People are talking about this article by Bill Keller in the NYT about religion in politics.
Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith
If a candidate for president said he believed that space aliens dwell among us, would that affect your willingness to vote for him? Personally, I might not disqualify him out of hand; one out of three Americans believe we have had Visitors and, hey, who knows? But I would certainly want to ask a few questions. Like, where does he get his information? Does he talk to the aliens? Do they have an economic plan?
Hal Boyd of the Deseret News gives a roundup of writers who are shocked — shocked! — at the impertinence of asking candidates about their religious beliefs. After all, isn’t that personal? Well, it could be, if the candidate makes it private. Colbert I. King thinks faith is no big deal, but he makes an exception for candidates who make a big deal out of it. Sounds fair, but it doesn’t go far enough for me.
I’d say that a candidate’s faith is fair game for a much more pragmatic reason. Let me start with evolution. If someone doesn’t accept evolution as true (as all but a few Republican candidates don’t), I won’t vote for them. That’s because this person is going to be making decisions on my behalf, and by rejecting evolution, they’re showing me that they don’t know how to tell if something’s true. They’re not good at making decisions based on evidence. And there’s a high probability that their thinking is compromised by undue influence from the religious sector. Those are all very worrying tendencies in a leader.
And that’s just evolution. I’d say the same goes for Mitt Romney’s underwear, Michele Bachmann’s superstition about a god controlling the weather, Rick Perry’s belief in ritual starving to attract the attention of his god, or anyone else’s beliefs in magical nonsense. Delusion is delusion.
Of course, even if someone is an atheist, they can still be a disappointing leader; check Australian PM Julia Gillard, an atheist who shows a bewildering opposition to gay marriage, and an unaccountable fondness for distributing federal dollars to Christian chaplains in high schools. Nor are religious beliefs the only ones to watch out for. There are also irrational and dangerous secular beliefs involving climate change denialism or free-market fundamentalism. For me, the key is: does this person know how to use science and evidence to find out what’s true? If not, keep them away from the levers of power. Ignorant people should be represented in government, but not by ignorant people.
5 September 2011 at 3:28 am
Hey mate I read the articles at the links for "unaccountable fondness" and "bewildering opposition" and was interested in Gillard making reference to her Christian upbringing cementing her values (despite being a professed atheist).
I recall one of your old posts (I can't remember from when sorry) where you talk about where an atheist gets their sense of right and wrong from. Perhaps with 30 day September thing you could revisit that?
Also, did tax for one of these chaplains just after reading this post! I asked her if she felt like her days were numbered. I got the impression that she really did.
Cheers
6 September 2011 at 3:06 am
From a different angle I wonder the same question "does it matter what a PM/President believes… when religious factions already wield so much power?". Has Gillard had to bend to financially loud religious groups? Has Obama had to do the same? Oh to live in a secular society ( a real one that is).