So much for ID proponents claiming it isn't about religion...
Exactly right. Robertson's empty religious threat undercuts all of that nonsense about "But intelligent design is SCIENTIFIC!"
Also troubling is the notion of "collective guilt" present in Robertson's empty threat. "Collective guilt" is a notion that fuels religious involvement in politics. Basically, the idea is that the Almighty doesn't judge individuals, but rather He judges groups. If there is a group that displeases Him (whether it be a family, a community, a state or a nation), the Almighty will punish all members of the group, including the innocent.
Tim LaHaye, for example, uses collective guilt as a justification for making religious rules (as promulgated by the Almighty's self-appointed spokesmen) into laws that everybody has to follow, regardless of religious belief. The rationale, of course, is that the Almighty will punish the good people along with the bad, if the rules by which all the people live are distasteful to Him.
Jerry Falwell notably stuck his foot in his mouth by asserting collective guilt after September 11, saying that groups such as pro-choice groups and feminists and People for the American Way were responsible for removing divine protection from terrorists. Robertson initially agreed with Falwell, then retracted his agreement.
But apparently Robertson is still of the opinion that the Almighty applies the "collective guilt" rule. Disaster awaits all in the area, whether they voted for or against or didn't vote at all.
The notion of collective guilt, though supported by some Bible passages, ought to be condemned by religious leaders as an immoral and unconscionable notion, one not worthy of an all wise, all just, and all powerful deity.
