Quote:
Irreligious wrote
The free exercise of religion is a guaranteed right under the U.S. Constitution. All the arguing in the world won't change that.
|
And yet, we all here argue against religion all the same. Again, arguing in favor of libertarianism is no less pragmatic or cutting against human nature than arguing in favor of atheism. Both are minority positions that are not intuitively appealing to those unwilling to put considerable thought towards the topic. Both are positions based on a combination of logic and evidence, often running contrary to positions based on the touchy-feelys.
Quote:
|
Irr wrote
Which is why, I guess, no serious candidate for the U.S. presidency has ever run on an anti-religion platform. Admirable as it might be to some, it still wouldn't be very pragmatic.
|
Even running on a secular (but not overtly anti-religious) platform that basically ignored religion on the whole would be political suicide, even though atheism is (as far as anyone here can discern) obviously correct. At the same time, most would/do reject a libertarian platform, even though the empirical evidence to date leans heavily in its favor (even if you're trying to maximize human welfare/happiness).
Voters aren't rational.