If the purpose of a symbolic belief is to signal the belief holders allegiance to a cause, then it occurs to me that extremist, absurd beliefs would send a stronger signal than moderate, sensible beliefs.

Incidently, consider the following thought experiment: imagine that it turns out that Arnold Schwarzenegger was actually born in the US, and he attains the presidency. How many Democrats, especially in the most liberal parts of the US, would remain convinced that he was really a foreigner, and that his election was a fraud?

http://deborahgyapong.blogspot.com/2007/05/kathy-shaidle-on-911-truthers.html

Oh I don’t know. Perhaps there are not enough very moral and/or ethical people en masse to make sure people don’t die from preventable diseases, but it depends on what “good” we are talking about. Certain people are of the belief that ever human being has an intrinsic worth no matter what i.e. quakers and the inner light of God, certain Buddhists and the belief of “buddhanature, so on. etc.

Of course, there is the first noble truth of buddhism “life is difficult.” This does not mean that people do not respond compassionately and with wisdom, but that there is pain regardless of what we do. Suffering? that’s another question.

I would think the problem is more having to do with wisdom than anything, as opposed to “bad” people. It’s like the serenity prayer in a way, most people don’t know what things they can actually change, and don’t have the wisdom to know the difference between what can be changed or not and what actually just needs to be accepted. So much suffering happens when that crucal difference cannot be detecrted and then acted upon (or accepted).

And now what do you get? Coin-flip answers biased only by how much they wish to affiliate themselves with Obama, whether they understand the Constitutional implications of being foreign-born, and how much they think a foreign birth is disreputable.

Bingo bango, you’ve got “poll data.”