Rant inspired by a radio debate

[agilebrit]

So, I was listening to Michael Medved yesterday, and he had a couple of guys debating gay marriage on the air. And the one who supported gay marriage said, basically, "You can't impose your Biblically-based views on the rest of us."

And maybe it's just me being bitchy or PMS-y again, but my question is: "Why not?"

Why is my Biblically-based view of what the law should be any less valid than someone else's non- (or anti-, for that matter) Biblically based view? Why should I be disenfranchised just because my position on morality is based on the Bible? Have I suddenly become 3/5ths of a person, with the part of me whose views are Biblically-based not counting? Why should I have any less right than a gay person to petition my representatives and make my views known, just because I'm a Christian? And why should they dismiss my viewpoint out of hand, just because it agrees with a religion? Doesn't all law "impose morality"? So, I guess the major question becomes, "Whose morality are we going to impose?"

When left-wing religious people make their views known, no one says that they should shut up because their views are religious in nature. No one whines "Hey, you're imposing your morality" when someone opposes the death penalty by arguing that life and death are the purview of God alone. The media doesn't throw a hissy fit when a Gaia-worshiping environmentalist ties herself up in a tree for three months and tries to put a lumber company out of business. Nobody accuses an atheist of "imposing their morality" when they sue to get the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. No one minds when left-wing Catholics attempt to create government in the image of their Church by having that government provide services that have traditionally been under the scope of religious organizations. I don't see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton being told to shut their mouths because they're Reverends and therefore don't have the right to speak out on issues of social justice and morality.

If the religious left is allowed to press for their agenda, based on their worldview, then by golly, I have that same exact right.

Let's face it. One way or another, we're going to get some kind of law "imposed" on us on the issue of gay marriage. Either the Legislature is going to do it by the will of the people, or the Judiciary is going to do it by fiat. And I know which I'd rather see, because judges in this country have been pulling law out of their asses for years now, and no one has the wrinklies to stand up to them and say "No, you're wrong, and we're not going follow this ruling."

Of course, the argument goes that, if we start ignoring judicial mandates, then we have chaos. But what do we have now? Seems like anytime a law gets passed these days, someone immediately sues, and then it has to wend its way through the courts until some unelected, unaccountable person in a black robe makes a decision. And if it's a law that 75% of the country agrees with, but some zealot of a judge doesn't want (for example, laws against partial- birth abortion--a procedure which never ever has to be used for the benefit of the health or to save the life of the woman, according to my ob-gyn, who teaches at the college and knows his business), then *BOOM* it gets struck down without so much as a by-your-leave.

What I see is that we have chaos now, because we can never be sure that a law passed will be a law that stays. So we have confusion over what the law is. When unelected, unaccountable people can decide on a flat whim that they don't like a law, and have the power to strike it down on the thinnest of Constitutional grounds, that's the next best thing to lawlessness. The judiciary branch of the government isn't supposed to make law for the rest of us, but they've come dangerously close to it on a number of occasions and continue to do so. And when they do that, we're all disenfranchised.

Comments

[dragonflymuse.livejournal.com]

Doesn't all law "impose morality"?

No, I don't think the function of the law is to impose morality, but to maintain order and some fractaled concept of fairness on the masses.

While, at it's most basic level, laws are based on 'right vs wrong', the determinant of right and wrong is usually a blend of Kantian philosophy and, in an increasingly pragmatic society, one of Utilitarian constructs. And I think that the Right Wing are so quickly dismissed with the 'don't impose your moral views' regarding the law because they are the one group that I think openly state that their conclusions are based on religious doctrine - exclusively.

I'm sure some of your examples above (in particular the cringeworthy 'Gaia-worshipping environmentalist') were drawn for effect - I find that one a bit extreme. And perhaps the reason those other folks don't get that 'don't impose your moral views' tossed back at them is because they are basing their arguments on something *other* than the Bible - like current social theory, the law, environmental studies, etc. The atheist can base his protest on the 'separation of Church and State' provision, the environmentalist can draw support from those rabble-rousing 19th Century rabble-rousers like Thoreau and Edwards, having embraced the concept of civil disobedience and putting it to use for their cause.

