religiosity often surges during times of hardship, as people seek comfort, meaning, or divine intervention in the face of uncertainty or suffering. conversely, it tends to wane during periods of prosperity and stability, when individuals feel more self-reliant and less inclined to turn to metaphysical explanations. this cyclical pattern suggests that religiosity functions less as a sustaining force for positive conditions and more as a reactionary response to adversity. rather than being a source of enduring light, it appears to be the shadow cast by darknessa coping mechanism that emerges when other avenues of control or understanding seem insufficient, only to recede once the crisis abates. in essence, wishing for the resurgence of christianityor any form of religiosityby necessity implies a desire for the very conditions that fuel it: instability, suffering, and fear. for christianity to thrive as a dominant cultural force, the darkness it feeds on must first prevail, as its core appeal lies in offering solace and hope amid despair. this dynamic exposes an uncomfortable paradox: advocating for the return of christianity is not inherently a wish for goodness or prosperity, but rather a tacit acceptance, or even a longing, for a world marked by hardship. it becomes less about building a just and flourishing society and more about sustaining the conditions that justify a coping mechanism. such a stance undermines efforts to address the root causes of suffering, instead perpetuating a cycle of dependency on belief systems designed to mitigate, rather than eliminate, the prevalence of evil.
NATO