The Post-Journal

 

Mother Nature Interferes With

Warfare

                                                                            Mar 14, 2026

Rolland Kidder

Sometimes we think that, as humans, with all of our technology, we can conquer anything. It just takes a hurricane or a flood to remind us of who really is in charge.

The same is true in warfare. You can have all of the fancy software and technology in the world–but war still takes place over real terrain in real places.

I was thinking of this recently when the war news came out that some 200 oil tankers were trapped, stuck in the Persian Gulf because of the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. Through that strait runs 20% of the world’s oil, so with its closing, oil prices jumped from $50 a barrel to over $80 a barrel.

President Trump said essentially, “no problem, we will have the U.S. Navy escort these oil tankers safely through the Strait of Hormuz.” End of problem.

When the President made the statement, I doubt that he had spoken with any of the Navy ship’s captains who would have to undertake that mission.

The Strait of Hormuz, at its narrowest, is a little over 20 miles wide…you can see across it. Not all of that 20 miles is deep enough for the massive tankers that carry oil. Of the 20 miles, there are two, two mile-wide lanes–one for tankers coming into the Gulf and the other for tankers exiting the Gulf.

So, you get all of the stranded tankers lined up and escorted by a couple of U.S. Destroyers/Frigates and start these convoys through the Strait of Hormuz. What happens then? I would suppose that every missile and drone still left in Iran would have the coordinates of that small space zeroed in–it would be like “shooting ducks in a barrel.”

“Maybe, on second thought,” some of the tanker ship’s captains would say, “we shouldn’t try to run this gauntlet.” Some of these tankers are bigger than aircraft carriers and are easy targets. And, if one or two of these ships were sunk, that could really bottle up the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf.

The geography of the world is what it is. The Strait of Hormuz is narrow, and it is still there. We cannot bomb it or wish it away. Mother nature has again dictated what the battlefield will be.

The whole issue reminded me of another body of water, a bit over 20 miles wide at its narrowest–the English Channel. It protected England against attack for hundreds of years, including the Spanish Armada.

Yet, it also delayed our invasion of Europe in World War II. It was only after a massive buildup of hundreds of ships, planes and thousands of men that we were successively able to cross it and invade France on D-Day, June 6, 1944.

The earth and the sea can get in the way of those who go to war. Ignorance of geography and terrain is no excuse. What mother nature has put in the way must be understood and respected.

Rolland Kidder is a former U.S. Naval Officer and a Stow resident.

                     Jamestown Post-Journal

We Should Know Wars Are Hard To End

Local Commentaries

Mar 7, 2026

Rolland Kidder

 It is easy to start a war, but very difficult to end one. That has always been the case and still is. If you are in doubt, just ask Vladamir Putin how things are going in the war he started in Ukraine four years ago.

Think about the Iraq War. We invaded Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein was finally captured and eventually executed. But here we are in 2026, having lost 4,500 American lives and having spent a trillion dollars or more, with troops still in Iraq, a country with a weak government trying to rebuild itself.

The war I was involved in, Vietnam, started in 1964–but, at least, it began with a Joint Resolution of Congress…not by Presidential fiat. It officially ended for us in 1973 with 58,000 American war dead as testimony to it.

As a veteran, I have written before in this space, about the realities of war. When you are in one, you soon realize war is caused by failure–negotiations have failed, diplomacy has failed, communication has failed, keeping the peace has failed.

Sometimes wars are unavoidable, but every effort should be made to avoid them. Wars are an admission of failure.

I was hoping that President Trump’s decision to bomb the main operational center where Iran was making its atomic bomb last year would end, at least for now, concerns about Iran making a nuclear weapon. Trump certainly suggested that in his comments that, as a result of that attack, Iran’s nuclear program had been “totally obliterated.”

But, easy success often doesn’t lead to caution. Now, with only Israel as an ally, we have committed thousands of American troops, aircraft, and naval forces to commence what could be another long-term war in the Middle East.

