Ed and isms

I have written a time or two about how taboo can stifle problem solving and general discourse about domestic abuse. In his column yesterday, The last taboo in politics, Ed Cone points out some more reasons why maintaining taboos stifles discourse - in this case, as they pertain to religion in politics.

While Ed makes some great points about limiting our knowledge of religions other than our own (or our own lack thereof), it was his look at atheism that really caught my eye - talk about a final frontier in politics! I'd be willing to bet that if a candidate of a religion considered fringy by much of mainstream America - a category which could include anything from Mormonism to Scientology - were pitted against an atheist, the person of religion would win.

The reason sounds silly when spelled out but mainstream America seems to believe that a person cannot have a moral guideline without one being provided by religion. I know, it's silly. To think that most of us (barring sociopaths who, by definition, have no moral compass) couldn't figure out that murder, infidelity, stealing or any of the other big 10 sins are wrong for the simple reason that they are just wrong, with no fear of supernatural punishment or even disappointment, is just silly.

Versions of the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have done unto you - appear in virtually every major religion not because the gods of each religion had a chat and decided to share but because people throughout time and across cultures have been able to deduce that treating people with kindness and consideration is just good policy.