In a religion, you have the loose members claiming to be its true disciples, the ones who really understand it.  Then you have moderates laughing at that while claiming to be the true representatives themselves. Then there are the fanatics who deny that the liberals and moderates are in any sense reliable guides to what the religion standards for and they say they alone are the real followers.  And there are those who say the commitment to the religion and the membership is on a spectrum so they are all members to some degree.

The fact is that if a religion is engaging in lies or untruths it may be nice and friendly but is not really moderate.  To care only about what society gets out of such religion is shameful and is just a license for fraudsters and liars to do grave damage.  Lies lead to damage when you least expect it at times.  And it can be very hard to rectify.  A culture with a few fanatics is better than one rife with lies. 

Politicians praise liberal religion that thinks it is a social work club not a religion.  Politics is toxicity on acid and far from genuinely moderate itself.

So to be clear, unless a religion is careful with truth and reasoning and evidence it is NOT a moderate religion.  Ever.

Religious texts advocating hate and discrimination and violence have a remarkable effect on many readers even those outside of the religion.  They cause trouble in an uncanny way.  It is probably because it claims to be the message from something bigger than  you so if you harm for it you are part of something transcendent.

The notion that moderate religion is fine and only mad extreme religion is bad is stupid and short-sighted. The extremists rise up out of the moderates and any moderate potentially can become a rabid fundamentalist. A moderate religion can be captured by the more extreme people. Moderate religion is a spectrum. Most moderates hold to at least one or two ideas that would be considered bigoted and extremist. An extreme group cannot exist on its own. It will look and sound too ridiculous so it needs to infuse itself in moderate religion and get direct or indirect sustenance from moderates so that it can look smarter and more valid than what it is. It needs the moderate version and the belief network and the social network and the communication network and the religious label they have in common. Against this you can say that any belief at all can come in moderate and extreme forms. For example, we all want privacy today but some will go too far with it and be found dead six months of neglect after their demise. Or they will be in such a bubble and out of touch that they will easily shoot others dead in a supermarket for their empathy is gone.

Christianity is a faith. Islam is a faith. The people are not the faith. They follow Christianity or Islam. To argue that a faith is good because enough members it has got are good is stupid.

Moderate religion thrives on containing evil not challenging it.  It is all about the appearances and cakes and being nice.  Here is an example.  Allowing a church to practice same sex or same gender marriage but only when the minister believes in it and wishes to perform such marriages is a plot to contain homophobia.  It is not erasing it. Marriage is marriage which means nobody has the right to treat you or think of you as unmarried when you in fact are.

Many feel that religion is a tool that is mainly for helping to bring people together so that they can achieve things they cannot do on their own. But you do not need religion for that.  You DEFINITELY do not need "moderate" religion for that.  Why can't you be a moderate something else?   Why are you operating within a religious label and structure based on us and them?


No Copyright