Wars are not only hard to end, but they are unpredictable.

There is no doubt that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was a tyrant. Hopes are that somehow better leadership will rise up in Iran…but will it? Some in Iran are rejoicing in the streets, others are demonstrating in support of the Supreme Leader who was killed. Iran could end up with worse leadership or with a prolonged leadership struggle.

Just think of what would happen in this country if our President, Vice President and many of our leaders were killed…it would create a leadership vacuum even here.

It is an unsettling time to be an American. Our country, with only one ally, has now made a decision to become fully involved in changing the government of Iran. And, we are told, this can be done without sending in troops on the ground. How does that work?

Sadly, the Trump administration is striking out again on its own. Where it will end? We don’t know. What we do know is that wars are easy to start but hard to end.

Rolland Kidder is a Stow resident and a Vietnam veteran.

 

                        The Post-Journal

Speaking Truth To Power

                                                                            Feb 7, 2026

Rolland Kidder 

 

This year, our President, Donald Trump, decided to go to Davos, Switzerland for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.

While there he gave his usual, off-the-cuff grievance speech about how Europe and most of the rest of the world was falling behind, and how, under his leadership, America was the best of all nations and was charging ahead.

There were some lines in his speech that people laughed at, but, in general, President Trump gave his usual meandering political stump speech, the kind that he typically performs at the rallies he has for his base in this country.

Despite his being, as our President, the featured speaker, the speech at Davos that everyone is still talking about was not his but was the one made by Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada. It was a well-crafted, articulate analysis by the Prime Minister as to where the world order was going under Trump’s leadership.

Perhaps, the nub of that speech came when Carney warned that the United States was now leading the world not into a “transition” to a new international system of governance but to a “rupture” in what we have come to know since World War II as a system defined by the rule of law.

Carney’s speech was not one of grievance, but one of stating the reality of what has been going on since Trump became President in 2025. The President of the United States has not only thrown Canada “under the bus,” he has openly criticized most of America’s former allies in one way or another.

Noteworthy in Mr. Carney’s speech was that he didn’t stop at just describing the situation as he sees it, he offered a new approach–that it was time for the “middle powers” in the world, like Canada, to seek new alliances between themselves to insure that democracy and the rule of law continue as the basis for international diplomacy.

The existing established order, which came out of World War II and was led by the United States, created international institutions and alliances to keep the peace. That order is now being shredded, and the world can no longer count on the United States as it has in the past. Canada and other democracies are adapting to this new reality.

As an American, though I appreciated the brilliance and truthfulness of the Prime Minister’s speech–it was a sad day. The Trump administration’s “go-it-alone” foreign policy now being applied with an arrogance that we have never seen–has marginalized the United States on the world stage.

The Prime Minister of Canada spoke truth to power. We are forcing our former allies to find new ways to keep the peace in order to preserve democracy in the world–what could be more tragic? Our “go it alone,” America first (and only, it seems) strategy is destroying the credibility of the United States of America.

 

 

            The Post-Journal

     A Presidency With No Limits

                                                                            Jan 17, 2026

ROLLAND KIDDER

 

Whether you like our current President or not, one thing that seems to characterize his actions is that there seems to be no limits in what he can do.

In a recent two-hour interview with members of the press, he was asked if there were any limits to his global power. President Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It is the only thing that can stop me.” His answer did not mention any Constitutional limitations to his power.

The public now is beginning to understand this as reflected in the recent “No Kings” demonstrations that sprung up around the country a few months ago. Kings can do whatever they want to, “the public be damned.” Americans have generally supported strong Presidents, but they have always believed that there are limits to executive authority.

We now seem to be in a time when the President can do whatever he wants to without congressional authority or legal precedent. In a typical move this past week, Mr. Trump initiated a criminal investigation of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, an institution created to be independent from the White House.

Yet, likely the most visible exercise of his power has been the whole idea of imposing tariffs on imported goods. It was introduced with great fanfare without action of any kind from the Congress.

