Agree to disagree
Don Coldsmith
Monday, October 30, 2006
ELECTION TIME is rapidly approaching. This is an important one, despite the fact that at the national level, it’s a “mid-term” election, in which the office of the President remains unchanged.
I grew up in a home where the right to vote was almost sacred. If you don’t vote, my dad always insisted, you have lost the right to complain about the decisions made by those who were elected. Even though it may appear to be an obviously lop-sided outcome, the minority vote does call attention to the mood of the country. Trends are followed closely by the analysts and may predict any change of direction.
I have never failed to vote since I reached voting age, even when neither party seemed to have a candidate with the qualities I wanted to see. I don’t think I’ve ever voted a “straight” ticket, however. Rather, for the man or woman I considered the best man or woman for each job. I know that’s a sacrilege to some, but I always have had friends in both parties. I consider that they have as much right to their opinions as I do to mine. That’s the whole point of democracy.
There have been elections where I saw very little on either party’s platform that I could actually support. To reverse the old saying about “the lesser of two evils,” it has sometimes seemed to me that the choice was actually between the evil of two lessers in some contests.
One of the biggest threats to our Constitution, I fear, is the misguided idea that the United States was intended as a “Christian” nation. That destroys the original intent of the right to worship as we please. (Or, NOT to, if that is what we please.)
The reference to “God,” in the motto on our coins “In God We Trust,” is not very specific, but most people except atheists subscribe to a deity, a creator figure, called by different names in different cultures.
(The term “atheist” alone is an anachronism, actually. It has to be translated “without god,” who for the atheist, does not exist anyway. So, what’s their problem?)
But, back to our subject. I’ve written before about the fact (not the theory) that the right “to worship as we please” refers to resentment AGAINST Christianity. Under British domination, the required religion was that of England: Anglican Christianity.
The new “United States” were very much aware of this problem. They might have picked any of dozens of religious approaches to the situation. Several branches of Christianity had established in the “New World.” their choice, however, was NOT to have a national religion. That would permit settlers from any part of the world to continue their right to “worship as they please,” including Judaism, Buddhism, any of the Oriental and Middle Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
The phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance — one nation “under God” — was not added until after World War II, as I recall. Even that does not specify Christianity and should not.
In a country proud of “religious freedom” we should be willing to accept EVERY citizen’s right to “worship as (they) please,” not just our own brand of Christianity or any other faith.
My American Indian friends, as I’ve written before, would never fight, kill, or even argue, about religion. They enjoyed swapping creation stories. Of course, there is a creator, recognized by a different name in each of the hundreds of Indian cultures. But they would never fight, kill or even argue about which was right.
Yet, here, a nation whose pledge is to allow everyone to worship “as we please” seems to be trying to close the door on anyone not comfortable with a somewhat narrow brand of Christianity. At election time, we often find ourselves disagreeing with friends on some points of argument, but solidly in agreement on others. Maybe this is a test — it’s something of a challenge to accept the thinking of some persons of our faith who interpret Freedom of Worship to refer only to their own faith. So, get out and vote.
See you down the road.
Author and columnist Don Coldsmith lives in Emporia.