Woah, wait a minute.
If any religion you name has both moderate & extremist members, it doesn’t mean that it’s the moderate wing that’s operating *in spite of* their religion.
It could be the extremists.
Or it could be that religion is not inherently moderate OR extremist (which I think is correct).
Simple logic, really. If it’s dependent on one particular form of religious belief, it would not also be found associated with other forms of religious belief.
You, like all religious believers, do not like this basic fact pointed out.
No no, you're jumping to the conclusion, and I'm asking about the assertion. You asserted that "it's clear moderation is in spite of, and not because of, the religion". I'm asking what it is that makes that claim clear. You have not provided anything to support it.
The fact that significant numbers of followers of the religion cannot be characterized as “moderate”, shows that such “moderate” interpretations are not inherent to the religion itself.
If it were true that significant numbers of religious followers could not be characterized as 'moderate' there might be an argument to made there. But that' is not true, it's just something that you feel like ought to be true.
Comments
If any religion you name has both moderate & extremist members, it doesn’t mean that it’s the moderate wing that’s operating *in spite of* their religion.
It could be the extremists.
Or it could be that religion is not inherently moderate OR extremist (which I think is correct).
You, like all religious believers, do not like this basic fact pointed out.