Our Strategy

“…smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered…” -- Zechariah 13:7

Catfishers of Men This guide serves as a training manual for non-violent subversives to engage in an asymmetric conflict against their particular house of worship. This book is primarily intended for a Christian audience. This is not meant to exclude people trapped in other faiths; the authors are just the most familiar with that particular tradition. We encourage those of different backgrounds to use this guide as a template for writing follow-up guides to address their particular denominations. The plan is simple. Waste your priest’s time. Every hour of their time you consume is an hour they can’t spend indoctrinating a young person. If we assume a priest works a full shift every day (which is justifiable), they would then produce a total of 2,912 man-hours/year of preistcraft. 56 people wasting one hour of their local priest’s time each week thus has the net global effect of having one priest renounce their vows for a full year. A subversive nonbeliever-to-priest ratio of 56:1 would thus render the entire clergy inert. This is realizable, since the current nonbeliever-to-priest ratio in the US is 81:1 [1] [2] [3], and every additional clergy hour that an individual subversive wastes per week has the next effect of bringing another subversive in on the deal. Domination is not requisite to overcome an ultimate challenge; only a slight advantage is required {gambler’s ruin} . This is why bringing the worst out in your opponent has the same net effect bringing out the best in you. Additionally, priests are already overworked, underpaid, and lead tumultuous personal lives. With all of their standing responsibilities, any waste of their time just cuts into the already-small amount of leisure which their life allows them. Each little time delay that holds up their operations is like a grain of sand in a gearbox [4]. Many priests are teetering on the brink of teetering on the brink of burnout as it is; while no one pestering question will persuade a priest to leave their position, no one raindrop causes the flood. Having a priest leave for any reason will have a traumatic impact on their church; on average 28% of worshippers seek another parish, and 19% will cease going to any church altogether. Their replacements are often required to schedule fewer services, to maintain the appearance of full seats. Of those who remain, as many as 40% will tithe less, and many church programs will be eliminated as the church enters survival mode [5]. This strategy has been proven to work; it is a variation of the popular sit-in strike and administrative overload techniques -- the meatspace analogues of a DDoS. The sit-in occupies an area and renders it unable to be used for it intended purpose. This was used to great effect in the Civil Rights movement to places economic pressure on segregated restaurants and other businesses, by preventing racist store owners from completing transactions until they changed their policies. Administrative overload was used by the Vietnam War protestors in the 1960’s to great effect. The Selective Service required a 10-day written notification whenever a draft-age male moved. Protestors then wrote to inform Selective service about every trip to the store; every time they moved into another room; or that they planned on moving, only to change their minds a few days later [6].

By just asking questions and wasting their time, you can subtlety stress and eventually burnout your priest. Every hour spent talking to you about a feigned spiritual crisis is an hour where the clergyman cannot perform any other work. This approach is ideal, since you can act against your priest and church without legal repercussions [5]. Likewise, following this approach leaves these subversive actor free from retribution, since they are not rebelling per se; only desperately trying to obey and understand the Scriptures [7]. The younger you are, the more likely this scheme will work. It is normal for young people to be confused and questioning, as those are both normal parts of the growth and maturation processes. Even if a young person is revealed to be a subversive, their deviant behavior can be written off as being part of a rebellious “piss and vinegar” phase; a certain amount of deviance is expected from the youth, again, as a normal part of the growth and maturation process. Likewise, adults can also implement this strategy, but they must face the full consequences of being found out unless they have earned reputations as successful eccentrics. Deviant behavior is tolerated from successful eccentrics -- not because they’re eccentric, but because they are successful -- and they are too valuable to get rid of [8].

Even if you are called out or even directly proven to be acting as a subversive, you will have still have some degree of protection from what psychologist Philip Zimbardo termed “not-me syndrome” (the illusion of personal invulnerability). People tend to ignore direct evidence that they’ve been cheated simply to avoid the pain and shame of admitting to themselves that they’ve been cheated [9]. _________________ “Every act of rebelling expresses a nostalgia for innocence.” -- Albert Camus _________________ The methodology is simple, and has been outlined below: Get their attention. Winning an audience with a priest is simple -- just ask for help. You must phrase it like that. By asking people for help, they cannot leave without seeming like and unhelpful person [10]. Additionally, this forces a role upon the priest, and once a person has accepted the helper role, it is usually awkward or difficult for them to back off from helping further [11]. Helping people with spiritual problems or crises is the priests reason-for-being; it is literally their function in society to hear you out. The issue needs to be of a spiritual concern, so that they cannot turn you away -- it must be something that only they can help you with. This will make the priest feel important, and thus feed their ego, which in turn makes them more compliant and willing to work with you [12].

Start out by asking a number of innocuous questions before starting in. This will catch them up in a “momentum of compliance,” and they will drop their defenses and become more likely to answer you, since they are now used to answering your questions [11].

Then, tell the priest that you’ve had a crisis of faith, causing you to lapse as a Christian because of your inability to reconcile your questions about Christianity, or even of faith itself. Act depressed and distraught by this, especially upon your first meeting.

You cannot come across as hostile. Hostility is doubly unproductive. A direct, frontal attack will just push the priest away [12], closing the lines of commination, and minimizing your results. Even worse though, is that Christians expect to be persecuted -- it was one of Christ’s promises to them [JOH 15:20] -- so your hostility will just be cited as further proof that the Bible is true [13]. For best results you need to have some familiarity or rapport, but these are both easy to develop. By merely hanging around an area long enough, people will assume that you belong there [11]. Giving a receptionist a $5 bill, and telling them “I found this on the floor. Did anyone say they lost money?” will imbue you with the qualities of honesty and trustworthiness [11]. This is important, since it aids you via exploiting the Fundamental Attribution Error -- the human brain tends to overestimate the importance of character traits, and underestimate the importance of situations and contexts [14].

You cannot fight the priest -- you must work with them. Burnout is a process of erosion, not a display of force. Non-believers are expected to be angry and hostile, relying on overt, in-your-face tactics. The clergy’s standard responses do not apply to the indirect sneak attacks we advocate; they will literally be blind-sided. Furthermore, there is no way to stop these time-wasting conversations without alienating the spiritual community which they exist to serve. By maintaining a soft approach, you can subvert your church while maintaining a safe, unassailable position as an active and valued participant. A hardline approach can defeat someone, but it is soft power that conquers; soft power is sensitivity to changing forces, fluidly and flexibly redirecting them as needed.

