How can religious moderates be said to enable hateful fundamentalists?

[longship]

1. I think "enabling" is not the best choice of words

I don't want to start a rhetorical argument here. However, "enabling" may be too strong. As an atheist who is often more fervent in my lack of beliefs than is beneficial to what we all want to accomplish, believers or not, I confess that I may not be the best spokesperson. In fact, I would say that atheists in general (whether they use the label or not) are not the best choice to lead the movement for religious toleration.

But we seem to be the only ones speaking out loudly. Yes, there are a few religious who do, but they are being drowned out by the screeching of the lunatics on the right.

Biologist Kenneth Miller, a devout Catholic, is one who is. There are organizations who are also fighting the fight, like Americans United for Separation of Church and State which is headed by a Congregational pastor. Unfortunately, we non-believers cannot do this without the assistance of the religious moderates.

In my opinion, and many others as well, they are not stepping up to the plate. Surely they must see the dangers in an expressly theocratic political party gaining power. Where are the Moslems? Surely they hear the anti-Moslem rhetoric of the Republicans.

As I see it, the moderates are missing in action. We all need a prominent church leader to say that this mix of religion and politics is not only wrong, but risks every freedom this country holds dear.

OP is a good one. Thanks.