They don't specify denominations, or say who's God, just God.
When people hear "God", the usual immediate response is to consider it as to be referring to the judeo-christian notion of God. While Islam worships the same God, as far as I've seen, they rarely, if ever, refer to him as the G word, preferring instead to use the term Allah. Also, what about those of us who either don't believe in any diety whatsoever, or who believe in an alternative diety or dieties? Hinduism is a polytheistic religion that is a fairly major world faith, yes?
So, if all religions and belief systems are supposed to be equal, including those who reject the concept of a single diety, why should national institutions be continually proclaiming its existance and that the belief has the support of the government? Belief in God is, by definition, a religious belief. Religion is supposed to have no part in the government of this country, by the Bill of Rights. Why then should governmental institutions, such as money or buildings be at least tacitly supporting a faith?
I don't see this as a Christian thing, b/c if a muslim or Jew were sitting next to me in class their idea of the phrase's meaning would be different but we are still united in by something bigger than ourselves.
Ah, but what about the athiest or agnostic student sitting next to you? How about the Hindu, buddhist, Zoroastrian, wiccan, shintoist, Daoist, etc. student also sitting next to you? All of their beliefs are given equal weight under the constitution, why should they be forced to acknowledge a diety they do not believe in, or even specifically reject, in order to pledge their loyalty to their country?
Does it affect your life in a negative way when you see pictures of these things? Or is it more affected by the decisions they make behind those doors?
Obviously, the decisions the Supreme Court makes have a more direct impact on my life and the direction of the nation than the symbolism on their walls. However, I don't feel that the symbolism has any place there, as again, by the constitution, no one faith is supposed to have supremacy over any others. However, if only one faith, or one grouping of faiths, is given tacit support by putting it on the highest court in the land, that can do nothing but marginalize all other faiths. Now, if the walls included writings and symbolisms from all other faiths, each given equal billing and weight, that'd be different, but that's not the case.
Does it not bother you that in what seems to me as a rush to eliminate faith from all public view, that the only target seems to be Christians?
Ahhhh, but how many openly Buddhist lawmakers do you see attempting to pass a national ban on the eating of meat? How about Hindu ones trying to pass a consitutional amendment to slot everyone into their Caste system? Obviously, you don't. However, look at the rabid far right of the Republican party, and how in bed they are with the religious right, and the number of laws and social controls that are attempting to be enacted based on their beliefs. The reason that so much of the backlash appears to be christian specific, is that it's basically only the christians that are causing the problem. If we had Buddhist or Hindu lawmakers attempting what I mentioned, there'd be just as vehement a backlash against them.
Basically, as I've said, the Bill of Rights, in Jefferson's intent, creates a wall between Church and State. Thus, religion, regardless of WHICH religion, has no place in the lawmaking process. Obviously, no one is saying that lawmakers should all be athiests or any such silliness. Everyone is absolutely free to openly worship whatever faith they choose. What they cannot do, however, is attempt to force others to follow the tenets of that faith by creating laws based on the faith. That is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.
The way I see it, no compelling arguement has yet been made FOR gay marriage, outside of the obvious, b/c I want it.
If 2 people are deeply in love with each other, why should the state have any interest in blocking their marriage simply because they happen to be of the same sex? Why should those 2 people be barred from receiving the same legal protections and benefits that heterosexual couples get, simply because they are homosexual? There's a HUGE list of legal ramifications to marriage, from inheritance rules to tax code to such things as employer-provided health care being required to cover spouses, but not necessarily domestic partners. It is unfair for 2 people to be excluded from such rights and benefits simply because they happen to be of the same sex. Now, please understand I am discussing civil ceremonies here, performed by a judge. In no way would I condone attempting to force ANY faith to perform a marriage that goes against the tenets of that faith.
Nationwide polls in the late 50s/early 60s showed that > 90% were against mixed-race marriages. I see the current attitudes against gay marriage to be no different than the racist attitudes of back then. I also expect things to change, and 50 years from now people will wonder how it could ever have been an issue.
Ok, turning the tables. What about the ultra caring father who wants to be involved in his child's life. Instead of being in the dark about what often amounts to a life-changing decision, I believe a minor should have better guidence and the wisdom(I use that loosely) of their parents. Wouldn't you want to know if this was your daughter?
As I said, I can see both sides of the issue. Yes, I would want to know, though I'd hope that I'd educated my daughter well enough on birth control, protection, etc. that it'd never happen, or that my relationship with her would be good enough that she'd tell me voluntarily. However, I think a minor can get good guidance from other places (school counsellors, among others), and that the risks inherent in forced notification (1 teen's death from an abusive parent outweighs basically any number of upset concerned parents, I think) are too high for it to be the rule.
This I agree with. We are way too uptight about sex here in America and our presentation of sex education is terrible.
Well, glad we agree on SOMETHING.
Yes, kids should get the message, "At under 18, you are too young to be having sex, you should not be doing it." However, since we KNOW that they ARE going to be doing it, in spite of anything they are told, they ALSO need to be provided with actual information on how things work, and how to be safe about it, so they can prevent the spread of disease and pregnancies.
Unfortunately, again, due to the influence of the religious right at the moment, we'll never see this.
-Arlos
