An Alabama Pastor's Epic Speech against Gay Marriage (Please finish drinking your beverage first)

[Syriusly]

But Public Accommodation laws that forbid discrimination based upon any of those criteria treat all of those exactly the same.

Sure, if people AGREE that homosexuality falls under this; but many people believe it is a behavior that is unnatural and they don't believe in it.

Since this hasn't been proved to them otherwise, it is faith based.
Both views are faith based, so the govt cannot endorse one faith based belief over another.
.

If by 'behavior' you mean sex- that issue has been legally resolved- whether people believe it or not, it is legal for homosexuals to have sex.

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that. The Constitution guarantees equal protection before the law- and to me it is quite clear that 'equal protection' means treating a gay couple equally with my wife and I.

And that is what the courts have overwhelmingly been saying also.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Then you are a hypocrite. If you don't like religious symbols on public land, then religious weddings on public land should also be upsetting to you. Marriage is a symbolic gesture of commitment, so to speak, it is an exclamation of a religious point of view regarding marriage. But oh hey, that doesn't matter. What a double standard this is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A-a. If YOUR church/community does or does not agree on same sex marriage,
that decision affects YOUR church/community. I'm saying that if you want to keep it private, keep it private.

If you go public and start pushing it on other people, not everyone shares your beliefs, so that's where it does affect others. When a group puts a cross on their own church property that is private; when a group puts a cross on PUBLIC property, Atheists have sued to remove it.

The arguments opposing removal said the SAME THING you did, that it 'isn't affecting you'
"nobody's forcing you". But the Atheist WINS the lawsuit by arguing it's on PUBLIC property.
it goes against or conflicts with the Atheist by IMPOSING beliefs. And it gets REMOVED.

So the same should be respected with same-sex marriage or traditional-only marriage or whatever. If it goes against someone's beliefs (yours, whoever's) then it should be REMOVED from PUBLIC institutions and remain Private. NOTE: I'm treating your beliefs equally as anyone else's beliefs for or again: if you "offend each other's beliefs" BOTH your beliefs should be REMOVED from public institutions and remain private. I treat the beliefs the same, and wish you would do the same.

Bingo.

 

[Politico]

Now that's one pissed off ******, who hates the fags. Oh well, his loss, literally.

Ew. Racist and bigoted all in one post. I'd say go **** yourself, but that wouldn't satisfy you, now would it?

Moving along.

Tell me about it lol.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom.

Yes it does.

Oh, and not to make your weak mind spin too much, why aren't Mormons still legally polygamous?

They claimed a RELIGIOUS right to marry...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Homosexuals living together and loving each other does not bother me or any of my friends in the least.

Doesn't bother anyone that I know... me included.

It's the redefinition of marriage that presents a problem. There is NO NEED to redefine it in order to grant equal benefits to same-sex couples. None whatsoever!

Just well said!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Such is inappropriate for men who want to playhouse with other men, for those who demand to screw themselves financially by becoming legally obligated to their besty... they can simply form a corporation, assign themselves obligated to one another... then just wait for the penalty to kick in, before they do what they would have done in course... only without at least half of what they otherwise would have had, if they had not been so determined to have been equal.

Civil marriage is whatever the government says it is. You keep babbling about marriage being one man and one woman, and you are wrong every time you say it.

 

[Skylar]

... [We can also ask Conservatives to distinguish themselves and NOT use the term "prolife" unless they are 100% against war,
death penalty, abortion even in cases of rape/incest, and only
reserve this term for the people who truly are consistently prolife so there is no confusion
and no selling out of voters based on fraud or misrepresenting their beliefs.]

War and the Death Penalty imply in near certain terms, defense from those who threaten innocent life... Abortion is a term used exclusively for the killing of purely innocent life.

Being pro-life, in no way excludes one recognizing that among the correlating responsibilities intrinsic to the one's right to their life, is the responsibility to defend innocent life, from those intent upon injuring or taking innocent life. In fact, where one rejects that responsibility, one axiomatically rejects, and therefore forfeits the right to their own life, by default.

So if we don't agree with you, we forfeit our right to life?

I take it you don't handle disagreement well.

However, that innocent life was set into the body of the woman, absent her authorization, permission or assent. And given the inherent threat to the life of the female presented by gestation, the woman is morally justified to take the life of that innocent, just as she is morally justified to carry the child through birth and either raise it, as her child, which it is... or give the child its life, but put it up for adoption.

A woman has this right regardless. She doesn't actually need your permission to make decisions about the use of her own body.

 

[Skylar]

Homosexuals living together and loving each other does not bother me or any of my friends in the least.

Doesn't bother anyone that I know... me included.

It's the redefinition of marriage that presents a problem. There is NO NEED to redefine it in order to grant equal benefits to same-sex couples. None whatsoever!

