"This is the real thing, folks. If you ever want to know how people end up becoming atheists, it's all here - the initial faith, the highs of perfect religious certainty mixed with the low moments of doubt and fear, the slow spread of the cracks of skepticism, the burning desire to believe in the face of growing feelings of disconnection (but even more powerful, the need to know and not just to hope), the search for belonging and the exploration of different belief systems, the gradual but inevitable drift away from faith, the dark moments of anger and terror, the desperation, the breathtaking look over the edge, the step... and then, past what seemed like the point of no return, a universe of bright light, clear air, and the peace of acceptance and the joy of life seen as if everything was made anew."

I like how you explained that. Very helpful. Thanks.

Sorry about that OMFG! I wasn't trying to flame - I thought I was just disagreeing?

Sorry about what? Flaming? Don't worry about it, I didn't consider you to be flaming me at all. I was just making a joke on KShep's comment.

And, thanks for the tidbit on Mel White. Good for him!

The Rev. Mel White, a Santa Cruz native, was Falwell's ghostwriter for his autobiography, but turned on Falwell after coming out as gay...In 2001, when Falwell essentially blamed gays and liberals for the Sept. 11 attacks, White and his partner decided to move into a house across from Falwell's church in Lynchburg, Va. The pair attended Falwell's services, standing up in protest whenever he would slight gays in his sermons. White called Falwell "the face of homophobia in America"

Now that takes guts, and persistence (all those sermons!)

Well, looks like our flame war has fizzled out.

Darn it. I get busy with work for a while and by the time I get back, the flame-war has fizzled out? That's too bad.

@Vicki,
Although the idea of Catholics for Choice seems as absurd as the Log Cabin Republicans, I never said all moderates are apathetic. That there are some moderates who are moral and willing to stand up for others is undeniable. The bulk, it seems, would rather stick to religious lines than do what is right. They would rather vote for a Xian than an atheist, simply because one is Xian. They see no problem with Debbie Schlussel telling all us atheists that we need to shut up when she appears on CNN. They revile at the thought of removing "Under god" from the pledge of allegiance, and applaud when Congress unanimously stands on the Capitol Steps to sing "god Bless America" and emphasize the "god" part. If the Dominionists were to take power, they would be on the chopping block just as much as us atheists, and they don't even realize it. It's sad really, because we could be allies in the fight against extremism.

And those asbestos undies finally stopped chafing! :^)

For what it's worth, I think Harris' definition is closer to mine, however I don't have "End of Faith" with me so I can double-check it---I borrowed it when I read it. I feel like I obtained my definition from that book, though, it's one thing I came away with when I read it.

When I hear "religious moderate" I think of believers who belong to denominations Robertson has publicly called "the Antichrist" - Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc as well as left-leaning Catholics. They're more likely to be politically liberal, but of course Harris has issues with liberals too.

I define a moderate as one who believes in god, considers himself religious, but doesn't necessarily go along with others on hot-button issues like stem-cell research, abortion or gay rights. Someone who prefers to live and let live. I have an aunt and a grandmother who fit this description and who have sent Pat Robertson thousands of dollars over the years. They say things like, "He's so nice and he does so much good in the world that I can look past the political stuff."

Which, of course, just enables Robertson. "Shelters" him, if you will.

I think you're starting to veer off-subject here. I have no idea if Obama is a moderate, or if he sticks up for Robertson. Is making money saying bigoted things on TV solely a religious phenomenon? Of course not! Rush Limbaugh is no longer on TV. I have no idea why Bush hasn't been impeached. I don't know why there hasn't been massive civil disobedience.

But I do feel Harris is on to something, as I said before.

You didn't answer my question: Isn't the fact that the Kansas preacher operates outside the mainstream enough evidence that Harris is on to something?

For a bunch that claims to have high standards for logical and empirical proof, y'all seem willing to accept Harris' claim that "religious moderates (whatever the heck that means) shelter religous extremists and are just as dangerous" w/o any evidence whatsoever.

Well, allow me to speak up and say I disagree with that statement from Harris. Religious moderates are not just as dangerous as religious extremists. As you rightly point out, Vicki, they can be allies in the fight. Moreover, I don't think it's entirely fair to blame religious moderates for not speaking up as if not speaking up were enough to damn them already -- particularly when some of them do.

The one major problem I have with religious moderates is when they support the idea that faith is a virtue. I have a problem with that; I think it does enable fundamentalism as well as being false. Aside from that, though, as far as I know religious moderates are no more negligent in speaking up than atheists.

Do you think Barack Obama is a religious moderate? Do you think he sends checks to Pat Robertson or would stick up for him?

As for people making $$$ saying offensive, bigoted, reactionary and inflammatory things on TV, is this solely a religious phenomenon? Why is Rush Limbaugh still on the air? Why haven't we impeached Bush? Why isn't there massive civil disobedience and resistance to this sorry excuse for a government?

I think Robertson (and others like him) can be held accountable by moderates, and it really wouldn't take a lot of effort. They need only stop watching his program, write their local TV stations and ask that his show be dropped, stop buying his crappy products, etc. Cut off the money flow. He only has power because he has their support----especially financial. As long as moderates continue to throw their support behind criminals like Robertson, then in my mind, Harris is right---moderates ARE sheltering the extremists among them.

Think about that idiot from Kansas who protests funerals (I know who he is, I just refuse to name him because that's exactly what he wants). Even Falwell has denounced him. He isn't considered an accurate representation of modern christianity by any definition that I know of. He's an outsider. Why can't moderates push Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson into the fringe with him, where they really belong? Isn't the fact that the Kansas preacher operates outside the mainstream enough evidence that Harris is on to something?

Moderates do not shelter the Kansas preacher, they leave him and his few followers to fend for themselves. And he therefore has almost no power to accomplish any agenda he might have in his shriveled little mind. But moderates DO shelter Robertson, et. al. who have a great deal of power (which they are all to happy to use and abuse). To me, that makes moderates, as Harris says, just as dangerous.

For the record, I wasn't asking for you or anyone else to research anything. Your original quote from Jim Wallis was more than enough for me.