How 'religious moderates' protect 'religious extremists'

[NeoGreen]

We're not talking about a particular 'race', an ethnicity, an economic class, or a low-education cohort.
Just re-review the biographies of the 19 men who were the 9/11 hijackers.

What is at the core of the problem, is an idea: faith.

Faith allows one to believe in (and act on) bad ideas with out good evidence.

[Walleye]

1. Religion had such bad connotations they had to change it to faith-based

[Warpy]

2. Kind of a limited world view

since Christianity and Islam both demand converts and martyrs. They're bound to collide because of that, they stem from the same intolerant, violent, primitive Bronze Age thinking that produced the OT.

Funny, also, that he cites Thessalonians and Revelations instead of the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The latter really are quite radical in their thinking, they just lack most of the magic, vengeance, and other negative qualities of the rest of the NT.

All religions that sprang from the Middle East have had bloody histories and to single one out as somehow worse is disingenuous.

I'll also refer him to You Tube, to the Islamic cartoons there that have been dubbed in English. Most of them deal in tolerance, empathy, and conflict resolution. While I won't characterize any of those vengeful desert god religions as peaceful, reasonable people exist within them and try to teach their children humane values.

He's also quite wrong about Buddhists. While it's contrary to doctrine, ethnic and religious friction has caused organized violence by Buddhists, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

I do agree that religious moderates of all flavors have given far too much cover to the vicious zealots who use religion as a weapon and a justification for sadism. That's one reason Christianity is getting such a bad name in the US that a lot of Millennial and Gen Z believers are now self identifying as "none" because they want no part of the organized right wing violence against anyone who isn't a cis, straight, Christian, preferably wealthy white male.

[NeoGreen]

3. The fact that SH is in error in regards to the violence of Buddists...

...does not detract from the central message. If anything, it strengthens the argument against faith. Now all that is left as a shining example are the Jains.

Funny, also, that he cites Thessalonians and Revelations instead of the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The latter really are quite radical in their thinking, they just lack most of the magic, vengeance, and other negative qualities of the rest of the NT.

I'm sorry, the 'synoptic gospels' are merely repeats, and poorly edited repeats at that, and to claim they 'lack most of the magic', has me gobsmacked. The synoptic gospels contain 'The Magic' relative to the story, the core magical narrative that binds the whole fantasy together. Without the SG's it would be like the Lord of the Rings, without any rings. FYI, the first listing of the Merriam Webster definition of 'synoptic' is: affording a general view of a whole, the 2nd is: 'manifesting or characterized by comprehensiveness or breadth of view'. It (i.e. the magic, vengeance, and negative qualities) is kind of built into the name, by definition.

I'll also refer him to You Tube, to the Islamic cartoons there that have been dubbed in English. Most of them deal in tolerance, empathy, and conflict resolution. While I won't characterize any of those vengeful desert god religions as peaceful, reasonable people exist within them and try to teach their children humane values.

Some reasonable people can be reasonable and kind, without and/or in the midst of appeals to magic and fantasy. Who knew?