File Under: God, In Whom We Question Yet Again

Are overly passionate people somehow better suited than those whose heads rule their hearts? It may sound like a silly question, but it seems to me that a lot of the raging debates overheard throughout the world and reported, recorded, repeated and rehashed in all corners of Blogistan consist of collisions between Passion and Reason.

Recently religious passion, notwithstanding one's religion (except maybe Buddhists, who always seem very calm to me) is displayed not as a private pact between the believer and his deity but a barometer or gauge as to one's fitness to participate in the political sphere.

I just fail to understand why it matters so much how a political person feels about religion. Why is the whole question of belief in God one every person hankering for a political position, from dogcatcher of Teenyburg, Nowheresville to President of the United States, is obliged to answer to satisfy the populace?

Oh I know why it matters from a reasonable standpoint - after all, presumably one feels more inclined toward a candidate who could further one's deeply held personal agenda. The xenophobic citizen, of which it appears we sport legion, are happy because they have the weapon they insist on - the knowledge that a candidate is one of Us versus one of Them. Why? The better to hate you with? Those of us for whom the God question truly doesn't matter are a group that is dwindling day by day, pushed into marginality by those for whom religion matters more than anything. And here I thought the transcendent light of Reason would someday trump all? (Damn you Enlightenment! I've been cheated. Cynicism, table for two please - and make that the smoking section!)

There's also the whole "my god is better than your god" tug of war that invariably becomes raised in these discussions - I believe the relative deities have never been known to extend their omnipotent pinkies to sort things out, so I just can't see how it matters.

I'll tell you what I'd like to see in a presidential race - just once. I'd like to see a well-qualified candidate with an impressive grounding in domestic and international affairs, a desire for good governance, a profound adherence to the rules of freedom and responsibility inherent in democracy, a unswerving belief in the dignity, intrinsic worth and equality of each citizen, and absolutely no interest in, even a refusal to answer, the religious questions.

I would wholeheartedly prefer to know the person who might hold the office cares more about doing a superlative job, and focusing his or her attention and energies on that, than whether he or she prays in the right way.

The revisionist history that is often spuriously used in public debates is that this country was intended by its founders to be a Christian country foremost, and that the Christian God did indeed extend an omnipotent finger and brand this country forevermore his own.

It sounds foolish when it's written like that - the revisionists usually use more high-flying language and less concrete analogies when they attempt to make their case. In the end, however, that's exactly what they believe.

But the case has already been made and closed long ago. It can be found in the writings left by the founders of this country - things they believed and wrote about in their own words, statements that were solemnly preserved for a reason.

So there's no need to take me at my word - in fact I'd prefer a person try to find otherwise, as the very words exist to refute any modern interpretation of their intent.

Of like mind was Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion that has regulated it cannot be a bad one.

Now that's a candidate I could endorse.