How can religious moderates be said to enable hateful fundamentalists?

[LTX]

21. This is a variation on the assertion in a recent thread that:

"Contrary to what most may believe, moderate theists are the most destructive. This is because they provide the cover (as well as the breeding ground) for the fundamentalists. They are the major force that will not allow open and honest debate on theism to exist in the public mainstream media."

I think both the above statement, and the statement in the o/p, are based on overbroad generalizations of the nature of faith and the makeup of moderate theists as a group. It is quite handy to first characterize all religious beliefs as identical (usually some sort of derogatory generalization of commonality derived from fundamentalist christianity), and to then burn this strawman to the ground and declare the argument over. But this dismissal of any and all subtlety in religious understanding is, in my view, just another example of the contemporary propensity for polarized discussion through the lens of (perhaps unwitting) confirmation bias.

The first question to be answered, it seems to me, is what is meant in the o/p by the use of the word "faith." We all employ faith as a catalyst for action. Without it, we would simply freeze in place from uncertainty. And in the specific religious context, is the o/p talking about the nature of faith in Judaic thought (of particular relevance to me)? In Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist thought? Or in the strains of non-deity specific tropisms that underlie the increasingly common, if uneasy, belief in "god" as an impersonal force of nature?