Probably the most efficacious way doesn't involve confrontation at all. You just let the institutions become increasingly irrelevant and wait for people to give up on their own. Like has been going on in, say, Scandanavia for generations now. I don't recall asserting that any individual belief systems wouldn't be altered in the process. I'm pretty sure that was the whole idea, no? What I said was that I don't see where Fraggle's called for any actual believers to be killed. Hard to envision a scenario in which that would be anything but counterproductive. "A resistance" as in, like, the French Resistance or something? The methods that I could see working (see, again, Scandanavia) would seem to suggest "no." It would have to be more a gradual mass movement, then some regime of enforced atheism. If Stalin couldn't pull that one off, I doubt it's possible at all. But, yeah, church leaders and the like would "resist" such a trend. Which is exactly why you wouldn't want to do something like that in an oppositional, confrontational way - it would empower said leaders. I am presuming to speak about Frag, and have tried to make it clear when I am assessing his statements, and when I am offering my own views. If there's any confusion, go ahead and let me know. So you've dreamed up the most hysterical, prejudicial interpretation possible, and want Fraggle to be accountable to it. Not impressed and, indeed, you don't appear to be getting any traction to speak of with this line. He didn't suggest a gulag - he suggested an entire planet for them to run as they please, where they'd be in total control and could do whatever they want without any complaint from him or anyone else. Not that it isn't cheap and trollish to go and sieze on what is obviously an expression of frustration - one phrased in science fiction terms, at that - and insist that we read it literally. But when the quotes you cherry-pick don't even superficially match your hysterical accusations, the result is asinine.