Religious Moderates? Or Religious Hypocrites? 

Liberal religionists tend to believe that there is no punishing God.  This means one that does not care what you do but about how you feel.  Or it can mean one who is so merciful that he lets you get away scot-free.  God does not make a person pay for their sins in this view. So God only wants do to nice things for you and charm  you as if the people you leave bleeding through stepping on them don't matter.  Many of the liberals believe that if you commit the sin of being a drug addict, God will not send you anything to harm you but will simply stand by and let you suffer the consequences of your actions. They deny that this is punishment. But their God is not a God of justice. Deterring people from evil is fair but is not what justice is all about. Justice is about treating a person according to whether they have done good or evil on purpose. Punishment ties in with the idea that you must reward a person according to their works. If they do bad you give them bad. To hurt them to deter them from crime or to reform them is not punishing them. A truly just God will have to punish because if he doesn’t he is guilty of declaring that it really doesn’t matter if you are a good person or a bad one.
 
Moderate religion is ridden with disagreement about doctrine and practice and about ethics. It is plainly man-made for that very reason. It is fundamentalist for any man-made faith to act as if it has authority from God.
 
Every liberal religion has its “lunatic fringe.“ It tolerates it. Thus it is responsible. Religion is not needed as a social structure. We can get community without religion and pray in the house. An unnecessary system with a lunatic fringe is to blame for that lunatic fringe despite the hypocrisy that may drive it to condemn it.
 
The argument that when a religion or members of a religion do evil that the religious faith must not necessarily be blamed is incorrect. The argument says that when a religion supports harmful acts and its members commit these acts that is a mistake to think that the religious beliefs are mainly or partly to blame for the actions. But much religion does command harm. It is fundamentalist dishonesty to deny that.
 
Moderate religion is really treating religion as man’s word not God’s so it is not about religion so much as exploitation. Even if we are conditioned by religion or brainwashed, we are still responsible for letting ourselves be exploited this way. We will know it deep down.
 
Moderate religion gives tacit approval for causing division. Instead of us all accepting one another as people the liberal has to separate from those who are made of sterner stuff and who insist the religion is to be followed and not watered down.
 
Moderate religion is based on irrational thinking and feelings just as much as religions that espouse terrorism are. Just because one religion does not teach that we must kill members of other faiths does not mean it is any better than one that does.
 
Moderate religion places obligations on its members even if it just to order them to go to Church at Christmas and Easter. Morality is full of problems. That is why it is essential that people be given the information they need to make their own moral choices be it some kind of utilitarianism or whatever.
 
Religion for the vast majority of followers is more about engaging in sacred rituals and being part of a religious community than about belief. Even if somebody reads their Bible and concludes that if we feel God is asking us to sacrifice our family and kill them we should do it they will not.
 
Most people who are members of religion tend to be uncomfortable or disapproving of those who are more religious than they are and/or members of other religions. They have suspicions about very religious people and people outside their religion. That shows how they feel about their own deep down. They do not really think it’s a good thing.
 
Moderate religion gives us rules we don’t really need. It results in believers thinking they should do silly things such as baptise their children or hang up holy pictures.
 
Even unbelievers and secularists may believe or want to believe strange things. Perhaps the secularist could insist on abortion on demand even up to birth. If rational people sometimes give in to the most dangerous and hideous ideas and promote them, how much more are we to fear irrational people who follow liberal or fundamentalist religion? For the secularist, knowing things the mundane and earthly way is what matters. Believers in God agree up to a point but say that you also need God to tell you things in your heart. That is dangerous for the information from "God" may be contradicted by information from "God" in the future and is making a God out of your imagination.
 
The liberal who says love your neighbour as yourself does not realise that he is being a fundamentalist. You can do a lot of good for your neighbour while loving yourself more than anybody. The liberal forgets how much of his morality is based on the idea: “God says it. He must be obeyed whatever we think about his commandments.”
 
Liberals and fundamentalist Christians say that people need a right relationship with God otherwise their human relationships will be very faulty. They have a little ditto: “The love of God and your neighbour go together.” This is fanaticism for it is calling atheists who have successful relationships liars.
 
