My principle concern with religious moderatism is that it trades literal, absurd propositions propogated by fundamentalists for vague and nonsensical propositions, and by this virtue, somehow think what they believe is more "sophisticated".

Note here that there is a clear difference between "absurd" and "nonsense". A proposition can be absurd and still be meaningful. The proposition "the moon is made of green cheese" is absurd, but it is not nonsense.

To wit, the fundamentalist belief in literal fire-and-hell brimstone and so and so forth, is absurd. It steals concepts from physicality and makes non sequitur assertions that are categorically in error. It is a literal belief, and an absurd one. On the other hand, the gentler sounding "hell is seperation from God" is not absurd, but rather meaningless. To judge whether a claim is absurd is to know that the claim makes a coherent statement which can be acted upon in such a manner that one can assign truth values to that assertion. With respect to the vague metaphysical propositions that are endorsed by religious moderation, no such process can be done. The claim "hell is seperation from God" is little more than metaphysical poetry, which does not actually make coherent, concrete, evaluable statements about the nature of reality. We have a word (actually, several) for these sorts of assertions. We say they are vapid. Therefore, what irks me most is that they try to pass off such ideas as being more sophisticated than their fundamentalist and literalist counterparts. If by sophistication, we mean paring down an idea until the meaning has been stripped from it and it is reduced to nonsense which cannot act upon, then I suppose it is. However, this is not presumably what we mean by sophistication.

For another case, consider the oft-heard proposition: "All faiths are equally valid". Whilst this may sound like a call for tolerance, it is still a proposition which shoots itself in the foot? Why? Because numerous different religious metaphysical propositions make assertions about the nature of reality that are in direct contradiction and competition with other religious metaphysical propositions, also staking their claims to truth. Hence, another thing that irks me about religious moderatism is that they are more concerned with their aforementioned appeals to vague metaphysical statements as well as tolerance of their other ocunterparts as opposed to actually attempting to make meaningful statements that can be evaluated. THe fact is, if we have a group of mutually contradictory statements about the nature of reality, then by virtue of basic axioms, there will exist a set of sentences contained therein that are false. Therefore, it is a non sequitur to assert they are all equally valid, or that they all deserve an equal amount of respect.

Always answer questions with questions. Answering religiously motivated questions using the parameters set by the questioner leads to answers riddled with qualifications, rendering them worthless as a medium for getting your point through to people who, of necessity, suspect qualification and tune out when it appears.

The answer to "1. Were the wars so often cited by militants (the Crusades, etc.) primarily religious in nature, or did their root causes stem from other factors such as economics, nationalism, and territorial expansion - as many experts in the field suggest? Or is the truth somewhere in between?" is therefore

Are you suggesting that religions are not as adept at starting wars as some have suggested but are brilliant at hijacking them to their own ends?

"2. Historically, has terrorism been driven primarily by religion - or by other forces? (See Robert Pape's work on the subject.)"

Historically has religious expression included and accommodated terrorism, and hasn't it often facilitated, promoted and enabled such violence in its name? (See Robert Pape's work on this subject too.)

"3. Does the historical experience of nontheistic countries challenge the notion that religion is a major factor in causing internal oppression or external military conflict? (Note: I'm not suggesting that nontheistic countries went to war to defend nontheism," as one atheist writer characterized the argument. The question is: Does the absence of religion as a motivator reduce the likelihood of war, as the militants suggest - or not? Suggested countries of study: Cambodia, China/Tibet, USSR.)"

Does the historical experience of theistic countries endorse the view ("notion" is a dismissive term) that religion is at the least a facilitating factor in causing internal oppression and/or military conflict, both external and internal? (Note on your note: The question is: Does the presence of religion as a motivator accelerate the likelihood of war? Suggested countries of study: Iran, Iraq, Israel, Former Yugoslavia, Germany, France, Ireland, USA.)

"4. What is the extent of religion's role in creating individual discontent and unhappiness through ostracism, sexual repression, prejudice, etc. in various world cultures? (I suspect it's substantial, but I'd like more data.)"

How on earth are you failing to find data to verify just how substantial it is ?

"5. Is Islam the origin for genital mutilation, stoning of adulterous wives, and other abusive practices? (Note: Neither practice is condoned by the Qu’ran, nor both existed as tribal practices before Islam. Historically weaker Prophetic sayings, or 'hadith,' are cited to support them. (See Reza Aslan.)"

