Why do some progressive Democrats ignore bigotry and intolerance in religions?

[thucythucy]

19. Well, again, that's a different question, even if it's only "an expansion."

So, across the board:

some people don't criticize religious reactionarism (I'll use that term, instead of listing each time all the various isms we want to see confronted, except here I want to add "ableism" to the list) because they too share these various bigotries, and are members of these denominations at least in part BECAUSE they're beliefs and policies are so regressive. To quote a phrase, for them "it's a feature, not a bug";

some people may be hesitant because it jeopardizes some aspect of their life or livelihood. A Democratic city councilor, for instance, in a heavily Catholic district, may be reluctant to alienate potential voters;

for many people religious affiliation is more a social than political or even religious function. They go to church because their parents went, or because they're alone in a big city (or small town) and want to meet people and socialize in a space they perceive to be safe and friendly. They may pass on stuff they see because they don't want to jeopardize their relationships. In this regard one might also ask: why are so many progressive Democrats unwilling to confront their own families about their racism, sexism, etc. Maybe in part it boils down to "some people just don't like to argue";

some people, and here I mean progressive Democrats, might be loathe to condemn, for instance, Islamic extremism because the Muslims they know are gentle, kind people who have been shat on enough by mainstream America, and see piling on as a betrayal of their American Muslim brothers and sisters. Although, again, I wonder if that's really the case, since all the folks I know, including the Muslims I know, aren't at all reluctant to condemn Islamic reactionaries. But there does seem to be this dynamic where American Muslims and their friends are continually goaded to condemn "Islamic extremism" -- which seems a form of racial dog whistling or concern trolling. "Why don't union members and leaders condemn union corruption?" "Why don't Black leaders address Black on Black crime?" Because a) they do, and b) the question itself feels more like a dog whistle than genuinely motivated by curiosity.

That's all off the top of my head.

In the individuals you've addressed directly, what were the answers you heard?