Religious "moderates" and atheists

[MindForgedManacle]

Religion that isn't extreme, while I'm sure it exists, is basically just apathetic religion. If a person appreciates symbolism but feels no commitment to live out the symbols or to demand that others do...why even call it religion?

Oh come on now, really? You basically just said all religious people, or rather all 'true' religious people, extremists. That is ridiculous. People clearly do, and ALWAYS have, differing views on their religions and what they believe they are to do, and to believe. And hence what they live out and urge others to live out is going to flow from that.

Yes, you've missed that, as poll after poll demonstrates this fundamentalist wing makes up the majority of Christians in the US, to say nothing of Christianity or Islam in the rest of the world. And as I myself grew up in one such household, I'm quite aware that a great many of these people go on about their lives without an inkling of so-called moderation influencing their decisions, such as when it comes to indoctrinating children or voting like-minded fundamentalists into political office.

I too grew up in a fundamentalist household; I was a fundamentalist myself for a few years.
Anyway, you might want to actually think about these polls you're talking about (I assume you have the polls regarding belief in evolution), particularly the people who answer them. What does the average person (especially Christians) think biological evolution is about? Largely the lies that have been spread about it (not to mention lack of good school education on the basics): it's an atheist religion, incompatible with theism, croco-ducks, etc. So is it actually fair to ask people who really don't know anything about it what it is, and then point to that as evidence that Biblical fundamentalism is some major force amongst Christians? And I should perhaps note that even as a Fundie, I accepted evolution, so holding to one does not entail a rejection of the other.

Of course, but let's also not kid ourselves that atheism is a disbelief just for the sake of disbelief.

Nor is it de facto rational to be an atheist.

This is an interesting thing, because I don't think it's quite so simple as this.

Do the Westboro Baptists have mainstream acceptance among mainstream Christians? No. Do their actions? Not for the most part. But, what about the driving force behind the WBC, a hatred of gays and homosexuality? That sort of thing has a great deal of acceptance among mainstream Christians.

Given the relative Biblical ignorance of most Christians, this really tells you nothing other than people fear those not like them. A hatred and fear of homisexuals would be (and is) present in many people, religious or otherwise. Religion often helps that along, no doubt. But it would be very silly to imply that religion is the cause of that hatred and fear.

The KKK? Most Christians would not want crosses burned on black people's front yards, but the racism which underlies the Klan's philosophy is still common and popular in large parts of White Christian America.

As with homosexual hating, racism would be just a present sans-religion. It's more a psychological disposition to hating the outgrouo than a religiously-created problem (but again, I'm not saying religion has never been an aid (or adversary) to racism).

Biblical literalism? Not the whole thing, but certainly mainstreamers get literal when they feel like doing so. They aren't fundamentalists, but they'll vote for, and send money to, people who are (and how many fundies could sustain themselves otherwise?).

But then you're just saying they fake to get support from people, many of whom aren't likely to have thought much further on the fake literalists than believing them to be committed Christians, even if they disagree with some things they say.

Mainstream Christians will condemn groups of people who are hateful and extreme, but the problem for too many of these mainstream Christians is the frankness of the hateful behavior, rather than the hate itself. It's like when the GOP shied away from Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin a couple of years ago. It's not because they disagreed with the message of legitimate rape, but because you're supposed to be smart enough to keep it to yourself.

But how was that strictly religious? That sort of thing seems far more indicative of a society that 1) doesn't understand consent (or biology, for that matter) and 2) one which is patriarchal and fairly ignorant of priviledge.