he moderates make it harder to actively criticise the more extreme elements of a religion.

That’s a fair statement. I would like to see the moderates criticize the extremists more often. Some already do, such as Roger in the OP. Unfortunately and perhaps unavoidably, it takes the form of a ‘more Christian than thou’ or ‘no true Christian‘ argument. Still, I think an effective tactic to take is to encourage such criticism when it can be found.

However, i do blame the more moderate/liberal adherents of christianity, judaism and islam for not doing their own criticism of the lunatic fundies within their respective religions, and therefore to me, they are all part of the same problem. Anyway, even refering to them as though different groups is misleading: there are no ‘groups’, merely a sliding scale of irrationality and faith for all believers.

dare anyone to say that challenging religion and the religious is not often, or nearly always, considered taboo and ‘off limits’ by many as its viewed as akin to challenging someones cultural beliefs, which is a step away from racism.

Oh, I definitely agree with you about that. In fact, I think that was the most valuable point made by Harris. While I think the beliefs of religious moderates are fair game for critique, I find it inappropriate to blame moderates for extremism.

I dare anyone to say that challenging religion and the religious is not often, or nearly always, considered taboo and ‘off limits’ by many as its viewed as akin to challenging someones cultural beliefs, which is a step away from racism. Ive been acused of being insensitive toward peoples bat-shit crazy beliefs, when I was simply challenging some of their assertions and beliefs - no more insulting than a christian challenging me on evolution (to that i say bring it on), but perhaps only because its fairly easy for us to poke holes in their beliefs.

And anyway, much drug policy is based on the belief that moderate drug use automatically leads to hard drugs etc, particularly in the US and increasingly in australia… funnily enough, not based on anything scientific like harm minimalisation.

For the record, I believe Republicans ARE facists. :D

I also agree with Sam Harris’ assertion that the more liberal christians, muslims, jews etc end up being a distraction or providing a ‘buffer zone’ around the dogmatic fundamentalists who are a real problem.

I just finished Sam Harris’ The End of Faith and enjoyed it. But I wasn’t convinced by his assertion you brought up. It’s akin to claiming that libertarianism provide a ‘buffer zone’ around anarchists or that Republicans provide ‘buffer zone’ around fascists or that legalizing pot would lead to increased heroin use. After all, moderate drug use legitimizes extreme use, right? I’ve even heard some make the absurd claim that homosexuality somehow allow statutory rapists to gain some legitimacy. If we reject these types of arguments, we should also reject the ‘religious moderates permit religious extremists’ argument.

While he makes an excellent case that faith is dangerous, this argument of Harris’ is little more than a disguised slippery-slope argument which has never been a very convincing one.

Well, in adition to what they said: Why follow a church at all, and how does the fact some historical facts match the bible make it a holy book?

I’d like to ask, how do you distinguish between the parts of the bible you take litterally and those that you interpret more liberally? What mechanism do you use to select the parts of the bible to follow and which not to? And why not just ignore the bible at all, and simply follow what you think is right.

At the end of the day, its still an issue of ‘make believe’ stories and rules from a deeply flawed (often politically motivated) text versus science, reason and genuine human compassion.

I read your comment earlier and liked it quite a bit. It’s nice to see that the liberal interpretation of Jesus’ teachings is making a comeback. I certainly hope it replaces the self-righteous, authoritarian interpretation that calls itself ‘evangelical’ Christianity.

I am curious, though. When you say “I embarked on an odyssey to put that to the test; actually, the biblical belief system”, how, exactly, did you go about that? Thanks.