With all due respect MM, (I like your posts), I do not.

I see a lot of "You believe as you wish" these days, but the religious often vote based on their beliefs. I see it no different than telling a delusion/denial-riddled substance dependent person to "carry on," as if it didn't effect me and everyone else.

I, like you, will push back when/where appropriate, but people do not have the "right" to believe in absurdities. There is no "right" to eschew critical thinking, or embrace delusion, denial and willful ignorance. And there is no leeway between the right to believe and the things believed.

If humanity is ever to break the bonds of religion; education, critical thought, open-mindedness, humility, fearlessness and courage will be necessary.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I needn't even know what individual people believe. Frankly, I don't care all that much. I do, however, see what people do. I do not claim to be respectful of actions. If someone acts badly, whatever they believe or do not believe, I have the right and the responsibility, I believe, to speak out against those bad actions.

Beliefs, in themselves, are not actions. One may believe he or she is a supernatural entity. If I do know know about that belief, it is not important. However, if that person acts in a way that denies the rights of others, I will speak right up, I guarantee, supernatural entity or not.

they can't differentiate between intolerance of a bad idea and intolerance of a person who may subscribe to the bad idea. This often leads to ad hominem attacks by those who are incapable of making such distinctions.

all bets are off. If a person attributes their bad actions to their beliefs, then I am no longer required to be tolerant of those beliefs, since they cause bad actions.

Beliefs are individual, personal, and should be internal. Acting on beliefs often interferes with others. That's the main reason to hold beliefs internally. Avoiding undue influence on others is a staple element of proper behavior in society.

If I believe in and am an adherent of "Absurdity A," that will never influence my behavior/actions/decisions?

I imagine you are the only one inside your own head. Certainly I am not.

I'm not an adherent of any supernatural absurdities, so I can't really answer for myself, either. My behavior/actions/decisions are influenced by a general ethical compass. I strive to behave/act/decide in ways that do not harm others. I am usually successful, I think.

It seems I will be unable to help you understand, for which I humbly apologize.

I do not adhere to supernatural absurdities either and my behavior/actions/decisions are also influenced by a general ethical compass.

My premise would be that any absurd belief (religious or otherwise) will have corresponding absurd thoughts/actions/behavior/consequences for the believer and everyone else inhabiting this rock.

people in general seem to lean toward absurdity. At least, so it seems to me after 73 years of observation of myself and others.

At least absurdity offers fodder for laughter. So, there is that.

We seem to have an absurdity generator in our brains. Maybe this is why magical things can happen in dreams.

in our brains somewhere. Occasionally it feeds one of those into whatever we're doing, causing absurdity sometimes and creativity other times. Often, it's hard to tell the two things apart, of course.

Many religious people have the same ethical compass you do. They just believe the compass is set by God, not by civil society or reason. But in their daily actions, they act exactly the same as people who don't share that belief.

It's a function of other things, I think.

And a “religious” subculture associated with it. This seems to directly contradict your observation.

White evangelicals and black evangelicals have the same religious beliefs, but they vote in opposite numbers. That's because only one party will protect black evangelicals' civil rights. So skin color is a better predictor of how someone votes than religious belief.

that religiosity is also a strong predictor.

But people are just too complicated to draw a direct line from belief to action.

Of course it’s not a direct line. In terms of human behavior pretty much nothing is that simple. You seem to be avoiding any causality between religious beliefs and actions.

The Republican Party knows the link exists.

He said:

"My premise would be that any absurd belief (religious or otherwise) will have corresponding absurd thoughts/actions/behavior/consequences for the believer and everyone else inhabiting this rock."


That's much too strong of a statement, and does imply a direct line. That's what I was denying.


But if you are trying to sway a large group of voters, and you already know they disapprove of abortion, then putting an anti-choice plank in the center of your platform is a good way to get their votes.

I don’t understand the contrary position here. Perhaps the confusion is over the rights issue. People of course have the right to believe any idiocy, but they do not have the right to act out any idiocy.

I am willing to entertain all sorts of absurd even frightening or dangerous ideas. I think I am unusual in this way. But I do find it gives me some insight into how people think. I think I would have made a good psychologist or intelligence analyst.

I find all sorts of ideas to be absurd and entertaining. I know I'm unusual in that way.

that does not mean I need to respect either that person's beliefs nor that person. Just the Right.