Now, news releases come from the White House taking credit for reducing some of the various tariffs that were imposed. Recently, we were told that there would no longer be a tariff on coffee, furniture, and beef among other items. People started squawking about inflation, so the White House slashed tariffs on a few products,

But, what a way to run a government! Merchants, traders and consumers have no idea what to expect from one day to the next.

The deployment of the National Guard seems to be another whimsical application of Presidential power. Now, months later, the Supreme Court, in a rare decision, has declared that the President exceeded his authority in randomly sending troops into American cities. Could the tide be turning?

There is a local connection to this whole question, as our own Supreme Court Justice, Robert H. Jackson, wrote the seminal decision in 1952 limiting Presidential power in the government’s seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War. President Truman wasn’t happy. Jackson was a Democrat and a friend. But, the issue went beyond friendship–it dealt with the structure of our democracy and the constitutional limits of Presidential power.

There is another matter which is particularly irksome to me. There now seems to be no limit on using the White House as a base for making money or expanding one’s personal or business fortune. We have seen everything from meme coins, to crypto businesses, to accepting the gift of a fancy jumbo jet from a foreign government, to foreign real estate deals–all coming from the Trump White House.

Whatever happened to the emoluments clause in the U.S. Constitution? Are there no limits to using the Oval Office for personal & business dealings?

Enough said. I think when the Trump Presidency has passed, the country, after reflection, will move to impose more enforceable limits on the exercise of Presidential power.

                                Jamestown Post-Journal

 Actions Speak Louder Than Words

                                                                                Dec 20, 2025

ROLLAND KIDDER

This axiom has been my belief since I can remember. It was a part of my upbringing. It was taught to me by my parents and reinforced by teachings from the Bible– “By their deeds you shall know them.”

As kids we also soon learned that there are usually more “talkers” in the world than there are “doers.” People are to be judged more by what they do than by what they say.

This translates, of course, into observing the actions vs. the words being daily issued by our President. He is always tweeting or saying things to get people stirred up, but he is also doing things that we need to observe.

For example, in the recent campaign for Mayor of the City of New York, President Trump called Mr. Mamdani a “communist” who would be a threat to civilization if elected. After the election, when Mamdani went to the White House, the President shifted instead toward schmoozing the Mayor-elect.

That action said a lot to me. It looks like the Trump administration will try to work with the new Mayor… which is a good thing. It also reminds us, that the President is also a New Yorker, has significant investments in the City and would likely prefer to get along with the Mayor of New York than continually be fighting with him.

Another recent action of our President is also of note–his pursuit of our largest trading partner led by the biggest communist leader in the world–President Xi of China. Mr. Trump recently traveled about 7,000 miles to meet Xi in South Korea. (It was a short trip for Mr. Xi, as that country is right next door to China.)

Now, we are told that President Trump will fly to China in April to meet again with Xi. All of the talk and threats about tariffs have not brought the Chinese leader to the United States. We will first meet with him on his turf. These two actions speak volumes about who is in the driver’s seat when it comes to trade and commerce between our two countries. “Actions speak louder than words.”

Sometimes words align with action. For example, with the War in Ukraine (probably more accurately described as the “War against Ukraine,”) the President has been quite consistent in word and deed in putting more pressure on Zelensky than on Putin to end the war. He has publicly admonished the President of Ukraine yet seems to defer to the Russian leader who wants things all his way.

In terms of the federal government in Washington, the President’s words have pretty much been followed by action–Musk’s chainsaw firings, a vaccine denier running the Health Department, a FOX News commentator in charge of the Defense Department… these were things that the President promised and has delivered on.

The one Department that hasn’t changed much in the nation’s capital is the Treasury Department. Here he has appointed a seasoned Wall Street banker as Secretary. The President grew up around Wall Street and, to his credit, has not appointed a fringe character to run the nation’s economy.

There is so much bluster, talk and media spin that comes from this White House, that it is sometimes better to just step back and observe. Actions have always spoken louder than words, and that is still the case.

                        The Post-Journal

     Zohran Mamdani vs. Elon Musk

                                                                            Nov 15, 2025

Rolland Kidder

A member of my family suggested that it might be timely to write an article about these two polar opposites whose names have recently been in the news.

“Diversity” has become a bad name for some, but the juxtaposition of these two men between what is called “democratic socialism” and “capitalism” would seem to meet that definition.

To be honest, by way of full disclosure, in discussing a comparison of Mamdani and Musk–I must acknowledge that I own no Tesla Stock, but I do have two grandchildren living in New York who supported the newly elected Mayor of New York.

The comparison of the two men is quite stark–an anti-government, Republican activist remembered for his “chain saw” cutting and gutting of federal agencies vs. a liberal Democrat and fervent believer that government can be an effective force for good, specifically as it relates to the cost of living in New York.

Another difference between the two is personal compensation. The Mayor of the City of New York receives an annual salary of $258,000, with an option of living in a government-owned house at Gracie Mansion. The CEO of Tesla lives in a personally owned, gated compound in Austin, Texas, receives millions in compensation and will be compensated with an additional $1 Trillion Dollar bonus if he can meet some aggressive growth targets for his company.

On the basis of raw experience, I think you have to give Elon Musk the edge. He has proven himself to be an effective CEO in Corporate America. He runs multiple companies and Tesla Corporation is now valued at more than Ford, GM and Chrysler combined.

The most telling criticism of Mamdani has been about his youth and lack of experience. As he, I was a member of the New York State Assembly and can attest that it is not typically a proven training ground for corporate executives or, for that matter, in leading a city of 8 million people.

But, on the matter of understanding people and politics, despite being young, you have to give the edge to Mamdani. He understood the electorate’s desire for affordable living, whereas Musk failed to realize that for many Americans, the institutions that he was destroying in Washington were important to them.

It was obvious that the citizens of New York did not buy the argument of President Trump that Mamdani was a “communist.” Most New Yorkers who have been around as long as Trump has, know that Democrats in the City of New York have always been at odds: reformers vs. regulars, liberals vs. moderates. The so-called Democratic Socialists are the new reform/liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

As to who will succeed more–Mamdani or Musk–only time will tell. But, I think the challenge will be greatest for Mamdani. Many of his promises as to free busing or lower rents…are issues that will require the acquiescence of others, either in Albany or perhaps even from Washington.

Yet, it is clear that Mamdani has won the political contest with Musk. He got 2 million people to vote for him. Though spending millions, Musk could not muster enough support to beat a Democratic state judge in Wisconsin, and he eventually became so politically toxic for the Republicans that he was quietly eased out of Washington.

I would think that, going forward, the odds makers in Las Vegas will give the political/governmental edge to Mamdani. The capitalist/business edge will stay with Musk. Diversity in America is alive and well !

Rolland Kidder is a Stow resident.

                    The Post-Journal

        The Middle East, Donald Trump             And The Nobel Prize

                                                                                Oct 18, 2025

 It has been disconcerting to me that the President of the United States has been lobbying to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. If I were in his inner circle, I would advise him that this is an honor for which you are chosen–not one you lobby or campaign for.

But, that aside, if he can pull off a solution to the current Israeli/Gazan War, perhaps he should be so honored.

As the columnist Thomas Friedman recently wrote: “If Donald Trump is able to secure a cease-fire, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, return of Israeli hostages, and it holds and paves the way for negotiations on the only solution of two states for two people…Trump will not only deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, he’ll deserve the Nobel Prize in Physics and Chemistry as well. Because that would be quite an achievement.”

I have not been a fan of Donald Trump’s top-down approach to governing nor of many of his policies — but, I too am hoping that he can find a way out of this terrible war in which Hamas killed some 2,000 Israelis, and where Israel has killed some 60,000 Palestinians in response.

President Trump is in a unique position to end this conflict. First, and foremost, in being as close as he is to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s leader, Trump essentially coopted him, pushing Netanyahu into accepting a ceasefire and bringing the war to an end.