I don't have an issue with the Religious Right using their moral beliefs as *part* of their argument against whatever is ticking them off at the moment - but that cannot be enough to base a position on.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

And the people opposed to gay marrige don't base our opinions solely on the fact that "the Bible defines marriage thus-and-so." In fact, in the public arena of ideas, the Bible doesn't get mentioned very often at all, because the opposition is already primed to throw the "imposing your morality" squelcher at us. However, we still get dismissed out of hand just because part of our argument is Biblically based.

All my examples were, of course, chosen for effect, and they were also all factual. There was a woman who chained herself to a tree in California (where else?) and lived there for quite some time. I can't remember her name (something to do with a bird or a butterfly, I think), but she was on Medved's radio show a couple of times.

And the "separation of Church and State" clause in the US Constitution has been so maimed and taken out of context lately that it's practically unrecognizable...

[dragonflymuse.livejournal.com]

However, we still get dismissed out of hand just because part of our argument is Biblically based.

What part of your argument isn't Biblically based? Because, in a proper forum for debate, such a position would thus be unable to be so dismissed.

Isn't there a passage in the Bible that supports the ownership of slaves? How do you intellect your way around that one, but have no flexibility in regards to homosexuals?

And the "separation of Church and State" clause in the US Constitution has been so maimed and taken out of context lately that it's practically unrecognizable...

So glad I'm Canadian :)

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Isn't there a passage in the Bible that supports the ownership of slaves? How do you intellect your way around that one, but have no flexibility in regards to homosexuals?

I think the Bible allows ownership of slaves (although I believe it also says you should free them every seven years as well), but it certainly doesn't mandate such. But it's really hard for me to be flexible about homosexuality when the Bible comes right out and says it's an abomination. If it makes you feel any better, I'm equally as inflexible when it comes to adultery and fornication. Sin is sin. *shrug*

That being said, the part of the argument about gay marriage that isn't Biblically based is this: Society sanctions heterosexual marriage because it's been proven time and again that children are best served by having two parents of the opposite sex. If a relationship has no chance of producing children, then society has no reason or responsibility to give it any special privileges.

Aha! I can hear you saying. What about old people, or people who are sterile? Why should they be allowed to get married? Well, studies have also shown that people who are married also enjoy health benefits. Is that enough to sanction heterosexual childless couples? Maybe, maybe not. But the fact of the matter is that a lesbian has exactly the same opportunity to marry as any other woman. She can marry any man she wants to (except one that's already married).

Also, sterility is not necessarily a given. How many times have you heard about a couple who's tried every trick in the book to get pregnant, given up, adopted...and then wound up with one in the oven?

But, yes, I'm willing to say that a heterosexual marriage that doesn't produce children is "less valuable to society" than a heterosexual marriage that does--and that's why we give families with children more tax exemptions here. However, a het marriage in general has the possibility (or, dare I say it, the probability) of producing kidlets. And that's why, IMO, government should sanction het marriage and not gay marriage.

The fact that you have to ask me what part of my argument isn't Biblically based is rather sad. I don't know what the press is like up there in the Great White North, but your asking me that question tells me that either (a) you're wondering about me specifically, or (b) your press hasn't done a very good job of covering the issue.

[dragonflymuse.livejournal.com]

::sigh::

Okay, I've sussed out the inherent difficulty - and the reason why folks perhaps toss the 'don't impose your beliefs' thingy on the right wing...

Your statements, beliefs and opinions are derived from the Bible, which, as you state the Bible comes right out and says it's an abomination. If it makes you feel any better, I'm equally as inflexible when it comes to adultery and fornication. Sin is sin. *shrug* These are absolutes for you and, therefore, are beyond debate. And, as such, they become non-debatable by others, as alternate arguments and theories will be outrightly rejected based on that tenet.

