The problem, it seems to me, is that religious types think everyone else thinks in the same way they do, so they're always on the lookout for those vile heathens who are leading people astray. The one thing that doesn't occur to them is that people might actually think for themselves.
The problem with that drivel is that it does not address the issue of whether the "vile heathens" are or are not leading us astray. If they are leading us astray, as religious types think they are, then the RTs are pragmatically justified in being on the look out for them. The "vile heathens" need to show that they are not leading us astray. That's what the whole argument hinges upon. Whether we are led astray or not.
Being "led astray" is, of course, disastrous.
People thinking for themselves is neither here nor there. The expression is trotted out endlessly and sentimentally by those who think thinking for ourselves, scientifically impossible under any modern definition of the word "thinking", is both a good thing and not a danger to our being led down the paths of enlightenment.
As usual Setanta draws his conclusions from his premiss which is, as most other people know, nonsensical. And whatever conclusion he arrives at from whatever premiss he starts with can be guaranteed to be self-flattering as the drivel quoted makes abundantly clear in the sense that we are being told Setanta thinks for himself and is thus a suitable subject for our admiration. Which is only the case if thinking for ourselves is a good thing.
But, it only "seems" that way. Thus it hardly matters at all.