Well, that's the whole problem isn't it, people are at liberty to interpret our religious texts as they see fit, civilization as been doing it for centuries. Even the people that mean well that try to justify in their minds the explicit examples of the judeo-christian god murdering, condoning slavery, infanticide, being petty and capricious. They're just as much of a problem as those who take the bible literally,because they are the ones that are most likely denying the opportunity to be critical about literalists and fundamentalists, because "everyone's beliefs can be respected" and "you're ok, I'm ok," despite the fact that many religions and faiths are completely unable to be reconciled and are at odds in many, many core ways. To quote Christopher Hitchens, "They can't all be true, so chances are none of them are."
About religious moderates Sam Harris writes: All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don't like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God. Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question-i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us-religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness."