Divisiveness in America

I've heard recently that many historians claim that America is the most divisive and polarized that it has been in over 100 years. Sadly, there are forces today that prevent public discourse on a few fundamental ideas that are at odds in the public view today. These ideas are often lost in torrent of information and opinions that are sometimes related to the ideas but not the ideas themselves. This creates confusion and prevents the average person from being able to discuss the fundamental ideas but, instead, we spend our time talking about consequences from those positions.

One of those ideas is the role of government in relation to individual religious belief.  Is the secular law more important than one's religious belief (or religious law)?

Another of those ideas is the distribution of wealth - is it better for society to take from the rich and give to the less fortunate and if, so, when and how does the government facilitate that?

Where you stand on these issues can be defined by what your belief system is and is likely to vary quite a lot from person to person. For example, reading a excerpt from the Hillsdale College Imprims entitled "Individual, Community, and State: How to Think About Religious Freedom", Matthew J Franck points out that originally, the the founding fathers believed that to follow ones religious convictions is an individual's duty in both time and obligation which takes precedence over the claims of civil society (i.e., the governed law).  Even the Declaration of Independence places the "Creator" ahead of the Government. It declares rights given by God to people: life, liberty and the pursut of Happiness and that  "To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Yet today that idea is under attack. In public sphere, it is common to hear the idea that religious freedom is secondary to Civil Law. In fact, over the past decade, Civil Law has limited religious freedom dramatically, from the enforcement of contraception in Obama Care, to countless court cases forcing religious groups to adopt the values of the Gay Rights movements saying that religious doctrines holding homosexual acts to be sinful are in themselves a form of "harm" to gays.

On another front, there has long been the debate over the government role in the redistribution of wealth in order to provide for a "level playing field" for the less fortunate.  Or as some would say, tax the rich to provide funds and programs that aid the poor.  Clearly, our society has embraced the idea that there is a role of government to play and the rich should pay more than the poor.  At various times over the past century, the government has taxed the rich anywhere from 40% to 80%. Each change in tax law has been ushered in under the guise that it is best for society as a whole. Depending on whether you benefited from these changes strongly defines where a person stands on this ideal. Generally, the poor support higher taxes and more government programs whereas the rich are less supportive.

Where did the idea come from that the government needs to intervene and provide programs to support the poor? Clearly, before federal tax law was instituted in the early 1900's, the poor were provided for by charity. That legacy remains today as the US is still the most charitable country among the 1st world countries.  So, why did the US decide that it needed to legislate this? In doing so, we placed the role of government above religious belief. Instead of passing laws, we could have had education programs and tax incentives for religious charity organizations to provide for the poor. If society had maintained the ideal that God was in charge and that all moral direction comes from Him, then we would not have tried to legislate charity. In fact, it could be argued that by taking the role of provider to the poor, the Government acted in a particularly religious fashion.  Instead, to claim separation of church/state, society had to first remove God as the foundation of moral authority.

Of particular concern is the fact that we are not talking about these issues but deal with specific consequences of these ideals. For instance, we talk about pro-life but we can't say that we are pro-life because we believe in God who is the giver of all life and his 'law' states that we "shall not murder".  The so called "separation of church and state" has gained so much power that we are no long free to discuss the issue in these terms.

Obviously, my opinion is based on deep held religious values. Anyone who disagrees with my opinions and claims that they are unbiased and intellectually immune from their own belief system is clueless and therefore I am not interested in their opinions.  First tell me what you believe.  From that it can be derived what your opinion is. I'd rather debate your beliefs.