I just finished listening to the most recent Point of Inquiry podcast (with D.J. Grothe), and he was interviewing Solomon Schimmel about his new book (The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs: Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth). They brought up a decent question that I don't think the author answered very well. First, a little background (bear with it, please...)
I think the majority of (mature) responders here will realize that both those of faith and non-faith fall along a spectrum of tenacity: there are moderates near the middle, liberals nearer one end, and fundamentalists nearer the other end. Should the moderates of, say, Christianity, challenge those fundamentalist Christians when their arguments or actions are illogical (for example, their inherent mistrust of scientists regarding evolution), hypocritical (trying to use science to prove the supernatural), or anti-social (bombing of abortion clinics, the Mormons buying the yes vote on prop. 8)? (By the way, I only use Christianity as an example since that is what I am most familiar with; Jewish and Muslim commenters are more than welcome.) Do the moderates, when they don't speak up or challenge those fundamentalists, actually make the problems worse by silently allowing the practices to go on (as Sam Harris has pointed out)? What are your views/opinions?