Does religion affect your vote?

Laila said:

Cloning humans? Hell no.

Lmao, Guardian reader here. Surprise surprise.
You'd be surprised when you come London, we are generally quite liberal.
I know no one who is socially conservative and is not old.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure about the rest of the country or even London. I added this above but you probably missed it.

Look at the polls in Scotland on section 28 for instance.

BBC News | SCOTLAND | Poll 'backs' Section 28

And look at the support for the BNP in some places in London. The BNP are many things but socially liberal they are not.

Wessexman said:

I wouldn't be so sure about the rest of the country or even London. I added this above but you probably missed it.

Look at the polls in Scotland on section 28 for instance.

BBC News | SCOTLAND | Poll 'backs' Section 28

And look at the support for the BNP in some places in London. The BNP are many things but socially liberal they are not.

Click to expand...

That is what happens when devolution happens /sigh
I don't get it, promotion of homosexuality?
Do they mean teaching about hetro and gay relationships?

Bromley is one of those areas, dominated by old people who clearly cannot let go of the past and are voting BNP.

And then of course there is the sheer popularity of such outlets as The Daily Mail despite the constant leftist attacks(some not without merit.)on them.

Laila said:

That is what happens when devolution happens /sigh
I don't get it, promotion of homosexuality?
Do they mean teaching about hetro and gay relationships?.

Click to expand...

Scotland is actually one of the most leftwing parts of the UK.

Wessexman said:

Scotland is actually one of the most leftwing parts of the UK.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the rejection and is it?

Wessexman said:

And then of course there is the sheer popularity of such outlets as The Daily Mail despite the constant leftist attacks(some not without merit.)on them.

Click to expand...

Erm .. i buy the daily mail and sun for the gossip .. :3oops:

Wessexman said:

Sure you did. You weren't attacking me specifically but you started attacking religion randomly, crudely and arrogantly. Or are you denying I replied to this post of yours:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/48216-does-religion-affect-your-vote-6.html#post1058026278

And ehre's my reply:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/48216-does-religion-affect-your-vote-8.html#post1058027547

Keep up, I have already responded:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/48216-does-religion-affect-your-vote-2.html#post1058025516

Click to expand...

well here you have it. You start an attack when I ask you to prove it you accuse me of an attack. Then when I stop asking and look back to the OP you attack again. You may want to make up your mind.

So make up your mind. If you want to debate the existence of god ( at times you seem to want that) then prove there is one. If you want to discuss the OP please do. But stop attacking me for just trying to figure out what you want to debate.

I did see that you responded to the OP further back than I looked. I am sorry. So what than brought you back to the thread. Other than to attack me and create an argument. If it's the way that I consider god a large zero then have at it and prove your point.

Inferno said:

well here you have it. You start an attack when I ask you to prove it you accuse me of an attack. Then when I stop asking and look back to the OP you attack again. You may want to make up your mind.

So make up your mind. If you want to debate the existence of god ( at times you seem to want that) then prove there is one. If you want to discuss the OP please do. But stop attacking me for just trying to figure out what you want to debate.
.

Click to expand...

It was you that started the attacks, I have proved this in my above post where I show myself replying to an attack you made, this last post by you simply ignores that. Do you have anything constructive or relevant to add?

Laila said:

I don't understand the rejection and is it?

Click to expand...

Section 28 banned teachers from talking about homosexuality to their school pupils. The Scottish parliament got rid of it and even though Scotland is one of the most liberal parts of the UK this was still an unpopular move if we can judge anything from the polls.

Wessexman said:

Section 28 banned teachers from talking about homosexuality to their school pupils. The Scottish parliament got rid of it and even though Scotland is one of the most liberal parts of the UK this was still an unpopular move if we can judge anything from the polls.

Click to expand...

What a damn stupid idea. Well done parliament
So teachers cannot talk about homosexuality even if a student brings up the subject? And in refusing to highlight it, any student who would come out would be treated as different

Wessexman said:

It was you that started the attacks, I have proved this in my above post where I show myself replying to an attack you made, this last post by you simply ignores that. Do you have anything constructive or relevant to add?

Click to expand...

I know that you have nothing constructive to add you have yet to say anything in any of these posts to back up your statement in post 73.

Wessexman said:

And you ask why we don't support Atheists.:doh

Click to expand...