Maintain a rapport

You must use soft approaches to have power over others; you must work with, not against, human nature [12]. To ensure this, you must follow the following guidelines: • Start on a positive note [15]. Never begin with an apology [16]. • Make the most important comments first, and be specific [15]. Do not let the priest suspect you are there to waste his time. • Do not argue or debate; only give it 60-70%. The problem associated with this approach comes not from weaknesses of the individual, but from the overuse of their strengths. Citing lots of data makes the whole conversation seem rehearsed, which will give you away as a troublemaker. Most priests have already encountered confrontational firebrand atheists, and they will quickly write you off as being one you lay it on too thick. o Christianity protects itself by being inherently non-disprovable. There is no way to confirm or deny any of Christianity’s claims; they only appear strong because Christians frame nonbelief as passive and noncommittal. Rather than trying to disprove religious claims, hold your priest to them. This creates the illusion of mutual agreement, but you can use this to corner your pastor, and force them to take on absurd, indefensible positions {slippery slope, reducto ad absurdum} [17]. o Entering a religious debate only sets yourself up to fail. Religious debates cannot be won since there is no way to definitively verify anyone’s claims; the theologian has no lab [18]. No one is totally competent in a religious debate, because it spans history, philosophy, psychology, morality, biblical criticism, medicine, astronomy, biology, linguistics, economics, and politics [19]. o The “thou shalt not debate” rule does not apply to “creation scientists.” Creationists actively seek out debates at every opportunity, because by simply agreeing to debate them, you acknowledge that their views contain some quantum of merit, automatically granting them a partial victory [20]. Even if you are not a scientist, you can lock them up for hours by just asking them to explain creationism to you. If you want to engage them on a follow-up visit, you can visit a website such as Talk.Origins for highly-polished refutations to creationist talking points, written by scientists for you to use at no cost. Alternately, by reading basic astronomy, geology, and biology text books from your local public library will give you the scientific background to keep them intellectually engaged in fruitless activity for days. (While reading three introductory-level text books may sound like an insufficient science education, it doesn’t take much to throw creationists into a spin).  Additionally, meta-discussions of creationism are also fair debates; ask what constitutes a science, and debate philosophy of science with them, because this is a favorite topic of creationists. Evolution is frequently dismissed as being “just a theory,” which sets up a number of fun and time-consuming discussions, namely: [19] • What is the definition of a theory? [19] • Why the Theory of Creationism is not equally discredited? [19] • How does this affect other disciplines? (e.g., does the phrase, “music theory” imply the non-existence of music?) [19] • Do not recite a script verbatim. Not only will you come across as inauthentic, and reveal yourself as a troublemaker, it will not succeed. If you make an error, or if the conversation goes off on a tangent, your whole routine unravels. Instead, just be comfortable about the topic and have a general idea of what to say, and shoot from the hip. If you have to use notes, make them brief and hide them the best you can. Do not read prepared statements [16]. Instead, try your best to remember what you’ve previously read. In general, being well-read is what makes you credible [21]. • Never try to show people that you are smart, and never try to change their minds. This will be taken as a challenge, since most Christians automatically assume that curiosity and doubt are equivalent to ridicule and rage. Christians have rigged the game so that it rude to even question their beliefs, so it must be done indirectly in most cases [22]. Only use soft approaches and focus with the long-term in mind [23]. • Do not discuss political issues. Politics only compounds and complicates things, and it will out you as a troublemaker. If the priest goes off onto a political tangent, it is only because they are trying to divert you away from the topic at hand to escape the discomfort of the self-questioning. In these cases, direct the priest back onto some faith-based discussion. Focus on faith; by targeting faith, you will simultaneously target all faith-based political topics (e.g., LGBTQ issues, school prayer, stem cell research, abortion, etc.) [20]. • Avoid simplistic persuasive techniques. You are not trying to persuade anyone; you are talking for talking’s sake. Additionally, most of these techniques will undermine your credibility. These include: [15] o Name-calling. o Glittering generalities (e.g., appeals to patriotism, being a good mother, etc.). o Testimonials (i.e., the viewpoints of actors, athletes, etc.). o The “plain folks” approach (e.g., “...you should do this because I’m just like you...”). • Maintain intellectual rigor and integrity. If you act like a fool, people will treat you like one. So, if you feel compelled to use one of the following techniques -- don’t. These include: o Making arguments based on false premises [24]. o Makings a priori (circular) arguments, which “beg the question” by using the desired conclusion as a premise [24]. o Putting a spin on a negative thing [24]. o Lashing out and taking the offensive when trapped by facts [24]. o Intimidating and/or making accusations [24]. o Focusing on irrelevant points or minutia [24]. o Using invalid analogies [24]. C. S. Lewis was notorious for this, frequently using analogies in place of structured arguments [19]. o Demanding proof for self-evident facts (e.g., 1+2=3, Reagan winning re-election in 1984, etc.) [24]. o Making excessive use of intellectual and/or esoteric language to feign intelligence. o Failing to define what you discuss [25]. o Assuming that the nature of the thing is a result of its definition [25]. o Assigning physical properties to the immaterial [25]. o Assigning broad general properties to an entire class of things [25]. C. S. Lewis was notorious for this, working only in absolutes and making no room for special cases or situational ethics [19].

Finally, though it sounds strange, do not look in the priest’s eyes. Looking anyone in the eyes gives them an opportunity to mesmerize you, creating a sensation of losing yourself and melding into one being. Instead, look at their chin, neck, or look behind them with a thousand-yard stare. Maximize muda in a non-obvious way. The efficiency and high productivity of Japanese manufacturing plants is not a result of working harder, but of working better. Efficiency is been optimized by identifying and eliminating each of the 8 forms of waste and inefficiency, or muda (無駄, “futility/uselessness/wastefulness”). Unlike “value-added work,” which describes any process that adds value by producing goods or providing goods or providing a service that a customer is willing to pay for, muda is any process that unnecessarily consumes resources, causing waste to occur. The 8 forms of muda are [26]: 1. Overproduction. Producing products for which there is no demand creates overstaffing, storage, and transportation problems. Additionally, overproduction renders you unable to afford other productive tasks, since your available capital is tied up in unsellable products. 2. Waiting. Anything which is not being improved, worked on, or generating value is wasteful. 3. Transportation. In addition to shipping and handling costs, transportation introduces additional time delays for loading, unloading, and transit. 4. Over-processing or incorrect processing. Introducing extra steps into a process increases the time needed to complete the process. Additionally, these additional tasks create the possibility for additional defects, and require additional transportation to their unnecessary workstations. 5. Excess inventory. This applies to raw materials, work-in-progress, or finished goods. This introduces losses from obsolescence, damaged goods, and transportation and storage costs. Extra inventory hides the effects of process inefficiencies, such as: production imbalances, late deliveries, defects, equipment downtime, and long setup times. 6. Unnecessary movement. Inefficient processes cause unnecessary wear and tear on both machines and on workers. 7. Defects. Inspection and rework introduces extra steps into a process. Scrapping and replacement production consume additional resources. 8. Unused creativity. Those who are intimately familiar with a process are aware of its shortcomings; their insight is invaluable to process improvement.

