To the editor:

Two separate items in your July 26 issue display the same invisible but troubling tendency. In Dear Abby, the columnist agrees with a bride who is shocked that some tradition-minded relatives did not attend her courthouse wedding. In an editorial the same day, you came down firmly for “greener” alternatives to traditional burial.

What’s the connection? In both cases, no mention is made of one obvious factor at play on both issues: religious beliefs. For many believers, marriage is a sacred contract involving God. A civil marriage is at best imperfect or at worst not really a marriage at all, and attending such a ceremony is either a betrayal of their faith or at least an occasion for a soul-searching weighing of lesser-of-two-evils options. Similarly, burial — preferably in hallowed ground — has for centuries been for many Christians an important affirmation of belief in the eventual resurrection of the body. While some denominations have broadened their assessment of acceptable alternatives, a number of the ideas you glibly propose would be off the table for many (“plastination,” really?).

There’s no reason to expect either Abby (who I realize at this point is less a person than a brand, a la “the Dread Pirate Roberts”) or you to agree with these faith-based attitudes. But the fact that it doesn’t even occur to you or Abby to acknowledge their existence as possible factors at play reflects how religion is now viewed by much of America. Freedom of worship remains, inside the walls of a church building, but faith as a motivation the rest of the week is frowned upon as mindless clinging to tradition, if not worse. This matters because when we fail to recognize the true motivations of those with whom we differ, we tend to assume the worst. Not everyone who opposes abortion is a raging misogynist; not everyone with qualms about the latest frontier in LGBTI rights is a hate-filled homophobe. By the same token, believers, finding themselves “strangers in a strange land,” as one writer recently put it, may be tempted to detect the scent of sulphur and brimstone coming from their opponents. In either case, as during the Vietnam era, jumping to conclusions about nefarious motives makes civil discussion, let alone compromise, difficult.

For decades, Native Americans were faced with the need to find ways to in effect say, “Uh, we’re still here!” to a society that would have preferred to consign them to the history books. Religious believers now find ourselves in the same odd position. Sorry for the inconvenience, but yes, we’re still here, and we’re Americans, too! Expect us to exercise our rights accordingly.

Joseph F. Kimpflen

Tupper Lake