Art,
I posted in another thread (I don't honestly remember if it was the beginning of this one
) that I consider self-interest to be, or one of, the most noble causes.
That is, if my dissent is a function of my self-interest, although I am not convinced it is while recognizing that could be due to my own ideologies, I welcome that. I do not view myself, in my capacity as a citizen in
this nation, as being subservient to the nation or the nation's best interest. I view this nation as a construct--created to serve my interests. Following the Grand Liberal theory, a mass of people striving for their self-interests, operating within a larger contract that hinders harmful behavior (as in, taking by force), and based upon rational discourse, will find the best possible course of action for the group as a whole.
Now all of that can not be 'proven' by any scientific yardstick I know of, which leads me to understand that my position is fundamentally ideological. I still believe it to be a better flavor than adhering to what one knows works best--a fair and non-perjorative (I hope) description of the Grand Conservative theory.
My issue with the notion of the use of religion is not that I am disturbed by religious people,
per se; rather, that the melding of many powerful mediums, one of them religion and another media, hinders the rational discourse I think best for the reasons outlined above. I do not intend to impugn conservatives by insinuating that they are not rational by that statement. I state it in the sense that certain core beliefs can not be resolved through discussion or the presentation of evidence. Some things, I understand, can only be understood via faith. That bothers me because it shuts off a thorough analysis of one's positions.
One member thought I meant that such people are less intelligent when they rely on faith over what one might consider evidence. One's lack of information, willfull or otherwise, does not indicate one's intelligence to me. I know people who are very intelligent, yet still choose to rely on things unseen over the things that are seen. I just don't believe that will get the mass of people very far if we are trying to evolve as a people (yet two more fundamentallly ideological positions of my own: that faith won't achieve the desired result and that we actually are evolving as a mass of people). So I become incensed with politicians who tailor their message in ways that will abuse the trust many good people I know place in their government officials. While I understand how powerful machiavellian politics can be, I become angry when a democratic leader drapes his or herself in that rhetoric.
That's my biggest problem with religion in politics.
In a nutshell:
I think it's wrong to get people incited over the issue of abortion, for example, at the expense of economic issues. While I understand that many people would find it their moral responsibility to ensure another person does not sin, I find it disingenuous for a politician to bank on that belief when he or she must know, if he or she really were a christian, that persons are individually responsible for their own sins, according to the tenets laid out in the christian bible. So that position held by many christian politicians and voters smacks of hypocracy--a trait definately condemned in that book, if nothing else.