An edit war being lame doesn't mean the article topic is lame. The lameness comes from both sides taking their own opinion and using the article to present it as the one and only truth.
An atheist and a christian could have an edit war on the article of Jesus, changing it between "Son of God and our Saviour" and "fairy tale character used to control masses", which would be absolutely lame despite the objective importance of the religious figure in question.
And while sensible people can at least resolve religious issues by accepting that they simply have opposing beliefs and no ability to disprove the other side, politics are even more complex in the sense that they include a lot of historical facts, not just ideological beliefs. This makes it more likely for people to feel like their truth is objective.
Understood, but again this is not an easy topic such as the example you gave between an Atheist and a Christian. This is something tangible which is still present and not something fictional or a belief.
This is what I was referring to in my last paragraph. We didn't discover concepts like country and nation, we invented them. They're very real and have a profound effect on our lives, but at the same time they are completely fictional. If everyone ceases to believe in them, they disappear.
An atheist and a christian could have an edit war on the article of Jesus, changing it between "Son of God and our Saviour" and "fairy tale character used to control masses", which would be absolutely lame despite the objective importance of the religious figure in question.
And while sensible people can at least resolve religious issues by accepting that they simply have opposing beliefs and no ability to disprove the other side, politics are even more complex in the sense that they include a lot of historical facts, not just ideological beliefs. This makes it more likely for people to feel like their truth is objective.