Moderate Religion has shocking and often secretive relationship with its extremist co-religionists

 

A religion is an influence.  That is why if its allies, outside supporters, are fanatics it matters.  Don't just look at what the members do.

 

A religion like Christianity that claims a high taxing moral standard is the only right one needs to be held to a very high level of accountability especially when it says there is mystical good power in its sacraments, prayers and influence.  Don't let it tell you that other groups say kill dissenters or molest children.  That is not the point.  They are not claiming to have magical or supernatural or miracle solutions to the intractable issue of human evil.

 

Don't let religion fast-track you into seeing it as moderate for it is more complicated and nuanced than that.

Support for so-called moderate religion is guilty of something called the Englishman’s Fallacy. Otherwise known as the argument to moderation, it incorrectly assumes that it is always the right thing to take a middle position.  Suppose half a religion is terrorist and the other half is pacifist. Look what happens if you take the moderate or middle view! You are compromising with evil. You are trying to meet it half way.  You are trying to put a net curtain over the evil by blending in the good people.

 

If religionists themselves can claim to be moderate that does not mean outsiders should agree with them.  Usually the talk about moderate religionists comes from tactical commentators from outside their ranks.

A religionist who fits or seems to fit the politically useful standards: being a religious doubter, being unwilling to put religious standards first, being pro-choice, says human nature is marvelously good and trustworthy, says nothing critical about LGBT will be labeled a moderate. 

 

The fact that people with harmful doctrines (such as the Bible doctrine that God as master of life has the right to order us to kill) may never put them into practice only means they never had to. It is not grounds for praise. Religion readily says that itself about philosophies such as atheism or utilitarianism and it is right that bad teachings not being acted on does not mean they should be tolerated. But that means we can say the same thing about it - it teaches doctrines that would harm and which are to be abhorred even if they never get into a position where they do a lot of damage. You are not a good person but a hypocrite if you will not condemn something bad and wait until it does harm. There is nothing moderate about respecting and refusing to abominate any book of scripture that is in some way inappropriate or exploitive.

 

Moderate religionists are considered moderates by those with socialist and secular values. Your opinion and method for evaluation is irreligious or non-religious. While you claim to respect moderates and their faith you treat them as if their religious side does not matter – it is just the social side you are worried about. Your opinion is not even relevant for it is not religious. Not only is your approach dishonest you are not asking why, “If these people are really are so moderate then why can’t they find a more moderate religion – one that is willing to trash violent scriptures - and one with more moderates to be in?” . Being designed a moderate sect, religion or person is nothing to be happy about. It is patronising and condescending and is the assessor not being truly respectful of a religion. Real respect for a religion starts with admitting what it is. If is violent then call it that.  If it is so great for a religion to care only for your liberal modern progressive values then what on earth do you want the religion for? 

 

Why can't it just drop the religion and be about the values?  Why can't its ministers be something equivalent to charity workers?

 

So liberalism defines what is a religious moderate.  That amounts to politicians defining it.  What right has a politician to decide that!!  The person is just an opportunist not a religionist or a yes-man wimp or a yes-woman wimp.  The idea that human nature only orientates towards good is dangerous if you consider abortion murder or to lead to pre-born murder.  Liberals argue that if abortion is murder we have to trust women not to avail of it unless they really need it maybe to protect their health.  It stops you taking responsibility for dead babies if you vote for abortion.  If abortion is extreme and many think it is then moderates and liberals are deceitful in how they take the labels without warrant.

 

No religious extremist becomes one overnight.  It starts off with interest in religion, then "evolves" to moderate religion and then the risk of getting extreme and spiralling out of control is incurred.  The catalyst is how irrational beliefs that are devoid of a reality check breed worse beliefs.

 

There are many isms both religious and not religious.  There are okay people in every camp.  Let us forget about people for a minute and think about the isms. An extreme racism cannot exist unless moderate racism exists.  An extreme Islam cannot exist unless moderate Islam exists.  Even if the extreme form is the honest form and the true manifestation of Islam it needs the moderates, the heretics, to lend it some respectability and power.  There is a symbiotic relationship going on.  That is why peaceful members of a religion still need to be called out on their support for the religion if it has violent tendencies.  They still have something to do with the terrorists - it may be tacit but is there. It may be implied but it is there.  It may be indirect but it is there.

The politicians and the media extol moderate Christians and Muslims and probably moderate Satanists as well! By moderate they mean whoever agrees with their understanding of liberalism or human rights. A peaceful Muslim is never called a moderate if he believes women should stay at home and wear burkas. A Catholic is called extremist for taking a total anti-abortion stance. Also, even if there is such a thing as a moderate the fact remains that at least some of these moderate people are not moderates but heretics. Given that the Koran is fonder of commanding violence than peace it is clear that a Muslim who argues that violence is always wrong is not a Muslim but a heretic. The moderates are just pawns in the cesspool that is political and media hypocrisy.
 
