As someone who was brought up and educated in the West, is it easy for you to criticise Christian religion and religious people and ideas? Answer: Yes.
because it is easy to publicly distribute this criticism through a channel, is it demonstrably so that criticising religious Westerners as non religious Westerners can be actively prevented by church institutions? Answer: No. Church institutions and their theologians cannot exert any influence of censorship on what you freely publish as your opinion.
is it because you publicly criticise religion that someone who sees himself as a person of authority in the Christian religion now publicly accuses you of heresy AND demands that you be punished? Answer: No. No official of the Church, not even its highest official, such as the Pope, would publicly say that your opinion about the Christian religion entitles him to punish you, for example with death or imprisonment.
is it logical to assume that statements made by church dignitaries on the subject of not believing in God and the moral implications will not lead to you and all those who consider themselves atheists being threatened with exclusion from any religious practice? Answer: No. Even if you are an atheist, you will be able to be married in a church by a priest/pastor if you wish, and you will be able to have a Christian funeral for your loved ones if you wish.
because you are not threatened with exclusion from religious practices and traditions, is it logical to assume that your status to express your opinion is from a position of feeling safe rather than from a position of being at risk? In other words, you do NOT have to fear for your life and limb, nor with expulsion from the religious community for criticising religion? Answer: Yes, it is safe to be critical of religion and not have to fear for life and limb or expulsion from the community.
because such is certain, is it a sign of progression and tolerance in religious circles, that is, a development to allow doubts about God and doubts about the moral implications of religion and to welcome the debate, not trying to force individuals to believe, but preferably to convince them of the positive qualities of religion? In other words, accepting the challenge of debate by facing it?
If it is the case that neither the Christian ecclesiastical institutions, nor the Christians themselves, can exercise any power over the fact that you have a purely secular or atheistic attitude and make it public, then what you say against this religion is neither rebellious, nor dangerous, nor particularly exceptional.
is it the case that as soon as individuals publicly denounce, question, criticise or ridicule the authority of those in power, they expose themselves to the danger of being isolated as enemies of the constitution and disturbers of social peace?
if it is the case that the danger of censorship and being isolated does not come from religious people and not from religious institutions, I would say that you have taken a position that ...
a. ... is safe to advocate,
b. ... is popular and therefore mainstream,
c. ... represents a supposed fight but not a real fight, which is not a fight because it is (too) easy to be against something that is either already down or in danger of losing its relevance.
That was my comment under the video.
As for the highest religious institutions though, it can be said, that they themselves seem to not be further willing to represent the faith, but that they seem to have agreed to be seen and named as the culprit for so called evil in the world. And since the institutions - by superficial observation - have given up their resistance towards violation of their very Christian principles, they are perceived as a bride to state powers.
They seem to be a part of what destroys religiosity, but nevertheless don't want to give up the insignia and wealth.
This resembles the very contradictory behavior of those in power who want to reign, but reign without rules. Since they gave up authority, but still want that very authority to have at their disposal.
Just the other day I had an encounter on hive where I talked to a so called witness about his obviously visible fatigue to be active in his witness function, which is politics. He answered that he never was liking that part and doesn't feel responsible since it would also be every one else's responsibility to counter evil forces on the chain. LoL
Which, no, it isn't. It isn't my responsibility do distribute downvotes on whim. If I would agree on that tedious work to spread downvotes, I would have to be
a.) compensated.
b.) a professional in policing, mediating and judging.
c.) be able to refer to a clear set of rules (which is rejected to give out by each and every "witness".
(btw: why this odd name "witness" anyway?)