EvangelicalHumanist has issued a challenge to debate, and it has been accepted by Tricky.

Resolved: Religious beliefs should be neither requested nor disclosed during a democratic election.

EvangelicalHumanist will defend and Tricky will oppose.

Rules for the debate are as follows:

EvangelicalHumanist will post first, within 5 days of this announcement, and the debate will alternate between the debaters until such time as one debater declares: “I rest my case.” Following that declaration, opponent will have one more opportunity to respond, and the debate will be closed.

Each debater has 5 days from the previous post to respond. 1 day of grace will be allowed (on a single occurrence for each participant), unless a request is made by one of the debaters for a delay of up to 5 days which will not be unreasonably refused.

No other posts should be made to this thread during the debate, but comments may be posted in the “Bleachers: Faith in the Public Square” thread. Any comments posted to the debate thread will be moved by the moderator.

Opponents are asked to remember to keep the debate civil and on-topic, avoiding all ad hominem comments, discriminatory slurs or unsuitable language.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

Dear Interfaith Forums Friends,

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to discuss a matter that I feel strongly about, and thanks also to my worthy opponent, Tricky, for agreeing to debate the issue with me. It is only through careful and full airing of ideas that we truly learn and grow. I sincerely hope that I will have the opportunity to grow during this debate.

Late in 2007, the Democratic party held a debate among their candidates for the Presidential nomination to discuss issues of faith, and in particular, the nature of each candidate’s faith. (The Republicans held a similar debate earlier, but I was not privileged to see it.) All of the candidates in the Democratic debate were, in their turn, asked to speak to their personal relationship with Christ. For some, this was clearly not a comfortable thing to do. For me, as an observer, it was distinctly uncomfortable and, I felt, wrong.

Later in the campaigns, Mitt Romney of the Republicans was forced to speak separately to his faith (LDS), in particular, one imagines, to try and prove that he is in fact a “Christian,” even though also a Mormon. During that short address, Mr. Romney made the point that “freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom.” This cannot be true. Religion, as a matter of the private mind and heart, cannot be constrained. More importantly, religion has historically been the opponent of many varieties of personal freedom, freedoms which today are taken for granted.

We might also have noticed that the Republican candidate Mike Huckabee used his own (in his opinion more authentic than Romney’s) evangelical Christianity to denigrate Mr Romney. Rudy Giuliani has claimed to be Christian to his party, but stands accused by many members of holding “un-Christian” views on homosexuality and the right of a woman to choose an abortion.

During my observation of this race, as a Canadian, and earlier during our own Canadian elections, and the fight over same-sex marriage in Canada, I have been led to believe strongly that faith is a private matter, and most importantly that faith should not be an issue, either asked for or offered, in the quest for public office. We do not allow organizations to question the faith of candidates for jobs, unless those jobs specifically require a particular faith as part of the job – for example minister, rabbi or priest. Why, then, should we permit the same question to play so significant a role in what is essentially the application for a job in the public service – which serves, as should be obvious, the whole public, of every faith, and of no faith?

Therefore, be it resolved, which I shall argue in this debate, that religious beliefs should be neither requested nor disclosed during a democratic election.

First, let me point out that the declaration of a particular religious faith may be seen as tantamount to making any number of implicit promises. It may be that a candidate wishes to be interpreted as making some promises while not actually doing so, so that it would be possible later to deny having made them. In fact, making a statement about religious affiliations may be a good way for a candidate to imply support for some position which – in fact – he does not support. Take the case of Rudy Giuliani, for example. He is a Christian (specifically Catholic), which would seem to preclude the possibility of support for equal rights for homosexuals, or for the right of a woman to choose an abortion. That this is not the case could only be discovered by asking Mr. Giuliani those very questions explicitly. As this is the case, we may thus infer that the only way to determine how a candidate may stand on an issue of any importance to an elector is by asking the question directly, not by indirectly asking about the religious affiliation of the candidate. If such a question is an important reason for an elector to bestow or withhold his vote, then it must needs be asked explicitly, making the religious question irrelevant.

Second, a statement of religious belief may confer an unwarranted advantage. For example, consider Mr. Huckabee, who in Iowa won the Republican primary almost exclusively because of his evangelical Christian faith, and not because of any particular qualifications that he possesses for the job of President (with the possible exception of "folksiness"). He is no expert in economics, knows little of international affairs, has had little to say on public health, and so on. But he stumps for Jesus! And he won the nomination in Iowa – quite handily beating out candidates with much better qualifications.

