News
When Professors Speak Out, Some Students Stay Quiet. Can Harvard Keep Everyone Talking?
News
Allston Residents, Elected Officials Ask for More Benefits from Harvard’s 10-Year Plan
News
Nobel Laureate Claudia Goldin Warns of Federal Data Misuse at IOP Forum
News
Woman Rescued from Freezing Charles River, Transported to Hospital with Serious Injuries
News
Harvard Researchers Develop New Technology to Map Neural Connections
To the editors:
David Golding’s comment (“A Defense of Prejudice,” Nov. 2) opens a very interesting line of argument which seems at first to be a breath of fresh air. Certainly any person is free to think about any religion as he will and to communicate his thoughts freely. Golding reasons that a person may communicate his feelings about a religion by voting against an adherent of a religion which the voter holds to be erroneous or unhealthy or just plain wrong.
Yet Golding’s argument jars common sense. The wise voter must consider the candidate as an individual and with specific regard to public issues. Secondly, there are immense differences in individual beliefs among adherents of any religion, and to exclude any person on the general basis of his creed would be irrational and manifestly unfair, whatever the spurious generalization uttered to explain the policy.
Golding is right that a person may legally vote as he wishes on any basis he chooses and may say so. But doing so on the basis of a candidate’s creed would be irrational and intolerant. If most people adopted the policy of voting down the adherents of particular religions, then the U.S. would take another step away from tolerance and freedom.
WILLIAM J. FERRARI
Rochester, Mich.
November 2, 2006
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.