Since there is no way to answer the question of "where to draw the line", you have to fall back on natural justice. Every human is of equal value, irrespective of intelligence, so you have to give every human a vote, irrespective of intelligence.
I find that an interesting fallacy that is often taken to ridiculous extremes in modern discourse. "Every human is of equal value" is not logically equivalent to "every human's opinion is of equal value". An expert's opinion is more valuable than a layman's. At least, I think it should be.
How do you define "an expert"? How do you measure expertise? Who gets to set the test? Expert in what? I'm an expert in astrophysics, but not in economics.
None of these questions have an objective answer, so you have to fall back on everyone's opinion being of equal value because there is no way to objectively determine who is an idiot and who is not an idiot.
Unless you reach the conclusion that ALL humans are idiots, and place government into the hands of AI.
Since there is no way to answer the question of "where to draw the line", you have to fall back on natural justice. Every human is of equal value, irrespective of intelligence, so you have to give every human a vote, irrespective of intelligence.
I find that an interesting fallacy that is often taken to ridiculous extremes in modern discourse. "Every human is of equal value" is not logically equivalent to "every human's opinion is of equal value". An expert's opinion is more valuable than a layman's. At least, I think it should be.
How do you define "an expert"? How do you measure expertise? Who gets to set the test? Expert in what? I'm an expert in astrophysics, but not in economics.
None of these questions have an objective answer, so you have to fall back on everyone's opinion being of equal value because there is no way to objectively determine who is an idiot and who is not an idiot.
Unless you reach the conclusion that ALL humans are idiots, and place government into the hands of AI.
I think it's fairly easy to discern someone's general level of intelligence within less than an hour of conversation. It usually takes me less than 5 minutes to write someone off as an idiot, because it is evident almost immediately. That said, they should still be allowed to vote.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Time out! People are taking my comments out of context to a wildly hyperbolic extreme. I *never* said anything like "the elderly shouldn't vote", "the mentally challenged shouldn't vote", "those who survive only because of government assistance shouldn't vote", or anything like that. All I did was express frustration and confusion over the fact that there are people who will automatically believe something just because they saw it in a text message, read it on some social media post, or they received an automated phone call giving them misinformation. I am allowed to be exasperated over something without resorting to forbidding entire groups of people from voting--that is taking my initial position and going sideways with it.
You shouldn't even believe *me* without double-checking what I am saying, and I have usually already done the research and/or know what I am talking about.
The real concern isn't whether or not an elderly person should be able to vote based on their level of mental acuity. No, the real concern with elderly people is whether they are suffering abuse at the hands of family members or staff wherever they live or if they have been delivered into the hands of a "professional guardian", a person who is authorized to handle *all* their finances (and may dispose of the income as they see fit), as well as being able to fill out their voter card for them.
The problem with "let's prevent people who cash government checks from voting" occurs when you start looking at that group's subgroups. "People who work for the government" cash their paychecks from the government. "People who receive Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements" also cash government checks. "People who receive their Social Security benefits" also cash government paychecks (and not all those people are elderly). "People who have received a refund from the IRS" cashed a government check--this group is pretty large.
In other words, I am allowed to express frustration without resorting to taking away people's rights. I get aggravated at other drivers--like the one who almost sideswiped the car in front of me this morning--but I am not going to argue to take away anyone's right to drive unless they have proven they don't deserve that right (I think three DUIs and your license gets revoked). I get aggravated at other people's stupidity but I am not going to argue for forced sterilization.
On a more personal note...if I sometimes seem a little cold and/or callous towards other people...let's just say that life hasn't always been kind and that it has taken me a long time to get to where I am right now.
Maybe only people with IQs over 150 are fit to vote?
In that case, I am ready to vote.
I would amend the statement @jjstraka34 made to "easy to discern someone's general level of education within less than an hour of conversation"; education and intelligence are almost always two completely different things. I went to high school with a girl who had a New Jersey accent (so you can figure out for yourself how much she stood out in Texas) but who also had a slight speech impediment. The two things taken together and upon initially meeting her you might have thought "the poor thing" and felt sorry for her...but you would have been in for a surprise when you looked at her report card.
