The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
My interpretation of the US constitution is that freedom from religion isn't a demand that religious beliefs never be expressed, but rather that they not be endorsed by the government. It's not a demand that religious believers never voice an opinion, but rather that they not have a privileged status in public debates. It's not a demand that religious values never have any public impact, but rather that no laws be based on religious doctrines without the existence of a secular purpose and basis. Among the founders were not only humanists and Reformation Protestants but also Roman Catholics, agnostics and atheists. If the government is prohibited from saying which religion all must subscribe to, then it may not dictate the religious beliefs of anyone. If it may not dictate which beliefs are correct, it cannot declare beliefs incorrect nor may it control the expression of those beliefs in thought or action--unless those expressions endanger public safety or the common welfare. With that being said, it would be wrong for the police to close synagogues. It is also wrong for police officers to tell Jewish drivers during a traffic stop that they should convert to Christianity. It would be wrong for politicians to pass a law banning Islam. It is also wrong for them to pass a law proclaiming that monotheism is preferable to polytheism. It would be wrong for a president to say that Catholicism is a cult and not really Christianity. It is also wrong for a president to endorse theism and religion generally. In what we are talking, since we both agree that heterosexual marriage according to the scriptures that I cited previously is a God-ordained institution, you may also call it traditional marriage, I submit to you that marriage belongs in the church and protecting that institution of marriage as defined in the Bible is a First amendment right. To change the definition of marriage to satisfy non-religious people at the Federal level is unconstitutional. The decision to marry or not to marry homosexual couples should be up to the church. The decision to allow same sex civil unions should be left to the States and the Federal Government, based on my interpretation of the First Amendment should stay completely out of it.
My interpretation of the US constitution is that freedom from religion isn't a demand that religious beliefs never be expressed, but rather that they not be endorsed by the government. It's not a demand that religious believers never voice an opinion, but rather that they not have a privileged status in public debates. It's not a demand that religious values never have any public impact, but rather that no laws be based on religious doctrines without the existence of a secular purpose and basis. Among the founders were not only humanists and Reformation Protestants but also Roman Catholics, agnostics and atheists. If the government is prohibited from saying which religion all must subscribe to, then it may not dictate the religious beliefs of anyone. If it may not dictate which beliefs are correct, it cannot declare beliefs incorrect nor may it control the expression of those beliefs in thought or action--unless those expressions endanger public safety or the common welfare. With that being said, it would be wrong for the police to close synagogues. It is also wrong for police officers to tell Jewish drivers during a traffic stop that they should convert to Christianity. It would be wrong for politicians to pass a law banning Islam. It is also wrong for them to pass a law proclaiming that monotheism is preferable to polytheism. It would be wrong for a president to say that Catholicism is a cult and not really Christianity. It is also wrong for a president to endorse theism and religion generally. In what we are talking, since we both agree that heterosexual marriage according to the scriptures that I cited previously is a God-ordained institution, you may also call it traditional marriage, I submit to you that marriage belongs in the church and protecting that institution of marriage as defined in the Bible is a First amendment right. To change the definition of marriage to satisfy non-religious people at the Federal level is unconstitutional. The decision to marry or not to marry homosexual couples should be up to the church. The decision to allow same sex civil unions should be left to the States and the Federal Government, based on my interpretation of the First Amendment should stay completely out of it.
