How to approach fundamentalism

I think most of us without faith, and many of those with faith, would agree that whatever dangers lie in religious thinking, they are worst in extreme religious thinking. But, what does it mean to be extreme? One person's extremism is another's devoutness.

What does it take to be a religious moderate? What is "moderating" the historical, literal scriptural views of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.?

Is it a natural progression in thinking led by God's hand? Did we as humans simply misinterpret the Old Testament that God favors favor slaughter of our enemies and murder of blasphemers? The New Testament certainly moderated much of that, and few Christians today find their lives guided by much of anything in the Old Testament. But if that's the case, why can't we throw both of them out in favor of an even Newer Testament that, say, takes into account what we as humans have learned over the last 200 years? I'm not holding my breath on this one.

I've recently read books by 2 of the "Four Horsemen", Dawkins and Harris. They both argue that religious moderation owes its roots to secular influences, much of which started with the Enlightenment. They also argue that religious moderates are almost as bad as extremists because they give the latter political cover.

Harris wrote in The End of Faith, "The doors leading out of scriptural literalism do not open from the inside." Barrack Obama seems to be taking a different approach, trying to moderate religion from the inside by bringing it more into the public square, but influencing it be more accepting through federal grants (at least, I hope that's where he's going with that).

I favor the first far more than the second, but my question is this: is the latter a necessary evil? Many of the faithful see any secular incursion as threatening (you know, things like not teaching creationism in public schools) - are moderating forces on the inside needed to make it work? And if so, is it better for secular efforts to form partnerships, or to take the hard stance of Dawkins and Harris? I don't know the answer.