Meredith seems to see emotionality of belief as a peculiar affliction of those with religious affiliations. However, if you look back on many of the threads on this forum you will find posters,who profess atheism or agnosticism,doing very good renditions of emotionality and holier-than-thouism.

Which makes me think that (unless you classify some of the other belief systems, such as AGW & refugee-advocacy , as quasi-religions –and,there is some merit in that!) it would be more accurately seen as a common human characteristic.

SPQR
The emotionalilty argument as I perceive it often occurs when in defending a particularl stance, the 'offended' makes a distorted analysis of what the 'intender' was proposing in many cases.

An example that comes to mind is arguments about the influence of various religious groups on policy, taxation loopholes that broadly impact on discussions around separation of Church and State eg. School Chaplaincy.

The knee-jerk reaction is to accuse the person of either God-hater (impossible for an atheist) or anti-Christian regardless of whether the points made are directed at all religious persuasions.

Just mention lack of accountability in the Catholic Church in relation to child abuse and one is suddenly accused of anti-Catholicism.

There will always be emotion and irrationality in these debates because people tend to protect those beliefs that help shape their identity. In many cases logical analysis or rational argument about the minutae gets tossed aside to defend the bigger picture.

Do you really place global warming and refugee advocacy alongside religious belief? Couldn't that be concluded as an overly emotional response designed to diminish those stances? At times, people appear to be more focussed on deflection instead of getting to the heart of an issue as a stand alone.

Pelican,
You ask:
1)“ Do you really place global warming and refugee advocacy alongside religious belief?” –absoooooluuuutely !
And not just those two , many others as well, it’s not a religious / non-religious thing-- it’s a human thing.


2) “Couldn't that be concluded as an overly emotional response designed to diminish those stances?
I’d invite anyone who might think that, to do some field research and have a wander over to some of the The Forums (lesser) competitors.
You will find little use of the labels “God hater” or “anti-Christian” but you will hear some worthy substitutes, in refugee advocacy threads, racists,rednecks,xenophobes,mean-hearted, selfish,bigotted .And in AGW threads, flat-Earthers , deniers, anti-science, dupes of big oil, charlatans.

And, those are just the ones I dare to repeat in the midst of this here much more refined company!

Mind you they aint all bad – many are thoroughly rational persons. The worst of them no longer seem to make it down our way any more

SPQR
Yes, there are some fairly strenuous insults tossed around in some of the more controversial debates and emotions run high.

I guess the sorts of emotive responses can be compared with a religious emotion in terms of protecting those views that help define personal identity including some of those you raise such as refugees and climate change. The position taken on many issues also goes to the heart of an individual's moral code or values. When those values are misconstrued, spun or misinterpreted that is where emotionality (if one must use that term) might override rational debate.

It is ironic that in the AGW debate there are so many insults flung from both sides despite the fact that the science is still out and people are repeating the 'evidence' that best suits their instinctive position.

Our politicians are no better - just listen to Question Time or events like the recent protests where Abbott had no qualms about being linked with "Bob's Bitch" type posters. I cannot imagine John Howard or Malcolm Fraser participating in such a way but the political standards have slipped more and more over the last 20 years - strangely since the advent of economic rationalism. Maybe that is the outcome when one removes the 'human' from policy and devolve everything down to numbers, productivity and human resources, spurning meaningless phrases like social capital.

HerbieTheBeagle,

The religious are perfectly entitled to lobby for laws based on their belief system. As are you. Your post sounds like sour grapes to me. What was it I was saying about the atheists? Yes, I think you would not be so upset about these inconveniences if they weren't supported by
religious people. It's plain bigotry.

WHy is it valid for you to impose your views, and your values over the religious in a democracy but not the other way around?

pelican,

I have an ambition in life to be considered a key stakeholder. Ever since I first heard the term I have wondered how one goes about being considered as such. Maybe you could put a good word in for me to the all powerful PS bureaucracy.

'Abbott had no qualms about being linked with "Bob's Bitch" type posters'
I cant believe the hypocrisy of that. Think of all the Greens events over the years using Hitler taunts, 'George Bush's bitch' etc (yes it's not really a gendered term in that context) at The Rodent.

Joooolia is playing the politics of gender. She's being a precious little princess because it suits her. Maybe we should start calling her 'mean and tricky'.

The sign thing is actually used in that political series 'The Thick of It' where the guy stands behind a sign at the strategic behest of mischievous media men.

Anyway it's all good ol' fashioned rumble tumble.

As to religious beliefs, the most emotionally held are the anti-economic rationalists.

Houlley
"I have an ambition in life to be considered a key stakeholder. Ever since I first heard the term I have wondered how one goes about being considered as such. Maybe you could put a good word in for me to the all powerful PS bureaucracy."

It's easy Houlley, anyone can be a steak holder just go to your nearest barby. Would love to help you but I am afraid I am persona non gratis in the PS bureacracy these days. We are all stakeholders just by virtue of being alive. Parents are now apparently stakeholders in school communities, my daughter's school now has a Moving Forward Officer. Maybe you could apply for one of those jobs.

Despite your propensity to assume the worst, my reference was to the two major parties who have up until recently tended to avoid overt displays of vitriole. The debate in the Senate Chamber gets pretty hot these days. It has nothing to do with anyone being a 'precious princess' - that is your anti-feminism underpants showing again. Green supporters have sometimes - unfortunately - opted for the extreme caricatures in their protests.

Anti-economic rationalists are also capable of being emotional - it is an emotive subject. There are no exceptions within any group I can think of other than the agnostic fence sitters of the world.

I'll take some degree of emotion over complacency any day as long as with it there is some level of analysis and thought and perhaps even courage. Peter Hume is a good example of someone I disagree with - I don't have his faith in the markets but he does a good job of arguing his case and for that I respect his contributions.