As a corollary to the above point, the inability to claim affiliation with an “acceptable” religion may put a very qualified candidate at significant disadvantage. Or, what is much worse, force them to lie about it. This hardly seems like an effective way to select those who will lead us, and it may well deprive us of the best possible leader for no good reason!

Third, in asking candidates to discuss their faith, we force them to talk about what should be an extremely private relationship (with Christ, or with God), something that we would never require about any of their other relationships with any human being. We would have the good grace to consider those private.

Fourth, an assertion of faith implies quite unlikely things about the character of the person claiming religion, and by extension, implies the opposite for any candidate foolish enough not to make the same religious claim. Most importantly, an assertion of faith implies that the candidate making it adheres to the moral and ethical and other principles attendant upon that faith, and that someone of another faith (or no faith) would not possess those same moral and ethical principles. This is distinctly not true. The French philosopher Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) makes the case powerfully that atheists are as likely to be virtuous as believers are liable not to be. For this reason, statements about religious affiliation convey no useful information about the candidate, and yet may be supposed to do exactly that. This is dangerous for society as a whole.

Fifth, and most importantly, church and state should be separate, and are so defined in the United States. This was the great accomplishment of the Enlightenment. At the level of the nation, faith does not apply. People – individiduals – have faith. Nations do not. Hugely diverse nations such as Canada and the United States most assuredly do not share any kind of faith – except in equality of opportunity and the rule (and consequent protection) of law. Unless it is intended to code religious beliefs into law, the religion of the lawmaker is irrelevant.

Let me give some examples of this last point. Many questions come before our lawmakers and regulators which sometimes appear to be moral issues – which I agree must be confronted – but are often instead what should be private matters about which theological concerns have been expressed. There is no question, for example, that abortion is a moral issue that must be confronted. It will not be easy to resolve, but that does not excuse us from attempting the resolution. But what about contraception, for example condoms? It is not all that long ago that the sale of condoms in some Catholic countries was banned. But contraception is not a moral issue, it is a theological one, and thus should not, must not, be the concern of government. This, I think, is likely to be the case in matters as diverse as stem cell research, private relationships (same-sex marriage, for example) or the right of patients to specify no life support and to have that request honoured. These are not moral issues but theological concerns, and in the end, every individual must wrestle with their own relationship to their faith, without the interference of government.

For all of these reasons and more, I firmly believe that religious beliefs should be neither requested nor disclosed during a democratic election.

Thank you.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Hi EH

Thank you for your opening post and I look forward (with some nervousness) to all that will follow.

I’ve never engaged in a formal debate before so am not entirely sure about what’s considered acceptable and what’s not - apart from Lightkeeper’s outline rules, which I will do my best to follow.

I always enjoy a good ding dong with you on the forum, so, with some trepidation, I’m quite excited by the idea of an official, moderated challenge.

Your OP raises lots of interesting issues – some that I agree with and some that I don’t but I’m sure we can come to these as the debate unfolds.

Firstly, I’d like to take this opportunity to make clear to you the approach I imagine I’ll be taking during this debate. Personally, I like to ask lots of questions and after Googling ‘the power of questions’ three days ago when looking for some tips on debating, I came across the ‘Socratic Method’. I’ll most likely be following my own broad interpretation of this as it is an approach that appeals to me and also suits my somewhat lazy style of debating.

For those of you who don’t know, the Socratic Method is summed up quite nicely I think on Wiki as:

“The practice involves asking a series of questions surrounding a central issue, and answering questions of the others involved. Generally, this involves the defense of one point of view against another and is oppositional. The best way to 'win' is to make the opponent contradict themselves in some way that proves the inquirer's own point.”

In short, as well as presenting my own views, I’ll also probably be asking lots of questions and all I ask is that you answer them as directly as possible and with complete honesty.

Secondly, I’d like to say a bit about why I decided to take on your challenge…

I think a formal debate area on this site is a great idea and it would be nice to see more of them in future. Since there had been no takers to date, I thought I’d jump in and get things started with you in the hope that more debates will follow in future. I also hope to show that previous experience of formal debating (and the protocol involved) and a full and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter is not necessary in order to at least ‘stand your ground’ in the debating arena (although this remains to be seen!!).

