Religious moderates enable religious extremists

[Something completely different]

---

After years of trying to get theists to take the topic seriously, I finally got a Muslim to agree to a one on one debate on the topic listed in the title.
A format of opening post, three subsequent posts and a closing statement each was agreed to, a ten thousand character limit per post was set, and it looked like we were off, with a hiss and a roar. Then, when my opening post in the affirmative was posted, he suddenly realised his classes were starting again, and what he once described as an important topic, close to his heart, was no longer important enough to warrant his attention.
So, once more, I am at a loss for a theist, or an atheist who disagrees with me, to give the matter the attention I think it deserves, and post my opening gambit here to see if anyone wants the opportunity to make me eat crow by demonstrating how my logic is invalid, or my premises unsound.
First in, best dressed.
Please, if someone does take up the challenge, give the duologue some space. Your thoughts on the matter might be pertinent, but a one on one debate is exactly that, so if you really can't bite your tongue for the ten posts to pass, perhaps you might consider opening a peanut gallery thread. As an active participant in the debate, if it happens, I won't look into any commentary, and would hope my opponent, if one steps up, is similarly willing to play their part solo.
Having gotten all that off my chest, I give you the opening statement for the affirmative on the topic "Religious moderates enable religious extremists."

Zoroastrians, are thin on the ground today. Some might argue that the religion's lack of a doctrinal mandate to make converts led to the gradual erosion of the congregation to the few we encounter today, huddled, figuratively and literally, around the flames their faith keep alive, but evangelism isn't necessary to sustain a faith, as Judaism demonstrates. While Zoroastrianism is considered the oldest of the text based monotheisms, this antiquity also fails to impress as a reason for the paucity of modern adherents. Zoroastrianism was a popular faith in the classical world, concurrent with Judaism, but today less than two hundred thousand people identify as Zoroastrian.
What separated the fortunes of Zoroastrianism from that of Judaism most prominently is that Judaism was spread throughout the middle east during the rise of Islam, whereas Zoroastrianism was concentrated in, and tied closely to, the Sussanian Empire, in the region we now call Iran. Zoroastrianism was the state religion under Shapur II, and enjoyed the same privileges of unity with government as the Roman Catholic Church today enjoys in Vatican City. Without mission based export or historical diaspora based translocation, Zoroastrianism's fortunes were tied to that of the Empire. With the curtailment of political power the monarchy suffered through defeat by Islamic forces, the church lost its influence, and since influence is the currency of religions, Zoroastrianism became a peasant in contrast to the landed gentry of the Abrahamic faiths.
With no reserves of faithful Zoroastrians keeping the flames alight on the behalf of the dispossessed, as was the case at various times for Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the religion was reduced to embers. Embers can re-start fires, but ashes less so. By definition, a religion with only one adherent is a delusion, and in addition to being ineligible for tax breaks and government grants, stands only one heart attack away from dormancy. Some religions have been re-lit after long periods with no members, but I don't think the San Franciscans worshipping Norse deities are in it for much beyond the mead, and they aren't promulgating their beliefs at any great rate.