The goal of a secular subversive is to increase muda with your church whenever possible. This is best achieved by wasting your priest’s time -- and thus removing his time, focus, and expertise away from value-add activities. This is achievable via the following process: 1. Let the priest completely state their case, without interruption. This gratifies their ego, and prevents them from establishing a defense. • Soft power is still power. Keep quiet, and people will think you’re a philosopher. 2. Pause before you answer. This creates the illusion of considering their talking points, further gratifying their ego. • Use three-point communication. Once you get an opportunity to speak, say “let me sure I have this right,” then paraphrase what the priest just said, and allow them to confirm that you heard everything right. Not only does this prolong the conversation by redundantly repeating everything they say, it has a psychological impact that pulls them further in to the conversation: [27]: o Automatically hooks other person, forcing them to assume a listening role, allowing you to dominate the conversation. o Allow communication errors to be corrected. This clarifies the situation and prevents others from twisting your words, or claiming that you said something which you did not. o The priest will have a change-of-perspective, since he must listen to his own points. o The process of finalizing the situation causes any omitted details to be re-included. o This induced a modeling behavior, which will cause people to paraphrase you, thus granting you the time and repetition needed to etch your facts into their mind. 3. State your case moderately and accurately. Do not repeat the same thing over and over. If your point did not sink in, rephrase it. If it didn’t sink in the first time, it won’t sink in the second time; you must approach the situation from a different angle. 4. Speak through third persons. Invoking and quoting others prevents others from arguing, since they must argue against people who are not there. • Priests are notorious for exploiting this trick, quoting scriptures or eminent theologians as a “hit and run” tactic, using biblical authority to end tricky conversations. Priests also invoke biblical authority to dismiss any non-priests from using the scriptures as endorsements of their particular views, by claiming they are quoted out of context. If your priest does wither of these, use it as a jumping-off point for follow-up questions: [19] o Who wrote the verse, and how do you know? Scholars continue to debate much of the bible’s authorship.  The Gospels were written anonymously, and names were assigned to them later.  Paul was the first to write about Christ, and Paul’s version of Jesus is radically different from that of the Gospels. Paul speaks of a disembodied, spiritual Christ speaking from the sky. Paul never refers to him as “the Son of man,” and never mentions miracles, the times or places of any historical events, Jesus’s parents, the virgin birth, Bethlehem, the apostle’s names, the trial, or the location of the crucifixion. Paul rarely quotes Jesus, and contradicts some of his teachings (compare _____ with 1COR 7:10).  Matthew and Luke were written after Mark, which they apparently used as a reference. John appears to have worked in isolation, which explains why his gospel frequently contradicts the other three.  The author of the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark is unknown; the earliest versions found by archaeologists end with the empty tomb.  The Gospel of Matthew was not written by the apostle Matthew, since it refers to him in the third person.  No one knows who Mark or Luke were, where they came from, or where they got their information. It is unclear which John wrote the Gospel of John. o Why was the verse written, and to whom?  What was the social/political/religious/philosophical climate like at the time?  The Gospel of John freely admits to being propaganda [JOH 20:31]. o When was it written?  This is critical, because prophecies are not prophecies when given after the fact. (e.g., JOH 2:19 predicted the temple’s destruction in 70 CE, but biblical scholars have demonstrated that the Gospel of John was written between 90-110 CE.).  Paul was the first to write about Jesus (c. 50 CE), but he mentions little about the historical Jesus. The Gospels were not written until c. 70 CE, a generation after the crucifixion.  There is no external historical confirmation of the events described in the New Testament. (e.g., some historian or scholar should have recorded Herod’s genocide.) o Is the translation accurate?  Ask to see another translation, and ask how we know they were interpreted and translated correctly. o Does the author offer any clues to the meaning, or is this just a personal interpretation?  Do not allow anyone to quote scripture without looking it up. Stop the conversation, and act deeply interested in the bible verse. Be sure to read the entire chapter, to ensure that the verse is not being quoted out of context. o Are there any literary allusions or parallels involved?  Jesus is attributed with devising the Golden Rule, a precept that Confucius and Buddha both independently coined hundreds of years earlier.  The Jesus story appears to be a combination of earlier myths which were popular at the time. o What is the text’s relevance to the immediate and general topic?  In the context of history, when was Jesus ever the “ruler of Israel?” is he now? o If liberal scholars are blind to the “true” context, then why would an intelligent God write a book that could be so easily misunderstood? o Remember that Christians cannot write off, ignore, or rationalize their way out of any of the Old Testament laws, or the horrors which they have spawned, since Christ explicitly mentions on several occasions that every character of the old law is true and correct, and must be obeyed [MAT 5:17-19; JOH 7:19; LUK 16:17]. Any attempt to dance around this problem defies Christ’s direct teachings [22]. 5. Give the priest an opportunity to save face. Give them a loophole that allows a safe escape using their own logic. When applied cleverly, this can be used as smooth transition from their mode of thinking into yours. When left with no means to escape, priests will become hostile when their arguments fail. This will make the priest reluctant to talk with you further, limiting the amount of their time which you can waste. You must concede to succeed, sacrificing a pawn to lure them into checkmate. • All arguments can be turned back on themselves, and a good argument must be able to survive this test. Make the priest defend their own beliefs against their own logic -- Give them enough rope, and they’ll hang themselves [19]. o Rather than attacking the priest’s premises and evidences, accept their arguments at face value, and worry about the unintended consequences [19]. o It’s easier to find flaws and contradictions in certain statements than from ambiguous ones [20]. o This technique cannot be used on a questioning or nonbelieving person, since they make no assertions. The burden of proof lays on those who make the claim; the skeptic is not required to say anything [19]. o If the priest asks you to display knowledge, dismiss this by saying that you are interested in following their lead [19]. • The religious have no evidence to back up any of their claims. As such, apologists are trained to argue about the necessary criteria for something to constitute evidence [20]. Asking for evidence will never result in evidence, but it will eat up a brick of their time. o If we allow miracles as proof, we should also allow the miracles of other religions [19]. o There is no evidence for any of Christ’s miracles outside of the Bible [19]. o Stories are not evidence [22]. • If your priest has you completely stumped, ask them to define the terms they used [19]. Not only will this consume time, but defining things limits them, which will create new avenues for discussion.

Get invited back.

Don’t expect a dramatic or tangible result. Victory is not getting your priest to burnout; victory is the process of burnout. It is the process, not the outcome that is crucial. Progress is always incremental. Incremental changes and gains are the secret to progress. This is why the persistent always beat the talented. The summation of numerous small forces acts the same as a large force, just as how no single raindrop causes the flood [6]. You must be welcomed back to have many, many further discussions for this strategy to work. Hostility kills all hope of succeeding; while people will forget what you did for them, or what you gave them -- but they will never forget how you made them feel. It is therefore essential that you give partial concessions and find mutual agreements, simply to allow egos to go undamaged, and to allow open lines of communication for later conversations. There are no unrealistic goals, just unrealistic deadlines [28], but every hour you consume of your priest’s time is an hour they can’t spend indoctrinating some kid.

By being invited back, you integrate yourself deeper into their community. This is of the utmost importance, since then -- and only then -- can you befriend the most sheltered and overprotected members of your community. The church fellowship, and the many summer camps available to Christian youths can isolate them from society as a whole, while providing them with enough friends to not feel isolated. While hosts of non-theist books have been written in the past 15 years, they all have done nothing for those who cannot --or will not -- read them [20]. This is rebellion is in purest form, which awakens the hearts and passions of everyone involved -- and it’s easier than you could possibly imagine -- parents are so overly-focused on shielding their children from vice, the conversations which induce spiritual dissolution will go unnoticed. ______________________ Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed. It is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead __________________________ It’s not uncommon for outsiders to attend church functions (e.g., youth groups) just to be social; many of these activities are designed with the intention of drawing such people in. Local recreational sports leagues or music lessons are other ways to befriend the sheltered or overprotected.

Older teens make the best subversives, because they have the respect and rapport of the younger teens that disproportionately comprise such church groups. Older teens will be close enough in age to have many mutual commonalities, while their additional life experience grants them an aura of expertise. While the latter part seems inconsequential, it is for small ages -- a 16 year-old has significantly more life experience than a 14 year old (12.5%). Additionally, since older teens can drive, they can give people rides, making them sought after -- and granting the subversive a captive audience. The physically gifted can inadvertently create an audience via infatuation. While it may seem improper to use the prospect of love (or lust) as a motivator, people have no say in who they are or are not attracted too, and teenagers will be driven by love (or lust) regardless of how you or anyone else acts. The quest to find a suitable mate is a huge motivation for unattached young people to attend these functions in the first place.

If you have the opportunity to speak to a sheltered or overprotected person, do not try “witness” or otherwise sell non-belief to them. Christ prophesized the suppression of Christianity, so such efforts will only validate their faith. Instead, faith must be devalued as a concept, until people eventually discredit and discard faith on their own [29]. Religious debates only confirm the “atheists are angry people, and they are angry at god” talking point. Disproving the atheist anger myth will by itself introduce a tiny crack into their faith. Do not change people’s beliefs, change the way they form beliefs, because if a person was not reasoned into their faith, they cannot be reasoned out of it [20]. No amount of logic can shatter a faith consciously based on a lie [9]; if anything, it causes deeper belief, because faith allows emotion to be used in lieu for evidence [22]. This is a sore spot for many Christians, who already face sleeping giant of doubt in their inner thoughts and quiet moments. This insecurity leads preachers to constantly reiterate that their parishioners must keep their faith strong [19]. The forces do not confront religion directly, instead, secularization just bypasses and undercuts religion and goes on to other things [30], like water flowing around a rock.

This is why the process of de-conversion is wholly unlike conversion. Non-believers who become Christians usually do so after experiencing a sudden, highly-emotional event, be it personal (e.g., death of a loved one) or societal (e.g., the 9/11 terror attacks). Those who de-convert do not “lose their faith,” it crumbles before being discarded. De-conversion is a slow path; it occurs after several years of reading, conversing, and personal reflection. While some may claim that an abrupt life change life caused the loss of faith (e.g., death, divorce, job relocation), de-conversion is actually caused the secondary effects of these events, which causes exposes people to new friends and ideas (e.g., moving to a new town, attending a new church, starting at a new school, or from the general shuffling and rebuilding of cliques in and around the 7th grade). Interviews and personal conversations with the hundreds of non-theists I have met since my own de-conversion has shown that there is no one root cause for de-conversion; they are unique, personal experiences. However, de-conversion stories to touch upon a few re-occurring themes:

• Discovering small, disconcerting cracks within their religious teachings [20]. Typically, this occurs in adolescence [31], upon re-hearing a childhood Bible story which now seems so outrageous that it defies credibility (e.g., Jonah and the Whale), leading the young person to scrutinize religious claims from then on. This pushes the snowball down the hill, leading to further scrutiny and discovering additional cracks in their religion. These cracks tend to widen upon gaining additional life experience, and over conversations with friends.

