A Moderate Muslim or Moderate Christian simply a person who claims a religious label that has violent and fanatical baggage but does not have the guts or strong enough faith to do harm in the name of Islam or Christianity. If so then being called a Moderate is nothing praiseworthy. The fact remains that the religions are based on accepting vicious revelations as the word of God. They are sympathisers for the cruelties done by their prophets in the name of God. They refuse to admit that holy books that commanded evil are man-made thus they make a god out of human opinion. Human opinion is not that special that it should be dressed up as the word of God - that arrogance is violent in itself!
Moderate religion should not be praised. All extremist religions start off looking moderate until their true intentions surface.

Ideology is an addiction to an idea or set of ideas. Cherry picking or being selective with facts is the core ingredient. Liberal religion by definition is more dangerous than fundamentalism.  The latter keeps some control.  Liberal terrorists kill at random for nobody tells them what to do.  Fundie ones need orders and that keeps some measure of order.

Christianity says God did not make evil for evil is not a thing but merely a lack or absence of good. If you think good is real and bad is a privation or absence of good then there is no real middle. All you have is a privation that is not as strong. But it is on its way to getting stronger and ending up very bad. Remember that if you think lax religion is good and extreme religion is bad! And if both are bad then looking for the middle is not going to help even if there is a middle. And there is not.

A principle is about truth. Truth is not about you. Truth is truth no matter how much you want it not to be. Once you oppose principles you become a lie. You automatically make your life a lie and thus lie to others. To seek a middle ground between the truth and the lie is to create a half-truth and a half-truth is a half-lie.

A good principle and a bad one are not opposites. The bad principle is bad not because it is a lie but because it manipulates the truth and uses the truth to make itself look sensible. Two extremes are not necessarily opposites.

Extreme religion and nice religion are thought to be opposites. That is odd for you have every religion having both sides. And as for the moderate believers, if they are trying to find the middle they need to remember that there is no middle between vice and virtue. To look for a middle is compromising virtue. If you look for a middle ground between the truth and the lie you only end up with another lie. If you really cared about the truth you would not be looking for a moderate or middle ground to slot into. And you are treating the whole thing like, "Okay I can be an extremist and become a suicide bomber. Or I can be so nice that people find me sickening. The best idea is to be in-between." If you want to be the kind of person who wants to kill and who curbs that by a desire to be saccharine that is up to you but you cannot claim that you or your faith or religious devotion is good.

The middle between a lax form of a religion and the rigid bloodletting form is fanaticism. It might not be very strong - for now! But it is still bad.
Christianity is a catalyst for society's hypocrisy. Society cares more about public order than principles. That is why Christianity often gets away with being violent in spirit when it is not violent in action. To praise a God who makes viruses to kill children, to praise a Jesus who took responsibility for the Old Testament murderous laws and to give money and social prestige to ministers and theologians who stand up for all that evil is paying homage to violence. It is alarming how in Catholic countries how many Catholics can say their religion is good when they would adore a God who would send a ten year old boy to Hell forever for masturbation. It is alarming how they can support the religion despite suspecting that it may be man who is saying it not God. The priest who says it would send the child to hell himself so what does his faith say about him? Religion reflects man's love for his own version of good as opposed to real good.
People know that if they want to work on feeling horrendous about the tragedies they learn about that do not otherwise affect them, they will soon be consumed by grief and terror and anger. So they switch off. The down-side of that is that the more they anaesthetise their emotions the more they will see and think of the suffering people as unimportant or as objects. It is possible to see a person as 80% an object and 20% as a person. There is an empathy problem then in most people. That is bad but it is a fact of life. But to sanction it by telling that person that God accepts their lives and connects with them in spite of their attitude to suffering people is going too far. If you objectify the enemy that makes it easier to kill him so religion is to blame for it makes that easier still.

Some argue that if a religion's holy book does not command women to get into burkas or to force religion on others then it is okay for society and the state to stop the burka wearing or forced conversion or whatever. Though there are things that it is necessary for a Christian or Muslim to believe in there is some areas in which private interpretation and having your own beliefs is allowed. If the women who wear burkas consider sexual desire to be a grave sin it seems logical to them that their way of dealing with it is to cover up. The argument that there is no command in the Koran to cover up totally is a thin one. You would see people who would argue that if God commanded that gay sex is a sin or that peaceful pagans should be liquidated that does not apply today for there is no commandment against loving gay relationships or commandment to kill Satanists.  Silence is not the same as consent and we can be sure that when God did not say gay sex being loving made any difference that when he condemns it it applies to loving modern gay relationships too.  Such arguments and logic is thin and unhelpful.  The texts make it reasonable to permit people to interpret them in the hardline way.  The argument that some evil is not officially endorsed by a religion and thus there is no problem is unhelpful and manipulative.  If there is more to a religion than what a text says then clearly the door is open if a text can be understood as permitting or even commanding some evil.

It has been noticed that there is link between Muslims joining ISIS and Muslims failing to integrate into the wider society. People always sacrifice their faith commitments to get food and drink and shelter. The saints, monks and nuns vowed to peace will gladly slaughter if they lose those basic resources. A religion with a blood splattered warmongering past will behave itself and seem to integrate when it is a minority. Muslims fitting in in say the UK means nothing. When numbers get big enough in the area and the Muslims feel more self-sufficient they end the integration. The integration was never real in the first place.  This problem is partly down to the lies of Christianity.  Lies necessarily exclude the person of truth or the person who lies differently.  Religion is not prepared to come clean so it is to blame for any grave society problems that happen.


No Copyright