However, I hope many or most of us believe that a card-carrying racist ought not be President of the United States of America. That is not to say that atheists and racists are the same. What it does say is that, on some level, we can discuss who we think shouldn't occupy this elected position, for whatever reasons.
the point: In the movie, Contact, someone asserted that the representative of all of humanity (not just one country) ought not be an atheist, since most of the world's population believes in a higher power of one sort or another. This person more or less said that this belief is too integral to our collective being for it to absent from someone who would represent everyone on the planet (to aliens, if you're curious). In other words, we oughta choose someone else to represent us.
Elected positions, like the Presidency, aren't about representing the entire world, but one might argue that some of the same things that are true of the entire world - like the overwhelming majority believing in SOME higher power.
One might further argue that electability is often measured by one's value set. Obviously there are many different religions and many divisions even within those religious groups (and spiritual and whatever else). But there is a common thread among them - a thread that, for many people, strongly determines or indicates one's values.
the question: Should the so-called "leader of the free world" be one who lacks that common thread (i.e. belief in high power(s))?
No comments:
Post a Comment