Left, Right, Lock Step, Cadence Count
One, Two, Three, Four, One Two – THREE FOUR!
Guy T. Sturino
November 01, 2005
The militant fringes - those who would have government, of them, by them and for them - are marching across the country. As they do, they leave behind them the ravages of a social war. Disillusionment, despair, disgust and distrust are heard in the voices of those who write letters to the editor, call in to talk shows, and converse openly in restaurants and bars. It isn’t a loud voice, you have to listen closely sometimes, because the volume - not the logic - of the rhetoric from the fringe seems to have rendered the vast majority in the middle just plain stupefied. It seems that most folks in the middle have drawn themselves up into a protective shell of concentration on daily affairs.
This shell helps them avoid even thinking about the issue of church-state, and how it may affect their lives. Something has happened which provides an opportunity to clarify much of the national debate over the separation of church and state. The United Methodist Church Judicial Council defrocked Irene Elizabeth Stroud, an openly lesbian minister, and reinstated Rev. Edward Johnson, pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church who had refused to allow a gay man to become a member of his congregation, and was suspended for this action by fellow ministers in Virginia. The United Methodist Church Judicial Council has taken a position to protect itself against what they perceive is an assault on their moral guidance.
What we will see in the letters to the editor which will be prompted by this action are fairly easy to predict. The far right will be feeling verified in their position against gays, and calling for national laws reflect their views. The far left will be feeling villified and made less-than-equal in the eyes of the church. Therefore, they will demand that the state step in to regulate against discrimination. They are both wrong, and for the same reason. Both ends of the political spectrum see the government as a means to impose their will, the will of a tail-of-the-curve minority, over the will of the majority.
It doesn’t take a social scientist or someone with the wisdom of Solomon to see that this is true. If they did stop to consider the problem, I think those in the middle would agree on two very important points.
One - the government is elected by all the people for all of the reasons proclaimed in the Preamble to the Constitution. Everyone knows what these reasons are, or should, but here they are again, anyway: establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Two - people join a church, temple, synagogue or mosque to worship their chosen personal deity and find moral guidance in a world filled with incomprehensible events.
It is clear in the wording of the constitution that the government, of, by and for the people, is charged with ensuring that no one is either forced to participate in a religion, and to ensure that no person is prevented from participating in the religion of their choice. Based on my interaction with society over the past sixty-five years, I can say with some certainty that the vast majority of people understand and agree with these principles. They expect the government to protect them from civil injustice and their religion to guide them in personal moral decisions.
So why doesn’t the issue of separation of church and state simply dissolve into the night like a bad dream? Because those in the middle have no voice, no champion, no leader, and therefore little hope. Where is the prominent public figure who will say, “We have a government and a church. They each have a purpose, and a roll to play in our daily lives. Keep them apart and let us get on with living together as a nation.”
Even if this person existed, the chance that their opinion would be the center of a nationally televised news show or radio broadcast is all but nonexistent. Until we move away from two-party politics, the militant fringe will always be in the spotlight. Controversy makes news. Good sense does not. It’s a fact of life. A change can be made, but it requires that people who have a desire for a peaceful and humane coexistence band together in political unity. We need to get together, not in a militant lockstep, but a peaceful walk in the same direction.
Both political parties prey on the fringe for votes simply because it’s easy. Those on the fringe want to be heard. Those in the middle want to be left alone. But often, to be left alone, we have to display a countenance that says “stay out” to those who would impose themselves on us. In this case, the ballot box is the only way we have to display that countenance. If we support radical causes simply because of a previoulsy professed identification with the political party of one or the other fringe army we will lose what little control we have left over our own affairs.
Our fate is in our own hands.
This shell helps them avoid even thinking about the issue of church-state, and how it may affect their lives. Something has happened which provides an opportunity to clarify much of the national debate over the separation of church and state. The United Methodist Church Judicial Council defrocked Irene Elizabeth Stroud, an openly lesbian minister, and reinstated Rev. Edward Johnson, pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church who had refused to allow a gay man to become a member of his congregation, and was suspended for this action by fellow ministers in Virginia. The United Methodist Church Judicial Council has taken a position to protect itself against what they perceive is an assault on their moral guidance.
What we will see in the letters to the editor which will be prompted by this action are fairly easy to predict. The far right will be feeling verified in their position against gays, and calling for national laws reflect their views. The far left will be feeling villified and made less-than-equal in the eyes of the church. Therefore, they will demand that the state step in to regulate against discrimination. They are both wrong, and for the same reason. Both ends of the political spectrum see the government as a means to impose their will, the will of a tail-of-the-curve minority, over the will of the majority.
It doesn’t take a social scientist or someone with the wisdom of Solomon to see that this is true. If they did stop to consider the problem, I think those in the middle would agree on two very important points.
One - the government is elected by all the people for all of the reasons proclaimed in the Preamble to the Constitution. Everyone knows what these reasons are, or should, but here they are again, anyway: establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Two - people join a church, temple, synagogue or mosque to worship their chosen personal deity and find moral guidance in a world filled with incomprehensible events.
It is clear in the wording of the constitution that the government, of, by and for the people, is charged with ensuring that no one is either forced to participate in a religion, and to ensure that no person is prevented from participating in the religion of their choice. Based on my interaction with society over the past sixty-five years, I can say with some certainty that the vast majority of people understand and agree with these principles. They expect the government to protect them from civil injustice and their religion to guide them in personal moral decisions.
So why doesn’t the issue of separation of church and state simply dissolve into the night like a bad dream? Because those in the middle have no voice, no champion, no leader, and therefore little hope. Where is the prominent public figure who will say, “We have a government and a church. They each have a purpose, and a roll to play in our daily lives. Keep them apart and let us get on with living together as a nation.”
Even if this person existed, the chance that their opinion would be the center of a nationally televised news show or radio broadcast is all but nonexistent. Until we move away from two-party politics, the militant fringe will always be in the spotlight. Controversy makes news. Good sense does not. It’s a fact of life. A change can be made, but it requires that people who have a desire for a peaceful and humane coexistence band together in political unity. We need to get together, not in a militant lockstep, but a peaceful walk in the same direction.
Both political parties prey on the fringe for votes simply because it’s easy. Those on the fringe want to be heard. Those in the middle want to be left alone. But often, to be left alone, we have to display a countenance that says “stay out” to those who would impose themselves on us. In this case, the ballot box is the only way we have to display that countenance. If we support radical causes simply because of a previoulsy professed identification with the political party of one or the other fringe army we will lose what little control we have left over our own affairs.
Our fate is in our own hands.
Print
Email
