In a December NY Times article, "Falling Short of Our Ideals" by Michael McConnell, brings forth the discussion as to whether traditional morals and ideologies are falling by the waste side. McConnell argues that while the Constitution is in place to protect our right to pursue whatever religion that we deem necessary, more current day beliefs are being stripped. It is interesting to see things through this context as he advocates that the battle is no longer over what religion to pursue within American, as it stemmed during our country's founding, but rather things have shifted to social issues. For example, abortion, education, same-sex marriage, etc. Undoubtedly this has become the focus and many Conservative right Christians are being ridiculed for beliefs that their religion has upheld since its conception.
If we are to agree with Madison, Washington, and many others about the right to freely express whatever religion they so choose, then are we taking things in our own hands by restricting rights to hold religious meetings or mandating through laws that professional provide services that go against their beliefs? While we are a nation that upholds more tolerance than many other countries around the world, are we going back on such fundamentals? Further, I would note that many of these mandates or restrictions have been imposed on Christians (or at least that is how the media portrays it). What should our reaction as a country be?
Many will argue, especially during this presidential election, that religious rights are being imposed on. What does our country do to combat this? Could the change truly come from a president? I personally see that our country has become more modernized, or liberalized (not in the political sense), in our thinking when compared to a mere fifty years ago. Were people in the 1950s wrong in their thinking when they allowed for much more religious tolerance? Unfortunately, I think it might be much too late to turn back, not that that is the proper solution either.
I am not so sure that the people in the 50's were all that aware that they were allowing more religious tolerance. At that time many Christians were removed from the political arena. The more defined separation of Church and state, was just that a true separation. It was when the politically active leftist had already began to remove the wall of separation which caught the Church off guard and placed them into a reactive state.
ReplyDeleteAs stated in our readings for this week, the proactive approach came about in the 70's.
The modern political correctness and everybody gets a trophy society we have morphed into promotes the socialistic concept that everyone should be the same. It is that idea of sameness that removes identities and promotes changes of an attempt at pure equality, even if it means losing your religion.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, especially the one (Spock?). Think about that and how our majority rule for points can equal an America far removed from our founders idea's.
I would have to agree that it might just be to late. All we can do is keep fighting for the rights our ancestors died for.
How much are you willing to give up for the greater good? What are you willing to die for? What do you stand for? If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.
I don't believe that asking a religious institution that provides a public service to give services even if it goes against their religious beliefs. Living in a society, and wanting to make a profit, you have to be willing to compromise. The institutions aren't be asked to advocate or use the product, but only to make it available for the patients that utilize their services. When you work in public service, you have to be willing to sacrifice your own spiritual well being to help the well being of others.
ReplyDeleteJared Hunter