Should elderly people whose "mental capabilities aren't what they used to be" even be voting? Just poking the bear here since there a lot of people who shouldn't be voting imho. I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
I'd like to suggest two small tweaks here--rather than worrying about mental capabilities for the elderly, we should just make it a blanket test for everyone. And as far as gov't assistance, that's a tougher one to distinguish--we all use federal services, in some capacity or another. I think we should instead focus on trying to exclude the indigent who are simply a drag on the system, and voting for handouts.
Or to put it another way, IQ tests and poll taxes. Surely nothing could go wrong with such ideas in America.
I'd settle for taking the D's and R's off the ballots. That way you'd be voting for a person instead of a party. You might even have to do a little research into who to vote for. How terrible!
I think people would be changing their name to Fred Republican, John Americafirst, and Larry Toughoncrime if there were only names allowed on the ballot.
Everyone of age should be able to vote. If that upsets a particular party that only wants to cater to the interests of a few then so be it. Discriminatory platforms should not be rewarded. Widen your appeal. You are running for a position that affects people from all walks of life.
@smeagolheart "I think people would be changing their name to Fred Republican, John Americafirst, and Larry Toughoncrime if there were only names allowed on the ballot. "
Unfortunately, people who blindly believe things like robocalls about changes to voting locations or tweets that they can vote by text deserve not to vote. If someone doesn't know enough to look up their State's voting information portal via the official government website and/or call the registrar's office to verify that they are eligible to vote and to find the location of their polling location then that is their problem and I have no sympathy for that person.
These tactics (mostly the robocalls) prey on the elderly whose mental capabilities are not what they use to be.
It is underhanded tactic, that even though it may not effect a large group of people, every account should be investigated. Canada did just that in the2011 election, laying charges against one person who set up robocalls in an attempt send voters to the wrong polling station.
Shrugging off these tactics, will just allow it continue and adapt where more people would be affected.
Should elderly people whose "mental capabilities aren't what they used to be" even be voting? Just poking the bear here since there a lot of people who shouldn't be voting imho. I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
This is one step away from saying only land-owners can vote. Buy beyond that, anyone who has ever driven on a road has received government assistance. In fact, I'd argue that any owner of a business who ships products to and from their store has received INFINITELY more government assistance than anyone on welfare programs could dream of simply because of how often their trucks use public roads and cause them to wear down. And that is just a single example.
Not landowners, just folks whose source of income is the government. People on government assistance don't contribute to the roads at all but still use them so I'm not sure what your point is there. If people don't like the roads they can vote for somebody who will fix it. Nobody (or at least very, very few) will vote for anyone who will lower their income...
Thats not necesssrily true, as wage earning jobs are not the only way to contribute. Plenty of stay at home parents contribute a heap, and you're ignoring stuff like volunteering. Most liberals vote every election to lower their incomes, what are you talking about??
Incidently, I'd argue that most super-rich people do not actually contribute much. You might think people who develop startling advances matter, but in truth they are simply the one that got to invent or discover something, and someone else would have I guarantee. Might take another 6 months before someone else invented Facebook, but someone else would have. This is why so many scientific discoveries are found independently by multiple unrelated researchers. Many big corporations are huge, exploitive sponges that the government gives handouts to. Its a fact that the super-rich pay relatively little tax, and taxes on big corporations are surprisingly dodgeable. Also, the rich benefit immensely from things like the US education system, roads, police, fire department etc, moreso usually than the poor.
In an odd turn of events, the culprit has been found in the racist graffiti at the Air Force Academy that prompted their commanding officer to strongly condemned racism. It turns out it was a black cadet who hoped the distraction would turn focus from his own disciplinary problems.
Here's a couple thoughts. I've heard urban legends of people in military school going to great lengths to get out of the service such as people intentionally breaking their leg and hoping for a medical discharge when things get tough.
Our own President faked bone spurs and later forgot which leg he said it was in to get out of the Vietnam war draft. This student's actions are a blemish on a real issue facing people in the US today in light of the rise of Trump and the alt-right.
Unfortunately, people who blindly believe things like robocalls about changes to voting locations or tweets that they can vote by text deserve not to vote. If someone doesn't know enough to look up their State's voting information portal via the official government website and/or call the registrar's office to verify that they are eligible to vote and to find the location of their polling location then that is their problem and I have no sympathy for that person.