Now, regarding your challenge –


I can’t say the subject matter is something I feel particularly strongly about. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that I really couldn’t give two hoots about whether a candidate’s beliefs are common knowledge or not. I don’t know much about US politics (or the current campaigns) nor does it particularly interest me, but I don’t think that matters in this debate. To me, it’s an issue of societal tranparency rather than the specific idea you support. When I read your statement, there was something about it that just didn’t seem progressive. My gut feeling was that it moves us, as a society, further away from openness and closer to secrecy, and I just can’t see that as a good thing – but, perhaps during this debate you will convince me otherwise…

There are of course other, more practical concerns I have for shrouding a candidate’s religious belief in secrecy. Even if I thought it was a good idea – which I don’t – I really can’t see any possible way of making it work in today’s media savvy society. There would undoubtedly be leaks, gossip, rumours, innuendos not to mention well crafted anonomous emails flying around all over the place letting the world know all about a candidate’s mysterious belief / non-belief habits. Certainly in the UK, the media has a habit of evolving it’s approach to conform with current, more restrictive laws whilst still being able to get it’s underlying message across and I have little doubt that this could easily lead to a situation where one candidate’s campaign is either seriously undermined or boosted by such tactics. This, I imagine, would lead to a whole Pandora's Box of new problems.

The problem of how you would keep the public from finding out what your faith is comes up in the bleachers thread and I think is very significant.

For example, if one well established politician running for office has been known to attend church for many years whilst nothing about his/her opponent’s beliefs are common knowledge – and by law, must remain a mystery, how can that be a balanced solution?

On a different point, I consider myself quite fortunate to live in a place (the UK) where a politician’s religious beliefs are not such a huge issue. Recently a man by the name of Nick Clegg became leader of the Liberal Democrats (the UK’s third main party behind Labour and Conservative). In a recent quick fire questions and answers session on BBC radio, he was asked if he believed in God to which he replied ‘No’. Now, whilst this provided a brief headline for the media, it has since been largely forgotten and I have to say I’m rather glad about that.

Interestingly, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, leader of the Church of England and head of the worldwide Anglican Communion said of Clegg’s comment: "It matters less to me than to know they are honest and reliable and that what beliefs they have they hold sincerely” which I thought was quite nice.

In the secular society in which I am glad to live, people seem to care less about a politician’s religious beliefs and more about what his/her policies can do for them and their country. So, perhaps it’s not the law that could do with a kick up the backside in the US, but the mindset of the people instead.

To my mind, your idea that “Religious beliefs should be neither requested nor disclosed during a democratic election” at best, only places a Band Aid over the problem. At worst, it denies the electorate access to a fundamental and core part of a candidate’s entire way of thinking, erodes their freedom of choice and adversely affects the democratic process as a whole - aside from the fact the it’s probably unworkable anyway.

Having said all that, I think I’ll start my approach by firing a couple of exploratory shots across your bow by asking:

Do you think that being an atheist is influencing your opinions in this matter? i.e. If you were a Evangelical Christian, do you think your views would be the same as they are now or is it just coincidence that the idea you support would most likely benefit an atheist candidate more than the current situation does?

secondly,

I used the term ‘societal transparency’ earlier. In general, do you see more openness and transparancy in society as being a good thing or a bad thing?

regards…

Dear Tricky, my worthy opponent,

Thank you for your timely response! One does so hate to wait, doesn’t one?

Your inexperience at formal debates is of no concern. There’s no better way to learn than to do, and hopefully, with good moderators and good will on our part, this is a safe environment in which to do so. I look forward to continuing!

I should, in fairness, point out that the Socratic method, while a powerful tool used correctly, was created by a man who was forced to commit suicide by the state. Now, they say that this was due to impiety and corrupting youth, but I rather suspect it had a lot to do with irritating people past endurance with his questions.

Your point about transparency, and a requirement such as I’ve suggested (to keep silent on religious matters) moving away from transparency and towards more secrecy is a very good one, and certainly needs to be addressed. So why don’t I start with that first?

This is very similar to a concern expressed in the General Debate forum about the “don’t ask/don’t tell” issue in the U.S. military concerning homosexuality. The concern was not so much about the “don’t ask” part, but that the requirement not to tell was a imposition on personal freedom of expression. I tend to agree. In fact, though, should a gay person in the military decide, for whatever reason, to be open about the matter, it is most likely to have a negative impact on him or her. There is nothing, it would seem, to gain and much to lose. Many military personnel have been discharged from the service for exactly this reason.

However, although I would, as a consequence, strongly advise such a person not to tell, I wouldn't dream of curtailing their right to. Does this seem to conflict with my position on religion in the public square? I imagine it does.

