[MasterAnders]

I dunno, it seems to me that religious extremists would persist in their views and actions regardless of whether or not moderates denounced them, and don't moderates often do this anyway? Religious extremism seems to meet a great deal of opposition, yet it still stands.

[nothingnew]

IMO this entire issue is all about the media. For many decades the printed newspapers largely controlled what the TV stations reported on. Investigative journalism was popular. The only way people currently know anything is through the media. Many countries realize this and only let the public become aware of certain things. That is true to an extent in the US, you cannot say Fuck or get beyond censers. You will not see the ugly side of real violence on US television. When an argument is made by an American about anything America does, that person is labeled extreme and discredited by someone. You rarely see a reporter in Afghanistan with a translator talking to the citizens. The real control over the citizens comes from media led by capitalism and ratings.

I cannot find a reference, but my older friends tell me that until the early 80's it was illegal to tell a story without a counterpoint. A TV show covering political events, like a Democratic conversion, had to have representatives from the Republican side present. A station like Fox with a bias view was actually illegal until the 80's, according to my Republican friends.

Today it is all about the money. Sensational stories get ratings. The media controls popular opinion. I personally do not know any extremists, or I would call them out. I do not think I have ever even met one. I would not know they existed if it was not for the news. If I was to start a church with only 3 followers, and we all drank blood or something similarly stupid, one call to the TV station would likely put my face on national news. The next day, if I was protested, there would likely be a more sensational topic for the media to cover.

[LookingGlass]

Yes because if you are not actually against a problem you are with it. Your complacency gives them strength. The extremist will always define your religion to others, as they become the movers and shakers in the world -- i.e. the cause for distress, suffering, or the dissolving of comfortability or the ordinarily living life in tick tock. They bring the attention to the religion, from a perspective that is central to their sect and agenda. If you sit back idle, then they will define your religion. If you do nothing, it will consume you.

It is complacency in this case which is the problem, again if you are not against it, actively, then you are with it -- your silence gives it further credence and life.

As for atheist enabling, yes they do, but in a different way. They are quick to disparage the crimes and insanity of these extremist, but yet they approach scripture, at least those who debate, from a counter-perspective of a fundamentalist. In order to do this they sit the scriptures in front of themselves, and break it down as if it were meant to be a literal retelling of history, as if it is supposed to be literally appealed. This only strengthens the fundamentalist, since they of course read it literally, it's like playing within their field. Sure it's easy to bad mouth a religion when the practitioners, for instance, still sacrifice animals, or stone people to death, or believe that people can turn into pillar salts. How much atheist would create in the world, if they said the scriptures are an allegory that represents concepts that these ancient communities used to transmit their knowledge or teaching on the human being, internally, and his place in such work. Why even consider it any of it at all? a debate couldnt happen then. I have found most atheist debaters to be lacking in their study of theology, and if they are not, why play the of not knowing that scriptures were, in the primitive, taken allegory fundamentally in its core, but exotic in the mass. There is actual proofs for this, that anyone can read any time.

[Shahada]

I've heard this argument advanced before, especially by people like Sam Harris, and to me it just doesn't make any sense. Why would this apply to logic and not anything else? Logically this argument should make moderate European social democrats as enablers of Stalinism, or moderate center-right politicians enablers of Nazism. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny and degenerates quickly into complete incoherence. I can't think of a single good reason why the logic would apply to religion exclusively and not other ideologies except to give atheists an easy out.

[Mutatio NOmenis]

I'm of the opinion that religious extremists validate themselves and what others do adds to their self-validation. By not being as fanatical as they are, they prove themselves to be holier than thou. By not giving a damn, they prove themselves to be an elite spiritual elect. By being a fanatic alongside them, they prove to themselves that they are right and that others will join their crusade.

[dena30211]

Do religious moderates enable religious extremists? Discuss.

I think it's a great question. So many ways to approach the answer it'd make for a great blue book answer in a politics course. No right answer, only points given for the quality of the analysis. I shall ponder it and get back to you.

[Mutatio NOmenis]

Extremists validate themselves. That is all.

[floryshe]

Not sure.

I think it has mainly to do with what a particular society holds as moral/ethical. As mentioned before, not all Christian groups are treated the same if they engage in activity that's outside the moral lines society has drawn out.

- ex. if one church allows homosexuality will others not make a ruckus of it? (not that i'd consider this extremist behavior lol but in the context of what is held acceptable by the vast majority of christians it would be.)
- do people not stop to mock the westboro baptist church more times that not when they're protesting funerals?

with this in mind it seems to be all about how the society as a whole perceives things. in the muslim world, extremists might perhaps be given a pass because they're perceived as the lesser of two evils. (the united states and its ..lol allies.. being the other)

[progfan1988]

Yes, the religious moderates allow extremism to exist and grow. Sam Harris explains this very well. I'm not sure what "outspoken atheists" contribute to this and I'd love to know how that comes into play because I'm an atheist. I don't know why an atheist would take a stance without studying theology. I went to religious schools growing up and took a bunch of theology classes in college. I think one can only truly debate if he/she is knowledgeable on both sides of the issue. Having the "god debate" is pointless anyways. It can't be proven and the burden of proof is on the one making the claim that god exists. Just because it can't be proven doesn't make it untrue. It leaves one with the option of having faith (believing something without evidence) or not. The only thing that gets me going is the fact that people can be so certain of the one thing that can't truly be answered. There isn't enough evidence for me and until there is, I won't believe. As long as you aren't hurting people because of your/their beliefs, think what you want. If you hold the view that if people hurting others for religious reasons is ok because it is part of their religious beliefs, then you are a moderate and you are allowing extremism to exist and flourish.

[Roland787]

Just quick shortened speech by Sam to think about. Moderates do leave the path open for extremists by continuing to feed fuel to the original beliefs to begin with.