Trump also has deep roots and connections to the Arab countries of the Middle East, not just as President but through his family and business connections with countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These nations met in Egypt with the United States and hammered out a deal to end the Israeli-Gazan War. Great Britain and France were also supporting the effort. It was not just the United States that was involved.

Any resolution from the carnage of Gaza to Israel’s exhaustion and diminishment resulting from this war, will require support from Arab nations in the region. Meetings are continuing in Egypt with several countries now involved including representatives from the United Nations.

So, Mr. President, I give you credit for getting the parties to the table, and, as an American, I am hoping that your efforts can lead to a permanent peace in the area.

My only advice would be that you keep after the effort. It will take time. This is no “slam-dunk,” quick-and-its-over situation. The divisions and hatreds in this part of the world run deep, so whatever solution is arrived at must have staying power and will require a long-term commitment. Wars are easy to start, but difficult to end.

Friedman addressed this same issue with a question: “Will the Trump administration have the attention, the energy and the focus that’ll be required every day to keep such a complicated solution on track?” “I hope so,” he concludes.

I hope so too. If President Trump can stop this war, keep it stopped, start a new and responsible governance for Palestine, and keep Israel within its borders…maybe he will be recognized for his work by the Nobel Committees in Norway and Sweden.

It may seem unlikely that a President who has created a Department of War instead of Defense would receive a Peace Prize, but stranger things have been known to have happened down through the course of human history.

 

                  The Post-Journal

 The Cycles of Our National Politics

                                                                                       Sep 27, 2025

Rolland Kidder

In my lifetime, I have lived through what I would call two or three “cycles” in our national politics.

We came out of World War II as the major super-power in the world–there was a good feeling in the country. Yet, somehow, we lost our “mojo.” Along came the fall of China to the communists and then the war in Korea.

Suddenly, in the 1950’s, we were in a mood of fear and apprehension. Along came Senator Joe McCarthy, “pouring kerosene on the fire,” blaming it all on purported communists in the government and conducting a campaign of fear, falsehoods and blame. The country went into a kind of funk. It took President Eisenhower to steady the ship and then for President John Kennedy to bring us new hope and new direction in 1960.

A similar pattern developed in the late 1960’s and early ’70’s. The heady years of confronting segregation and passing a Civil Rights Act descended into acrimony and blame during the Vietnam War and these feelings were exacerbated by riots which were erupting in the cities. This negative mood followed Richard Nixon into office. It took President Carter to “steady the ship,” and then President Reagan to instill a renewed sense of confidence and pride again in our national politics.

Now, again, we are in national funk which seems at least partly related to our misguided wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fear and blame are rampant. It is the “radical” right against the “lunatic” left. There seems to be no middle ground which is where Americans like to be. Seemingly, someone has to always be blamed when things go wrong.

Sadly, I don’t see things much changing with the current administration. We have a President who, right off the bat, blamed the “lunatic left” for the Charlie Kirk assassination. Someone, apparently, had to be blamed, though, at the time, little was known about the assassin.

Now that Kirk’s assassin has been apprehended, early reports indicate that he was not affiliated with any political party, may have been radicalized by the violence promoted through the internet and video games, was a loner and–like most assassins–he may have mental or emotional issues influencing his behavior. Whatever his motivations, it was a terrible crime.

Yet, it was not a time to fan the flames of hatred through finger-pointing and blame. Sometimes our Commander-in-Chief needs to be our “Healer-in-Chief.” I thought that the Governor of Utah provided better leadership by calling for national mourning and an end to partisan blame-calling. The country needs voices of unity and healing after such horrific incidents.

So, what is next?

If the cycles of our political life are any indication, a leader will become President who will help stabilize and reunify the country. Then that person, or another, will bring us again to remembering the American spirit and how we have jointly and positively addressed the issues that we have faced in past years.