This is particularly vicious, because Sunday School is a leading causes of de-conversion. The more devout a person is, the more closely they examine scriptures, and are thus more likely to discover one of these cracks. If their priest is unable to answer these questions, the devout parishioner will then be forced to seek answers elsewhere, exposing themselves to alternate theologies and worldviews to fill the gaps.

Stand-up comedians (e.g., George Carlin, Ricky Gervais, Lewis C.K., Sam Kinison) are excellent vectors for these messages, since they can pose confrontational ideas and alternate worldviews under the façade of joking around. While these bawdry acts may be censored by overprotective parents, they may also go undetected due to the strange phenomena where the most profane and vulgar comedians eventually become children’s entertainers (e.g., George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Bob Saget).

• The realization of religious manipulation within their life or family [32]. Historically, religion has been used to subjugate populations by convincing them that suffering is a blessing, while maintaining that the social elites have some divine right to their positions. Upon realizing that the elites exist at the expense of others draws scrutiny to those religious claims. People respect priests because their priests tell them they should. The crux of every religion is that you need that religion. Priests only act in self-beneficial ways [19] because priests have no power of their own. They must convince, cajole, coax, or condemn others into acting on their behalf. Even then, the fact that no one ever tried to burn down or drive-by shoot Anton LaVey’s Black Mansion is irrefutable proof that Christians are more bark than bite. Priests maintain their illusion of power through the following mechanisms: [33] 1. Force of habit. 2. Fear of sanctions (e.g., social pressure). 3. Moral obligation, due to: a. Belief that obedience contributes to the common good of society. b. Belief the priest has superpowers (e.g., granting sacraments, being “a holy man,” or a cult of personality). c. Legitimacy, as defined by law, tradition, or a constitution. d. Conformity to accepted norms. 4. Self-interest (i.e., rewards of money, power, and prestige on Earth and/or in the afterlife.) 5. Psychological identification with the priest (i.e., charisma, hero-worship, idealization). 6. Indifference of the parishioners to stand against the priest. 7. Parishioners lack the self-confidence needed to stand against the priest.

• The inability to reconcile science with religion. However, this is not usually because of what they learned from their school science classes, but from a secular author (e.g., Carl Sagan, Steven Hawking, Desmond Morris, Gary Zhukav, etc.) or TV host (e.g., Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye), who proposed challenging questions and ideas in a non-threatening manner.

• Frustration with the Ineffectiveness of God and the Church. Modern life is characterized by two motifs: worldliness and pragmatism (i.e., “Will it work?”), because like it or not, we all live on a world, which imposes its own unique challenges [30]. Church addresses neither of these, as they tend to be filled with passivity activists who devote most of their energy fighting change [34], and every unanswered prayer causes young people to question the efficacy of prayer. • Ineffective indoctrination. This is not a cause per se, but many people who’ve “lost their faith” didn’t have much faith to lose in the first place. Modern preaching is ineffective because the call to worship is in general and non-specific terms, and the “good news” of Christ’s death and resurrection happened so long ago that it can’t be considered “news,” per se [30]. While many Christian (and even non-theist!) youth have had positive experiences at religious retreats, these events tend to take on standard “cookie-cutter” formats, causing the effectiveness of each subsequent retreat to wane as they become “old hat.” Boredom causes troublemaking, for want of stimulus more than actual malice. Any subversive act or discussion gives permission for others to join in, resulting in a Butterfly Effect that evokes change [6]. This is magnified by the fact that most Sunday school classes have no real system or means of enforcing discipline. Outside of a parochial school setting, religious education has no grading, and one cannot be failed or held back, for fear that will leave for some other denomination. ____________________ “Sunday School teachers kind of paint themselves into corners, because they can't stop class clowns because they can't punish anyone, and they can't throw anyone out, because the whole point is to get people to come in.” ____________________ Topics of discussion can be easily derailed by invoking a relevant scriptural inconsistency (typically, a conflicts between the New and Old Testaments, or with the New Testament and itself) or some thought-experiment. This is effective because it conceals subversion as thoughtful discussion. You can easily assume control of the class in this manner because Sunday school teachers and youth group mentors are lay volunteers driven by a personal agendas (usually, to overcompensate for a perceived shortcoming, or to repay a debt of honor) and they tend to be poorly trained in theology and/or its presentation. Another effective way to subvert a Sunday school class is to steer the discussion into how to deal with non-believers, and their worldviews. This manipulates the teachers into introducing our ideas into their classes, spreading our message to closeted or potential non-believers [19]. Getting Sunday School teachers to talk about atheism is not unrealistic -- it’s the Rumspringa Principle -- even the most sheltered of people must be given knowledge of the outside world and its influences, so that they know what to avoid.

Additionally, expressing faith requires expression, which requires an artistic medium -- be it fine art, writing, theatre or music. Cultivating artistic skill means meeting artists, who not only have widely-varying perspective and worldviews, but also expertise in challenging disciplines which their own rich, deep lore component that have already has grabbed the young person’s interests. Additionally, these new arts can give the youth an outlet to explore emotions like anger and lust, for which Christianity provides no outlet.

The most important attribute of a successful secular subversive is perseverance. Those who try will fail repeatedly, but if one keeps trying, then they’ll hit upon the right time and place to be heard and evoke change. In the end the shotgun approach always works [6]. _______________ “The final straw where I knew I wasn't with the faith was when i graduated HS, and we had the service at church where the seniors get recognized. The important part of the ceremony was when they gave us all college devotional Bibles. I looked down at it, something that I had been give countless times before, just in different packages, and I thought ‘they truly believe that this is all the information that I need to get through life.’” ___________________________ • Santa Claus. When many children find out that Santa Claus isn’t real, they ask about the other invisible characters in their lives -- the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy -- and God. This prompts unprepared parents to awkwardly explain how everything they said about Santa is false, while everything they said about God is true. While it sounds silly, I’d say that ~5% of non-theists were set on the path to non-belief by their parent inadequately answering this question.

In summary, the ideal strategy is then to plant seeds of doubt, because to win without fighting is best [35]. As your audience thinks deeply about their faith, and their life’s situation, they are started upon Gandhi’s path, where the patterns of obedience and cooperation are changed via the following process: [33] 1. A psychological change away from passive submission to self-respect and courage. 2. Subjects recognizing that their assistance is what makes the regime possible. 3. Building a determination to withdraw from cooperation and obedience.

The Need for Nonviolent Action

Our movement must always remain non-violent, for both pragmatic and moral reasons. We must remain non-violent because, quite simply, we have no other option -- we don’t have and army, nor can we raise one any time soon. Violent action only distracts the focus from an oppressor’s actions to your actions, and the root cause for fighting soon becomes lost [36]. However, choosing peace allows us to take the moral high ground, and win the hearts of the young. We must set an example of calm, collected behavior -- this will enrage the clergy, as their narratives largely depend on the popular perception of nonbelievers as being misanthropes. ___________________ “Every act of creation is first of all an act of destruction.” -- Pablo Picasso [37] ___________________

Do not be fooled -- nonviolent action is not passive, and it is not inaction -- it is action that is nonviolent. Nonviolent action is not pacifism. Strategy, skill, and strength are all requisite [33]; we will provide you with the first two, and you must look into yourself to find the third. Nonviolent action is not merely psychological or rhetorical; it a culturally-independent tool that exploits social, political, and economic power for leverage under any political system or climate. Nonviolent action even works against violent opponents [33], since violent people have never been able to counter the sort of power that nonviolent actors wield; Gandhi said it was “like trying to cut water with a sword [38].” Opponents who are ignorant of the power of nonviolent action will become overconfident, and react mildly to its challenges until they are too late to stop [36].