As for your non-Biblically based 'reasons' why gay marriage is unacceptable (vs heterosexual marriage), at least I can say they are debatable theories. As such, however, you would be expected to provide evidence (empirical, preferably) to support the cited claims (specifically because it's been proven time and again that children are best served by having two parents of the opposite sex.)

However, your attempt to explain your viewpoint on that theory, quite frankly, makes me cringe - especially the part where you say you consider a het couple that produces children to be of more 'value' than one that does not. To me that sounds very caste-like and hierarchial. Isn't one of the building blocks of your socio-political/social justice paradigms that 'all men are created equal'?

And, having had many co-workers and friends struggle with sterility issues, I'd rather let that detestable example of yours lie there. From my personal nursing experience, any stupid 13 year old without the brains to learn how to use a condom can get pregnant, so to me, the ability to breed does nothing to validate or 'increase the value' of any loving union of two people.

Finally, my use of 'your' (in my question What part of your argument isn't Biblically based?) was more of an inclusive 'your' (as it related to your statement However, we still get dismissed out of hand just because part of our argument is Biblically based.) and not directed personally to you. The press coverage on the topic here in 'The Great White North' is about the same as it is in 'The Not-So-Great Stompy South' - though even our most conservative media may seem a tad liberal to you. In fact, it's us that the Pope has been lecturing lately on the whole gay marriage thing.

This will be my last word on the topic because, as I've noted above, for you, these concepts are non-debatable because the Bible tells you so. I can't reason around that.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

I certainly believe that all people are created equal. However, I don't believe that all relationships are created equal. Men and women bring different things to the table in a relationship, and they bring different things to the table in the matter of parenting as well.

I don't know what the prison stats are like in Canada, but here in the US, 70% of the people in prison come from fatherless households. This tells me that children who grow up without a dad have a harder time, and tells me that a kid who grows up with both parents is better off, on the whole.

Also, just because I believe that homosexuality, adultery, and fornication are sins, doesn't mean that I treat people who engage in those activities any differently that I would otherwise. I do my very best to treat everyone with dignity and respect, regardless of their life circumstance, unless they prove by their actions to me or my friends that they don't deserve respect. No one's perfect (least of all me).

[perseph.livejournal.com]

You are falling into the old eating-bread-causes-crime trap (99.9% criminals ate bread within the twenty-four hour period before committing criminal acts, so it must be true, right?).

The 70% figure may indicate that children don’t do as well in single parent households, but it makes no comparison of children raised in two-parent same-sex households to those raised in traditional ones.

I can see how my daughter would suffer if I was a single parent. I wouldn’t be able to spend much quality time with her as she would spend most of her waking hours in daycare or with babysitters. When I was home with her, I would be rushing around trying to get the laundry done and running errands rather than playing with her and interacting or even just cuddling as babies need for proper socialization. So she would have only one person with little time to do these things with her instead of two parents to parent her, though one does have more time with her than the other.

Also, I would be under a lot more stress with so much more to do in less time, and so I wouldn’t be as patient with her as I am now. I also wouldn’t have the benefit of the occasional hour to myself to relax and regroup while she is out with her father, and so I wouldn’t be able to be as calm and devoted to her in the time that I am with her.

Then, as she got older, having just me to parent her as I worked full time as well would make it harder for me to keep up with how she was doing in school or help with homework or pay attention to who her friends were and what she was up to.

In addition, having a relationship hurts. It must hurt even more for a child who has no control and can’t really understand why someone they loved isn’t as large a part of their life as they used to be. I can understand why a lack of stabile home life can be detrimental to children. They need constant caregivers who they can trust.

There are some absolutely phenomenal single parents out there who are raising good kids. It’s certainly harder though, and while I think I am a great mother now, I doubt I could do all that well on my own

So I can see how not having a second parent around would hurt my daughter. What I can’t see is why the gender of the co-parent is so important.

Your logic in “it’s all about the children” is lacking. You say not to consider old people or infertile couples, but why not? They do benefit from being married, even if they do remain childless.

