In Search of Unity, Freedom, and a Equality to Form a Greater America

We hear it being said often in recent months, even the last few years. "The country has never been more divided". There is plenty of blame cast around. The "far right" conservatives blame Obama. The "far left" Liberals blame Trump. The centrists are either content with letting it ride or they blame both sides. Government is seen as the enemy to nearly all sides. Of course, there are the ever present elites. Which elites depends on where your political ideology falls.

I think if we take an objective look at our history, we will see that the division has always been there. At times it has been painfully obvious, from the Civil War to the Civil Rights movement. Groups like the KKK have been around for decades. I would argue we could go back further and look at the often overlooked genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. The divide has always been there. Race is tossed around as the major divide, but we hear some loud voices pointing towards classism. Truth is, probably a bit of both and more.

The majority of US citizens want to be left alone to live as they please. Yet... it would seem many also want everyone to live under the same moral code or creed and anyone who would challenge it is persecuting them for their beliefs. It is easy to show examples that this is true for some groups. It is also easy to show why it isn't for others. It centers around religious beliefs. When it comes to politics, leaders will claim they want us all to live as we want... for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, there is one side that allows the idea of living how we want to lean toward oppression, despite claiming otherwise.

I do not want to debate the validity of claims of oppression or persecution. Most of those are based on emotion rather than fact. Those that are based on fact can't seem to be accepted by some groups. The debate is endless and few cross sides one way or the other. I do lean one way, so my views are admittedly biased. This is the main reason I don't want to debate the merits of either side. Instead, I want to ask... how do we close that gap? How do we unite?

If we remove the anger from these arguments and remove the accusations of oppression, unfair treatment, and persecution (warranted or not), we might be able to focus more on what we want. Taking that approach, I believe we could find those ideals we hold in common. I will bet everyone will say freedom. I will bet everyone will say equality. The split starts with the difference in what is viewed as freedom and equality. Much of it comes down to choice.

We can choose to believe freedom of religion means we can discriminate based on religious beliefs. That conflicts with the idea of equality, does it not? Freedom to believe as we wish is a noble goal, but how far does that reach? How is it freedom if we allow a particular faith decide who we can love and who we can marry? This doesn't sound free to me. I can understand the idea of a business choosing to not serve someone based on their religious beliefs, however, isn't that denying someone their freedom? Surely if a business is widely accepted at providing the best of a specific product or service, everyone should have access to it if they're able to pay the required price. What a person does in their private lives shouldn't be criteria for service. Is it that simple? Or would it be taking away the freedom of the business to serve who they prefer and conduct their business as they see fit? I think the simple answer is no. Refusing service for superficial discrimination is not a freedom we should accept. By that I mean discriminating for reasons beyond the control of a person being refused. Race is the obvious. Sexual orientation should be included. We're long passed the idea that it is strictly a choice. So what if it is? There is no harm done to anyone by serving everyone equally.

Freedom stops where harm begins. If a belief results in unfair treatment, it is no longer a protected freedom. It goes either way. I cannot think of an example, however, of a secular business refusing service to someone whose belief is that homosexuality is a sin. If that is what you believe, fine. It doesn't allow you to force the belief on others or use it to refuse others. My understanding of some of the religions that believe this is that their savior wouldn't approve of such behavior.

Still, this comes down to splitting over ideologies. It isn't about freedoms. Live and let live would be a better ideal if it were about freedoms. Much of our division comes from religious dogma. The rest I would argue is from the haves wanting to make sure they keep it and can accrue as much wealth as they see fit without having any responsibility for the socioeconomic status of those who provide the labor that increases profits to those at the top. The example I used is one of those hot button topics that politicians like to pull out to distract from the larger picture. They are topics that divide us and keep us at one another while they abuse the freedoms we desire. They fill pockets, we fill their labor force or provide the means to retain their power. This is how it has always been. Unions were supposed to be the power of the labor to get what was deserved, but corruption found a way to taint the unions. It comes back to money every time.

Nothing I am stating is absolute. There are exceptions. There will always be exceptions. I think it would be better to approach freedoms with more fluidity. It made sense for everyone to be armed in our past. Now we couldn't hope to stand against modern warfare. I doubt we would need to. Freedom to worship as we wish is very much still a foundation of our nation, so it should go without debate that it also means freedom from religion determining our nation's laws. Do no harm is a better sentiment than "Love the sinner". Love the sinner often turns into oppress them until they repent.

I could list all the hot button topics that lead to pointless and endless debate. They are all small parts of a larger issue. They are weaponized against the people to keep the people in conflict. An angry citizenry needs a place to focus that anger and it serves the politicians if we focus it on each other rather than those in charge. Freedom should be our common ground, but it needs to be viewed from a wide angle. Simplify to... does this harm me if you do this? Does it harm anyone? If we set aside our religious beliefs, would we still want to treat others as we do now? Morality is more than religion. Law isn't always moral. We would like it to be. We know that it isn't. We cannot be rigid when it comes to what we believe is a freedom for us all. We should focus on what we can agree up on and what will benefit the country as a whole. Those smaller parts that we feud over aren't going anywhere. We can come back to those and how they fit the larger picture. First, freedoms need common ground.

I could share what I believe is a better path, but I know some will be turned off by the idea. Some will claim it is an impossible goal, it is an impossible ideology/lifestyle. There was a time in my life I would have been a part of those "some". I can say it has changed my life and my view, but I'm not perfect at it. I am human after all and we are all going to experience failure. It is how we overcome it that matters.

We can choose to demand the same opportunities and treatment for all. We can choose to do no harm rather than enforce a personal moral code upon those who don't follow the same code. Basing morality upon "do no harm" rather than "follow this belief" makes more sense for a country whose ideals are considered to be about freedom. I believe removing religion from the debate and focusing on creating laws that protect us and provide the freedom and liberty to pursue our happiness provided we do no harm to others, or even ourselves, could be a better path to freedom. It could give us a common ground to start from at the very least.