I am more than happy to concede that Reverend Howard Bess is an intelligent well intentioned gentleman. However, it is rare that I agree with much he writes about for Consortium News. Recently, I found myself agreeing with him on one important point but with an equally important caveat. In "The GOP's Unasked 'Religious' Questions" he points out that since all the candidates have at some point emphasized their faith that the public has a right to know how that faith will impact policy decisions.
He is absolutely correct that since they have made their faith so public that the public has every right to ask questions about their faith. However, Bess implies a number of things in the course of the article that I would take issue with. The title itself is somewhat pointed. Putting religion in quotations implies that the candidates may not be as faithful as they claimed. I see no reason to do that. Just because their views are not the same as Bess' does not mean they are less religious. Bess also does not seem to have a problem injecting his own faith into public policy. It seems to come down to the false notion that only "true" or "authentic" faith should be used to make policy. That is the caveat I referred to above. Faith should be left out of public policy entirely. It should be a completely private matter. It should not matter what a person's personal religious views are unless those views are going to be used in a way that will end up affecting others.
I say let people believe whatever they want so long as they do not use it harass others or make policy that will impact others.
No comments:
Post a Comment