My grandmother married the man I’ve known as my grandfather at the age of sixty. She was long past having children after having been a widow for twenty years, but the marriage was still good for her and good for our family as a whole.

Marriage is not all about the children. It is important to children yes, but let’s not put the cart before the horse. Just because it is important to children doesn’t mean that it should only occur when there are children or that it is only beneficial in terms of raising children. It is also about providing companionship for adults and someone to grow old with. It is to have someone to care for and someone to take care of you when you need it. It is about sharing a life together.

Please don’t use your adoption leads to pregnancy example around anyone who has struggled with fertility issues. It is something that they tend to hear a lot when they mention that they are planning to adopt, and it is both insulting and hurtful.

Given all the people these days who do get married with no intention to have children and then who don’t, if you are serious as to it all being about the children, then perhaps marriage should only be allowed once fertility has been proven? People should not be considered married until the birth of the first child?

Gay people can and do adopt (in most states, anyway) as well, after all. And parenting is not about biology, as plenty of terrible biological parents prove. At least homosexual couples aren’t bringing more unwanted children into the world to be neglected. Don’t the children who they choose to parent deserve the stability that marriage would give to their parents’ relationship just as any child of a heterosexual union does?

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

I realize that there are single moms (and dads) out there doing yeoman's work, but as you yourself pointed out, not having the partner around to help out makes it infinitely harder than it already is.

Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Always. There is not a society in history that has defined it as being between two men or two women. Occasionally, it's been defined as a man and more than one woman. But it's always involved people of the opposite sex. What we are being asked to do is to redefine marriage for everyone. All I said in my original rant was that my view of the issue is just as valid as anyone else's, and my view of exactly why I believe that is actually peripheral to the original rant.

What's amusing to me is that, on the one hand, you have some people saying "It's just a piece of paper," and on the other hand you have others clamoring for that "insignificant" piece of paper. The question then becomes, why do they need that piece of paper, if they're in a loving and committed relationship? Will it make any difference to the relationship? Why?

It's half-tempting to give in without a fight and let them see just how horrible a messy divorce can be--because if they want the "privileges" that come from being married, then they can have the baggage too.

Men and women bring different viewpoints and parenting techniques to a relationship. You can say all you want that it only matters if there are two people there, but that ignores the biological fact that men and women are different. And yes, I understand that people get married all the time, never intending to have children--my husband and I are prime examples. We are also prime examples of how the best-laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglee.

I seem to have been misunderstood on the "adoption leads to pregnancy" remark. I didn't mean to imply that it happens all the time, and I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings who's going through infertility.

[alliterator.livejournal.com]

The question then becomes, why do they need that piece of paper, if they're in a loving and committed relationship? Will it make any difference to the relationship? Why?
As you stated before, married couples get benefits, as do married couples with children. Do gay couples who adopt or artificially inseminate get tax exemptions?

Also, I'm glad this is a debate, rather than a kerfuffle. It's refreshing to have a smart, intellectual debate without flinging insults.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

I believe that anyone who has children qualifies for tax breaks. In the current system, they would have to file as "head of household" rather than "married filing jointly," I think.

[perseph.livejournal.com]

” Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman.

I believe that there were some Native cultures that did have same-sex marriages, but that is largely besides the point in terms of current culture. I’m not so much interested in being stuck in history and the way things have always been as I am interested in what is best for our society now. After all, not that long ago, I wouldn’t have been able to vote.


“Will it make any difference to the relationship? Why?”

It will indeed. I say that partly because I am not one of those who thinks of it as just a piece of paper, but also because it has the more tangible benefits of being legally recognized as married with access to your spouse’s health insurance and the right to make life and death decisions when a spouse is unable etc.


“Men and women bring different viewpoints and parenting techniques to a relationship.”

Ah yes. I keep hearing about these different things, but no one can say just what they are, or exactly how they apply to parenting.

Of course there are gender stereotypes and generalizations. And many of them are apt. Women in general behave in certain ways and men behave in certain other ways. But while these generalizations work, well, in general and when applied as averages to large populations, they don’t always work so well when applied to individuals.

