A Simple Rule

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's not so much a position as an observation.

By definition, the "radical" of a religion is one who hangs on every word of their scriptures, rejects science when it arrives at conclusions contrary and centers their life around their faith.

By definition, the "moderate" is one that does not do the above. Moderates will either cherry pick or broadly interpret their scriptures, accommodate science in their faith and live their life with religion as an accessory rather than a centerpiece.

My OP is asking if there's something I'm missing. There may be.

I think there are other forms of radical -- for instance, Sufi Islam, which is a mystic recasting of the Koran, or Calvinism; neither of which are grounded in literal readings of their holy books, but rather, rely upon interpretation; and neither of which espouse violence (any more).

It depends.

If the moderates in question support the separation of church and state and otherwise don't force their religion on others, then yes, I'm inclined to leave them alone. If not, then no.

I would point out that we shouldn't make the mistake of assuming just because a religious person is a "moderate" that they won't caucus with the fundies or otherwise just go along with fundy leadership. All too often, they will.

That's true. This is why I speak up against religion in general, myself.

It's not my intention to straw man anyone and forgive me if I have done so. That's why I asked you for clarification.

I will say that I'm extremely skeptical that any religious moderate will be pushed into fundamentalism because of a skeptic has said they're not being true religion X. To clarify, I'm skeptical of even an anecdotal case. I say this because it makes no logical sense, like a person knocked off the side of a mountain falling up to the peak instead of down into the valley below. Religious moderation exists as a forced concession to science and modernity. Putting the genie back into that bottle requires believing that science and modernity are false. It's possible, and this does happen on occasion, but not simply because some skeptic said "you're not a true X".

Religious extremism doesn't require the abjuration of science or modernity. It requires the compartmentalism of the mind. And my point is not that moderates will revert to extremism because a skeptic said "you're not a true X" -- my point is that skeptical criticism of their flouting scriptural mores can arm the fundamentalists with arguments that are then used to leverage moderates into a position of forced choice. In other words, moderates who don't adopt the literalist form of their religion may well be marginalized, if not targeted for attacks, a phenomenon we see in the Middle East.

As an aside, I don't think moderation of extremism in faith are conscious choices. I think they're much more a result of the circumstances of one's upbringing, including parents, local culture and prevailing views, wealth or its lack, as well as exposure to moderate or extremist preachments.

No, I've said I could be wrong. Do you have any examples of this happening at all? Or can you even map out a hypothetical case where it would make any sense to help me understand the pitfall I may be entering?

The hypothetical is mapped above. Actual cases? Not at my fingertips.

Do you have any actual cases of moderates abandoning the faith altogether because a skeptic chided that they weren't being true to it?

I'm pretty sure I used the word "some" in my point there. Let me go look -- yep, I sure did. There, you've got your answer.

No need for snark. I ask for clarification specifically because I want to avoid straw manning anyone.

I apologize again. For future reference, I use words very carefully, and if I write "some", I mean "some". Questioning that struck me as an insinuation that I thought of you or others as bigots, and I don't.