Nonviolent action is based on the assumption that governments and institutions (like churches) depend on people, that power is pluralistic, and power is a fragile thing which depends on many groups synergistically reinforcing the sources of power sources. Power can thus be most effectively controlled at its sources, and the priest’s illusion of power can be compromised by attacking these sources of power. In general, these are: [33] 1. Authority. The right to command and direct, to heard or obeyed by others, and voluntarily accepted by the people without imposing sanctions. Those in authority do not need to be superior; they just need to be perceived and accepted as superior. Authority is a source of power; not power, per se; it is purely mental. 2. Human resources. Power is affected by the number of followers, allies, and helpers; the strength of their organizations; and their proportion relative to the rest of society. 3. Skills, knowledge, and abilities. 4. Intangible psychological/ideological factors. Habits and attitudes towards obedience and submission; presence of a common faith, ideology, or mission. 5. Material resources. Control of property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic system, and means of communication and transportation define the limits of power. 6. Sanctions. The ability to punish others. One should note that sanctions do not produce obedience; only the fear of sanctions. These sanctions manifest themselves as the eight forms of repression [36]: a. Control of communication and information. b. Psychological pressures (e.g., slander, rumors, ostracizing, vague threats, making examples of others). c. Confiscation. d. Economic sanctions (e.g., boycotts, blacklists, firings, cutting off utilities). e. Bans and prohibitions. f. Arrests and imprisonment. g. Exceptional restrictions (e.g., new laws, extralegal trials, suspensions of habeas corpus). h. Direct physical violence.

_________________________ The Gay Rights movement, like the French Resistance, had no charismatic leaders; they were both swarm-based social movements. _________________________

Nonviolent action is not a safe means of struggle; there is no such thing. Repression should not come as a surprise. A high degree of courage is needed to accept these sufferings; there will be a price to pay to achieve objectives. Freedom isn’t free. The fear of retribution only encourages their continuation. The fastest way to end brutalities is to demonstrate that they do not help achieve the opponent’s objectives. Addressing the root causes of the brutalities will mitigate the repression. Facing repression is a positive sign; it proves that the opposition acknowledges you’re a serious threat. This repression will become increasing severe, whenever the current method is deemed ineffective. Repression only works when it is feared, and when that fear compromises the activist’s willpower. Nonviolent action does not induce the oppressor’s violent tendencies; it merely reveals it. Nonviolent action brings out in the bully in those inclined to be bullies, stripping away cherished images to expose the truth. Nonviolent action usurps power from the oppressing group by assuming their status, and acting in ways they have the “right” to behave. This frustration, irritation and inadequacy will lead to the oppressor feeling powerless, leading them to the use of force to return the illusion of strength. If nonviolent action is misperceived as weakness, and not courage, then repression will occur anyway out of irrational hostility. Other times, the oppressors are demoralized by from the knowledge that the nonviolent actors are right [36].

Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Camus, and Sarte all agree that courage is not the absence of fear or despair, but the ability to move forward in spite of fear or despair [37]. Brave people aren’t fearless; they’ve just found something that means more to them than fear. Only the insane are fearless. Only cowards can boast about fearlessness; they know no fear only because they’ve never been tested. Courage isn’t intrinsic, it’s a learned response; a learned skill. It is impossible to kill fear, but acquire the habit of exposing yourself to fear will mitigate and trivialize its effects, similar to allergy shots [39]. Only consistently dealing with frightening situations can make you brave, just as how you can only become temperate by rejecting temptations [40]. Every triumph of the will as against your fear cultivates a permanent habit of courage; courage thrives on encouragement [39]. Finding courage is the easiest and the most noble when its derived from overcoming fear to prevent harm to someone else; the cultivation of courage is a selfless discipline that conquers selfish fear. Compassion cultivates courage. ______________________ Won’t you triumph the day? If not who will? ______________________ Activists must unflinchingly endure sanctions. Keep in mind that whatever hardship you have to endure is temporary. Despair is the conclusion of fools. Power is an illusion you must learn to see though. Additionally, repression is less effective against nonviolent action because repression was designed to stop violent actions [36]. “With the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice” -- if you truly want something, then the hardships which are needed to complete that goal will become trivial and welcome.

Nonviolent action does not make any claims to “love” opponents or try to convert them. This is a fallacy created by religious exponent who see most nonviolent action as too violent for their tastes. Opponents will not respect those who helplessly submit or plea in fear of punishment. Sabotage is technically a nonviolent action, since it destroys property, not people. However, the use of sabotage is discouraged since it [36]: 1. Can unintentionally hurt or kill opponents or bystanders. 2. Requires a willingness to use violence against guards or those who discover the plans. 3. Requires secrecy, which undermines the trust between nonviolent actors.

Nonviolent action does not require a mutual closeness or a sense of community. Nonviolent activists do not need to be pacifists or saints. Nonviolent activists do not need to be in fighting shape; the elderly, disabled, and out-of-shape can all contribute equally, leading to a rapid development of a numerically superior force. Nonviolent activists have no educational requirement, allowing all to apply and join. [36].Historically, the most effective operators are “ordinary” people [33]. Tolstoy was among the first to realize that the “Great Man” Theory of History is false -- that many small individual actions, contribute to, and create the environments necessary for great men to rise to power. Great men merely channel and leverage the zeitgeist. Likewise, what individuals do not do is often as important as what they do. This is why War and Peace is such a long book; because it painstakingly chronicles each of these small actions [6]. Case and point, the Tiananmen Square Tank Man Template:Links is a considered to be a rousing symbol of defiance and freedom -- but he didn’t accomplish anything. Conversely, a WWII prison break in Poland only succeeded because a young female telegrapher aided them by not sending the message requesting reinforcements [6].

Most remarkable people are not remarkable by nature. Instead, they made a few key choices along the way that helped them overcome their fears [41]. _______________ “Martin was not the leader. He was the spokesman, a very competent, eloquent spokesman. He was a great man. But if people think of him as a superhuman or a saint, then when something needs to be changed they are tempted to say, ‘I wish we had a leader like Martin Luther King today.’ People need to know that it was just people like themselves who though up the strategies and managed the movement. Charismatic leadership has not freed us and it never will, because freedom is, by definition, people realizing that they are their own leaders.” -- Diane Nash, organizer of the 1959 Nashville lunch counter sit-ins [6]. ________________ The Value of Humor The true evil is the opposition of laughter. Satire and ridicule are the most power weapons in the human arsenal. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition into reacting on your terms, and not theirs [42]. Laughter conquers all, since it can rob the powerful of the authority and prestige needed to dominate others. This is why humor is incompatible with dogmatism - because laughter is true power, because one cannot stop laughter without becoming a monster. The mocked must be allow themselves to mocked, or they force themselves to become hated. Every feeling of shame or regret, every hurt feeling, every failure, disappointment and injustice is a setup for a joke. This is why the conservatives, Christians, and fascists are all humorless -- by oppressing others, they have no good setups to work with. How could they ever hope to be funny? You can change a few lines in a Greek tragedy to make it into a comedy, and vice-versa [42]. Thus, the repressed always have access to the weapon of humor, and use mockery to punishment those who cause real harm. Comedy is justice.