In the end, our national motto “E Pluribus Unum” (out of many one,) will work once more and Americans will come together in unity to tackle the next big problem (or problems) that will inevitably come along.

This is our common hope and is what keeps us going as a country.

Top of Form

 

                                                    The Post-Journal

The Downside Uncertainty Of Tariffs

Aug 2, 2025

 

Rolland Kidder

The Trump administration’s levying of tariffs is a form of taxation, essentially a tax hidden from public view. They are imposed before the final sale of a product. In essence, tariffs are a pre-sales tax, levied at a port-of-entry on goods coming into the country. They are included in the price being paid by Americans for whatever the product is.

So, for example, let’s say a carpet made in Vietnam comes into the Port of New York for ultimate sale here. The cost of the carpet goes up 20% when the federal government slaps a tariff on it in New York, and then it comes here where an additional 8% sales tax is added.

We know that the 8% added here goes to state and local government. What happens to the 20% going to Washington? We don’t know, though some of it is likely going to help pay off our growing national debt.

Yet, more devasting than the cost of tariffs, is their negative impact because of the unpredictability they cause in the market place. The President seems to raise and lower them at a whim. It is hard to operate a company with a sound business plan when you are not sure how the tariffs are going to affect your business.

This past week, I drove past the Cummins Engine plant here and saw fewer cars in the parking lot than I usually see there. When inquiring with someone more familiar with their operations, it seems that Cummins engine orders are way down from where they were a year ago…so shortened work weeks, partial voluntary time reductions etc. are now underway at the plant.

You wouldn’t think such a slowdown possible as you still see a lot of trucks on the road. What seems to be happening is that instead of replacing engines as they get old…trucking companies are trying to stretch the life of old engines because they are uncertain as to what the economic effects will be of all of the tariffs being imposed.

Such uncertainty also directly affects an international company such as Cummins. They sell a lot of engines in Europe and Asia. If we impose tariffs on those countries, those countries will reciprocate by raising tariffs on our products. That means that our truck engines will become more expensive in those markets…thus, reducing sales.

In short, the world economy is like a very finely tuned watch–if one part of it changes, then there are rippling effects down the line. Tariffs create uncertainty, and uncertainty is not good for jobs and the economy.

It has been interesting to watch the leaders of various countries coming to pay obeisance to President Trump in the White House. They say good things because they don’t want to be crushed by him with U.S. tariffs.

But, the country that matters most–China, has not come groveling to the White House. Instead, the Secretary of the Treasury has been going to places like Geneva and Stockholm to meet with his counterparts from China about trying to strike a deal on tariffs. The Chinese have never liked the idea of “kowtowing”–a Chinese word describing bending the knee or bowing the head to a superior power. They are not going to kowtow to Donald Trump.

Most industries that we have in America today are affected one way or another by international trade. The economic uncertainty being caused by tariffs is having downside, negative effects.

                                             The Post-Journal 

  Lessons From The World Of Sport

Local Commentaries

Jul 26, 2025

Rolland KiddeR

This past weekend was highlighted by the 153rd occasion of a golf tournament–the British Open or, more correctly, if you live in the U.K., “The Open.”

If you were an American, you had to be proud as the top four finishers were Americans, the winner being the current number one golfer in the world, Scottie Sheffler. But, golf is not just an American sport–it is a world sport.

And, guess who was in the final pairing on Sunday? Yes, a player by the name of Haotong Li, from China. The lesson here was obvious: competitors don’t have to be enemies. The world of sport teaches you that.

It is true that I don’t like the fact that the Chinese government is run by a dictatorship. Yet, I don’t hold that against the Chinese people. They are people just as we are, and they have good athletes. The world of sport teaches that.

In addition, not everything that we have and enjoy was invented in America. Golf was “invented,” so-to-speak, in Scotland. The organization that started it, frames the rules that govern it, and sponsors The Open each year is named “The Royal and Ancient” (R & A)–and it makes its home at the place the sport originated…St. Andrews, Scotland.