So, then I must consider that the opposite seems to be true with respect to the matter of faith in election campaigns, and especially in societies where religiosity is the majority position. It may quite reasonably be supposed that the person making a religious claim in such a situation, provided it is “the right claim,” is doing so in order to gain an advantage. Sam Harris, in his book “Letter to a Christian Nation” points out that “no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists.” Thus, to make such an assertion is to gain an immediate, and presumably insurmountable, advantage over a person who cannot make the same claim. Thus, all qualifications aside, there is an immediate pass/fail which is determined solely by religious belief.

Now, curtailing freedom of speech is a difficult matter, and one that must be considered most carefully. Still, as is often pointed out, we would take action against the person who yelled “fire” in a crowded theatre which resulted, in the ensuing panic, in injuries or death. There are, it would appear, some limits even to the freest of free-speech environments.

And again, I need to point out that claiming a religious affiliation or belief, which of course can never be verified (not even by regular church attendance), also makes any number of implicit claims which may or may not be true, but for which the candidate need take no responsibility unless asked directly. “I am a Christian” does not imply antipathy towards abortion. “I have a deep relationship with Jesus” says nothing whatever about views on same-sex marriage. And yet, for many who make such claims, it is often extremely desirable that electors should think that such claims imply specific views on these and a host of other issues.

You make another quite excellent point when you say that “Even if I thought it was a good idea – which I don’t – I really can’t see any possible way of making it work in today’s media savvy society. There would undoubtedly be leaks, gossip, rumours, innuendos not to mention well crafted anonymous emails flying around all over the place letting the world know all about a candidate’s mysterious belief / non-belief habits.”

This is most certainly true, but I do not think that it means that the objective, keeping faith out of the public square (particularly in elections) is an unworthy one. Let me cite an example: In Canada, according to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, it is illegal to name accused under the age of 18 – even if convicted. Now, certainly the web and email and gossip get the word out there, but the press is resolutely silent, for the simple reason that they are open to immense fines for disclosure. And in fact, very little gets published on the web, either, as governments are finding more and more ways to lay charges for violating such laws, and making them stick. Therefore, if it were made illegal to discuss the religious views of candidates, then fines would certainly help to ensure that there would be little disclosure. Even if the candidate himself makes his religion known during a campaign speech, it would not be published in the papers, or shown on television. And since, in fact, the vast majority get their information from the media rather than bothering to attend campaign rallies, the information would not be widely spread.

Now, you raise a difficult point, and I confess that it does present some problems. I think perhaps I shall leave this until my next turn.

Still, to give you a hint as to how my thinking is going, you must remember that the debate is about whether or not faith should be removed from consideration during electoral politics. Your point, as good as it is, is more of an issue of implementation than of policy. Now, where a policy cannot be implemented without causing unacceptable or unfair results, then I might be persuaded to agree that perhaps it should not be implemented. Please be patient, and wait for my next post.

Your comments regarding your own country are informative, and I should tell you that we are very similar in Canada. Questions of faith are not raised here during electoral politics, and most Canadians would consider it quite outrageous to do so. Our Parliament is composed of many people, including Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists and others. I think this reflects well on Canadian society, and I think the same of British society. This, I think, is true progress towards a more humanist worldview (where humanism does not need to replace religion, and many religious people consider themselves to be humanists).

This works because of who we are, and how we have come to think as a society. And perhaps, in the end, this is mode of “implementation” of a non-religious electoral process. After all, most people do not really wish to do things that would be considered socially unacceptable, simply because most people don’t like to be laughed at or looked down upon as hopelessly provincial. Thus, it may well be that leaders could start answering questions about their faith with “that’s really not your business,” in the same way the would answer if someone asked how much money their children get for allowances. After a time, as people began to see the wisdom of such an answer, the question would be asked less often, until such a time that it would be, as it is in Canada and Britain, quite unacceptable, with no legal coercion at all.

Now, while it might seem true, as you suggest, that disallowing religious questions might deny “the electorate access to a fundamental and core part of a candidate’s entire way of thinking,” I am not altogether sure that this is true, from the simple perspective that religion does not guarantee any particular way of thinking at all. This should be clear for the simple reason that every candidate in the U.S. election today, from the furthest left to the most distant right, and with all of the wide variety of different platforms and objectives, backgrounds and styles – all claim to be Christian. Those opposing abortion are Christian, those supporting a woman’s right to choose are Christian. Those opposed to same-sex unions, those in support – both sides are Christian. Opponents and supporters of stem cell research are all, guess what?, Christian. So it would appear, I think, that religion is not informative as to thinking styles at all, and once again merely permits electors to make groundless assumptions by including the religious candidate within their own thinking style, based solely on their stated religious affiliation.

