Dear Mr. President
The “Subject” of my letter is “Church vs. State.” Please notice that it is not the reverse or “State vs. Church” and that is because in today’s world so much has changed that the Government (i.e. State) has had to change in order to respond to political interests of all groups, particularly, the minority. It seems as though that our efforts as a nation to take action in an effort to help the minority achieve secure a place in society that we have created and/or inadvertently repositioned the majority as the “new” minority.”
It seems as though our government was principally based on a religious belief (i.e. Church) that there are unexplained realisms that, for no other reasons, are explained by a universally accepted faith that a higher power is at work and has been at work since the beginning of man, Such as belief was recognized by State long before our founding fathers integrated Church and State, as implicitly implied within our inaugural governing documents, including Article Three of the Bill of Rights which state that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” because religion believes that a higher power exists but to the extent that we, as people, believe, there are differences as to who (or even what) is accepted as the higher power, as well as, difference that no higher power exists. Thus, the unfortunate crises that face the people of the world, particularly this country, when our majority views have become isolated as minority views.
I would argue that within our own lifetime, we have seen much of the majority view change because our current world has seen an age of great population and technology growth that it is possible to find a “market” of people to believe in a particular view just as it is possible for an advertisement to target certain characteristics belonging to a particular segment. Our news media has shown us that it is possible for an individual or group to function within the majority norm on the outside only to react completely opposite using a polarized minority view on the inside. Further, we have seen within our own lifetime that it is possible to take the accumulation of such individual or group minority views behaves like that of a hurricane and builds enough strength to create a majority view that, over time, has enough force to be accepted as mainstream and, eventually, rewrites and/or changes how our government should operate or function in terms of what is right or wrong, as demonstrated by the majority voice. However, the argument presented here is that the “changing times” does not necessarily make the change correct, at least not in terms that the implicit meaning of our own countries inaugural documents are changed to reflect that of a changing time when such documents were unreservedly written to reflect changing times and withstand the test of time.
More specifically, all that has changed is the interpretation of our own countries inaugural documents, specifically, the interpretation of the bible and the integration of Church and State. Setting aside all the majority and minority views, there is but one view that is always correct and that is view of the higher power in which there really should be one, and only one, higher power, which is that of Gods view. So we, as a nation, have, to a large extent, accepted that there is but one God but we have not accepted which God governors all other views so we, as a nation, allow it people (i.e. citizens) to believe, if they so choose, in a God of their own choosing but we, as a nation, have not decided on the majority view of that one God.
When one has traveled the world extensively, as I have, it becomes easier to see so much of the minority view that is isolated that it is possible to accept, or at least tolerate, the multitude of minority views that we accept this as a way of life and, in doing, accept, the change in the way the State (i.e. government) operates or functions, particularly, shown though changes in laws that, over time, we do not realize just how far or how much such laws have changed nor do we stop to realize the magnitude that these changes have on the original governing documents, including the importance and/or significance of the words, intent, and/or other directly or implicitly implied in the those original governing documents.
Having said the above and with the purposeful intent of excluding the identifiable issues, it would seem to me that the State does and should have a role in integrating the Church and State or, at the very least, restore the integration of Church and State to its original position, including adopting policies that foster more family like structure values. That is, everyone has a place and responsibility within this family like structure such that each has some contribution that has some value or worth that is needed by someone else.
It would also seem to me that we, as a nation, try to help other countries that we may have or do extend too much of a helping hand when such a helping hand often goes unappreciated, so much so, that these people of other nations come to expect that they deserve such help but they do not consider the consequences that it has on our people within our own country that our own country has not taken care of its own family, yet it helps out other families in other countries. Our nation is a wealthy nation and we should have a responsibility to help other nations but it seems as though our nation has lost (or have lost) many of its own family values that we can not help other nations if we can not help ourselves first so that we can truly help other nations. It we seem that in our need to spread “democracy” across the world, which we see as a responsibility, that, perhaps, we are trying to do too much at one time. As a result, we should slow down our efforts and give other countries a chance to do the same, after all, the “balance of power” is shifting and there are a plenty of other countries with much stronger economies, currencies, and political strength to help Gods people.
I discuss all the above because I have recently been extremely ill in which I realized that my own care was extremely compromised by the consequences of changing views, which when I really stop to think about the “cause and effect” from the perspective of an high-level view, I realize that the cause is the result of changing views in which the minority voice has gained a stronger majority voice and that majority voice, which includes myself, is now a minority voice, so much so, that I am not really able to get the kind of “urgent” care when really needed and “recovery” care when there is no such “recovery” care available, which, I believe, is the result of such an imbalance in terms of family values and the treatment for such a condition requires the (or at least more) integration of the Church and State.
If I were President, I would want to focus on family policies, as each family and each family member has some problem that needs the help of others. If you were to ask anyone who is elderly, they have the wisdom to know that problems of all kinds can affect the family and such problems can occur at any time in ones life. I must say that there are much bigger issues, such as the ones that particularly affect my care, which include health insurance, loss of job because of health, and extremely limited or unsuitable health care when there is no money for health insurance because of loss of job at a young age and/or no other governmental programs available for such a common illness that is just as deadly as non-curable illnesses.
I of the mid-life age and I must say that I have been hearing about the same issues of my parents since I was a child who had no care in the world, let alone, the realization that I would have the same problems. I remember at that age that, surely, our government would fix the problems before I grew up and, especially, by the time I got old and needed those programs, such as a good Social Security and medical insurance program. Like my parents before me who complained all the time about the rising cost of prices, I can now understand. What I do not understand is that those that are really in the position to make a change do not do so or can not do as much because of competing interests. Are competing interests really the result in differences between the majority and minority views or, quite simply, the differences in ages in which those that truly understand tend to be much older or have gone through such an experience or those that are too young and think priorities are else where.
To the extent that the majority view needed to make such a change is really the subset of all minority views, which are, primarily, unheard to others because the realism of such a need has not yet undergone an “experience” in which to relate or cause one to “rise-up and make a difference.” Thus, we have to depend on the government to “rise-up and make a difference,” which I have experienced in my life-time seems to, largely, go unchanged for those matters that truly affect one own care when care is needed. Simply, I think more could be done if we do more to integrate Church and State and a lot could be said for any policy designed to be a “Faith Based” policy in which we rely more on our local churches for the care we need because in a world that is extremely busy and populated, we need some local place that is familiar with the local needs of the neighborhood.
We live in a busy world where we have changed from a world in which we no longer go out of our way to help people we did not know to a world in which we only help people we know and tend to only help as means of last resort in which we help only as needed until someone else can help and this, often times, includes members of our own family in which we should be there to do more to care for our own family.
Thus, it seems as though our founding fathers purpose of Church and State, as implied in our inaugural governing documents, is to really help the Church in which the State can not help or is limited in helping.
Sincerly,
Citizen Michael
