Dear
Syriusly and
Seawytch
n.
My question to you is how is it
FORCING Atheists to do anything if a Cross is on public property?
I think that is a very distinctly different argument but I have both my personal opinion and my understanding of the issue.
As an atheist- I really don't care much about crosses on public grounds if they have a history to them- there is a cross in Golden Gate Park that no one seems to object to, but its been there for over 20 years. I would feel the same way about a Star of David or a Muslim symbol that has been in place for any length of time.
However, I am
against installing any news religious symbols on public grounds because that is using public lands to promote a religious point of view.
Back on point though- I have no objection to a religious wedding on public lands. Or even non-demominational chapels open to all faiths.
Hi
Syriusly Thank you for always answering so directly and objectively, which is one of the gifts I appreciate most in atheists like you who take the time on here to explain things in detail. Thanks for that, and I do want to encourage you more.
This line above in boldface ^ "against installing any news religious symbols on public grounds because that is using public lands to promote a religious point of view"
Comes the "closest" to describing what "promoting gay marriage" means to opponents, especially Christians, who believe this is against God and their faith. They feel it is "promoting" that BELIEF or point of view "religiously" that "homosexuality is no different from heterosexual" which goes against their beliefs. It just does. And the problem we face is "discriminating" against "recognized" religions while excusing secular/political beliefs and allowing those to be pushed through govt laws.
So if people keep interpreting "religion" too literally in the First Amendment, and aren't applying the Fourteenth Amendment or Civil Rights Act to apply "religion" beliefs or creed to mean political and secular beliefs, we may need a clarification or amendment to the First and Fourteenth Amendments that specifies political beliefs cannot be imposed by govt or denied,
and must be resolved by consensus at the level of the people or states by the Tenth Amendment.
Some supporters of the Peace and Justice movement have pushed a campaign to add a cabinet level Dept of Peace to the federal govt, but I suggested expanding the Justice Dept to the Dept of Peace and Justice, and implement more MEDIATION, especially to resolve conflicts with political beliefs to help the parties reach a consensus on issues and reforms BEFORE presenting those to the legislatures or courts. I am thinking to propose a test model for mediation, by going through the Parties to set up volunteer facilitation, on Constitutional issues, that could lead to establishing a third level of law on the State level (besides civil law and criminal law, what about Constitutional ethics), to address both conflicts between state and federal, and conflicts between people and state, that involve "complaints of conflicts of interests, beliefs, or other abuses" not covered by the other two levels of law because no crime has been committed yet or no abuse has been proven. see below.
==================
Personal notes, about my political environment:
Even my bf, who is secular gentile and NOT Christian, cannot tolerate this gay marriage business pushed into the public laws. He aligns with others who support equality for gays but not to the point of changing marriage laws. He used to get calls on his radio show from gays who also draw this same line and do not support gay marriage pushed that far. One of my lesbian friends said it best, to let EVERYONE have civil unions and keep marriage out of the govt, which I agree with to keep the beliefs separate. Some of the most forgiving and balanced minded of the gay people I know, don't go around pushing this to make a political statement.
My bf is biased toward keeping traditional marriage in the state, while excluding gay marriage. I disagree, and recognize this is biased and the public would need to agree on it by consensus, not abusing majority rule to force the policy either way. This creates constant threat against the beliefs of the other side, that will not change, and cannot be forced by govt.
In Texas, the conservative traditions are so strong, with God even written into the founding documents, policies may have to be divided by party, and create a third level of govt that can manage certain policies by party in order to separate the funding/jurisdiction over programs, especially the prochoice/prolife that really need to have separate programs and not impose on each other. Just like religious private schools, the public schools curricula and the prison programs may need to be under separate jurisdiction where taxpayers and districts have a direct voice in decisions, because it gets so religious/areligious that people cannot agree, and refuse to be imposed upon by law by the other group. So we may need to separate on a LOT of issues and cover them all by party to stop the lawsuits and waste of resources on legislative conflict.
