An Annoyance

Religious freedom is in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Through this document, the government promises to not favor any one religion or prohibit you from practicing yours. Yet the application of this ideal is not always black and white. In fact, it rarely is. Especially when almost every single President we've ever had is Christian, Christian holidays have been made into federal holidays that the whole country is forced to at least acknowledge if not practice, our money still says 'In God We Trust,' the pledge of allegiance calls us a nation under God, the majority of our citizens are Christian, etc. You get the gist.

(Hold your assumptions. I haven't got to my annoyance yet.)

Some would call this favoritism, but I hardly think that's the case. I think it's catering to a majority, yes, but favoritism? Is it really oppressive to religious minorities?

How about the fact that we're encouraged to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas? Or the vastly diverse religious landscape, with mosques built next to churches, synagogues speckling the map, new temples constructed constantly? Or the Sikh man that was asked to say a prayer during a government-sponsored, televised 911 memorial? Everyone is equally permitted to practice their religion, and we as a country are moving towards a greater acceptance of pluralism.

The government, as I see it, enforces the ideal of religious freedom while still acknowledging that our nation is primarily Christian. Over eighty percent of our country identifies as Christian, while the other twenty percent is split between many religious minorities. Ignoring or downplaying that large Christian majority would be like ignoring 8 of your 10 children because two of them want more attention. Eighty percent of your children will get eighty percent of the attention if split equally. Simple math.

So is it any surprise that the Presidential candidates speak quite a bit about Christianity, and follow Christian values? Apparently it is, as I've heard a few people react quite negatively to this. I've heard them say that they are so outraged with this "ignoring" of religious pluralism that they are not voting in the upcoming election.

Really? I'm sorry, but I'm a bit fired up. And herein lies my annoyance.

(In the next couple paragraphs, I use 'you' a lot. Please don't take this as an attack. It was simply me lobbying my anger at an unknown, unseen person. You can make it yourself if you so desire, but I wouldn't recommend it.)

First of all, this is one issue. Take a look at the candidates' full platforms. Not doing so is a disservice. You are discrediting great men, who put a lot of effort into developing a set of beliefs, goals, and strategies with which to run this country. They have a lot of experience in leading and are all people, real people with imperfections, just like you and me.

Secondly, as previously discussed, Christianity is a majority in this nation. By speaking more of Christianity, the candidates are not ignoring religious minorities, they are being fair. Take a look at the wide range of debates, speeches, articles, biographies, community service, leadership, etc. of these candidates. They have devoted quite a bit to becoming the men they are today, and I can bet you they have not ignored minorities along the way. I can bet you they've paid more attention to minorities than you do at any other time than when you complain about our government "ignoring religious minorities." Give these candidates the respect of doing a little research. An hour of your time is minuscule compared to the lifetime they have spent getting to the point they are at now.

Third, if each of us is entitled to practice our own religion, why is a presidential candidate not allowed to practice/speak about his (or her) religion? Getting aggravated at a candidate for something which the First Amendment gives everyone in this country the freedom to do is ridiculous. If church doctrine directly affects decisions made for the entire country - well, there's a problem. But I see nothing wrong with a candidate expressing and following their own set of beliefs. You don't have to agree, just have a little respect.

Fourth, our country was founded on Christian principles. No, we were never officially declared a Christian nation, but it was upon Christian values such as EQUALITY and FREEDOM that the First Amendment was even possible. Without the foundational tenets of Christianity, there would be no Bill of Rights and therefore no First Amendment, which accepts that there are multiple religions, that they are all permitted in our country, and that all are equal.

This is where I bring my paper in:

It is because of the First Amendment, established by our Christian forefathers, along with the values their religion had given them, that religious pluralism is possible in this country. If those founding fathers had not been endowed with love, with the desire that all men should be equal, and with a passion for freedom—all of which are basic tenets of the Christian faith—this country would not be the pluralistic country it is today. John Adams once said, in regards to the founding of this nation, that “it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” George Washington also spoke to this idea in a letter he drafted, often referred to as Washington’s Prayer. In it, Washington asks God to “dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.” These two men—two great men, founders of our nation—believed wholeheartedly in their Christian faith. They followed their God, and could not be separate from Him while drafting the foundational documents which we still follow in modern-day America. The Christian faith was present in those documents, albeit implicitly, and is still present in our world today. It is because of those ideals of charity, humility, justice, mercy, and love that religious pluralism is possible. It is because of those basic Christian morals that we are able to love our neighbor, no matter what religion that neighbor happens to practice.

I'm not really sure how to end this blog. It ended up a lot more informal/incensed than I meant it to be. But I'm legitimately fired up about this. I think what makes me the most angry is that I've been guilty of this close-mindedness myself. I think a lot of this post consists of me moving on from my silly, unfounded liberal notions (not saying all liberal notions are unfounded, just that mine were) and possibly helping other people along the way. And also getting some anger out, I'll admit that.

I suppose I'll end by saying please, practice the right to vote. This country is a democracy, and living in a democracy is a privilege many people don't have. Take the time to educate yourself, and respect the candidates enough to find out what they're really about. So many people around the world would love to be as involved in our government as we're allowed to be. Sure, it's flawed. Sure, some politicians are corrupt. But dismissing our government because it has flaws, or discrediting a candidate because he or she made one misguided statement is a serious misstep.

And hey, if you're still not satisfied, you could always run for President yourself. (Whoops, that was a little bitter. Let's try again.)

Learn to love. If you're not Christian, you can separate the religious aspects and love purely for the sake of love, and ignore the commandment to do so. You don't have to look to Jesus Christ as the purest example of Love, either. Just love. Oh, and do your homework.