Religious moderatism empowers religious fundamentalism by affirming the false premises that religious fundamentalists rely on.

In order to argue against a religious fundamentalist in an atheistic society, all you have to do is point out that the religion, itself is false -- and then they have the burden of proof to demonstrate the contrary. AKA, the anti-fundamentalism side gets the high ground.

In order to argue against a religious fundamentalist in a religiously moderate society, you have to sorta walk the fine line of affirming that the religion in question is true while arguing that the fundamentalist doctrine is untrue. In that case, you're on even footing, arguing interpretations of the same text, which really sucks since religious interpretations are subjective by nature.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

HannibalAteMeOut · 22-25, F

It's so hard to explain but I had this kinda happening to me today. My mom isn't strongly religious but she is a believer, like most people in this society and she was telling me a story about how some priests and church people who organize a "Sunday school" (if I may call it that) for christian kids were trying to "proselytize" her nephew into becoming a priest or a monk when he was a kid. I told her "Have you ever thought that the way priests and monks live are the best ways for a christian to live so they just encourage this way of life to anybody who follows the religion?". But she was just insisting that those people are hardcore believers or "fundamentalists". But most "moderate" christians don't have a problem with a whole country being "based" on this religion, with it being taught at school to all students, with the church having an active role in politics etc. It's suddenly only a problem when their own relatives are becoming hermits or when they follow the religion "too much" to the point where they reject secular cultural things, then apparently they are "brainwashed".