Hello, future leaders of America. A question has been eating at me for some time, and I hope you’ll help resolve it. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has said that we here in America “need to have a person of faith lead the country.” I guess I am wondering why that is. I am also wondering why not a single candidate has come forward to publicly declare a difference with that opinion.
One possible answer could be in the words of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who said, “the organic law of our country establishes God as the basis for our justice system.” He also argues, as do others, that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American laws. If that is indeed the case, then a “person of faith” is probably the best choice for a chief executive.
But let’s think about that contention for a second. Is God really the basis of our justice system, a system supposedly built upon the democratic ideal? For in the Bible we have an unelected leader who rules by edict and fiat with absolute authority. His laws are not subject to debate, referendum, or repeal, and the mere questioning of his authority—or, for that matter, his very existence—is equivalent to high treason, requiring, according to those laws, the death penalty. It seems to be that the political model the Bible prescribes is one most typically used by governments we refer to as our enemies.
What, then, becomes the benefit of a person of faith helming this country? Is there a leadership advantage to believing centuries-old supernatural tales of our universe and its origins on no rational grounds, ignoring or rejecting the abundance of evidence in stark disagreement? Seneca the Younger suggests that there is: “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”
When a leader reports that he consulted a “higher father” before invading a sovereign nation and enmeshing his country in an intractable war, are we to consider his move virtuous or insane? Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Revolution, had this to say: “Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason.” Mr. Bush has passed this test, but those of us choosing not to hobble our intellects demand better. Reasonable people will perhaps forgive the faith of their leaders, but they should not be expected to celebrate it.
Remember, whatever your beliefs, the majority of the world thinks them blasphemy. This sober democratic fact contains an important lesson yet to be learned.
One possible answer could be in the words of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who said, “the organic law of our country establishes God as the basis for our justice system.” He also argues, as do others, that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American laws. If that is indeed the case, then a “person of faith” is probably the best choice for a chief executive.
But let’s think about that contention for a second. Is God really the basis of our justice system, a system supposedly built upon the democratic ideal? For in the Bible we have an unelected leader who rules by edict and fiat with absolute authority. His laws are not subject to debate, referendum, or repeal, and the mere questioning of his authority—or, for that matter, his very existence—is equivalent to high treason, requiring, according to those laws, the death penalty. It seems to be that the political model the Bible prescribes is one most typically used by governments we refer to as our enemies.
What, then, becomes the benefit of a person of faith helming this country? Is there a leadership advantage to believing centuries-old supernatural tales of our universe and its origins on no rational grounds, ignoring or rejecting the abundance of evidence in stark disagreement? Seneca the Younger suggests that there is: “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”
When a leader reports that he consulted a “higher father” before invading a sovereign nation and enmeshing his country in an intractable war, are we to consider his move virtuous or insane? Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Revolution, had this to say: “Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason.” Mr. Bush has passed this test, but those of us choosing not to hobble our intellects demand better. Reasonable people will perhaps forgive the faith of their leaders, but they should not be expected to celebrate it.
Remember, whatever your beliefs, the majority of the world thinks them blasphemy. This sober democratic fact contains an important lesson yet to be learned.
2 comments:
I know this isn't what Mitt Romney meant when he said it, but I would prefer that we had a person of faith leading the country, too. I'm looking for a person who has faith in his/her capability to make wise decisions, faith in his/her advisers to help with decisions he/she is unsure of, and faith in the populous of this country enough to give them correct information about threats on the horizons and the truth about how intolerable the losses from a conflict will be. For me, faith in G-d has nothing to do with it, but faith in people is of paramount importance.
If Romney had been talking about that kind of faith, I'd agree with him, too. For all of its troubles, humanity is capable of some truly amazing and beautiful things.
Post a Comment