Some worthwhile reading today:
It makes you wonder how Independence Day orators 150 years from now will look back upon this Fourth of July.
What will they make of freedom-loving people who, at the dawn of America’s fourth century as a nation, question the patriotism of a U.S. senator because he doesn’t wear a flag pin in his lapel or because he has a name that doesn’t sound like theirs?
What will they say about our professed fidelity to religious freedom when they find out that many of the Americans who thank God for their religious liberty are also ready to turn their backs on a candidate if they think he is a Muslim or Mormon?
Or because he’s black?
What, come to think of it, would Frederick Douglass think?
The U.S., with its enormous economic and military power, is still better-positioned than any other country to set the standards for the 21st century. But that power and leadership potential were not granted by divine right and cannot be wasted indefinitely.
Patriotism has its place. But waving a flag is never a good substitute for serious thought and rolling up one’s sleeves.
The candidates have sought the endorsements of clergy, and both McCain and Obama are now having some buyer’s remorse. But candidates cannot have it both ways. They cannot continue to use clergy for political gain and then discard them when it no longer fits their agenda.
The problem is not that these presidential candidates incorporated religion into their campaigns. The problem is that the candidates have used religion as a divisive tool, instead of a unifying power.
Hank Kalet 