These tactics (mostly the robocalls) prey on the elderly whose mental capabilities are not what they use to be.
It is underhanded tactic, that even though it may not effect a large group of people, every account should be investigated. Canada did just that in the2011 election, laying charges against one person who set up robocalls in an attempt send voters to the wrong polling station.
Shrugging off these tactics, will just allow it continue and adapt where more people would be affected.
Should elderly people whose "mental capabilities aren't what they used to be" even be voting? Just poking the bear here since there a lot of people who shouldn't be voting imho. I'd say that people cashing government checks shouldn't be voting. That would include any federal assistance program (social security and, I suppose, Obamacare excluded) and government employees. I just think there's a pretty huge conflict of interest there.
This is one step away from saying only land-owners can vote. Buy beyond that, anyone who has ever driven on a road has received government assistance. In fact, I'd argue that any owner of a business who ships products to and from their store has received INFINITELY more government assistance than anyone on welfare programs could dream of simply because of how often their trucks use public roads and cause them to wear down. And that is just a single example.
Not landowners, just folks whose source of income is the government. People on government assistance don't contribute to the roads at all but still use them so I'm not sure what your point is there. If people don't like the roads they can vote for somebody who will fix it. Nobody (or at least very, very few) will vote for anyone who will lower their income...
Many big corporations are huge, exploitive sponges that the government gives handouts to. Its a fact that the super-rich pay relatively little tax, and taxes on big corporations are surprisingly dodgeable.
Many big corporations also employ many people. Otherwise they wouldn't be big. Many big companies also contribute to their communities. I work for one of those. I would actually bet that more small to medium sized companies are the exploitative sponges. Big corporations are scrutinized far more closely than the small ones.
Those big companies remember benefit from a secure, educated workforce that can reasonably commute to work, all things the government contributes to. A company benefits both from every benefit a worker gets from the government, but also from a seperate set of benefits.
I really strongly disagree that large companies face much scrutiny. Big companies btw are known to have great proficiency with tax loopholes (which their money helped create!), a function of having lots of accounting money being spent, which to them is a pittance. Small and medium ones don't have that edge. Plenty of enourmous companies pay essentially no tax. It boggles the mind that Americans tolerate this treatment.
Meanwhile in the UK... business as usual really. A wave of accusations of improper conduct following the Weinstein revelations has led to the resignation of a minister and another is being investigated due to the reputed discovery of 'extreme porn' on their laptop by the police some years ago. Another minister just resigned after some undisclosed meetings with Israeli officials while on holiday. Oh and Boris just managed to extend the sentence of someone being held in Iran because he can't keep his mouth shut. Oh, and the latest leak of tax documents (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/08/key-revelations-from-the-paradise-papers) don't look pretty for everyone from the Queen to those legislating on offshore tax... It would be ironic if Brexit were sunk by a sort of cocktail of tax evasion, the Suez, and Porfumo rather than by reasonable arguments...
Doesn't seem to be very comfortable being a Republican congresscritter these days.
Aside from the political musical chairs with regard to their Trump/Anti-Trump position, there's the tax overhaul they're trying.
Makes for mostly entertaining and sometimes angry reading about what gets put in and taken out (Namely, that the House and Senate are being opposite about the estate tax and SALT/property taxes and number of brackets), and it'll be interesting when it all comes out and finally gets voted on.
Since there is no way to answer the question of "where to draw the line", you have to fall back on natural justice. Every human is of equal value, irrespective of intelligence, so you have to give every human a vote, irrespective of intelligence.
I find that an interesting fallacy that is often taken to ridiculous extremes in modern discourse. "Every human is of equal value" is not logically equivalent to "every human's opinion is of equal value". An expert's opinion is more valuable than a layman's. At least, I think it should be.
How do you define "an expert"? How do you measure expertise? Who gets to set the test? Expert in what? I'm an expert in astrophysics, but not in economics.
None of these questions have an objective answer, so you have to fall back on everyone's opinion being of equal value because there is no way to objectively determine who is an idiot and who is not an idiot.
Unless you reach the conclusion that ALL humans are idiots, and place government into the hands of AI.
