This message was self-deleted by its author

[saltpoint]

70. Whether a set of traits is endemic obscures

the relation of the individual to power and the individual to a society that wields it.

To the point of religions' role as bully, I don't see why that is even in dispute. The direction of the discussion is not whether other entities also bully, also isolate, also visit violence upon others. (By the way, Don Delillo's Underworld is an extraordinarily useful source for this question, but take a deep breath because the novel is lengthy.)

Again, power: Whose interests are served if an individual stands up for what is right (Rosa Parks) or marshalls others, inspires others to make a collective statement against institutional wrong-doing (Dr. King)? And is that individual or collective objection morally persuasive?

Societies can dial up (or down) on possible solutions "to educate people for alternatives to violence," but this is a precarious undertaking with no predictable outcomes. An accusation by the individual against institutional transgression, no matter the stripe, becomes a personal act, a political act. It would seem to me to be a justified act, spiritual or otherwise, and therefore, trotsky's assessment would be demonstrably true.