The moderates and the liberals and the media and the politicians when shown that a religion commands violence and hate will argue, "There is more to a religion than what texts say." They thus define religion more as a community than as a company of believers but that is a dishonest definition. You do not need a religion to form a community so religion is a company of believers. There is no room and indeed should be no room in a religion for a person who thinks their interpretation of the religion is what matters for the religion is not about what they want to think.
 
Public religion is cosmetic. The cosmetic is used to hide something dark. Cosmetics are for hiding secrets. Society and politics often collude with it or it could be that religion is colluding with them.  Politics is terrorism in a sense for it involves each rival trying to make the other look bad and hateful.  That religion has a good relationship with politics says a lot.
 
Religion will always cause trouble as will any ideology that cares about getting people to do enough good to outweigh the bad. Religion in some forms says good works do not get you into Heaven but that does not mean it rejects the idea that you can be as bad as you want to be as long as you do more good than bad. The ideology is rife in religion and politics and society and seems ingrained into human nature. When a religion says it abhors it, it is lying. It is worse when it is religious for that is like claiming the sanction of the divine for it. Secular evil is not as bad as religious evil in the sense that the secularist does not say, "God told me to do it or it does not matter for God forgives it."
 
When it is human beings who invent and imagine revelations from God it stands to reason that a religion being man-made can turn into a violent one any time. Or it may manipulate the state or some grouping of people to do the dirty work while pretending to be outraged.
 
Also if a religion has indeed a revelation from God that will do nothing to improve the situation if the religion thinks it is a man-made religion. A religion that is from God can intend to be man-made as much as an outright invention would.
 
Catholicism says God rules the Church. That led to the Church feeling inspired to kill during the Dark Ages so it turned very violent. Christianity and Islam have a lot of innocent blood on their hands.
 
The religion can revere scriptures and saints and a God who are pro-violence. So what does a moderate Christian Muslim mean? One that does not take the Bible and the Koran and the Sharia seriously enough to be willing to put the nasty commands into action? That is not a moderate but a hypocrite.
 
All people religious or not agree that truth and freedom come together. Lies can make people feel free but free. Thus any system that claims to be the truth will believe that war if absolutely necessary for the sake of truth is justified. Truth will mean "my version of truth" to them but they agree that truth does come first. Pacifists are simply liars. Those who oppose the true religion going to war are hypocrites for they think the truth and the religion are not worth fighting for when lesser things such as food and territory are!!
 
What is moderate religion? Is it the middle between lax religion or extreme? If it is then both the lax Catholics/Muslims and the extreme ones are true Catholics/Muslims.
 
If a religion more than any other seems to produce terrorists or if it has violent revelations from God then there is no such thing as a moderate. Are there such people as moderate religionists then? No. They are not moderates but weak believers or even fakers.
 
Moderates are to blame for the fact that a religion can revere violent gods and scriptures and get away with it. They make a bad religion look better. Moderates are hypocrites for they take no responsibility for what the extremists do and believe. They are complicit.
 
So-called moderate Christians or Muslims can do nothing to inspire the extremists to change their minds. Today's moderate is tomorrow's religious fanatic. They deal with the extremists with boring platitudes, lies and half-truths and the extremists feel, “They seem okay but me doing these terrible things is my lot in life. Hopefully one day all will be like them. I bomb and kill to bring that day about.” Do-gooders cannot impress bad people. The evil ones feel part of the religion and respectable because they see the example of the respectable ones and feel they are under the same spiritual cloak. People who draw others into religions that produce some violent members are to blame for that violence. There are faiths out there that never produce violent members who feel they must hurt in the name of God or who see hurting as part of God’s plan.
 
Moderates do not advocate or assist in war against the extremists which is telling.  To condemn religious literalists and to call them dangerous or fundamentalists is implicitly to call for their destruction or death if necessary.  Moderates will stand by silently while that is said which shows they are no better than the fundamentalist or the fundamentalist straw man if you like.

Daniel Dennett states that if a religion has violent members who do not claim to have the backing of God or holy books and who are purely political then the religion is still partly to blame. That is because religion is an attractive nuisance – something that draws people in and brings them to harm. It provides a system that terrorists can recruit from. He points out that religious leaders condemn the religious terrorists in their religion in general terms. It is exactly what you would expect them to do if they have to pretend to care. They never condemn the terrorist by name or adequately explain why the terrorist is wrong. These condemnations are absolutely essential for every terrorist is different.
 
Moderates are just posers.