Sure, they aren’t as harmful as ISIS militants, but that doesn’t mean that it’s okay. It still brings forward the explicit material telling Muslims to oppress and conquer.

Christianity is dying and that’s a good thing. It’s lost most of its fangs, but there are still many people who still try and push for oppression due to it. They are called fundamentalists, because they just fundamentally do what the book tells them. You can look at the Christian nationalist violence in the Us for an example of how that is concerning.

As I mentioned, the process of their death is via dilution. I have stated that I agree with your moral assessment but that is irrelevant to where and how it should be addressed.

Saying you believe a book which tells you that you should kill gay people, while you actually don’t want to kill gay people, is just silly.

Yes. Sure. Let them keep doing it. Tell them to do more. That’s how you defang them.

You can’t really believe that book if you don’t believe what it very explicitly says. And if you aren’t believing in a “book from god”, instead assuming things to be translation and manipulation issues, why does any of it have any legitimacy? You have no reason to tie yourself to something which is only partially correct in your own view.

You are arguing for philosophical accuracy here. I don’t disagree. But that’s a different discussion than morality.

I think it’s just people falling into social pressures to conform while lacking effective thorough introspection onto their own beliefs.

Why people subscribe to a religion is a different topic. Without too much derailing I’d just say religion derives a lot of things beyond just the doctrine that people find appealing.

All of society and public environments discouraging critical assessment is the biggest factor in promoting this.

I agree that nothing is beyond criticism or discussion even.

And, when you keep saying you believe a book, you get other people to believe the book, and you get them to follow what it says. What it says is a significant problem.

But as you surely are aware, people pick and choose. You can call them silly but still it renders the conclusion not necessarily valid. Secularism is making religion transform into a diluted cultural practice, making them secede the central moral authority to the social contract. What the book says will only get weaker and weaker, even without altering the text. The French still cries for the blood of impure to shower their field, but no one truly takes their national anthem literally. The text are cosmetic symbols detached from the harmful ideas.