The rules governing the behavior of religious members don’t come from the “holy scriptures” they read. After all, most of the rules in the scriptures are not followed (don’t wear mixed fabrics; turn the other cheek); while many important norms (monogamy, democracy, kindness) are never mentioned.
The rules of the religion do not come from the scriptures. They come from the priests—a parasitic caste of old men.
“Fundamentalists,” we are told, “believe that every word of scripture is the word of God.” Some observers (Sam Harris was perhaps the first) have said that this makes “fanatical” religious observers more sensible about their faith (in a way) than “moderates.” The moderates pick and choose which parts of the book to take seriously, while the fanatics simply believe every word. They don’t back down from the idea that the entire thing has a divine warrant. Fundamentalism seems to have a moral clarity about it that “reformed” religions lack.
But this turns out to be wrong.
Take a look at what the fundamentalists do. Their actions clearly show that they believe that some parts of holy scripture are the word of God, and that others are not. For example, although scripture clearly says that if someone strikes you on the cheek you should turn the other cheek, fundamentalists generally advocate an immediate escalation in violence. The idea that they believe every word is simply not true. Fundamentalists don’t get their rules from a literal reading of scripture. Like every other kind of religious “believer,” they take their orders from a parasitic caste of old men.
YASHWATA 
The problem is that there NEVER is a purely literal reading of a text. If I were to talk about my sister in law as a bitch, I am not saying my brother maried a female dog. I am using a different meaning of the word. Words can have different meanings and they are all equally valid. “Thou shall not kill” can just as easily mean “Never be in any way responsible for taking a life, human, animal or plant” as it can mean “Do not commit murder”.
How to resolve these issues? Well, have a person devote his life to God, was the reasoning. He can’t even have sex, must spend most of his life learning to read and write, learning to think critically, and then he will be able to intellectually explain what kind of interpretation is most fitting. Or, when the Bible gives no ground material, this person can infer what God would have wanted in this particular situation.
As a lawyer, this system seems perfectly logical to me. You can’t have a book that explains everything. You need someone to fill in the blanks. Have you sinned when killing someone in self-defence? What is and what is not self-defence? These are very complicated questions, and I understand that there was a time when priests were best suited with dealing with them. Especially because the claimed source of morality, the Bible, could only be read by them.
But not any more. The difference between a fundamentalist and a moderate, is that the former allows priests to do the thinking for him, and the latter do it themselves. The former sticks by explanations from stubborn men who cannot face the fact that they are not the smartest people around any more, while the latter creates his own morality and uses the Bible as an excuse for it.