This all gets personal for me, because I have been privileged in my lifetime to have played the Old Course at St. Andrews. Also, on one terribly rainy and windy day, I tried to play Royal Portrush–where The Open was played this past weekend.

I say “tried” to play, as the playing conditions got so rough that I couldn’t keep the ball in the fairway. I took out a three wood on a 150-yard par three, hit it as hard as I could into the wind, and put it in a gully short of the green. (You can tell that I am not a great golfer.) After that, I picked up my ball and walked the rest of the course with my friends. I had not played Royal Portrush, it had “played” me.

The favorite at this year’s tournament was Rory McIlroy from Northern Ireland. He, obviously, didn’t win, but made some meaningful remarks at the end reminding the world that the playing of The Open at Portrush was again possible because the fighting had finally stopped a few years back between northern and southern Ireland.

That is another lesson we can learn from sport…it can be a bridge for “bridging” our differences.

Then there is the always beautiful ending of The Open, when the President of the R & A presents the Gold Medal and the Claret Jug to the “Golfer of the Year.” The golfer of the year in the U.K. is not the person who won The Masters, the PGA, the US Open or is rated number one in the world–it is he who has survived and prevailed over four tough days in all kinds of weather in the oldest international tournament in golf in the land where it started. To the Brits, that defines who the golfer of the year is.

Finally, there was the presentation made to Scottie Sheffler, who, standing next to his wife with his year-old son in his arms, graciously accepted the honor. No politics or breast-beating about who was from what country, but a message that the importance of family trumps everything…including nationality and sport itself.

And, the fact that Portrush is a small town of about 6,000, and the golf club is a public course – what a story in itself! Sport can teach us a lot about the good things of life…as it did in Ireland last weekend.

                                                 The Post-Journal

The Separation Of Church And State

Jul 5, 2025

 

Rolland Kidder

It was drilled into me at an early age that part of being an American was the belief in the separation of Church and State.

Of course, the foundation of that belief goes back to the earliest history of the country when immigrants came here from Europe to escape religious persecution. That principle was codified in the Constitution of the United States with the words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

Having said that, it worries me that today some are beginning to equate religious affiliation with political party affiliation. “To be a good Christian you need to be a ____.” It doesn’t matter which party you use to fill in the blank, it is a bad idea.

One’s religious beliefs should not become equated with what it means to be an American. Not only is it poor politics, it ends up equating a religious belief with an earthly, temporal, secular point-of-view. From a theological standpoint, that can be a form of idolatry.

These are round numbers, but in the 17th century during the Thirty Years War largely between Protestants and Catholics, it has been estimated that approximately 20%-25% of the population of Central Europe was killed. Mixing religion with politics can do that.

It is no wonder that the founding fathers didn’t want that to happen in America.

If you look around the world today, there is still a lot of war going on based, in large part, upon religion…the most prominent example today likely being between Muslim Gaza and Jewish Israel. Now Israel and Iran are involved in a shooting war with our country now also getting involved. Fueling much of this war-making in the Middle East is religious hatred.

As an American, I distinguish between Judaism as a religion and Israel as a state. In like manner, being a Palestinian or an Iranian is not the same for me as a religious belief in Islam. Religious beliefs should be separate and distinct from the state.

Yet, because religion and the state are equated in that part of the world, we are now experiencing war there with a level of ferocity and destruction reminiscent of the Second World War.

Perhaps there is a middle ground when it comes to separating Church and State. In Germany, for example, the government supports both Protestant and Catholic Churches depending upon which part of the country you live in. The general populace accepts that, and Germany goes on about its business of continuing to be a thriving democracy in central Europe essentially ignoring differences in religion by supporting two main branches of Christianity.

Yet, I think the American ideal is a better model to follow…just keep the state and religion separated. Don’t mix them up, or, at least, try not to. That should be our goal.

We have enough problems with common humanity in the world in trying to keep our cultural/national/racial identities from taking us to war. We don’t need religion to be another source of war-making.