What about a straight man who behaves and feels very unlike a man is supposed to and rather fits into the stereotypical mold of a woman in all but physical appearance? Is he less of a man? Is he a second mother rather than a father?

I’m also a big proponent of “it takes a village.” I do think that grandparents and aunts and uncles should be involved in a child’s life. There lies further opportunity to have role models of whatever gender is needed.

I can go on for pages and pages about why I think it is better for a child to have more than one parent living in the home. I can also go on about how I don’t think both parents working full time is a good idea because children shouldn’t be raised in daycare. I’ve been involved in several of these arguments though, and I have yet to have anyone offer a concrete reason why the parents should be of opposing gender other than “because men and women are biologically different.” I would appreciate hearing one, one of these days.


“And yes, I understand that people get married all the time, never intending to have children--my husband and I are prime examples. We are also prime examples of how the best-laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglee.”

Then why, may I ask, did you get married if it wasn’t for the purpose of having children? Why do you expect others who can’t have children wouldn’t want to get married for the same reason as you did? And since there are many same sex couples out there who do want children and are currently raising children…



” What we are being asked to do is to redefine marriage for everyone…”

It won’t make my marriage any different. How will it affect yours?

Your views are valid, of course. It is whether you have a right to enforce them that is in question.

The US has separation of church and state. This is intended to keep the state from controlling the church and to allow people to worship as they please. It also means though that our laws should not be based solely on religion but rather to protect citizen’s basic rights, the security of the country, and to maintain order.

You are free to worship as you please, to try to convert people as you wish and to share your views, to speak as you please, etc. But while it seems perfectly fair that you should be able to try to convince people that they should behave differently and avoid sin, it seems unfair that you should have the power of the state at your back to enforce what basically is a religious matter.

Also, it is primarily out of emotion and deep pain that people react as they do. I just have to think for a minute how much I love my husband and how it would have felt if someone had told me that our relationship wasn’t real by their views and so I couldn’t be allowed to marry him, and I can begin to understand.

[alliterator.livejournal.com]

I think the argument of "You can't impose your Catholic/Christian moral viewpoints on me," comes more from the whole 700 Club/Pat Buchanan "Let's have a pray-in and pray Kerry dies" mentality. I think Pat Buchanan and the 700 Club have actually worsened the Catholic Church's image and I think when a argument based on the Bible is brought up, people will automatically consider it "Pat Buchanan-ish" (or some other zealot), and disregard it.

Now, I'm not Christian nor Catholic - in fact, I'm a deist. But I have a friend who is a devout Catholic who told me some of the reasons why he is against gay marriage and abortian - and none of those reasons were "Because it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" That's is because he is very smart and thus realizes the fallicy of that argument (because it isn't really an argument at all, just an interpretation). I believe he's going to a Catholic college somewhere. We used to have long discussions where we would argue about religious beliefs. (And he never even tried to convert me.)

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

*cough* I think you might be confusing Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanon. I realize that right-wing zealots tend to run together in people's heads, but I think Rev Robertson would be quite offended if you referred to the 700 Club as "Catholic" in his hearing. And, honestly, I've never heard of either of them saying "Let's have a pray-in and pray Kerry dies" either. No one on the right wants Kerry to "die," for goodness' sake (although I think it might be argued that some folks on the left would be more than happy if President Bush did). I just don't want him to be President. I don't think he'll have to die for that to be accomplished. Really, we didn't even want that for Clinton, and he was President for 8 years.

However, my point was, so what if my argument is based on an interpretation of the Bible? If it's what I believe, and what I would like to see enacted as a matter of public policy, then why is my voice any less valid than someone else's? Yes, our public officials better have damn good reasons for changing public policy wholesale, but as a citizen, I don't have that responsibility (although I'm willing to shoulder it because, yeah, I want to be taken seriously, and I realize that if I want to change anyone's mind then I'd better have logic on my side). I'm allowed to go by a gut instinct that tells me "this is wrong," just as much as a gay couple is allowed to say "this is right."

