Secularismo e o processo eleitoral americano
Todo mundo sabe que ateu não ganha eleição nem para síndico de prédio no East Side Manhattan aqui nos EEUU. O mini-artigo do Hertzberg para a New Yorker problematiza bem a tensão entre o Romney e o Huckabee – e algumas das coisas que tem entrado em jogo no debate aqui nos Istates. As crenças políticas versus as crenças religiosas dos candidatos, por exemplo, e qual é, afinal de contas, o status do secularismo no debate moderno.
A intuição do Hertzberg é sensacional:
Secularism is not a religion. And it is not true that “freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom,” as Romney maintained. What freedom, including religious freedom, requires is, precisely, secularism—which is to say, state neutrality in matters of religion. (Nor does religion require freedom, as the European past and the Middle Eastern present demonstrate; religions, plural, do, however.) “Americans do not respect believers of convenience,” Romney thundered in his “faith” speech. “Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.” These were strange observations, coming as they did from a man whose campaign has consisted largely of jettisoning the beliefs he found convenient as a Massachusetts politician but finds highly inconvenient now that he stands to gain the Republican nomination for President. But then those were merely political beliefs.
Artigo disponível na íntegra, aqui.