If only liberals and most libertarians could grasp the importance of this statement:
People's beliefs about God's personality are powerful predictors, according to the survey. Those who found God engaged and punishing were likely to have lower incomes and education, to come from the South and be white evangelicals or black Protestants. People who believe God is distant and nonjudgmental are more likely to support increased business regulation, environmental protections and the even distribution of wealth.
You mean that ideas actually have consequences? Perish the thought!
If they carried this survey over a little bit further they might have come to the following conclusion: "those who subscribe to a conservative interpretation of Islam are inclined to believe that it is acceptable to use force to convert non-believers".
I've said it once, I'll say it again. Religion is a much more powerful force than virtually any secularist can comprehend. It shapes the way that an adherent sees the world and interacts with others. A religion that holds violent teachings is going to be hard-pressed to fit into a liberal, pluralistic society. It is a legitimate--and very necessary--question to ask whether or not a liberal, pluralistic society should play Russian Roulette with its future by taking in people who adhere to such a belief system.
If it 'hard', why on earth do it?
Believe.
Find strength.
If it's 'hard' why on earth NOT do it?
I saw that same study in the men's room a few minutes ago. The full story points out the difficulty in placing people into categories, then goes on to put a lot of importance into the catagory they are in. Many of the category labels are nothing more than arbitrary words with no accepted meanings behind them.
Example: Are you evangelical, charismatic, or "bible believing"?
It looks to me as if the catagories were assigned based on the bias of the study producers.
I think that a little Occam's Razor is in order to deal with these cretins. The simplest answer is that they don't know what "Evangelical," "charismatic" or "bible-believing" mean except through some half-assed Wikipedia entry on the subject written by a gay atheist who's never cracked open the Bible or been to a conservative church.
What I found interesting about the study is that it proved a bone of contention that a lot of Christians have: a disbelief in God or a belief that God is distant and uninvolved leads people to feel weak. They resort to government to make up for the void left in their personal security. All it takes is a cursory look at Britain today to see how bad of a choice THAT is...
"a bone of contention"...I think I'm into that ;)
Mmmmm I think more likely the bone of contention is into you...