The answer to all of these is 'depends'. On each spectrum for each one you have people like ER, Netanyahu, and the Taliban (they aren't that equal, but the point stands) but you also have many others who are just normal people with a spiritual connection to their religion (this is particularly common among Jews (for obvious reasons) and to a lesser extent Christians).
And millions of different parts in between.
Now, if we follow Islam word-for-word as it is in the Quran, HR. If we follow Christianity word-for-word as it is in the Bible, HR. If we follow Judaism as it is word-for-word in the Torah, HR. But if we interpret it in a modern sense, all are FR.
I understand what you're getting at, but the idea that there's a single "modern sense" in which to interpret any given religion's tenets strikes me as a pretty serious misunderstanding of what's actually at stake in the sorts of intrareligious disputes you're alluding to. Very little, religion-wise, is more aggressively modern than boilerplate Nixonian-ratf**ked Global South Evangelicalism or the "bulldoze 'idolatrous' shrines that have been around for a thousand years to throw up parking garages" Saudi style of Islam.
Oh of course. There are additional bad interpretations that are more recent.
Poll
