How can you compare the belief in a bearded guy in the sky to being black or old?
Because both encompass a group identity. I could compare people who play video games to people who are black too. I could compare people who are Basketball fans to people who believe in a Breaded guy in the sky. I can compare individuals from California with Old people. I know you desperately want to prove me wrong by attempting to be as offensive as possible in belittling christians, hoping that I'll run off on some raving tangent rather than point out your obvious flaw. Sorry, not going to work, as I'm not really the religious sort.
Groups of people that share some sort of commanality...be it race, religion, interest, gender, age, etc...identify easier on average with other people who share that commanality, no matter how much you wish to degrade said common factor.
So if there was a giant voting bloc of people who voted to raise taxes because Zeus thought taxes should be at 80% or above, you wouldn't find those people to be disturbing? You are comparing cultural relations to poor logic?
No more than I'd find 80% or above believing we need to raise taxes because the Rich aren't "paying their fair share" or because the rich are "the Man" who need to be shown a lesso nor because "The Rich can afford it based on my own views of how much money they really need" or because Marxian philosophy says so or because they reasoned that such was the correct answer through using the socratic method.
No, if 80% or above generally felt that way, I'd not be greatly troubled by the notion of WHY they chose it. I may be troubled by WHAT they choose, but not the why.
Agreeably, both require lack of logic, but I am not sure why you think that one needs to be brought up with the other. One is a sociological issue and the other is the ardent belief of an old fable and making life decisions based off of it.
You were asking two questions...why people have a sort of litmus test for someone they vote for beign political, and someone voting based on their religious beleifs. In regards to the first one, my answer is that its due to identity politics and thus they absolutely are related.
Did you really compare believing in science to belief in Christianity? No, they are not comparable. One takes empirical evidence, requires sound logic, and encourages as many questions as possible; and the other is really quite the opposite: it cannot have any empirical evidence, it uses little to no logic, and questioning it is frowned upon.
Yes, I did. A persons belief regarding the law are based on their own personal beliefs of what is important to them, what their morals are, and what their views of the world are. People can gain those things from a variety of sources from society, to religion, to science, to philosophers, and on. Unlike those who are so egotistical as to belittle those that dare to think differently then them, I don't feel that people should be insulted or our constitution shat upon simply because someones views are formed differently than my own.
So it is your opinion that voting for a candidate who believes in evolution, saving the environment, and energy conservation is the similar to voting someone who believes in creation, gays being abominations, and destroying Islam?
Absolutely, in quite a number of ways. In both cases you're voting for a candidate. If the individual voting believes those things, then both people are voting based on their individual beliefs. If the individual voting doens't know the individuals points but simply knows they're not very religious / very religious and votes based on that factor, then they're similar. I'd even say similar to someone who votes for someone who believes we to significantly alter our living conditions in the name of being green, suggests that kids should be taught Gods don't exist and religion is illogical in school, and believe it should be illegal to vote based on your religious views. Voting for that individual could be similar in reasons as well.
Well, when the Flying Spaghetti monster is taught to your children in schools you might disagree with that statement.
All hail the FSM.
No, not really. See, your big scarey boogey man slipper slope doesn't scare me, nor sway me, nor change my position. Should we get to a point that the majority in this country are athiests and they vote based purely on their athiest views and put forward laws and policies that are hazardous or uncomfortable for those of faith...but are constitutional...I'll have no issue with that from the stand point of where they get their belief from. I may have significant issues with the laws or actions they push...much as I have significant issues with many of those things pushed by staunch Christians...but not with WHY they push it.
Unlike you, I don't like my prejudice and bigotry towards various groups override my beleif in the constitution and reasonable application of fairness across the board.
