Which of these 2 far-right politicians do you consider the LESSER evil?

[buritobr]

The religious: he is a devoted Christian who attends the church weekly with the family. He considers that the West is declining because of the lack of trust in God. He praises the susahharian Africa as an important bastion of Christianity. He has also a positive view on many areas of the Muslim world because he thinks they are keeping the faith in God. He doesn't trust in the Theory of Evolution. He doesn't think that same-sex couples should be forbidden but he believes that God considers homosexuality a sin and that the word "marriage" should be applied only for a relation between a man and a woman. He is against the legalization of abortion even if the pregnancy puts the life of the woman in danger. He is agains the legalization of the cannabis. He supports free immigration and he has lots of non-white political allies.

The nativist: he only says he is Christian but he never attends the church. He supports the gay marriage and he is pro-choice. He thinks that the Western culture is superior to other cultures because the western people support science, women's rights and LGBT's rights. He speaks to large audiences that muslims are not civilized people and so that they are not welcome. He also thinks that many non-western people are lazy. He supports strict limits to immigration.

[Vosem]

The second very easily.

[OSR stands with Israel]

So ExtremeRepublican vs Pieman

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Religious anti-nativist influenced by immigration politics here. I can't in good faith consider the nativist the lesser evil here...

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

The second, easily.

[Sirius_]

The religious definitely sounds less likely to support genocidal acts and really doesn't even sound far right except for abortion.

[Horus]

The nativist without a second thought, but it's funny that this is basically Pieman or BG vs. ER, and whenever that's brought to a vote ER wins easily.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Would be very nauseating to support the nativist, but I'd have to, if only for pure self-preservation reasons. Religious fundamentalism is one of the most dangerous things in the world, whether Christian, Jewish or (the worst as of the modern age) Muslim.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Honestly, I'd lean towards the religious for "lesser evil". Probably more likely to hurt me, but seems less dangerous for the world as a whole.

[Ontario Tory]

The nativist. I'm not sure I can support someone who rejects the Theory of Evolution.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

The religious is a less extreme version of Mike Pence and the nativist is Donald Trump? Pass.

[Red Velvet]

Depends, where are they from? If they’re from a non-western country then obviously the first is the better one because at least they don’t have self-hate mongrel complex. Also, many non-western places can be naturally very religious.

Only if it’s from a western country it becomes more difficult to pick from. A Religious vs a Racist. Still give me the Religious tho!

[Mr. Smith]

Opt. 1

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Europe only has category 2, tho some ideas of 1 are incorporated but it's basically 99% option 2 for Europe. Option 1 doesn't exist.

For me personally, it would also be option 2. Option 1 just sounds so absolutely nuts and ridicilous. I don't support 2 but yea, i want religion to be as far as away as possible from me, and I care about LGBTQ rights and science.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I would vote for Option 1 in a heartbeat