My view on the fundamentalist vs moderate debate is complex and sure to draw lots of flack.

For one, I disagree with the whole "Moderates enable the fundamentalists" line or argument. The reason being that it assumes the the natural state of religion is fundamentalism.

For example, many people here promote secularism that is religion out of government, China promotes that too, only you can go to jail or even be executed if you practice religion. Obviously many atheists here would object to that. Like agreeing with the Syrian Ba'ath party that Islam does not belong in government, but the difference is that Ba'ath party actually executes radical Islamists.

That is the same goals [get religion out of government], but completely different methods. Does the more moderate view of secularism, i.e religion out of government enable China and Syria to commit human rights violations? I say no. Does Ken Miller giving a lecture on Catholicism enable the IRA to kill Protestants? Of course not.

That said, there are moderates that do discourage questioning the fundamentalists, but that isn't an inherient trait of moderate. Any more than promote socialism, is enabeling the USSR or FARC, or promoting Capatilism means promote anarchism.

Another good example of this is the enviromentalist movement. Does promoting enviromentalism in of itself, enable the nut-so who burn down SUV lots? Nope.

My stance is that moderates can enable them, but simply being a moderate doesn't enable them.

A 'moderate' who does not speak out, at least occasionally, about the most egregious evils done in the name of the religion they also hold to, is definitely part of the problem associated with the more fundamentalist versions of the various 'faiths'.

 The fundamentalists of today will become the mainstream of tomorrow. Fundamentalist Christians, Jews, and Muslims have shown their horrifically destructive capabilities on a number of occasions, and though the current breed of fundamentalism in the United States seems calmer than in the times of the crusades and Salem witch trials this docility will not last forever. The moderates who let it happen are allowing this mindset to grow unchecked and exponentially in numbers and in fervor.

An example of this kind of moderate can be seen in the actions of Neville Chamberlain near the onset of World War 2. When Hitler was accumulating forces and bring up his war machine Chamberlain did nothing to stop him. Thus is so with fundamentalism today. With a crafty and underhanded approach Evangelical Christians have begun a war against the infidels of their religion. Everyday they are out trying to recruit more zealots, soldiers to their cause. They are preying on weak minds and exploiting the naive minds of children to bolster their numbers. Every day that this is drawn out the moderates, and in some situations the opposition, allow it to happen because of misplaced respect or a mindset of not wanting to get their hands dirty.

I propose a different action is needed to curb this rash upon the world known as religion. It needs to be fought head on. Atheists should be entering the teaching profession directly to combat religious indoctrination, Humanist should be offering aid to needy families, and recovery programs to those who are afflicted and harmed by their addictions. The rational voice needs to move from being the soft reminders in the background to the loud call to arms favored among the media. My hat is in and I will no longer sit idly by as children have mental abuse inflicted upon them through images of hell. I will not stand idly by as the strength of human compassion is canceled out by a dead beat god's supposed will, and nor should anyone else for that matter.

He who stands for Nothing will fall for Anything.- Alexander Hamilton

The argument that the fundamentalist or creationist is a straw man ignores things like the Dover trial becoming national news, as well as the problems with Texas being able to essentially control the text books for the US due to their purchasing power and various religious groups working to pack the school boards with creationists. It also ignores the money being poured into campaigns to oppose gay marriage and the like. Though for the sake of devils advocate it is possible that they were arguing more from the perspective that athiests tend to focus on creationists and fundamentalists as examples of the religious in general where the moderates would argue that they are the majority and thus atheists are 'strawmanning' all theists into those subheadings.

As to the question of the moderates being enablers the question is trickier. In some regards, yes, their unwillingness to confront them over what is being done on moral or religious grounds gives the fundies license to continue and in fact grow more vicious and spiteful. However there is also the problem that many of the moderates are also more liberal and believe that people have a right to their beliefs. I think some of them interpret the atheists arguments as saying that no one should be allowed to believe or that certain beliefs should be banned and thus feel that the atheist is being tyrannical or is an opposite coin to the fundy. Part of the problem is also the religiosity, even among the fundies, is a sliding scale and I kind of wonder if for more moderate denominations fundamentalism starts at things like the phelps clan and such.