And it's unfair of them to be able to call me bigoted homophobe and not get called on it. Why is it that I'm supposed to walk on eggshells...but nobody's worried about hurting my feelings, or upsetting me?

[alliterator.livejournal.com]

Oops. Sorry about the Buchanan/Robertson mix-up. Pat Robertson is the one who I'm really mad at. he hasn't had the "pray-in to have Kerry die" which was just my exaggerating, but he did have a [url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/17/cnna.robertson/]pray-in for three Supreme Court justices to retire[/url].

Anyway. You can go by your interpretation, I say, as long as you don't infringe other people to go by theirs or say the Bible had it wrong or any other opinion they have. After all, it is an opinion, not a statement of fact. You can't say for a fact that the Bible says gay marriage is wrong, since gay marriage wasn't even thought up then. You can say the Constitution allows gay marriage for a fact, because gay marriage wasn't even though up them, either. It's all just opinions.

[alliterator.livejournal.com]

Cough. Woops. Last sentence should be "Can't say" not "can say." I'll just go now.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

You can go by your interpretation, I say, as long as you don't infringe other people to go by theirs or say the Bible had it wrong or any other opinion they have.

Hey, anyone can have any opinion they like on this issue. And they can petition their representatives about their viewpoint--so long as they give me the same right. I find it incredibly ironic that the folks that go on and on about "tolerance" are the first ones to scream that I must be a "bigot" because my opinion on an issue happens to disagree with theirs. Which, thankfully, hasn't happened here; I think the folks on my flist are pretty tolerant people, by and large--and it's not like I've made a secret about my political views. If they've friended me anyway, then that makes them very cool, IMO. And we can disagree without being disagreeable. :-)

I wouldn't mind seeing three Supreme Court Justices retire so that GW can appoint their successors. I don't see anything wrong with having a "pray-in" for that purpose. That's totally different from "wishing them dead." And much better than praying to win the lottery, I think. ;o)

[illmantrim.livejournal.com]

First let me say I am not attacking you, justy debating yer reasoning. My sole arguemebnt on the whole bible based ideas or worldview is this. Oyur society is based on the idea that all people have the right to worship as they will. Which means that if you impose your bible based ideas on me by way of laws you are interfering with my freedom of religion.

Also we have the seperation of Church and State--- and to create a law based on Bible or any religion's ethics is to create religious based laws and violates that law. I think a lot of things ahev been abused both ways and I agree that both sides have gotten out of hand int eh past.

Forgive my typing please, my hands are cramping fiercely tonight.

Again this isnht meant as an attack, just my reasoning.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Oh, don't worry, I don't take it as an attack. :-) I'm all for healthy debate. Personally, I'm pleased as punch that we can have a discussion like this without screaming at each other.

Aren't a lot of our more basic laws (such as those against murder and theft, for instance) based on the Bible, though? I mean, we can say all we want to that "everyone" agrees that murder and theft are wrong...but murderers and thieves might disagree.

We all have the opportunity, in this country, to write to and talk with our legislators about what we think laws should be. We can also vote out the legislators we don't like. Saying that "to create a law based on Bible or any religion's ethics is to create religious based laws and violates [the separation of Church and State]" is an overbroad reading of the Establishment Clause, IMO.

All the First Amendment says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This was enacted to prevent the US from having a State-established Church like the Church of England, not to ban laws based on Biblical principles.

Most of the laws we have are, when you get right down to it, based on protecting life, limb, and property. And the fundamental principles for protecting those things are found right in the Ten Commandments.

[illmantrim.livejournal.com]

Yes the fundamental rules are in the Ten commandments but they are also things needed to run a society. You must outlaw murder for otherwise no law can be held without fear of death. Stealing has to be outlawed or people do not feel secure.

Also as a Christian, and obviously we are different denominations, and have dfifferent views, but I have always understood that God wants us to each choose of our own free will to follow his laws or not, and that he weants no man or woman to force another to follow his laws. To force soemone to follow God's laws is to take his place and "Judge" or as it should be translated, "Rule" others, and we arent supposed to do that.

