emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
- Thread starter
- #41
Dear G.T. Impenitent is honestly trying to explain where I am sounding like I am off base.
Can you please reply as well to the posts for you to explain what I am saying or doing wrong here
Let me try again with the marriage idea.
Let's use prayer as the example.
What if all the people have agreed to prayers as part of state functions,
or oaths of office, that make references to God or divine concepts.
This has been going on historically as a tradition everyone accepts as part of the govt process
even though it does make references to beliefs.
Later on, groups that were traditionally left out of these prayers or oaths
rally to change the law to include references to their beliefs or terms for God or spirituality
that suddenly the other members of the public DON'T agree to include in oaths and prayers.
They were okay with references to God and Jesus, but not
changing the terms to Greater Good and Justice which is argued
as being more inclusive to more people.
The groups cannot agree anymore on the prayer and oath policies.
A. I am saying to remove the prayers and oaths if people cannot agree on terms.
If we COULD Agree that Justice is a more generic term for what Jesus represents,
we could AGREE that is more universal and neutral. But the GOVT cannot FORCE
people to change what they believe. So I am saying this agreement on what to change
the process to still has to be by CONSENT and free choice of the people NOT forced by govt laws.
B. You are saying but the prayers and oaths were ALREADY practiced by the state,
and now you want to remove them.
Yes, because before, people AGREED to have them in the state using certain terms.
if they no longer agree on the terms, then because these prayers and oaths
involve faith based BELIEFS people retain free choice to consent or dissent and can't be
forced to adopt or enforce something by govt they don't believe.
You and I can agree all we want that Justice is a more universal term than Jesus,
but since this is faith based policy we still have to respect FREE CHOICE of people to accept change or not.
G.T. does this help explain that just because marriage
was already implemented through the state doesn't mean you can
add faith based conditions to it and keep it there. You still changed
the agreement and unfortunately it isn't by consent of the entire public.
If this was just "civil laws" as you said there wouldn't be this HUGE contention.
But fining people for not renting facilities or providing services for a gay wedding
is penalizing people for their beliefs. It isn't just neutral, it isn't just adding equal rights
and access for others. It's also penalizing and illegalizing the right of people to dissent in their BELIEFS.
So that is where i would insist that such faith based laws be written passed and implemented by CONSENT.
Does this help to explain? Thanks G.T.
Can you please reply as well to the posts for you to explain what I am saying or doing wrong here
Let me try again with the marriage idea.
Let's use prayer as the example.
What if all the people have agreed to prayers as part of state functions,
or oaths of office, that make references to God or divine concepts.
This has been going on historically as a tradition everyone accepts as part of the govt process
even though it does make references to beliefs.
Later on, groups that were traditionally left out of these prayers or oaths
rally to change the law to include references to their beliefs or terms for God or spirituality
that suddenly the other members of the public DON'T agree to include in oaths and prayers.
They were okay with references to God and Jesus, but not
changing the terms to Greater Good and Justice which is argued
as being more inclusive to more people.
The groups cannot agree anymore on the prayer and oath policies.
A. I am saying to remove the prayers and oaths if people cannot agree on terms.
If we COULD Agree that Justice is a more generic term for what Jesus represents,
we could AGREE that is more universal and neutral. But the GOVT cannot FORCE
people to change what they believe. So I am saying this agreement on what to change
the process to still has to be by CONSENT and free choice of the people NOT forced by govt laws.
B. You are saying but the prayers and oaths were ALREADY practiced by the state,
and now you want to remove them.
Yes, because before, people AGREED to have them in the state using certain terms.
if they no longer agree on the terms, then because these prayers and oaths
involve faith based BELIEFS people retain free choice to consent or dissent and can't be
forced to adopt or enforce something by govt they don't believe.
You and I can agree all we want that Justice is a more universal term than Jesus,
but since this is faith based policy we still have to respect FREE CHOICE of people to accept change or not.
G.T. does this help explain that just because marriage
was already implemented through the state doesn't mean you can
add faith based conditions to it and keep it there. You still changed
the agreement and unfortunately it isn't by consent of the entire public.
If this was just "civil laws" as you said there wouldn't be this HUGE contention.
But fining people for not renting facilities or providing services for a gay wedding
is penalizing people for their beliefs. It isn't just neutral, it isn't just adding equal rights
and access for others. It's also penalizing and illegalizing the right of people to dissent in their BELIEFS.
So that is where i would insist that such faith based laws be written passed and implemented by CONSENT.
Does this help to explain? Thanks G.T.