A Simple Rule

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not advocating a course of action, but rather, pointing out a possible result of adopting this position of yours.

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.

As for what we do about it, that's another matter. Perhaps we will want to keep that observation to ourselves. Perhaps it's politically expedient or might otherwise be beneficial to do so. That's why I said "beside the point." You make an important point, I won't belittle the discussion of that topic, but it's a different one.

But since you asked, I think extremists should be singled out for criticism, not moderates.

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.

No, that isn't what I said. Please don't twist my words.

Labeling them "not a true X" will likely drive some of them to the extreme, in my opinion.

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".

I'm expressing an opinion, as you should clearly have understood once you read the words "seems to me" . As such, asking for a citation appears to be deliberately obtuse on your part.

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?

Well, the fact is that the vast majority of Muslims are non-white. Perhaps some folks are racist and Islamophobic; perhaps some on the left are confusing correlation and causation.

Point 1, I would agree.
Point 2, I'm open-minded to that possibility. I do my best to invite critique of my logic and correct it where I've made mistakes.

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'm on my phone and unable to parse your reply efficiently, so forgive me as I say I will give you a full reply tomorrow.

In the meantime, my apologies for my snark. Your question read sarcastic on this side of the screen, because I choose my words with precision, being a writer. I took your question wrong, and answered (as I thought) in kind. The misunderstanding, and the apology, is mine.