Essay On Moral Wildcards

Voters believe atheists are "moral wildcards" and, thus, unelectable asserts Will Gervais in Jonathan Freedland's exploration into "Why Americans Won't Vote in an Atheist." Regrettably, the Judeo-Christian Heritage of the United States often trumps the notion of religious freedom and the practice of religious tolerance. Deeming "a belief in God" the foundation of morality, many Americans will not even consider the merits of a candidate if he or she does not profess the existence of a higher power. Furthermore, a political leader can make no attempt to curtail the institutionalization of religious values without coming under attack. Although Freedland's contention is ultimately astute, I challenge the wide-held belief that atheists are "moral wildcards." Indeed, the argument can be effectively made that atheist are profoundly more ethical and moral in practice than those who are bound by, the often, oppressive prescriptions of
Imposing narrow rules of what it means "to be Christian," the fringe movements of the fundamentalist right have limited the debate in and progression of religion. In practice, the black and white standards conceived by the extremist agenda have extinguished unity in addressing issues important to the progression of American society. As illustrated by Sarah Jones in "Why the Right is Obsessed with the Sutherland Springs Shooter's Atheism," the denial of religious tolerance by the dominant evangelical right allows ill-intentioned interests to manifest and in effect change the topic when serious national issues are brought to the forefront. Essentially, religious extremists deny truth in order to terminate the growth of pragmatic and fact-based progress. An inferiority complex becomes, at the core, the motivation for the religious majority to deflect