You ask, “do you think that being an atheist is influencing your opinions in this matter?” I’m not sure that I can answer that, because I’m not a Christian and therefore have trouble seeing how I might think if I were. It's highly hypothetical. However, I can point out that as a gay man, I have never asked a candidate about his or her sexuality, as I wasn’t sending them to Parliament to have sex. I have asked them about their position on same-sex unions, however, because that would be a platform position. I hope that provides some answer to your question.
In general, I see transparency as being of considerably more benefit, except that, as a Canadian and living within the traditions of my own country, I find it quite distasteful to ask personal questions of anyone where the answers are, frankly, none of my business. As I said, I would never ask about a person’s sexuality, their religion, their age, their income or any other such thing which ought not to play on their ability to do the job of legislator or executive.

Warm regards

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Hi again EH and thank you for such a quick response to my post. I'll do my best to post as frequently as I can although I think it's fair to say that I'm not the most prolific poster on the forum (as can be seen by anyone taking a look at the number of posts I've made since joining here nearly 2 years ago!) but I'll do my best to post as often as I can in this debate. I doubt that many of the posts to come from me will be as long as my previous one as that one alone took a fair amount of my time so I apologise in advance for any delays there may be in the future. I will certainly abide by the limit of five days and hope to post at least once a day if I can, although some may be rather short.

I won't be falling on my sword just yet but I accept that persistent questioning can be rather irritating for the recipient. However, I often find it to be the best way to get to the bottom of things.


I agree with you in that I see the diversity and tolerance of our respective countries as a positive thing. One thing they certainly appear to have in common is that neither of them seem to be lacking when it comes to the openness of different individual beliefs (at least, not when compared to the US). Would you agree that since both our countries' Parliaments include Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists and others, that the type of proposal you are making if implemented in our countries, would be completely unnecessary?


I do find your answer a little confusing. You say that, in general, you see transparency as being of considerably more benefit but go on to say that you find it distasteful to ask certain personal questions. There was a time, several years ago, when I would have broadly agreed with this. Now however, I see things slightly differently. I have no problem asking people personal questions (except if I realize that I will definitely offend them) probably because I no longer get offended when people ask them of me - whatever their motives may be - perhaps they are just curious or perhaps they want to know so they can make a value judgement about me. Do I really care? Well, no, not really...and I'm glad about it.

How would it benefit me to get offended if someone asks me personal questions and more specifically, how does it benefit you to see asking personal questions as distasteful?


Coming back to your answer to my previous question, you said:
I agree it is highly hypothetical but them's me favorite questions

How about this one?:

In an election, you can't decide which of the two candidates you want to vote for. They're both equally qualified, both very personable and both tick all your boxes. You then find out that one is a Scientologist and one is an atheist. Who will you vote for?

Another day, another post! Good afternoon, Tricky, and thank you for your thoughts yesterday. I think, having read through a couple of times, that I shall answer your last question first, as it is the most interesting in this context (and also quite effectively puts me on the spot ).
I'm tempted to try and answer this right off the top of my head, which is apt to sound dreadful, but let's try that first.

If they were in fact dead equal, then I would be tempted to vote for the one who's party best reflects my own overall views. (If this is a municiple -- non-party -- election, then probably the better-looking one, and if they're both ugly, then the atheist because I think scientology is a crock!)

Really, that's not very satisfactory, is it? So, in my world, the one that I am arguing for here, I question the first premise. If I really cannot find any difference between the two, on the basis of their policies and platforms alone, or on the basis of how I think they would perform in a debate, then I don't think I've asked enough questions. Now, if you tell me that one is a scientologist and the other an atheist, you will have provided me with sufficient reason to make a selection -- based on non-issues! As I said, I would vote for the atheist because I think scientology betrays a certain lack of critical thinking.

But you see what's happened, here? I've allowed myself an easy way out, without asking the hard questions that I should ask if I am going to commit my vote to someone to represent me in making the laws and defining the economic and social conditions under which I live.

And that, I think, is something that happens very often, and to a much greater extent than I've just described. There are many who would and do vote for a person almost exclusively based on their faith, and in complete ignorance of the platform they espouse for when they are in office. This, it seems to me, is a very unhealthy way to select our governments, and it is the reason, purely and simply, for my position on this topic.

