To those of all faiths (or non-faith) RE: the role of moderates in religion (see details)?

Wot's this? An intelligent question on R&S ... I think I have the wrong internet!

Absolutely, yes, moderates of Christianity have an obligation to call the extremists on the truly BAD image they are presenting of Christians everywhere.

I am a Catholic. (Does that make me a "moderate"? I know I can count the times when I've been accused of not being "true" Christian.) As a Catholic I find the mediocre arguments and cardboard faith of so many Creationists and other extremists to be an embarassment!

These extremists are a *disaster* for the Christian message for several reasons:

First, because this kind of extremism is generally *easily* shown to be constructed by dishonest people leading gullible people ... this presents that absolute *worst* image for Christians. It makes us look like Christians everywhere are either dishonest or gullible. How many times does a self-serving, hypocritical religious leader have to be exposed for exposing himself to minors, or hiring prostitutes, or trolling airports for casual hookups, or just scamming the sick and the old for money so that they can live in luxury? How many times can someone like Kent Hovind reveal himself to be a pathological liar before he is hauled off to jail? And yet how many of their followers just pick themselves up from being betrayed, and move on to the next leader willing to exploit them. (E.g. I notice that Kent Hovind's son is picking up his ministry while he serves his time for tax evasion.)

Second, if Creationists were ever to actually *succeed* in their agenda of getting Biblical Creationism presented side-by-side in a science classroom along with evolution, this would be an unmitigated *disaster* for the cause of the Christian message everywhere. The entire point of the First Amendment is not just to protect government from religious interference, but to protect religion from government interference. The founders were wise enough to know that faith does not survive well in a secular environment (such as political power, or the science laboratory). If you want to promote the teaching of faith, the science classroom would be the absolute LAST place you want children to be evaluating literalist Christian articles of faith!

Third, the asault on science leads not only to an inevitable descent into hypocrisy (leading the young Creationist to outright *contempt* for science ... while expressing this contempt using computers, the internet, blogs, and other tools of science) ... but it leads to a country whose voting public is weakened by an inability to evaluate *logic* and *evidence*. If you can be persuaded by jackasses that the earth is 6,000 years old ... then you can be persuaded that smoking is not bad for you, that Saddam is responsible for 9/11, that there are weapons of mass-destruction, or that George W. Bush or Sarah Palin would make a fine President.

Fourth, and most damaging to Christian faith, this kind of extremism always, always, always leads to a cascade of logic, descending into outright lies that betrays the very principles for which Christianity should stand. How many times have I heard outright LIES like "there are no transitional fossils" or "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" even though they are *TRIVIAL* to show are outright false! But it's worse than that.

And fifth, and finally, what should be of most concern to these very fundamentalists ... Biblical literalism is *idolatry*. It is putting an idol ... a book ... *above* God. Make no mistake about it ... scripture may once have been the word of God ... but it is also largely the work of MEN. It was transmitted by men, transcribed by men, compiled by men, translated from translations of translations by men, and finally *interpreted* by men. To insist that the *only* path to God is through the *literalist* interpretation, is to put that interpretation BY MEN above God.

So should we "moderates" speak out. Absolutely!

If not we will see the extremists sink the message of Christ under a weight of lies, distortions, and polemic that is precisely the *opposite* of good Christian faith.

Indifference to persons who bully is the same as bullying. I do beleive that God does not ever bully, He and His knowledge are the most sublime and therefore those who represent God must not either. I don't beleive you have a clear defenition for true science. Science is the opposite of nescience or ignorance. With that said you will find that a lot of things that scientists say is true today, is not necessarily true tomorrow. There will be another so-called scientist that will prove the previous one's theory wrong. Many evidence of this.....

Can you really and surely stop a bully by responding to him?! If each person turns to himself and finds the biggest bully right there inside himself, he will not be criticizing the bully outside, would he? Going to that lowest point (highest spiritually) requires willingness to practice and a bonafide spiritual master who based on true science would not let things go on silently. One that can lead you further in your spiritual journey which may have been started life time(s) ago. Also, I have heard and beleive that we are living in a tough age, spiritually. And the tougher the age, the simpler the method of liberation...... (or the form of practice)

...You are welcome to email.

I don't know that silence makes it worse. It certainly doesn't help though.

Not that I'm trying to give them an out, but it's not always safe to confront extremists. Even ones supposedly on "your side". Extremism is a problem for everyone, not just the moderates on their team.

"Their" moderates joining their voices to the chorus of dissent though does send a clear message.

I am a legal professional as good as an atheist. The fundamental context wherein the federal courts would regard "atheism as a faith" is in circumstances related to discrimination (within the office, and so forth.), wherein "atheist" is handled like a devout choice (like "Methodist" or "Muslim" or "Mormon") for purpsose of the Civil Rights Act, that is a technique wherein the 14th Amendment (making use of the First Amendment and the leisure of the Bill of Rights) is carried out no longer most effective to ban designated movements via the federal, state, and regional governments, but in addition acts via personal residents and businesses, and so forth. which can be considered as discriminatory. So, "atheism" would be handled as a faith in a civil rights / discrimination case to be able to enable an atheist plaintiff to sue and to exhibit that she or he have been mistreated, and so forth. for the reason that she or he was once an atheist. In the case statement to which the Asker associated, footnote 6 stated the ACLU v. McCreary County case as a Supreme Court choice wherein atheism was once categorised as a faith. Not so quick. That case was once one of the crucial 2 courthouse / 10 Commandments show circumstances made up our minds via the Supremes just lately, and if that's the case the Kentucky county officers misplaced. In the a few critiques issued via Supreme Court Justices within the McCreary case, the phrase "atheism" or "atheist" looks most effective as soon as, within the DISSENTING opinion of Justice Scalia, who has lengthy been out of the mainstream of American federal jurisprudence at the interpretation of the Establishment Clause (one of the crucial two "Religion Clauses") of the First Amendment. Not even Scalia claims that atheism is a faith. There is NOTHING within the McCreary critiques that holds that "atheism" is a faith beneath federal legislation, and I'd be curious and extremely joyful to look any stated federal court docket case that holds, in such a lot of phrases, that atheism is a faith. Rather, what many federal court docket circumstances say is that after the federal, state or regional executive makes a choice or takes an motion that hinges on devout variations and both favors one faith over an extra or favors faith as a rule over non-perception, an atheist would be an "aggrieved character" who has suffered harm and would have authorized status to sue. As for the center query, will have to atheist organizations qualify for presents of presidency cash beneath "religion-established tasks," my reply is NO. Atheists, if they'd organizations, might no longer be undertaking hobbies at the groundwork of "religion," and such organizations will have to neither ask for nor obtain executive appropriations, executive contracts, or executive subsidies.

anyone that doesn't call out an extremist is making the problems worse. (even liberal extremists that, say, want to blow up a church or burn bibles)

think about it: it won't get better if this burden of a current situation remains the same. catalysts must be stopped so that a logical solution can be reached (with out all those nasty hormones)