Ah, the one who is UrRong to criticize the declared war on Christianity. While the retort focuses on respecting and appreciating religion, it seems to have forgotten a few key points. Firstly, if we are to talk about respecting and appreciating religion, then why not make an effort to understand Nikhil's point of view? After all, he was bold enough to express his opinion and make a case for his argument.
We must also not forget that Nikhil clearly said that his declaration of war was specifically against Christianity, and not against any other religion. Moreover, after providing evidence from the market share of religious groups in America, Nikhil concluded that targeting Christianity would make the greatest impact in reducing religion in general. Therefore, the retort's criticism of singling out one religion does not hold up to Nikhil's logical argument.
The retort also claims that it is wrong to assume that all religions are "completely moronic". While Nikhil might have used strong language to express his opinion, this does not make it necessarily wrong. Nikhil is entitled to his opinion, which is really his own way of addressing what he sees as an issue. Plus, if we consider the fact that religions have been an integral part of many cultures and civilisations throughout history, then we can also conclude that Nikhil's conclusion was not unfounded.
Finally, the retort mentions that it is wrong to assume that religion is merely a "business initiative". Again, while the retort may be correct in stating that religion should not be regarded as a commodity, this does not take away from Nikhil's original idea. His declaration of war was an expression of his thoughts and opinions on how he would make a difference. Therefore, his premise and conclusion were still valid despite the retort's critique.
In conclusion, we can all agree that this "war on Christianity" should be fought with laughter... UrRong?