To religious moderates give tacit succor to fundamentalist extremists?

Question

by validating their delusional philosophies? afterall, even if the fundamentalist extremists are only small in number, they draw on the large numbers of "mainstream" followers of their faith as validation. To them, moderates are simply fundamentalists who aren't pious enough to live up to the full word and deed.

Answer 1

The religious moderates make it possible for the extremists to come together, religious groups churches and mosques are like sorting houses, manipulative types can pick the likeliest candidates from any religious group and inculcate them into fundamentalism & terrorism.

Answer 2

i have examine "the top of religion", and that i imagine that Harris has a element. non secular moderates are only as undesirable as non secular extremists, only in yet in a unique way. conception informs action, and only because a persons'' beliefs do not cause them to fly planes into homes does no longer recommend that their beliefs are probability free. Moderates are risky because they're consistently harping on about "tolerance". Tolerance, tolerance, tolerance. In different words, we are to tolerate non secular faith, and the moves it informs. i do not imagine that some issues should be tolerated. I accept as true with Harris - you do not see moderates condemning fans, you note them both leaping for exhilaration and cheering interior the streets even as 2 homes provide way, as develop into the case everywhere in the middle east on 9/eleven (and then later condemning those similar acts), or you note them claiming that the enthusiast is "no longer a real Christian", as is extremely frequently the case interior of us of a. In both case, that is ideal to seem, no longer to their words, yet to their moves (or lack thereof). there is not any nicely proper *degree* of non secular faith - that is non secular faith itself that is the difficulty. If one human being can seem me interior the face and trust, all the way down to the very depths of their psyche, that they'll Heaven even as they die and that i will wade through eternal torment in Hell, it really is a subject matter. that announces plenty about the fellow who's watching me, and that i don't love some thing that it says. that is the inherent divisiveness of non secular faith, that dehumanizing ingredient, that makes it so objectionable in my view, yet I could communicate about that this opinion isn't a outcome of my atheism. Atheism does no longer recommend that. that is a outcome of my being anti-non secular. that signifies that now, we've those who declare that atheism is lifelike and anti-faith is fanatical, that is a daft evaluation yet yet another unlucky outcome of that tendency to label each and every thing.

Answer 3

there are dysfunctional periods in real life as we grow older
somewhere about 1965 a book came out called the tomarrow file it progressively flat out stated that as you believe : will run its course till a period of that thinking comes to an end and and it reversals, when studied over a span of fifteen years it was projected to reverse and in subsequent multiples of an ever increasing pace of the new world that this phenomena would double in that rate and reduce your beliefs down to even shorter periods of time that things make sense one day and not the next, progress and adversity are the two ends of the think tank of money spent to protect you from your self here in the world., so it is not quality but quantity of life that controls the majority, the average rule will astound you before u perish

Answer 4

"The war starts when there is no one left in the middle."

But to more accurately answer your question, sometimes. I see a lot of hateful posts by all groups and seldom do the members of that group call them on it.

I think you are insinuating that they should take that responsibility, otherwise they are a part of the hatred.

I agree.

Answer 5

Duh! So what is the question? Seems you already know the answer.