Which brings me to your question on whether my proposal would be unnecessary in our respective countries, since faith is seldom brought up in electoral politics in either of them. My answer to that is "no." Questions do slip in from time to time, and it is my view that we must discourage this by every means possible. I have actually been in a "town-hall" meeting in which such a question came up ("do you believe in God?" was the question), and I personally butted in and said "that's improper, and I don't think the candidate should answer." There were quite a few nods of agreement from the small crowd, and in fact the questioner sat down and the debate moved on without ever answering the question.

Now, the reason I butted in leads me straight into another of your points, when you ask:
Well, the answer to that is that getting offended doesn't provide any "benefit" at all, but I must seriously point out that just asking can sometimes give away answers that should have stayed private. Let me give you an example:

Suppose that you ask a person you don't know terribly well, "are you gay?" If you asked that of a person who is not gay, the answer readily comes back, "no!" There is no hesitation. They might be put off by the question, wondering why you'd even think it, but they'd have no difficulty answering. But if the person is, in fact, gay, then they likely give themselves away either through hesitation, confusion, embarassment or by answering, "none of your business." Any of those would lead the questioner to make the assumption that, "aha!, this is a gay guy!" Or, of course, being used to such questions, the person may be prepared for it and lie immediately. Now, who was helped by that? Nobody.

It is for this reason that I try not to ask questions of people that do not concern me, and that have even a small potential of causing the other person embarassment.

I stick to my guns on this, that there are questions that have the potential to do harm to the person asked, and that provide no useful information to the questioner, and that therefore should be avoided. And that most certainly includes in political debates in the public square.

(Note, you will be wondering why I highlighted useful in the above paragraph. It is because, as I've been saying since the beginning, knowing what religion a person belongs to, or knowing that they consider Christ to be their personal Saviour, etc., do not, in fact, provide any information whatever about the candidate's stance on any number of questions, even though a stance may be (possibly falsely) assumed once their stated religious beliefs are known. False information is a poor basis on which to elect our representatives.)

Finally for today, I should attempt to answer the question I put off in my last entry, which was:
Now, I have to admit that this is not balanced. But our lack of ability to make a perfect world doesn't mean we should abandon the attempt to make a better one, in my view.

So, although I have suggested that issues of faith should not be brought up in the public square, I said nothing in this debate about how such a policy might be implemented, nor do I intend to. When I spoke about Canada keeping the names of young offenders "secret," I also know that the plain fact is that even though it's not public, really rather a lot of people know their identities, and this information is still spread about. But the numbers of people who do find is, thankfully, still quite small. It's imperfect, but we live in an imperfect world. I think, especially for relatively minor offences, that the policy is a good one, and that a youthful indiscretion should not be allowed to ruin a person's entire life.

Warmest regards, until we speak again!

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Hello again EH
It's Saturday evening as I write this so I've only got time for a quick post.


I like the colour blue. It is soothing, calming, peaceful and relaxing. Now, every Wednesday evening I visit the local “ I love Blue” club in my town. There, I get to meet and chat with other people who like blue just as I do. It is a warm and friendly environment where we paint pictures made up of all the shades of blue you can imagine, we bake blue cakes, compare blue pens and try on each other’s blue blazers. It’s fab and I love it.

I don’t like red. In fact, I positively hate red. It’s loud, vulgar, aggressive and offensive to my eyes. I did visit the local “I Love Red” club which meets on a Thursday night just to see if I was missing out on anything or had made a mistake with my choice of preferred colour. My goodness! The people there were simply awful. They were loud, obnoxious, unrefined, uncommunicative and just down right unpleasant. I won’t be going back there again in a hurry, I can tell you!

Fortunately for me, my local councillor, when asked what her favourite colour was replied: “Well it’s blue of course”. Phew, what a relief! She certainly wouldn’t be getting my vote at the coming local election if she had said “Red”, that’s for sure. I’ll tell you, it’s a good job I found out what colour she likes. If anyone tried to stop me finding out if she was one of those darn ‘reddists’, I wouldn’t be best pleased. This is a democracy and I have a darn good right to know - I don’t want any of their sort ruling the roost – and that’s a fact…

So my question EH is, do you see anything wrong with this way of thinking? Furthermore, if I want to vote for someone just because they like blue, why shouldn’t I? This is a democracy after all, and if I want to vote for someone based on their preferred colour, what’s wrong with that?