"Kent’s problem is not that he critiques religion. The problem is how he does it. He constructs a sensational and simplistic narrative by privileging anecdote over evidence and ideology over nuance. He treats religious belief as pathology, ritual as camouflage, and dissent as proof. This is not sociology—it is polemic. And it has consequences. Kent’s theories have been used to justify surveillance of religious groups, to support prosecutions based on dubious evidence, and to stigmatize communities that deviate from [the] mainstream norms. His work has contributed to a climate of suspicion, where difference is equated with danger and belief with abuse. This is why revisiting the Satanism scare—and Kent’s role in it—is not merely an academic exercise. We must remember how easily fear can masquerade as scholarship, and how quickly ideology can distort inquiry. We must distinguish between critique and condemnation, between analysis and accusation."