The most important characteristic of humor is that it allows us to feel superior to others who are depicted as incompetent, stupid, foolish, ugly, and so forth. In fact, some have argued that the original cause of laughter in early man was related to this sense of superiority over a defeated enemy. This is seen as too general, but it humor is more likely to occur in connection with persons, ideas, or events toward which we have no positive feelings or affiliation. The meat of any joke is the emotional investment we have with the situation; this is why jokes about teachers are funnier to those with strained relationship with their teachers [43]. The only problem with weaponized humor is that it may distract you and keep you from directly addressing the real problem [43]. Control of Language Priests use loaded language, and you need to protect yourself from falling into this trap. There are sever subtle ways to go about this: 1. Only use “faith” in a religious context, and use an acceptable synonym (e.g., “hope,” “trust,” “confidence”) in all other contexts. This subtracts from the power of faith, which clergy frequent invokes to justify their knowledge claims. (e.g., Christians do not hope in Jesus’ miracles) [20]. 2. Challenge the use of faith when it is invoked in a conversation, because faith is often used as a thought-terminating cliché to quickly sidestep or end arguments. Religion does not need to be attacked, only faith. Faith is the critical load-bearing member that holds religion up. Attacks on religion are always perceived as attacks on friends, family, communities, and relationships Directly attacking religion alienates people, making it harder to separate them from their faith. Indirect attacks against the notion of faith are more fruitful. Always remember that faith is [20]: • Belief without evidence. If one had evidence to support their claims, then there would be no need for faith. As such, all faith is blind faith. Faith is the word one uses when someone cannot justify their beliefs, but want to keep them anyway. • Pretending to know unknown things you. In fact, “faith” can be interchanged with “pretending to know something I don’t know” without any loss of fidelity. This is why modern apologists use euphemisms for faith (e.g., promise, confidence, trust). • Not universal. By framing faith as a personal thing, and no more than that, then we can quietly coax it into a corner from which it will never emerge [44]. • Not hope. Hope makes no knowledge claim, and it implies that the desired outcome might not occur. Hope admits the possibility for failure; hope is not certain, but the desire for certainty. (Christians believe that Jesus walked on water; they don’t hope he did.) Other euphemisms (e.g., promise, confidence, trust) are also not knowledge claims. • Not a body of knowledge. Faith is an epistemology; a method and process used to understand reality. Much about faith is confused because faith allows for subjective claims of personal experience to be admitted as objective facts, and contains no error-correcting or filtering mechanisms to separate the two. • Not an argument. Reason is limited by fact, and anything else is a hypothesis or wishful thinking. Faith is the accepting a statement as true in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence. Faith is inconsistent with reason. Faith, at its very invocation, is a transparent admission that a claim lacks merit [19]. 3. Refer to scripture as “Bible stories.” This is intrinsically derogatory because it automatically assumes they are fairy tales. However, it is a commonly-accepted form of speech [31], allowing you to discretely frame the dialogue. 4. Abstain from using the following idioms to prevent the normalization of religious language: [20] • God bless you! • Lord, have mercy! • The devil’s in the details. • Thank God! • Soul-searching • For God’s sake. • God only helps those who help themselves. • God only knows. • God willing. • Thank God for _____ • God’s gift to _______ • Godspeed • Our thought and prayers are with you. • Thank you God! • God damn it! • Leap of faith. • Article of faith. • Act of God. • Count your blessings • Match made in heaven. While religious language will never completely disappear (e.g., the “daemon” in computer science), it’s use, and relevance, can be mitigated. 5. Christians tend to act as though Bible verses are magical words that can somehow dispel evil and confusion, and win people’s hearts and minds simply by being read aloud. If you become unfazed by this, the priest will likely double down and read more verses in a more dramatic tone. The longer this continues, the more their morale will slowly erode. 6. Use doublespeak (or “alternate phrasing”) to soften any harsh points that may come across while addressing your concerns (e.g., a “zero-sum game” should be called a “fixed-pie situation”) [8]. 7. Make frequent use of the word “because.” Due to the way that parents speak to their children, this word adds a subtle, non-overt authoritative weight to anything you say [45].

8. Avoid using the word “you,” when questioning other people; it’ll turns simple questions into personal attacks [20].

9. You can verbally attack people without them realizing it if you do so in the passive voice [20].

10. Telling people to “calm down” usually makes them angrier [46]. Alternately, by telling people to calm down, you can incite them into a rage without overtly goading them.

11. Salesmen have empirically determined that the using the following words will grant charismatic power to their users [45]: advantage save benefit security comfort money trust profit

results value exciting dessert fun safety guarantee new

free love right powerful improved proud discovery truth

joy happy vital investment easy proven health you

12. The following words should be used to place things in a positive light, augmenting the power of your message: [47] prosperity listen reform pristine active(ly) dream freedom children help courage liberty common sense activist peace family share moral principle(d) candid(ly) citizen rights fair change truth precious humane lead proud/pride we/us/our opportunity challenge care(ing) empowerment vision help hard work incentive protect pro-(issue) strength preserve 13. The following words should be used to place things in a negative light, or to define an opponent and their positions by establishing a contrast, augmenting the power of your message: [47] decay radical corrupt(ion) fail(ure) devour steal collapse(ing) waste status quo deeper machine crisis lie spend(ing) sick destructive shame destroy disgrace insensitive impose punish pathetic self-serving bizarre bosses greed cynicism liberal ideological criminal rights they/them anti-(issue) permissive attitude red tape taxes incompetent cheat traitors hypocrisy welfare

14. Use “don’t” language patterns to force people to think of what you told them not think of. This exploits the fact that people cannot visualize the word “don’t” their minds, since it isn’t a noun. Examples include [45]: • “Don’t feel as though you have to buy something today.” • “Don’t look at me and smile.” • “Don’t consider taking out to dinner if you don’t want to.” • “Don’t decide now. You can do it later if you are comfortable.” • “You have to help me clean the house… Really.” • “I don’t know this book is going to completely change your life.” • “Don’t make up your mind to quickly.”

15. Use language patterns which infer an assumption of the obvious will make people feel as though they should should’ve already accepted what you are about to say [45]: • “You probably already know that…” • “People can, you know…” • “You will realize how…” • “Sooner or later you will be…” • “Eventually, you will….”

16. Salesmen have empirically determined that you can make people agree with a statement if you precede it with three other statements which they already agree to. By getting someone to say “yes” three times, they will fall into a rut and be more likely to say “yes” a fourth time [45]. 17. If you do need to persuade the clergyman to do something, phrase your sentences such that they use the words “might” and “maybe.” Most individuals are too explosive, authoritarian, or demanding when persuading others; the use of using “might” and “maybe” allows you to persuade people without giving a direct order, which they may resent [45]. a. Be aware that the use of “maybe” can cause unintended miscommunication. There is a tendency among men that “maybe” is implied to mean “maybe-yes,” and among women that “maybe” is implied to mean “maybe-no.” 18. Everyone loves to hear secrets. By sharing secrets, you establish a trust and rapport. However, you do not need to actually reveal your secrets to exploit this effect; you just need to predicate your statements with one of the following [45]: • “I shouldn’t be telling you this, but….” • “Can you promise me you won’t say anything to anyone about what I’m going to tell you?” • “Off the record, I think you should know…”

19. There is no such thing as “not communicating.” The silent treatment is a form of communication, since it sends a message. Communication is largely nonverbal; and attitudes have been determined to be 7% based on the actual verbal message, 38% based on vocal intonation, and 55% based on facial expression. 20. You can establish your credibility when speaking by [45]: • Being objective. Point out a negative aspect about your position. This will disarms the people trying to find the negative aspects, leaving them to focus on the benefits. You gain great credibility when you appear objective looking at your own products, services ideas, and opinions. • Being precise. Quantity-based claims are more believable when they are not multiples of 5. (“I lost 17 lbs.” is more believable that “I lost 20 lbs.”) • Be reinforced with written documentation from an objective, independent third-party. If anything you say is suspect, then invoke someone else to speak for you. • Being open-ended. The first person to act (i.e., the one who starts the conversation) is typically the one with the most to gain from it. You must directly state your openness to any outcome to relieve any pressure or tension the conversation might cause.

21. Indirect orders are still orders. Not only do people dislike being told what to do, they dislike being told what not to do. As such, avoid statements such as [45]: • “I wouldn’t tell you to ask, because...” • “I could tell you that you make a mistake but I won’t. You want to figure it out for yourself.” • “I can tell you that X is far superior to Y, but I won’t. You’ll realize that until after you’ve done X for a few years.” 22. Avoid the following phrases: Phrase to Avoid Reason Alternative Phrase Correct Response “Come here!” Threatening order to comply. Invite them over. “Why?” “You wouldn’t understand!” Implies that the other party is stupid. “I don’t want to answer that.” “Yes, I would. Try me, I want to help.” “Because those are the rules!” Makes you look like a tool, and more concerned with the system than with people. “Why was that rule made?” “It’s none of your business” Demonstrates that you have no good reasoning. Explain why information cannot be revealed. “It is my business, and this is why....”

“I’m not going to say this again...” Immediately follow with what you weren’t going to say. “It’s important that you understand this, so let me say it again, and please listen carefully.” “Ok, got it.” “What do you want me to do about it?” Evasion of responsibility. “I can’t help.” “I want you to listen and help me.” “You never/always...” Indicates a loss of perspective. Try to see his point.