That is my interpretation, and I respect that yours may be different. To me, free will will always be the greatest gift, and the one to be most defended, that God has ever given us.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

You're correct, and I value free will as much as the next person. However, I also have the right to petition my legislators to enact laws that I think will benefit society (no matter what my basis is for believing that those laws will benefit society)...just as much as someone who disagrees with me has the exact same right to tell their legislators that they would be very displeased if such a law went into effect. However, just because my beliefs are Biblically-based is no reason for me to keep my mouth shut, and I have just as much right to let my views be known as anyone else does. My refusal to be disenfranchised doesn't mean I'm "imposing my morality"--after all, the legislator in question still has the free will to tell me to stuff it if s/he wants.

[illmantrim.livejournal.com]

you have some good points.

[perseph.livejournal.com]

Because people don’t like having a set of values be imposed on them that has nothing to do with their own and that they believe are arbitrary and won’t serve to protect anyone or make anything better or do anything other than making their own life difficult.

Your examples don’t quite work. Who ties themselves up to a tree out of worship for Gaia? Some on the fringe of the environmental movement do such things, but not for religious reasons. Also, they are considered lunatics and while they may cause trouble for the logging companies, they are generally not taken seriously by anyone else.

Removing “Under God” is not about imposing religious beliefs on you. You can still pledge allegiance to your country, you can still worship God as you please, and you can still pray for your country as you like. What it is about is allowing others to pledge allegiance to their country as well without requiring that they profess belief in a God they don’t think exists.

I was taught to love my country, but I was also taught not to lie. This all was very confusing every morning in grade school when my class pledged allegiance to the flag. If I joined in (and it was mandatory), then I was telling a lie, because I didn’t believe in God. If I remained silent hoping that no one would notice, then I was being disloyal to my country, and that was also wrong, and in addition I was sneaking my way out of a required classroom activity. Sometimes I lied, sometimes I remained silent, and sometimes I crossed my fingers behind my back because in second grade that was supposed to make a lie okay. In any case, it never felt right.

Having the government provide services isn’t about religion unless the government is leading prayers or some such. It is about meeting the basic needs of all of its people. Allowing people to starve or failing to provide an education for those who can’t afford it just leads to chaos and crime and a less safe country for all of us.

And plenty of people do tell Jesse Jackson and Al Sharption to shut up.

Here is a better example: I don’t eat meat. While I think it is wrong for others to, I don’t harass anyone about it, or even bring it up most of the time, and in general I don’t discuss it unless someone else starts the conversation. Still, I don’t eat meat. The mere mention of this fact to anyone (usually just as an explanation as to why I don’t want some food they keep offering) is generally enough to result into a lecture as to just how annoying animal rights activists are in that they keep trying to force their beliefs onto others.

The environmental movement, while not religious in nature, gets it too. People don’t want to have to clean up after themselves. I recently came across one woman who was venting quite furiously because someone in her office had complained about the amount of waste being generated and asked that disposable cups no longer be provided by the coffee maker. This woman was furious that someone had been able to inflict their beliefs on her as she now had to bring her own mug and keep it on her desk and rinse it out occasionally, and it was just so much trouble. What right did they have? Never mind that we all share the same planet and some of us would prefer that our grandchildren would still have forests to enjoy rather than one big garbage dump.

I do respect your beliefs and your right to express them and to try to convert others to them. At the same time, I don’t wish to be forced to obey a belief system that is alien to me and that seems to cause hurt and disorder rather than preventing these things.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

And see, that's the beauty of living in a representative republic. We all have the exact same right to petition our representatives and let our opinions be known to them. And if they make us mad enough, we can chuck them out of office. *cough*GrayDavis*cough*

[alliterator.livejournal.com]

Actually, my reason for wantint "under god" to be removed from the Pledge (although I really couldn't care one way or another) is that it wasn't in the original Pledge in the first place. It was added in later on.