You have yet to say one thing that adds anything to an unwarranted attack. You have been unable to give any proof of your god and you have be totally antagonistic. So come up with something useful if at all possible.

I voted "It has some influence," because if a candidate seemed that he or she might be making decisions based on a series of moralistic fairy tales, I might be less inclined to vote for him or her.


Duke

Laila said:

What a damn stupid idea. Well done parliament

Click to expand...

:lol:

Earlier you went on about how MPs must do what the public wants, only when it is not against your liberal ideology though seemingly.

So teachers cannot talk about homosexuality even if a student brings up the subject? And in refusing to highlight it, any student who would come out would be treated as different

Click to expand...

It is an old law going back decades.

Inferno said:

I know that you have nothing constructive to add you have yet to say anything in any of these posts to back up your statement in post 73.

Click to expand...

I did, I made several posts. Defending the validity of my religious beliefs had nothing to do with that or the thread. Do keep on topic.

You have yet to say one thing that adds anything to an unwarranted attack. You have been unable to give any proof of your god and you have be totally antagonistic. So come up with something useful if at all possible.

Click to expand...

My irony meter just exploded.

As an atheist I tend to naturally vote for people who value secularism in government. I don't really care about their private beliefs or lack thereof. All I care about is where they stand on the issues that matter to me. Obviously, the more secular their stances are, the higher the chances of them getting my vote are. A surprising amount of religious politicians have gotten my vote over the years due to their ability and willingness to keep their faith out of politics.

Arcana XV said:

As an atheist I tend to naturally vote for people who value secularism in government. I don't really care about their private beliefs or lack thereof. All I care about is where they stand on the issues that matter to me. Obviously, the more secular their stances are, the higher the chances of them getting my vote are. A surprising amount of religious politicians have gotten my vote over the years due to their ability and willingness to keep their faith out of politics.

Click to expand...

That is how i tend to vote. i do stay away from those that express to many religious views so I guess in that way it does influence me some. Most candidates I vote for really are atheistic anyway.

Laila said:

My religion has never and will never affect the way i vote, there is little religion in UK politics

Click to expand...

Hmm. The Tories, The DUP, The BNP, UUP, SNP . . . . .

Arcana XV said:

As an atheist I tend to naturally vote for people who value secularism in government. I don't really care about their private beliefs or lack thereof. All I care about is where they stand on the issues that matter to me. Obviously, the more secular their stances are, the higher the chances of them getting my vote are. A surprising amount of religious politicians have gotten my vote over the years due to their ability and willingness to keep their faith out of politics.

Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly except I switch around anti-secularist for secularist and religion for secularist. If you get what I mean.

Wessexman said:

But you would vote for an over the top secularist?

I will continue to stand up for our ancient society, institutions and traditions against the ravages of secularism and atheism and I make no bones about it, I'm proud of the fact.

Click to expand...

And heres what I dont get about you. Why is something automatically worth preserving just because its ancient and/or traditional and/or and insitution? Afterall alot of them are at best extreamly silly and at worst offensivly chauvinist.

Red_Dave said:

And heres what I dont get about you. Why is something automatically worth preserving just because its ancient and/or traditional and/or and insitution? Afterall alot of them are at best extreamly silly and at worst offensivly chauvinist.

Click to expand...

Several reasons. I mean there is my deep attachment to the traditional culture of my land and region. I don't mind change but I want change that stresses continuity. But sociologically and politically it is because tradition helps to guard against arbitrary power, centralised authority and such. You undermine tradition, you undermine the intermediate associations whose co-ordination it partly grows out of and you leave yourself with isolated individuals and a void where only a centralised organisations like the gov't can take its place to try, usually rather poorly, to co-ordinate what tradition and intermediate associations like kinship once did.

Your question itself suggests this to a degree, it is couched in terms of one individual's reason deciding what ancient tradition and institution is worth preserving and what is not and talking as if the proof is on these institutions rather than those who would knock them down. If you can pass such judgment surely a centralised elected legislature can.

Now you call yourself a libertarian socialist. I'm not quite sure what kind you are, I haven't seen you mention the likes of Kropotkin much so you may not be that kind but still you could gain much by reading the likes of Hayek, Nisbet, Oakeshott and Burke. You don't have to endorse any kind of rightwing traditionalism but they have a lot to say to any libertarian and decentralist. Robert Nisbet has little but priase for Kropotkin and Proudhon.