we know that there are Christians who are not fascists or terrorists. I do not fear that President Biden's openness about his Catholic Christian faith will lead him to incite a mob to attack anyone. I do not fear that he will push to make contraception or abortion illegal, either, because he recognizes the rights of others outside of his denomination and rights of those with no religion. Quite a few Catholics depart from church doctrine on contraception and abortion anyway.
I do not fear that the Senator from Georgia, Reverend Warnock, is a dominionist.
The one who incited the insurrection is not a religious person at all, despite his phony posturing with a Bible in front of a church.
So, when addressing the very real dangers of religious fascism, why not address that in specific terms rather than in generic, broad sweeping ones? Opposition to religious fascism is one area that both atheists and a large number of religious people can agree with.
= new reply since forum marked as read