I think it's fairly easy to discern someone's general level of intelligence within less than an hour of conversation. It usually takes me less than 5 minutes to write someone off as an idiot, because it is evident almost immediately. That said, they should still be allowed to vote.
But that is your definition of an idiot. Choose a different person and who they think of as an idiot is probably completely different. Most commonly, the person you think is an idiot thinks you are the idiot.
So your answer to "who gets to decide?" is "you". There is a word for that: it's called "dictatorship".
(Personally, I think EVERYONE is an idiot, and I don't exclude myself from that).
In case there's any confusion, @jjstraka34 is one of the folks who said everybody should be able to vote, and that intelligence, however you define it, should not disqualify anyone.
Voting is a funny thing. During the brexit vote it's a shame the 16 + population couldn't vote as it impacts them more them the majority of the oaps who voted leave and are going to be pushing up daisys in a few years.
Voting is a funny thing. During the brexit vote it's a shame the 16 + population couldn't vote as it impacts them more them the majority of the oaps who voted leave and are going to be pushing up daisys in a few years.
There might be an implication here that if you're not affected by decisions you make poor ones. There's an argument though that it's the other way round. If you're not influenced by how you are personally affected you can take a decision based on your view of what's best for everyone else.
Voting is a funny thing. During the brexit vote it's a shame the 16 + population couldn't vote as it impacts them more them the majority of the oaps who voted leave and are going to be pushing up daisys in a few years.
I think the idea that it was "the old" that voted for Brexit is largely propaganda. Preti Patel is certainly a lot younger than me and millitantly pro-brexit.
And those who didn't vote are perhaps the most honest of the lot. It wasn't apathy, it was honestly admitting "I don't know".
I have a different view on "not voting"--it may be apathy ("I don't care about the issue so I am not going to vote") but it is also an active choice. Consider the Catalonia independence referendum which took place just over a month ago. Only 47% of eligible voters decided to vote and of the ones who did vote 98% of them decided "independence"; this translates into only 46% of eligible voters, or slightly less than half. Given that the referendum, like most measures which get put to a vote of the citizens, is an active one--the measure will pass unless it is voted down--deciding not to vote was actually a vote in favor of the referendum.
We just had elections here and you saw my earlier comments about off-year turnout usually being 15%. What that really means is that if only 7.5% plus one voter all vote for x then x will pass--a very small minority dictates the new rule onto everyone else. The 85% who could have voted but didn't also decided for the ballot measure by deciding not to show up.
My previous point was that voting is flawed to an extent by not letting the people who it will impact most actually vote like the brexit for example. Some coffin dodgers don't really deserve the right to vote on the future of 16 yr olds.
My previous point was that voting is flawed to an extent by not letting the people who it will impact most actually vote like the brexit for example. Some coffin dodgers don't really deserve the right to vote on the future of 16 yr olds.
And you can apply that climate change questions as well. The "coffin dodger" probably won't be around in a decade or more as he or she ruins the environment for the younger generations.
Voting is a funny thing. During the brexit vote it's a shame the 16 + population couldn't vote as it impacts them more them the majority of the oaps who voted leave and are going to be pushing up daisys in a few years.
I think the idea that it was "the old" that voted for Brexit is largely propaganda. Preti Patel is certainly a lot younger than me and millitantly pro-brexit.
And those who didn't vote are perhaps the most honest of the lot. It wasn't apathy, it was honestly admitting "I don't know".
I saw some stats on it, and there was a definite tendency to vote for brexit the older you were. It wasn't overwhelmingly so though.
Democrat's problem with messaging is that they assume the populace is smarter than it is. Hillary could talk for 10 hours without notes on all her policy positions, but most people can't follow it. I read an article recently that said Trump's vocabulary and speech is somewhere between a 3rd and 5th grade level. Sounds about right. Most people heard "Make America Great Again" and were sold. 4 words is what they can handle. 10 words woupd make their head explode. Remeber the Jeff Foxworthy game-show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th-Grader"?? Turns out almost no one was. Democrats try sell complex, wonky policy ideas to people who want slogans. Why did Obama succeed im getting some of these people?? "Hope and Change". Bam. You can throw it on a bumper sticker.
