I think it was only established (very clumsily in his exchange with Lisa) that Dracula was very cynical of humans. I think it's actually a good thing to establish that because then you could make Lisa's death more like the last straw rarther than the sole cause for Dracula going on a genocidal rampage. However, your claim about Dracula basically being a ticking time bomb is not something I see reflected in any of the dialogue.
I do agree, though your wording is more in-line with what I actually think and meant at the time. The use of "Purge" was meant as a joke, if only because discussion about the series is and has been getting heated and I'm opting to inject crap jokes to ease some of the tension.
I have no disagreement with you on this. Merely a difference of semantics than actual perspective. That he specifically states he gave [killin' bitches] up a long time ago is enough evidence he's just opting to keep to himself, strengthening the "last straw" idea.
I think it's pretty clear the author is using this show as his personal vehicle to express his views about religion, consciously or unconsciously. I don't particularly care but I think it's strange to deny it.
It's not me denying it. Shankar has gone on record stating that he was out to paint an image of "assholes doing asshole things in the robes and name of the clergy" rather than "church and religion are bad". Doesn't mean this does a particularly good job of it or that he might not have distastes simmering in the back of his mind, though, nor do Shankar's testaments absolve or justify away any follies or political statements made or otherwise intended by Ellis himself. It could be entirely truthful that the intent was a grand social commentary on religion, but I don't currently know that for certain.
What I do know is that we have a couple of notably evil individuals using the name of their faith to justify their misdeeds, without blaring that Christianity is bad IMO (that you have all these other people speaking and preaching ideas of goodwill and love for one's neighbor and turning the cheek, etc., all of which are also major doctrines of the faith in question, I think says something on this front--doesn't make its entire case by any means, but at the very least I think the notion of "people unaffiliated with the church are acting more proper for the faith than the actual clergy" being shown is worth considering, at any rate.). If I look at this as a wholesale barb against the church and religion, then (to draw comparison from something with similar themes of "assholes in religion being religious assholes" specifically, this comparison is not to move goalposts or make a wholly irrelevant statement) I would feel that I'd have to look at Disney's Hunchback in the same light--and we all know that film wasn't a knock on religion itself, but against the sinful using the holy names and influence as self-serving hypocrites.
This exists purely as a thematic comparison, I reiterate. It's not meant to defend the actual argument or anything like that, just to lend a frame of reference on how I'm looking at things thematically. You've specified that pointing to another source doesn't justify poor writing, and I agree on that front entirely, so I want to be perfectly transparent and clear on this comparison and my intentions behind it
not being an attempt to justify what's here by pointing at a Disney film. Only to stipulate the similarities in thematic elements that I'm perceiving between the two and how that affects how I'm looking at the show itself.
So again, I'm not denying it. But the things I've seen and interpreted myself do not signify to me that this was all an anti-religion opus. If you don't agree with me on that front, that's okay. We'll agree to disagree since it seems to be a matter of simply seeing things in different lights.
Here's a line from the original summary from a couple of years ago. This scene occurs after Trevor defeated the Cyclops and before he's taken to the Bishop:
Trevor confronts the village headman known as the Domn and fails topersuade him to protect the Speakers. The Domn claims he is powerless because the city is under the control of the Church.
I believe this scene was cut but the point is that this proves Ellis clearly views the village people as having no agency of their own. This is further supported by the scene you brought up about the village people being suprised they have been misled by the church. All this does is illustrate that Dracula is being unreasonable as fuck.
This may very well be--we have evidence to support scenes whose being cut butchered the narrative flow, and this is no different. However, the old script's contents which don't make an appearance I don't personally feel are entirely validated as factors of consideration, if only because we (currently, I'll gladly change my stance if it's confirmed) don't have any confirmation proof that this particular exchange was cut and its concurrent scene butchered because of it.
Beyond the current lack of a definitive answer, though, I otherwise agree with your stance on the matter.
One thing I had noticed during my first viewing is the girl with the pink outfit during the Trevor questioning the townspeople montage in episode 2. Is she a homage of Yoko from the Aria of Sorrows/Dawn of Sorrows?
WOO SOMEBODY ELSE THOUGHT THE SAME THING
Fuck if I know for sure that was an intended reference, though.