Another View From Canada: Saner Heads

In an unsigned editorial in the National Post, the editors write: “Judge politicians by their actions, not their religion.” The editors point out something about the true motivations in asking candidates about their scientific leanings:

Last week, Alberta Party member Natalie Odd told the National Post she had cornered Mr. Dirks at an event and demanded to know his views on the planet’s creation. “He said, ‘it’s possible to believe in creation and evolution.’ I wasn’t getting an answer out of him,” she said. She argued Mr. Dirks’ views are “relevant” because he has been front and centre in a controversy over gay-straight alliance clubs (GSAs) in schools — which was odd timing, considering last week the government introduced an amendment compelling schools to allow such clubs. Indeed, on Sunday Mr. Dirks’ church was picketed by people who feel he’s being overly permissive.

This kind of nonsense goes on here, as well. There are no shortage of republicans that support young earth creationism, some of who are public about such support, and most of the time, as in the example of Ronald Reagan, their views are largely irrelevant. The editors end with this bit of wisdom:

Practically speaking, there’s little reason to whisper darkly about politicians’ motives, religious or other, when they are legislating in the clear light of day: It would be difficult to insert something into the curriculum without the rest of society catching on. It’s fair to ask them about these at election time, as an indication of how they are likely to act in office. But ultimately it is how they act, not their beliefs, by which they should be measured. You say an MP’s vote on an issue was guided by his religious convictions? Bully for him. Just tell us how he voted.

“By your deeds shall ye be known.” Judge politicians by their actions, and leave their faiths to them.

Amen.



As long as they don't run for science committees...