You need airtight message disipline in politics, because repetition will turn your average American voter into a zombie. Liberal talk radio or Youtube shows will spend 2 or 3 hours going in-depth on the causes and effects of a broad range of issues. Right-wing media hammers home the same 2 or 3 talking points like John Henry driving a railroad spike for weeks or months at a time.
You have to dumb it down to the point where people who haven't picked up a book in 20 years can understand you.
Democrat's problem with messaging is that they assume the populace is smarter than it is. Hillary could talk for 10 hours without notes on all her policy positions, but most people can't follow it. I read an article recently that said Trump's vocabulary and speech is somewhere between a 3rd and 5th grade level. Sounds about right. Most people heard "Make America Great Again" and were sold. 4 words is what they can handle. 10 words woupd make their head explode. Remeber the Jeff Foxworthy game-show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th-Grader"?? Turns out almost no one was. Democrats try sell complex, wonky policy ideas to people who want slogans. Why did Obama succeed im getting some of these people?? "Hope and Change". Bam. You can throw it on a bumper sticker.
You need airtight message disipline in politics, because repetition will turn your average American voter into a zombie. Liberal talk radio or Youtube shows will spend 2 or 3 hours going in-depth on the causes and effects of a broad range of issues. Right-wing media hammers home the same 2 or 3 talking points like John Henry driving a railroad spike for weeks or months at a time.
You have to dumb it down to the point where people who haven't picked up a book in 20 years can understand you.
You wouldn't have to if idiots couldn't vote! Of course idiots CAN grab pitchforks (or AK47's) so there is that little problem...
Also Trumps crowds liked to chant "lock her up" or whatever "USA USA USA!". Getting the crowd into things makes them more likely to be your fans. Hillarymania was never running wild, brother.
Oh boy....the Washington Post just brought a sledgehammer down on Roy Moore. At least 4 women are accusing him of being a statuatory rapist. Remember, this guy thinks homosexuality should be illegal. Whenever someone takes that kind of intetest in the sex lives of others, you can usually take it to the bank they have some major skeletons. That said, Alabama will probably still elect him.
As far as I can tell, Breitbart is literally DEFENDING him, saying he only kissed and touched one of the girls. She was 14. He was a 32 year-old prosecutor at the time. Roy Moore is definitely in favor of family values. Specifically, he is very fond of your underrage daughters. And I guarantee you the relgious vote in Alabama is going to say Moore has been "saved and forgiven by Je-sus" and vote for him regardless:
The religious crowd is a joke if you think about it and doesn't sway how people vote for an individual.
If it did, Trump, who has had multiple divorces and affairs wouldn't have beat Hillary who kept the sanctity of her marriage and worked at preserving her union after her husband cheated on her.
Republican's are viewed as more conservative than democrats in keeping communities Christian. It is more about tribalism (? right word) than acceptance of others. Ironically, they just hide behind the Religious tag when pandering to these communities.
Comments
None of these questions have an objective answer, so you have to fall back on everyone's opinion being of equal value because there is no way to objectively determine who is an idiot and who is not an idiot.
Unless you reach the conclusion that ALL humans are idiots, and place government into the hands of AI.
You shouldn't even believe *me* without double-checking what I am saying, and I have usually already done the research and/or know what I am talking about.
The real concern isn't whether or not an elderly person should be able to vote based on their level of mental acuity. No, the real concern with elderly people is whether they are suffering abuse at the hands of family members or staff wherever they live or if they have been delivered into the hands of a "professional guardian", a person who is authorized to handle *all* their finances (and may dispose of the income as they see fit), as well as being able to fill out their voter card for them.
The problem with "let's prevent people who cash government checks from voting" occurs when you start looking at that group's subgroups. "People who work for the government" cash their paychecks from the government. "People who receive Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements" also cash government checks. "People who receive their Social Security benefits" also cash government paychecks (and not all those people are elderly). "People who have received a refund from the IRS" cashed a government check--this group is pretty large.
In other words, I am allowed to express frustration without resorting to taking away people's rights. I get aggravated at other drivers--like the one who almost sideswiped the car in front of me this morning--but I am not going to argue to take away anyone's right to drive unless they have proven they don't deserve that right (I think three DUIs and your license gets revoked). I get aggravated at other people's stupidity but I am not going to argue for forced sterilization.