Is Islamic faith used as a justification for barbarism? Are Islamic authorities (sic) doing enough to prevent such wanton cruelty? If not, why not?

"6. Would the elimination of religion alone eliminate these harmful practices, or would additional actions need to take place?"

Would it not be great if the elimination of religion could at least be tried? Do you not agree that such practices are less likely to occur as ingrained behavioural norms in secular countries where civil law has been established without reference to religious input? Is this not at least one of the critical factors you are alluding to?

"7. If so, how can such practices are stopped most quickly and effectively - by campaigning to eliminate all religion, or by using moderate religion as a countermeasure against extremism?"

Why do you think that terrorism motivated by faith-based irrationality can be 'countered' by faith-based irrationality moderated in any way? If you hold such an absurd view does that not simply demonstrate the utter improbability of irrational thought being eleiminated through a "campaign"? Or are you thinking in religious terms, where "campaigning" is a strategy used to proselytise and propagate irrationality and you think everyone stoops to that level?

"8. Can the positive influence of religion - in reducing conflict, bringing personal fulfillment, building communities, etc. - be quantified and measured against the negatives?"

Why do religious people tend to ascribe the credit for humanitarian and sociable behaviour to their own initiatives? Does the presence of such behaviour globally not serve as proof that it owes little or nothing to religious faith and everything to the human condition as it exists at this point in the evolutionary process to which it is subject?

"9. Do the social problems caused by religion stem from personal religious belief, from organized religious activity, or both?"

Is not the point of religious organisation to encourage individuals' personal religious belief to conform to pre-decided uniform doctrine and codes? How many people can claim to hold a personal religious belief that has not been informed in some measure by organised religious doctrine and codes? By separating these aspects in your question are you trying to create and exaggerate a dichotomy where none in fact exists? If so, why?

"10. Is all religious activity harmful, or just the fundamentalist variety (which one research project estimates involves roughly one-fifth of all religious populations)?"

Is not all religious belief fundamentally irrational? Is adherence to irrationality not harmful whether it is represented by people applying literal truth to Iron Age texts or by any other means of displaying scorn for scientifically deduced fact? Has any research project ever quantified how many religious people have invested faith in irrational presumptions?

"11. Is it true, as some atheists argue that Buddhism's more peaceful doctrine propagates less violence and war than monotheistic religions with violent sacred texts?"

Do you need to ask that question? If so, would a "yes" answer surprise or dissapoint you? And if that is so, then should you ask yourself why any rational person would adhere to a religion where violent sacred texts contribute to the ethos they are told they should aspire to?

12. Does 'moderate religion' enable fundamentalism to continue? (That's another core militant assumption - also unproven.) Or, does it draw adherents away from fundamentalism and thereby weaken its negative effects?

Does attempting to make irrationality "reasonable" and socially acceptable not simply facilitate those whose equally irrational precepts are used to justify barbarism? Isn't the best way of tackling the issue not a complete shift away from irrationality as an acceptable basis for believing anything and therefore deprive those who commit violence using faith as a justification the comfort of presuming that their views have ideological validity, if not legal validity?

"13. What's the best way to advocate for needed changes - through aggressive attacks on religion or milder persuasion?"

Are you not using the term "religion" here a little too loosely (to the point of meaninglessness)? Should you not distinguish between those who propagate such irrational views, those who through ignorance subscribe to such views, and those who have simply adopted such views through the osmosis of social interaction? Is there not room therefore for both "aggressive" and "mild" tactics of persuasion in securing these "needed changes", as well as many other techniques depending on how the irrational position is defended?

"14. Do the internal dynamics of religious communities suggest that extremism and fundamentalism are the primary source of religion's negative effects - or do these effects come from something fundamental about religious belief itself?"

Why are you still supposing that religion might have "positive effects"? Are any of these effects not achievable without recourse to a dependency on irrational superstitions, unfounded beliefs and dogma?

"15. Would the eradication of religion lead to increased trauma, and/or decreased mental and physical health? If so, how should we prepare to address that problem as we work to eradicate religion?"

Are you seriously suggesting that religion itself is not a cause for trauma? Or that religion has not contributed in many ways to the detriment of people's health, both physical and mental? Does your last question not contain the obvious (and best) answer to itself just in the last two words?