“Calm down!” Contradictory; criticizes behavior. “It’s going to be all right. Talk to me, what’s the trouble?” “I’m not calm for these reasons, which I will talk about.” “What’s your problem?” Makes it a “you vs. me” problem rather than an “us” problem. “What’s the matter, how can I help?” “It’s not a problem, It’s just something I need to discuss.” “I’m doing this for your own good.” No one buys it, and it makes you look manipulative. “I know what’s best for me.” “Why don’t you be reasonable?” Insulting, since no one thinks themselves to be irrational. Use paraphrasing. “I am being reasonable.” Then explain why. Enable and Enlist Existing Malcontents Getting rid of your pastor is easier than it seems, churches are rife with malcontents who already want to see them go. 43% of people who leave their church do so because of issues with the pastor [48]. While the pastor seems to be in charge of their church -- the modern Pharisees who uphold religious laws and traditions [49] -- this is really an illusion. Priests are leaders, but not bosses; priests have no authority beyond their ability to persuade people [50].

Perhaps the greatest damage done by these malcontents is not their direct opposition, but indirect effect of destroying the enthusiasm necessary for church health and growth. The malcontents keep people from wanting to invite their friends to worship services, due to the tension their “us-vs.-them” dichotomy places in the air [7].

Enlisting the malcontents to serve your hidden agenda is easy, because they are first and foremost, reactionaries, who can be infinitely distracted with silly non-issues. Ideally, these should have some bearing on the priest’s ability to run their parish, which is controlled by: [33] 1. The desire of the parishioners to listen to their pastor. 2. The strengths of the pastor’s independent support organizations and institutions 3. The parishioner’s ability to withhold their consent and assistance. Drama will be the inevitable result. Drama begets drama! Causing drama cannot negate any previously existing drama; it merely adds to it. Drama cannot be avoided, but it can be mitigated. Drama is the cause of all human suffering. Drama is unavoidable, though, because drama is the prelude to conflict, and conflict cannot be avoided, but it can be delayed to alter the balance of power. Drama is the result of disagreement about the distribution of resources. Wherever there is scarcity, drama will follow. Humans are drawn to drama, seeking it and creating it as an alternative to the monotony and boredom of their lives.

If pastors become preoccupied with avoiding the drama, minimizing any challenges to the malcontents, and “only fighting the battles that need to be fought,” then they will lose their spontaneity and creativity. Church growth is then stunted, and the ministry directs itself along the path of least resistance, which is the course that makes rivers crooked. The next victim is outreach, because when a pastor is forced to worry more about damage control then spreading Christianity, the ministry fails its mission. However, churches enable these malcontents to thrive, prosper, and assume critical operational roles, because clergymen tend to [48]: • Use little to no pre-hire screening for most volunteer or paid lay leaders. • Use secondary channels to work outside of procedures. This allows individuals to receive special privileges, and robs the existing political structure of its power. • Try to quell a parishioner’s anger without finding out why they were angry to begin with. • Fail to assert their authority. • Fail to understand how unresolved past issues continue to influence the present. • Fail to quell gossip. • Fail to explore other options and opportunities. • Underuse existing pastoral support systems, or these support systems fail to address the issues and/or defend the pastor. • Allowing the “collateral damage” of drama/conflict to compromise a support system. • Have no other pastors to turn too. (This does not apply to Catholic priests, who are required to have a designated confessor.) • Fail to employ a “good-vs.-evil” mentality. Clergymen often delude themselves into thinking that Christian love can conquer all; leading them to deny, pamper, or excuse the actions of subversives and malcontents. Additionally, this shortcoming renders the priest unable to deal with truly evil and/or mentally ill people. • Pastors often undermine themselves. Typically, these are misfits whose personality, style, and conviction that mismatches their congregation’s. Additionally, there are a number of instructional factors which inadvertently aid and abet the malcontents [48]: • Seminaries and Bible colleges fail to teach the clergy how to deal with hostility. • Seminaries and Bible colleges fail to teach working with boards; plan budgeting; management; fundraising; marketing; and building management, forcing the priests to depend on dedicated, longstanding established parishioners, who are more likely to be malcontents [5]. • Failure of the denomination/bishop to intervene. Typically, this is because of their limited power/involvement in the situation. However, even if they can’t intervene, they should still be able to assert their authority and/or mandate compliance. • An uninformed and theologically illiterate laity is vulnerable to the threats, flattery, cajolery, misrepresentation, etc. of those trying to undermine the pastors.

These malcontents tend to exhibit the following traits: • Powerlessness. A common thread among all malcontents is a sense of frustration stemming from their inability to act or invoke change. The poignantly frustrated are those who are condemned by circumstances to rust away in idleness, despite having the talents and temperament needed to equip them for a life of action. As such, disaffected malcontents tend to come from the following groups [51]: o The recently impoverished. Those who have been poor their entire lives feel no frustration -- they don’t want to challenge the status quo because they crave order; they have no grievances because they have no dreams. It is only the recently destitute who are frustrated, since they have recent memories of better things -- and it is not actual suffering but the taste of better things that excites people to revolt. o Misfits. Misfits are too self-aware to be true zealots; however, they can conceive autonomous existences which are purposeful and hopeful, so they’ll never fully buy-in to anyone’s message. o Outcasts. The barbarians that overthrew Rome were few in number, but once they invaded a country, they were joined by the oppressed and dissatisfied in all walks of life: “it was a social revolution started and masked by a superficial foreign conquest.” As such, immigrants can be easily recruited, since they were already frustrated for want of a new beginning. o Minorities. The least and most successful (economically and culturally) are likely to be more frustrated than those in-between. Unsuccessful people see themselves as outsiders, especially among minority group members who want to blend in with the majority. Likewise, minority members who attain fortune and fame find it difficult to enter the majority’s exclusive circles, making them conscious of their foreignness. Furthermore, having evidence of their individual superiority, they resent the admission of inferiority implied in the process of assimilation. o Adolescents. Strauss-Howe Generational Theory o The ambitious. This applies to those who are ambitious in the face of insurmountable obstacles, as well as those who are in the face of unlimited choice. o Those in the grip of vice or obsession. They are predictably unpredictable. o The impotent (in body or mind). The man who wants to write a great book, paint a great picture, create an architectural masterpiece, become a great scientist, etc., and knows that never in all eternity will he be able to realize this innermost desire, will find no peace in any social order . They view their life as irrevocably spoiled and the world perpetually out of joint, and they only feel at home in a state of chaos. o The inordinately selfish. The fiercest fanatics are often selfish people who were forced, by innate shortcomings or external circumstances, to lose faith in themselves. They separate their sense of selfishness from their ineffectual selves and attach it to the service of some noble cause -- this is why the persuasive champions of love and humility tend to be neither loving nor humble. o The bored. Dollar for dollar, causing trouble is the best form of entertainment. o Sinners. Who else is guaranteed to revolt against the church? • Religious zeal. This is to overcompensate for the lost faith in themselves. The less justified someone is in claiming excellence for themselves, the more ready thy are to claim excellence for their group (e.g., nation, religion, race, etc.) to they can become great by proxy. Apologists don’t try to convince others; they are trying to convince themselves [20]. Proselytizing fanatics convert others to strengthen their own faith; to justify themselves more than to convince others. Therefore, those with creeds whose legitimacy is the most easily challenged are the most likely to develop this impulse [51]. • Elderly or past middle-age. Older people seek traditional church experiences, because it is one of the few things that remain from their youth [50]. These childhood religious influences have imprinted themselves on their minds, permanently influencing their thinking [32]. The joy and calm that they associate with their religious practice is actually just due to completely disassociating themselves from the world around them [17]. • A life of self-denial. Self-denial seemly confers the right to be harsh and merciless toward others [51]. This is likely related to self-righteous behavior; the self-righteous have a need to condemn others as immoral, to makes themselves moral by default. They can rationalize the disapproval their actions cause on Earth by convincing themselves of approval it will win them in the afterlife [52]. • “Sunset values.” These are passionate, highly-prized values that gain much of their intensity from the fact that they are about to disappear or be forever changed. Much like the setting sun, these values make a flamboyant show at the end [44]. The belief that homosexuals should not marry is a modern example of a sunset value.

Those who still cling to these values after the sun has set will be overlooked and marginalized by everyone in their church, because religions must change whenever cultures change, or the religion loses its influence and its ability to propagate. No moral issue is so large that it cannot disappear in the face of cultural change; no one preaches against racial integration anymore, and few pastors have preached against birth control in the last 10 years [32]. • A fear of the future. Invalids or those past middle-age maintain a conservative worldview simply because they have nothing left to look forward too; any changes in their lives are usually for the worse. They are constantly looking for signs of decay. Likewise, the abjectly poor tend to be conservatives because they have no faith in the future, which they see as an unending series of boobytraps that they must walk through [51].