On a more personal note...if I sometimes seem a little cold and/or callous towards other people...let's just say that life hasn't always been kind and that it has taken me a long time to get to where I am right now. In that case, I am ready to vote.
I would amend the statement @jjstraka34 made to "easy to discern someone's general level of education within less than an hour of conversation"; education and intelligence are almost always two completely different things. I went to high school with a girl who had a New Jersey accent (so you can figure out for yourself how much she stood out in Texas) but who also had a slight speech impediment. The two things taken together and upon initially meeting her you might have thought "the poor thing" and felt sorry for her...but you would have been in for a surprise when you looked at her report card.
That sounds hilarious, can we please do that?
That said, I have to disagree with your anti-puppy stance. Adorable puppies should not be executed using taxpayer money!
As far as my anti-puppy stance, though...well, never forget: cats rule, dogs drool.
Incidently, I'd argue that most super-rich people do not actually contribute much. You might think people who develop startling advances matter, but in truth they are simply the one that got to invent or discover something, and someone else would have I guarantee. Might take another 6 months before someone else invented Facebook, but someone else would have. This is why so many scientific discoveries are found independently by multiple unrelated researchers. Many big corporations are huge, exploitive sponges that the government gives handouts to. Its a fact that the super-rich pay relatively little tax, and taxes on big corporations are surprisingly dodgeable. Also, the rich benefit immensely from things like the US education system, roads, police, fire department etc, moreso usually than the poor.
Here's a couple thoughts. I've heard urban legends of people in military school going to great lengths to get out of the service such as people intentionally breaking their leg and hoping for a medical discharge when things get tough.
Our own President faked bone spurs and later forgot which leg he said it was in to get out of the Vietnam war draft. This student's actions are a blemish on a real issue facing people in the US today in light of the rise of Trump and the alt-right.
I really strongly disagree that large companies face much scrutiny. Big companies btw are known to have great proficiency with tax loopholes (which their money helped create!), a function of having lots of accounting money being spent, which to them is a pittance. Small and medium ones don't have that edge. Plenty of enourmous companies pay essentially no tax. It boggles the mind that Americans tolerate this treatment.
Aside from the political musical chairs with regard to their Trump/Anti-Trump position, there's the tax overhaul they're trying.
Makes for mostly entertaining and sometimes angry reading about what gets put in and taken out (Namely, that the House and Senate are being opposite about the estate tax and SALT/property taxes and number of brackets), and it'll be interesting when it all comes out and finally gets voted on.
What, no Starship Troopers fans here? Only veterans get to vote!
So your answer to "who gets to decide?" is "you". There is a word for that: it's called "dictatorship".
(Personally, I think EVERYONE is an idiot, and I don't exclude myself from that).
And those who didn't vote are perhaps the most honest of the lot. It wasn't apathy, it was honestly admitting "I don't know".
We just had elections here and you saw my earlier comments about off-year turnout usually being 15%. What that really means is that if only 7.5% plus one voter all vote for x then x will pass--a very small minority dictates the new rule onto everyone else. The 85% who could have voted but didn't also decided for the ballot measure by deciding not to show up.
You need airtight message disipline in politics, because repetition will turn your average American voter into a zombie. Liberal talk radio or Youtube shows will spend 2 or 3 hours going in-depth on the causes and effects of a broad range of issues. Right-wing media hammers home the same 2 or 3 talking points like John Henry driving a railroad spike for weeks or months at a time.
You have to dumb it down to the point where people who haven't picked up a book in 20 years can understand you.
As far as I can tell, Breitbart is literally DEFENDING him, saying he only kissed and touched one of the girls. She was 14. He was a 32 year-old prosecutor at the time. Roy Moore is definitely in favor of family values. Specifically, he is very fond of your underrage daughters. And I guarantee you the relgious vote in Alabama is going to say Moore has been "saved and forgiven by Je-sus" and vote for him regardless:
Well then........
If it did, Trump, who has had multiple divorces and affairs wouldn't have beat Hillary who kept the sanctity of her marriage and worked at preserving her union after her husband cheated on her.
Republican's are viewed as more conservative than democrats in keeping communities Christian. It is more about tribalism (? right word) than acceptance of others. Ironically, they just hide behind the Religious tag when pandering to these communities.