Seeing their point is quite distinct from accepting their point. If they are correct then they should be controlling how we all operate. Yet if they are incorrect then they should have no say in how everyone else should operate.
Thought time some large social groups have moved away from theological control. This could be read as progress, mere change or degeneration. My current hypothesis is that a movement away from theological control allows us to better handle the human condition. It is progress. It is better.
Yet in a period of uncertainty some people are inclined to reach for the familiar. They see our change as degeneration, and think that restoration of older ways will help. Yet there is no going back so they end up creating something that is really just what they think the old ways were.
I agree that moving away is the best thing and allows us to deal with existential issues.
I also believe in the right of such organizations to exist. With that being said, I think that it is the job of everyone that is interested in such progress to quit said organizations, and encourage others to do the same.
I think that it’s a form of intellectual dishonesty to desire membership and rights to an organization that is opposed to your views, while you simultaneously claim to hold the views of the group.
I am not advocating the elimination of any such group, only questioning what role it can play in the larger social body. Perhaps trying to find a demarcation between tolerance and indulgence?
I wonder if those who do stay might dread leaving the organization bereft of any dissenting voices from within.
Also we could ask: what are the compelling reasons that people have in wishing to retain membership in the group? There might be some benefit or benefits from being a member which the individual hopes to retain.