Yesterday, I bared my soul, so to speak, about religion, and
I’ll say no more on that specific topic. I would like to comment further on the
question of separation of church and state. I know this is a touchy subject,
and I’ll tread lightly. It is one that we must face if we seek to reconcile our
feelings, so I will start with my thoughts.
For openers, I don’t question for a moment an individual’s
decision to allow their personal feelings to influence their political beliefs.
I think this is a basic American value, enthroned forever in the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I think this flows into one’s decision to
hope that people who share core beliefs are voted into office. As with all
manners of navigation, it is a matter of degrees. I would hope that education,
thought, analysis, experience, and suspicion be added in setting our final
course.
What worries me are the vast complexities of both religion
and politics, in which we must make decisions. Once again, in nautical terms, we
might compare these with charting the crosswinds, fickle tides, hidden shoals,
and unforeseen storms of life. These, I believe, are so pervasive that simple
decisions are alluring, even seductive, but dangerous. At some point, we either
moderate, or compromise, our beliefs, trim our sails, so to speak, or we will
end up allowing tricksters to steer us into a political shipwreck.
For example, I personally feel pretty strongly about war as
a means of settling all political disputes. I know, however, that electing a
legislature that would outlaw war entirely would both be impossible and
unrealistic. I have to moderate my decision and consider the vast fabric of
goals a candidate must bring into office with her or him. If someone supports
the military unequivocally, along with social justice and the health, safety,
and welfare of our planet and its citizens, a carefully weighed and complex
decision must be made. I would just hope that I make the best decision instead
of striving for the perfect one, considering how near impossible it is to
achieve perfection.
Thus, I see dangers in one’s decision to base their sacred
vote on one single issue. To do so, I believe, invites charlatans who will
promise to address that issue from one side of the podium while trashing all
other time-honored values from the other side. I would, personally support a
candidate who espoused one idea I found distasteful, but who supported remaining goals that would benefit humankind. The
idea is that it would be easier, in the long run, to alter a person’s stand on
one issue by urging careful analysis and exemplary living, than it would be to
repair the damage done by the morally and ethically challenged.
In summary, I know that some of my friends believe that a
person will not be judged according to a lifetime of toil, despair, tragedy,
joy, satisfaction, and fulfillment, but upon one emotional and spiritual
decision. The oath I took in 1966 to defend the Constitution of the United
States requires that I defend that belief. I did and I will.
But I don’t share it.
I believe that, if we are to judge at all—and the Galilean,
as I pointed out previously, recommends against it—let us judge according to
the life of an imperfect but right-minded person who will grant unto all of
humanity, including the least of those among us, the same rights and privileges
hoped for and sought so earnestly along the way for herself or himself.
There. Now that’s simple, isn’t it?
 |
| Just thinking … |
No comments:
Post a Comment