Most psychologists will tell you that you must depend on yourself to be happy in life and not on God or other people. When you are outgoing is is all your work in the sense that it is you who has to make others drawn to you. So liberals are fundamentalists for they seek to inflict faith in God on you and obscure your vision.
 
Liberals are often people who just water down and lie about their religion’s dark side. They are really disobedient. They only seem to be helping but they are not. Disobedience to a religion is really saying, “The religion has such and such a standard but I will not obey.” The disobedient person of faith is as much a supporter of an evil faith as the obedient.
 
The disobedient only look like rebels or people who won’t face the truth. They cannot be taken seriously. They should find or form a system - even if it is religious - that suits themselves and in which they can be their true selves.
 
You are not a true believing member of a religion if you cherry-pick the teachings that are essential or follow from the essentials. A religion cannot function if it permits you to do that. Again cherry picking makes you look like a reel and a hypocrite. People should actually be attracted to the teachings through the antics of the cherrypicker. The hypocrisy may provoke a desire in the witnesses of that hypocrisy to be sincere.

Religion as a community can only be as dysfunctional as society is. For example, a violent society produces violent religions. Religion is a great even then for it may argue that its evil has divine approval.
 
A default is the position that should be automatically taken by a person who hasn’t decided what position to take. Moderate and liberal religion denies the default doctrine that atheism must be assumed to be true until shown otherwise. Thus it is fundamentalist in that sense - it is obscurantist and intolerant.
 
Is it wise to encourage belief in God when most believers adhere to dangerous religion based on God? Not if there is a strong chance that belief in God will lead them to facilitate such religion or join it. God is that by definition must be put before all things - that is behind moderate religion and extreme religion. They have that in common. Thus the belief is intrinsically extremist and it is only luck that stops that extremism from breaking out all the time.
 
Prayer has to put God’s will first in order to be acceptable to him. If it doesn’t it is blasphemous. But we know that people matter not religion or God which means prayer, if it is morally acceptable, is only acceptable if it is human-centred.

Prayer is always a fundamentalist activity. The praying person is urged to see that prayer works which really means that the person is being asked to remember the times it seemed to work and to forget the times it didn’t or to pretend that it. Prayer is training in fundamentalism. It is its bedrock.
 
A person cannot win with prayer. If it is devotion to God, it is fanaticism or putting faith before people. If it is not, it is an attempt to fool a God and to expect help from him when you don’t respect him. Either is essential fanaticism.
 
Religious liberalism says it forbids fanaticism. Is that why it endorses prayer which is seen as based on a feel good kind of attitude. But it is fanatical to try and expect people to please God with prayers that they only say to feel good. It is insulting a God who may punish so it is fanatical. It is fanaticism to invite punishment.
 
Moderate religion has no right to criticise its members if they become a bit extreme or very extreme. It does the same thing itself so it is in no position to forbid or criticise. Thus it indirectly sanctions such crimes.

Baier, C.J., and B.R.E. Wright. 2001. If you love me, keep my commandments: A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38(1): 3–21.

Bennett, B. 2012. Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies. Sudbury: eBookIt.com.

Bock, D.C., and N.C. Warren. 1972. Religious belief as a factor in obedience to destructive commands. Review of Religious Research 13(3): 185–91.

Bodford, J.E., and A.M. Hussong. 2013. Moderators of the relationship between religiosity and alcohol use in college students. Journal of Psychology and Theology 41(1): 78–93.

Bouchard, T.J. Jr., M. McGue, D. Lykken, et al. 1999. Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Genetic and environmental influences and personality correlates. Twin Research 2(2): 88–98.

Burger, J.M. 2009. Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist 64(1): 1–11.

Cheung, C., and J.W. Yeung. 2011. Meta-analysis of relationships between religiosity and constructive and destructive behaviors among adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review 33(2): 376–85.

Colvin, C.R., and J. Block. 1994. Do positive illusions foster mental health? An examination of the Taylor and Brown formulation. Psychological Bulletin 116(1): 3–20.

Dawes, R.M. 1994. House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Based on Myth. New York: The Free Press.