Those with power will always resist growth to maintain their position, since growth always upsets the established balance of power [5]. • Previously slighted or overlooked. There is a moment in the career of almost every fault-finder where a deferential or conciliatory gesture from those in power would have won them over to their side. Jesus might have preached a different Gospel had the Pharisees listened to him [51]. • A low sense of self-esteem and self-worth. This manifests itself as fear an extreme pettiness. Their self-image is so low that one blow will destroy it altogether. Since every remark is treated like an existential threat, they will pre-emptively attack anyone who is capable of delivering that one undermining blow [10]. • Not lazy. Lazy people are never mischievous, because mischief takes effort. Laziness is just an extreme means of avoiding disapproval [52]. • Culturally short-sighted. They are often unable to tell where their Christian principles leave off and where cultural perspective begins. This leaves the malcontents vulnerable to manipulation via cultural assimilation. Conservatism defines itself as the resistance to cultural change, but culture is neither uniform nor monolithic, and it can change as needed to push conservativism into any direction it desires (e.g., American conservatives are preoccupied with the alleged corrupting influence of secular humanists, that they have ignored their own secularization -- science, technology, politics, wealth are now the tools the Christians use to achieve their ends) [44].

This is especially germane because our culture is discontinuously different from those of earlier generations; no group of Christians has lived through a world that has changed so quickly. While there is less physical persecution, the cultural changes are more daunting (e.g., because of mobile devices with internet access, teachers and pastors can be fact-checked in real-time [53]). There can be no old-time revival, since most groups abandon their culture upon moving to a new one (While recent immigrants will continue to speak their native languages, their children will be bilingual, and their grandchildren will have lost all of their old-world language and traditions) [53]. • A consistent modus operandi. Observation from pastor-support groups have noted that the malcontents within parishes tend to act in a similar fashion: [7] o At first, they are one of a new pastor’s strongest supporters, and work excessively to befriend them. o They frequently compare the new pastor to the old pastor. o Malcontents thrive when the church’s formal authority (bureaucracy) does not match the actual internal power structure (due to nepotism, etc.). o Malcontents are bread in counseling; they were loyal parishioners made resentful by a counselor’s failure to solve someone’s problems. o Again, malcontents exhibit a higher degree of religious zeal that other parishioners. They believe that they know how the pastor’s job is to be done because they considered taking on a religious vocation at one time, but did not follow through for some reason. Catholic-specific Considerations There are some special considerations regarding Catholic clergy that should be noted: • Catholics have always placed an extreme emphasis on the minor aspects of their religion which differ from Protestantism; these have come to define both their faith and sense of identity. Catholicism is not-Protestantism [54]. • Catholics tend to have stronger institutions than Protestants. Protestantism compensates for this with stronger Biblical authority [55]. o Distance has a way of enhancing power, so that respect becomes tinged with reverence [42]. This is indicated by their tendency to constantly reiterate that the Pope is “the Pope, in Rome.” • Catholics, and especially Catholic institutions, tend to think in absolutes, resulting in the following side effects: o This absolute thinking manifests itself as various tautologies which are used as thought-terminating clichés (e.g., “all murder is wrong,” or “all good men are virtuous”). This can be advantageous, as it can prolong your conversations with a variety of tangents that evaluate all of the special cases [40]. o The Catholic predisposition to absolute thinking leads to absolute rejections. This is why ex-Catholics are more likely to become atheists, whereas ex-Protestants, because of their relativism, join different Christian sects [55]. • Catholics tend to be less aware of their shortcomings and spend less time dwelling on their past than Protestants do. This is because Protestants have no confession/absolution mechanism to fall back on; they only have a final judgment [55]. • Parishioners can still appeal a priest’s actions, or inactions, by petitioning their bishop. If that fails, the parishioner can petitioning the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and/or the pope directly, to address the bishop’s alleged heresy [54]. • Remember, the Jesuits were once fanatical not from the strength of the church, but from its weakness during the Reformation [56]. Bibliography

[1] "Irreligion in the United States," WikiPedia, [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States. [Accessed 2 1 2017]. [2] "Fast Facts About American Religion," Hartford Institute for Religion Research, [Online]. Available: http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html. [Accessed 2 1 2017]. [3] "Population Clock," US Census Bureau, [Online]. Available: http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html. [Accessed 2 1 2017]. [4] E. N. Luttwak, Strategy, the Logic of War and Peace. [5] D. R. Maynard, Healing for Pastors & People Following a Sheep Attack. [6] J.-P. Flintoff, How to Change the World. [7] M. Shelley, Well-Intentioned Dragons. [8] S. L. Tubbs, A Systems Approach to Small Group Interaction. [9] M. L. Keene, The Psychic Mafia. [10] L. Giblin, How to Have Confidence and Power in Dealing with People. [11] K. D. Mitnick, The Art of Intrusion. [12] G. S. &. O. V. Jowett, Propaganda and Persuasion, 5th ed.. [13] R. Brown, Prepare for War. [14] M. Gladwell, The Tipping Point. [15] J. &. S. D. Sprague, Speaker's Handbook. [16] D. Carnegie, How to Develop Self-Confidence and Inflence People by Public Speaking. [17] E. D. Cohen, The Mind of the Bible-Believer. [18] C. Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. [19] D. Barker, Losing Faith in Faith. [20] P. Boghossian, A Manual for Creating Atheists. [21] R. a. E. J. Johnson, "Essential Manager: Influencing People". [22] G. P. Harrison, 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian. [23] D. Carnegie, How to Enjoy Your Life and Your Job. [24] R. J. Ringer, Getting What You Want: The 7 Principles of Rational Living. [25] T. Hobbes, Leviathan. [26] J. K. Liker, The Toyota Way. [27] G. J. a. J. J. B. Thompson, "Verbal Judo: the Gentle Art of Persuasion". [28] B. Tracy, No Excuses!. [29] J. C. Bivins, Religion of Fear. [30] H. Cox, The Secular City. [31] K. &. B. B. w. H. T. Ham, Already Gone. [32] D. W. Ray, The God Virus. [33] G. Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part 1: Power and Struggle. [34] D. Murrow, "Why Men Hate Going to Church". [35] Sun-tzu, The Art of War. [36] G. Sharp, The Politics of Non-Violent Action, vol. 3: The Dynamics of Non-Violent Action. [37] R. May, The Courage to Create. [38] G. Sharp, The Politics of Non-Violent Action, Part 2: The Methods of Non-violent Action. [39] F. C. Haddock, The Culture of Courage. [40] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. [41] C. Guillebeau, "The Art of Nonconformity". [42] S. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals. [43] P. E. McGhee, "Humor: Its Origin and Development". [44] O. Guinness, The Gravedigger Files. [45] R. Cialdini, Influence. [46] B. Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed. [47] R. L. i. a. B. F. Idiot, Franken, Al. [48] G. L. Rediger, Clergy Killers. [49] H. a. B. H. E. Becker, Social Thought from Lore to Science, vol. 1. [50] G. a. E. R. McIntosh, It Only Hurts on Monday. [51] E. Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. [52] S. Palmer, Understanding Other People. [53] D. Kinnaman, You Lost Me. [54] D. Carlin, The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America. [55] C. G. Jung, Psychology & Religion. [56] R. M. Prisig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Mainenance. [57] K. Hogan, The Psychology of Persuasion: How to Persuade Others to Your Way of Thinking. [58] B. F. Skinner, Science and Human Behavior. [59] S. R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. [60] Plato, Protagoras. [61] Canetti, Crowds & Power. [62] M. K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance. [63] B. Russell, Philosophy and Politics. [64] O. a. R. Brafman, Sway: The Irresistable Pull of Irrational Behavior. [65] R. K. Greenleaf, On Becoming a Servant-Leader. [66] A. M. Weimer, Business Adminstration: an Introductory Approach. [67] R. D. Laing, The Politics of Experience. [68] "Building a Winning Career in Engineering: 20 Strategies for Success After College".