A friend came to me the other day and asked me, “If Americans had to vote between two presidential candidates and one was an atheist and the other homosexual, who do you think would win?” Yeah. That’s the kind of friends i have. Gosh, i don’t know. People are in an uproar about their astrological signs and horoscopes changing. I’m not sure, if the scenario ever came to bear, if American’s could handle this sort of mental pressure.
The question assumes that there would be an outraged divide. On one hand, the Atheist would anger the Christian and religious majority outright. This country was founded on “in God we trust.” We’ll have no atheist running it! But wait, did i miss something? Didn’t we, in the creation of this United States, separate church from state? With good reason. Religion is philosophy for the soul. Running a country is business. Maybe an atheist would focus on the National Debt and foreign policies without religious intolerance to get in the way – just business straight up. If you’re tut-tutting this with emotional indignity – you are assuming that a religious candidate would believe in the same God that you believe in. And from the many wars over religions, there seem to be a lot of different Gods out there.
The question also assumes that the Homosexual is religious and believes in God. That said, many religious groups would still be outraged because they believe homosexuality is against God. Uh, so who created the homosexual anyway? Oh – that would be the Devil. I didn’t know the Devil was capable of Creation. Right. Then there’s a second group of slightly masochist and fearful folk who intentionally repulse themselves by envisioning same-sex acts. I mean really, if you are grossed out that means you had to “go there” to be grossed out. Yes? But there’s a lot of stuff about sex that is gross even between heterosexuals. None of which i care to think about. Come on. Do you dwell on your parents having sex? Gah! You just don’t go there. It’s a “don’t ask, don’t tell” scenario. And really, why do we need to involve sex with running the country? Is heterosexual activity a pre-requisite for balancing a budget? For going to war?
What we’re afraid of is that what the president believes, so goes the country. Because we believe humans will support their passion, despite the fact that the president is supposed to be “above it all” and do what is best for all the people of the United States and not just some of them. And being atheist or homosexual is different than what most of us have experienced. We are afraid of different. That has been a serious problem for us since the beginning of time.
But let’s go back to the original question. If, and that’s a big if, two candidates were nominated, one atheist and one homosexual, would we not be a better country than we are now? Candidates just don’t pop out from nowhere and unheard of. They would have had to trudge the political ladder to popularity. We would know them – and would have supported them on their road to the Oval Office. We, the People, would be different. We would have changed. For the better, i think. We would have learned to see past our differences, past our prejudices, and past our fears. And perhaps for once, the job of presidency would be about running the country. If it were real…
And one day later, as if they knew i made this post, this comes across the Internet: "New Governor, Non-Christians not my brother, not my sister..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41149562/ns/politics-more_politics/?gt1=43001
No comments:
Post a Comment