In the political realm, global dismissal is well illustrated
by the 1998-99 impeachment of President Clinton.
Some people said that he was not fit to be President
because of his immoral sexual behavior
and his subsequent lies to cover it up:
"After what he has done, I can never trust him in anything."

     A broader example of global dismissal is the single-issue voter.
This voter makes abortion the test of any political candidate
—even if the office for which the candidate is running
will have little or no occasion to deal with the abortion laws.
If the candidates favors reproductive freedom
—including the right to have an abortion in case of accidental pregnancy—
then the anti-abortion single-issue voter will vote against that person
no matter where the candidate stands on other issues.

     Single-issue voters are passionate about one matter.
And they will dismiss everything else a person has to offer
if that person does not pass the 'litmus test' on this crucial issue.

     An example from historical religions:
St. Paul, who lived and wrote in the first century,
has come up against present-day feminists
who reject anything he has to say because of his comments
about the role of women in the church in the first century.
Paul believed that women should grow their hair long
and should not be allowed to speak in the church meetings.
If they had any questions, they should ask their husbands at home.

     Thus, there are some feminists who will not read Paul at all
because of these culturally-conditioned comments,
which are by no means central to Paul's message.

     In US history, Thomas Jefferson
has also been a victim of global dismissal
because he owned slaves.
In retrospect, this might have been a serious blind-spot in his thinking.
But open-minded persons can evaluate his other contributions
without being blinded by this (perhaps very serious) failing.

     A more recent example:
Some people reject everything written by Martin Heidegger
because for a few months at the beginning of the Nazi era
he was a rector of a German University,
which included being loyal to the government then in power.
Today everyone rejects Nazism.
But since Heidegger was a philosopher, not a political scientist,
it is irrational to reject everything else he has to offer
because of his short-lived association with the Nazis.
[For a brief account of Heidegger's
1933 association with National Socialism,
see John Macquarrie's Heidegger and Christianity
(New York:Continuum, 1994) p. 112-117.]

     Open-minded people do not dismiss
everything a particular individual has to offer
merely because one (sometimes serious) fault
can be found in his writings or in his life.
We can easily disagree with Paul about the length of women's hair,
with Jefferson about the institution of slavery,
and with Heidegger about the validity of the Nazi ideology
without dismissing everything else they might have to offer.