So what's your alternative solution then? Crack Down won't change the trait on its own, and only delays the issue to next time. What do you suggest we do?
Plus, do you really think our religious doctrine is so weak? Our king mentioned he was easily able to trip up the Puritans because their logic was pretty screwy. That is not the sign of a group that does well in debates.
Hero king is dead.
Puritan doctrines tend to be quite powerful actually. They are reductionist, and adhere only to the the absolute core of the faith at its most literal understandings.
Expert theologians can debate puritans and win most of the time sure. But to those with less expertise, it is impossible to debate the puritans, because doing so risks arguing against the very tenets of the faith.
The extreme simplicity of puritanism, whilst a weakness against theologians, is an extremely powerful force on the public.
Anyhow, as for purity. I said it before, the purity trait itself is a great thing, it has lots of directions to evolve towards. And it was mentioned that root and branch risks losing the trait, so it's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Another thing to consider is how quickly one draws the line at heresy. This is a doctrinal argument within the faith, choosing wipe out option, may very well set us up to have extremely low tolerance for any theological development or innovation. Because keep in mind, the puritans are precisely that.
I say to get the most out of the debacle, let the puritans be so long as they tow the line, and let the faith develop whilst they are providing doctrinal opposition. This way, it becomes sophisticated enough to resist future reductionist and literalist doctrines.
Now, as for how to deal with the root of the problem, the answer is simple: shift social focus. Make it so that the things the puritans oppose are a standard part of the social fabric, basically, have the puritans wage an uphill battle. Most importantly, emphasise certain aspects of society so that not only are they seen as normal, but they become good. Making puritan arguments more likely to annoy rather than convert.
Here's an example of early Islamic history.
In the Umayyad period, there was a major doctrinal split between the Hanafi "orthodoxy" of the Umayyads, and the Khawarij who held that the former where anathema (Khawarij where hardline puritans)
The Khawarij argument against ummayads wines, music, dance, indecency, opulence, extravagance, imagery, aristocracy and hedonism found extremely fertile soil, as the argument was both simple and clearly scriptural.
The umayyads, whilst they did unleash unholy hell upon any who rebelled against them, the Khawarij issue was in the end resolved by a social shift.
The Ummayads high culture became the norm, it became expected of the elites to act in the fashion of the court. And the rest of society grew both accustomed and even expectant of this new culture. Afterall, they made a fortune servicing the new courtiers, and aspired to one day join thier ranks. Not mention that military victories and extreme material wellbeing gutted arguments of divine displeasure at the new system.
And so, arguments that challenged the entire social fabric became simply untenable, up until the 19th century.
