Knowing what we know about Harper, I've been sort of impressed at his ability to keep his faith away from influencing policy (most notably, his recent rejection to open up the abortion debate again).
Quote:
Originally Posted by First Lady
If people are embarassed by that or care whether a president is religious or not indicate to me; we may not be as progressive or open-minded as some like to believe.
|
Ah f--k it, I'll bite: Rejecting ideas does not immediately equate to closed-mindedness if we have valid justification for rejecting those ideas on grounds of bad evidence or flawed reasoning. We entertain discourse and the presentation of new ideas, but we will reject ideas without reasonable backing. This happens on a regular basis in our day-to-day conversation, so much so that we don't even notice it- it's a non-event.
Simply labeling oneself as being "religious" doesn't tell us anything about the person believes, and consequently it isn't so much about religion as it is belief, and how willing one is to detach their faith-based beliefs from running government.
And yeah, to echo Nyah's sentiment, I am embarrassed that we have a segment of society that feels the need to stick their noses into someone else's uterus with regards to reproductive rights, and admonishes us through guilt-trips, propaganda, and faith-based assertions that what that person does with their body is wrong according to the word of the divine and that therefore we should enact policy against it.
Would I welcome an atheist Prime Minister? Well that depends - being an atheist doesn't tell me anything about what else the person stands for. Just as I wouldn't want an atheist Gilles Duceppe as the Prime Minister (since it would mean separatists are running the country), I don't really have a problem with a Christian Stephen Harper running the country now. Could that change? Sure it could, but again, religion alone is not the problem, it's belief and how much belief impacts one's policies.