Also, Walt over simplifies the relationship between moderate theists
and extreme theists and misses how the former lends support to the
latter.

Take the most extreme fundamentalist Christian and the most liberal
unitarian Christian. You might not expect the fundamentalist to be
able to derive any sort of support of the liberal. Yet it is easy to
imagine:

Let's say fundamentalism can be rated on a scale of 1 to 100 with 1
being theists you never hear about because they aren't being rabidly
evangelical and generally keep their religion to themselves and 100
being Falwell.

Now, putting a 1 and a 100 together will highlight obvious differences
and they probablly will argue and fight as much as any atheist vs.
theist. But that's not how it works, despiute Walt's attempts to
depict it that way.

Distribution of theist population on this scale would most likely be a
bell curve, putting more people in the center (50) than at either
extreme.

Another concept to introduce is "birds of a feather flock together"
Religion is a social group and groupings will most likely have those
of similar fundamental ratings.

And finally there is the fact that the fundamentalists get a
disproportionate amount of media. They are more vocal and active.

Put these together and you have a 100 in a group with some 99's, more
98's, even more 97's, etc. etc. Now, the 99 won't agree with
everything the 100 says, but 99% of it. The 99s lend support to the
100s, the 98s to the 99s, the 97s to the 96s, and so one. Since the
higher up you go the more vocal you go, it will appear that the 100s
are in charge.

But that's all just appearances, right? No. Being so alike in thought
a 99 will agree with, and pretty act in according with the beliefs of
the 100, because their beliefs are pretty much the same. Where they
differ the difference is slight and, being more vocal and active, it
is no small task for the 100 to convince the 99 that his way is right,
even if only temporarily. This goes down the chain from 99 to 98, from
98 to 97, etc. etc. Now, at some point it fizzles out, but by that
time you will have had an extreme minority (the 100s) having had
influence a larger, less extreme population (99-).

The problem is, given the smooth, gradual spectrum you just can
eliminate one portion. Take away all the 100s and you've just merely
created NEW 100s (the old 99s) on a recalibrated scale.

Lastly, appearances are significant, especially in the views of the
100s. Even if their extreme directives do not filter down to the 1s,
the lack of response (positive or negative) from the lower extremes is
simply assumed to be tacit consent. They think themselves as having
the support of all, and act accordingly.

Even outside religious concerns Walts description of secular morality
is crude, at best. Stealing a candy has little effect on society.
Candy bars are numerous and cheap, so stealing one doesn't
significantly affect the wants of any other people. Thus, according to
Walt's morality here, we should not make stealing candybars a crime.
The issue here is that Walt is only considering single instances and
evaluating them isolated from other concerns. Rather he should be
evaluating things as what would happen if everyone was allowed to do
it.