Just as a religion cannot exist without adherents, the fiery zeal of an extremist cannot exist in isolation. While Zoroastrian extremists might arise to show me up, I think it unlikely we'll see extremist rhetoric or attempts at oppressing non-Zoroastrians from the members of that religion while it remains at its current membership.
Religious zeal occurs along a scale from "I'm not sufficiently zealous to attend the ceremonies," to "I'm willing to kill for my beliefs," and while indifference can exist unsupported, religiously inspired murderous intent cannot. In the absence of compelling logical reasons supporting a person's faith, religious conviction must rely on personal revelations and the fallacious but popular argument from popularity. "How could this many of us all be wrong?" I shouldn't have to list examples of widely held beliefs which were not correct, and which could not be logically supported by their popularity on its own, but as the ploy is still in play, I will: geocentrism; catastrophism; the luminiferous ether; the Greek pantheon; the steady state universe; homeopathy; the Cottingley Fairies; and the argument from popularity. All popular, but all ideas with no compelling evidence to support them.
Popularity denotes popularity, that is all, but many take popularity among individuals as a census of reality, each individual gaining confidence in their own convictions through the outward expression of equivalent convictions in others. I suspect this faith co-dependence was at play in the Anglican congregation of my youth, where discussions with individuals revealed far less zealous faith than was displayed when the same individuals sang in unison with the rest of the crowd. There is no litmus test for a person's faith, other than potentially fatal acts, such as snake handling. Even then, the rattle snakes in vogue with the Appalachian Baptists are pretty wussy. Grab a mulga snake off a black rock on a sunny day as an act of faith, and I'll take your claims about your beliefs regarding divine protection as sincere.
With much to be gained from feigning faith, and little scope to test an adherent's sincerity, there's a chance none of the congregation of my youth actually believed what they professed to believe, and perhaps the church operated on an Emperor's New Clothes basis, with each member relying on the actions of their fellows to reinforce their own commitment to do likewise. Strange, and slightly depressing, to think I might have been in the majority, and that everyone else was similarly perplexed, unable to believe as the church required they believe.
Religions are not alone in their reliance on the argument from popularity for faux credibility. Adherents of any idea can garner confidence from the popularity of that idea alone. While the argument from popularity doesn't carry an argument, its employment also doesn't indicate an idea is incorrect, only that proponents of that idea will have to find another way to demonstrate its validity in order to be taken seriously by anyone assessing their beliefs with a sceptical eye.
The most zealous believer can draw confidence for their beliefs from the least zealous believers, and may not care that those less zealous adherents don't agree with, or even actively disapprove of the actions they take in the name of their shared faith.
I think this idea extends further, and that adherents of one religion can draw on the popularity of religion generally to support their personal beliefs, as ecumenical services and interfaith councils demonstrate. While Catholicism and Shia Islam are mutually exclusive faiths, they hold hands in their defence of religious privileges against secular agendas, finding support among people who at least agree with them that there is something supernatural they can discuss. Homeopathy, dowsing and the Indigo Child movement also rely on supernatural claims, and religions have already primed entire societies to give some credence to, or at least not to criticise or examine too closely supernatural claims. Claiming water molecules remember chemicals they are exposed to is small change compared to claiming an infinite, maximally great entity created everything and is preparing to judge us before we enter an eternal afterlife. I can't demonstrate that homeopathy could not exist if humanity had never invented religions, but I can think it loudly.

If a religion is inclusive in claiming credit for the good done in its name, it also needs to be inclusive in accounting harm done in its name, but few theists want to hear that. A polite and charitable middle aged Pentecostal couple have more in common with the National Socialists of twentieth century Germany than I have, as the faith they hold as sacred is the same faith as justified the holocaust in the eyes of those who engineered it. While they can say the National Socialists were doing Christianity wrong, that gambit is a far weaker argument that the holocaust should not have occurred than I can make by pointing out the National Socialists had no compelling evidence that Christianity was a sound starting point for an ideology in the first place.
Moderate Muslims can state that the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks against New York and Washington DC in 2001 were misguided in their interpretation of Islamic teachings, but that is an argument that can go on indefinitely. I can simply state that the terrorist acts were unjustified because there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate that Islam is a good footing on which to base actions. No blurred lines. No possible modus vivendi. No support, directly or indirectly.
The co-faithful of extremists give those extremists confidence the core of their ideology is sound. While their interpretations of what stems from that core diverge, the extremist can simply write off the nay-saying moderate in the same way the moderate writes off the extremist. "They're doing it wrong," not "their initial proposition is invalid."
It's not my fault that religious moderates enable religious extremists, but it is my problem, because so few moderates accept the knock on effects of their faith that convincing them a problem exists at all is extremely hard. "It's just the extremists who spoil it for everyone." Meanwhile, the extremists continue to enjoy unwarranted privilege and oppress others in ways they wouldn't contemplate if they were the only people who believed as they do.
While the entirety of the blame for religious oppression cannot be levelled at moderate adherents, they aren't entirely removed from the situation, either. Their faith does have knock on effects.

As a final thought for this opening gambit, I would like people who think religious moderates pose no problem to contemplate how arbitrary the term religious moderate is. A person who considers themselves a moderate in comparison to a suicide bomber might be considered a dangerously over zealous nutbag by someone else who wouldn't demand gender separated seating at a public event. Moderate is almost a useless term in this context, because while the difference between an atheist and a theist is as zero is to one, the difference between an indifferent theist and an extremist theist is only a matter of mulitples. There is nothing you can multiply zero by to make one. A disagreement about the basis of an ideology is, by definition, greater than any disagreement about the repercussions of a particular ideology.

---

I am sure it is interesting, but could you compile this entire thing to a few lines of arguments which one may be capable of reading on a saturday at 5:30 pm whilest playing videogames.