no, listen.

i'm tolerant up to a point. i really don't care what your beliefs are, so long as you don't try to enforce them on others - and i have absolutely no tolerance for people that do try to enforce their beliefs on others. once you start trying to pass religious laws, i'm in favour of ejecting you into orbit. you essentially lose your status as a human, in my perception.

i'm a little less reactive when it comes to the intersection of religion and art. i'd rather it not happen, but i'm not going to react by trying to shut it down, as then i'd be doing what i'm fighting against. i mean, there's a difference between writing a song about god and passing a law based on something written in the koran or the bible - i can tolerate the former, but i have to aggressively fight against the latter.

so, there's a difference between singing kumbaya, essentially, and saying a prayer. a prayer is organized. it suggests a belief in a structure, a system. when you start dealing with "art" that brings in references to systems and structures, then it ceases to be art and becomes propaganda.

so, it's a question of scale, of degree. but, that's what is in front of me to figure out. on first listen, i mostly heard an instrumental act with some some kind of typical prog rock lyrics about going on a journey through life that probably ultimately works it's way back to rush as the meta influence. further, the last song was obviously about the legacy of  slavery, which is something that a black band has every right to sing a song about, although the references to the christian god are perhaps somewhat of a strange thing, in context. none of that really set me off, until they started praying.

i'm ultimately not in favour of any action besides boycott.

i'm just trying to figure out if that's the better approach or not - if these religious references are light or heavy handed.