Dawkins, R. 2006. The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press.

Dekker, J. 2009. World religion database. The Charleston Advisor 11(3).

De Waal, F. 2013. Morality without religion. big think (May 19). Online at http://bigthink.com/videos/morality-without-religion.

Dennett, D.C. 2006. Breaking the Spell: Religion As a Natural Phenomenon. New York: Penguin.

Desmond, S.A., J.T. Ulmer, and C.D. Bader. 2013. Religion, self control, and substance use. Deviant Behavior 34(5): 384–406.

Eisenberg, N., V. Castellani, L. Panerai, et al. 2011. Trajectories of religious coping from adolescence into early adulthood: Their form and relations to externalizing problems and prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality 79(4): 841–73.

Ellis, L. 1985. Religiosity and criminality: Evidence and explanations of complex relationships. Sociological Perspectives 28(4): 501–20.

Ellis, L., and J. Peterson. 1996. Crime and religion: An international comparison among thirteen industrial nations. Personality and Individual Differences 20(6): 761–68.

Evans, R.J. 2007. Nazism, Christianity and political religion: A debate. Journal of Contemporary History 42(1): 5–7.

Furrow, J.L., P.E. King, and K. White. 2004. Religion and positive youth development: Identity, meaning, and prosocial concerns. Applied Developmental Science 8(1): 17–26.

Galen, L.W. 2012. Does religious belief promote prosociality? A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin 138: 876–906.

Gilovich, T., and K. Savitsky. 1996. Like goes with like: The role of representativeness in erroneous and pseudoscientific beliefs. Skeptical Inquirer 20(2): 34–40.

Good, M., and T. Willoughby. 2006. The role of spirituality versus religiosity in adolescent psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 35(1): 39–53.

Harris, S. 2006. Letter to a Christian Nation. New York: Random House.

Hirschi, T., and R. Stark. 1969. Hellfire and delinquency. Social Problems 17(2): 202–13.

Henderson, R. 2013. Why there is no such thing as a good atheist (blog entry). Huffington Post Religion Blog (December 18). Online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pastor-rick-henderson/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-good-atheist_b_4442287.html.

Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kendler, K.S., X. Liu, C.O. Gardner, et al. 2003. Dimensions of religiosity and their relationship to lifetime psychiatric and substance use disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry 160(3): 496–503.

Koenig, L.B., M. McGue, R.F. Krueger, et al. 2007. Religiousness, antisocial behavior, and altruism: Genetic and environmental mediation. Journal of Personality 75(2): 265–90.

Kohlberg, L. 1981. Essays on Moral Development, Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco: Harper and Row.

Laird, R.D., L.D. Marks, and M.D. Marrero. 2011. Religiosity, self-control, and antisocial behavior: Religiosity as a promotive and protective factor. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 32(2): 78–85.

Lilienfeld, S.O., R. Ammirati, and K. Landfield. 2009. Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science 4(4): 390–98.

Lilienfeld, S.O., R.D. Latzman, K. Dutton, et al. 2014. Implications of psychopathic personality traits for everyday life: Results from a large community survey. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lindner, D.O. 2005. Steven Weinberg on religion and science. The evolution controversy. Online at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/weinberg.html.

Lodi-Smith, J., and B.W. Roberts. 2007. Social investment and personality: A meta-analysis of the relationship of personality traits to investment in work, family, religion, and volunteerism. Personality and Social Psychology Review 11(1): 68–86.

McCullough, M.E., and B.L.B. Willoughby. 2009. Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological Bulletin 135(1): 69–93.

Meehl, P.E. 1978. Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 46(4): 806–34.

Milgram, S. 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67(4): 371–78.

Piantadosi, S., D.P. Byar, and S.B. Green. 1988. The ecological fallacy. American Journal of Epidemiology 127(5): 893–904.

Prager, D. 2011. No God, no moral society: The case for the Torah, Part III. JewishJournal.com (February 2). Online at http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/article/no_god_no_moral_society_20110202.

———. 2013. A response to Richard Dawkins. National Review Online (October 1). Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359999/response-richard-dawkins-dennis-prager.