Just well said!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Such is inappropriate for men who want to playhouse with other men, for those who demand to screw themselves financially by becoming legally obligated to their besty... they can simply form a corporation, assign themselves obligated to one another... then just wait for the penalty to kick in, before they do what they would have done in course... only without at least half of what they otherwise would have had, if they had not been so determined to have been equal.

Civil marriage is whatever the government says it is. You keep babbling about marriage being one man and one woman, and you are wrong every time you say it.

I see such babble as an opportunity for a classic win-win scenario. Keyes and his ilk are more than welcome to their sense of the 'intrinsic' definition of marriage. Meanwhile, the law will reflect its actual definition.

They maintain their feelings of moral infallibility and superiority....and gays and lesbians have their rights recognized under the law.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

So you object to both the State law- and that the courts have not agreed with your objection?

The law absolutely protects the religious- see the word 'creed' below- no business can discriminate against just because you are religious.

Washington State Law Prohibits
Discrimination in Places of
Public Accommodation
The law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on the following:
•
Race •
Honorably discharged veteran or military status
• Color
• HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis C status
• National Origin
• Pregnancy or maternity
• Sex • Sexual orientation or gender identity
• Creed • Use of a guide dog or service animal by a person
with a disability
• Disability
UNDER RCW 49.60.215, A PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION CANNOT:
•
Refuse or withold entrance;
• Charge a different rate or offer different terms and conditions of service;
• Prohibit entrance of a service animal.
• Make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment that is discriminatory

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Then you are a hypocrite. If you don't like religious symbols on public land, then religious weddings on public land should also be upsetting to you. Marriage is a symbolic gesture of commitment, so to speak, it is an exclamation of a religious point of view regarding marriage. But oh hey, that doesn't matter. What a double standard this is.

LOL.....maybe I should be upset with religious weddings on public lands......

But I am not.

You want to call me a hypocrite for that.....well being insulted by you just demonstrates to me that I must be doing something right.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

Homosexuals living together and loving each other does not bother me or any of my friends in the least.

Doesn't bother anyone that I know... me included.

It's the redefinition of marriage that presents a problem. There is NO NEED to redefine it in order to grant equal benefits to same-sex couples. None whatsoever!

Just well said!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Such is inappropriate for men who want to playhouse with other men, for those who demand to screw themselves financially by becoming legally obligated to their besty... they can simply form a corporation, assign themselves obligated to one another... then just wait for the penalty to kick in, before they do what they would have done in course... only without at least half of what they otherwise would have had, if they had not been so determined to have been equal.

Civil marriage is whatever the government says it is. You keep babbling about marriage being one man and one woman, and you are wrong every time you say it.

Hi NYcarbineer:
If Atheists can sue over public use of the term God and have that term removed due to objections on religious grounds,
then why can't people sue to have the term Marriage removed due to objections on religious grounds.

My point being, if people cannot agree on the wording without invoking religious bias and conflict,
(such as if they cannot agree that God can mean other things nonreligious like Life, Greater Good, etc. in order to keep that term in public usage) then it can be argued to REMOVE it so the govt does not impose or promote any religious connotation.

People need to AGREE how laws are written, interpreted and enforced that affect their personal lives,
or else keep it out of the state if it is a religious issue.

Personally I believe that any matter touching an issue of religious, political or personal belief should be resolved
by consensus to protect all creeds equally by law. I believe this is best accomplished by reaching agreement among people directly first, then trying to mediate on a state level, and if a consensus can be worked out, then offering that on a national level if other people or states want to adopt writing/wording that is neutral enough to remain free of bias as govt should be.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Since legal marriage is a civil institution- which is blind to religion- and since atheists, and Jews and Muslims and Budhists and also Christians get legally married, if that is the viewpoint of some Christians, it is as irrelevant as it would be if they objected to Jews being civilly married.

'recognized religions' are not involved in civil marriages, other than that they can take place in houses of worship. But are not required to.

No one is ever going to force someone to marry someone of the same gender, or force a church to marry someone they dont' want to marry.

Beyond that- religion has nothing to do with Civil marriage.

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

So you object to both the State law- and that the courts have not agreed with your objection?

The law absolutely protects the religious- see the word 'creed' below- no business can discriminate against just because you are religious.

Washington State Law Prohibits
Discrimination in Places of
Public Accommodation
The law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on the following:
•
Race •
Honorably discharged veteran or military status
• Color
• HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis C status
• National Origin
• Pregnancy or maternity
• Sex • Sexual orientation or gender identity
• Creed • Use of a guide dog or service animal by a person
with a disability
• Disability
UNDER RCW 49.60.215, A PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION CANNOT:
•
Refuse or withold entrance;
• Charge a different rate or offer different terms and conditions of service;
• Prohibit entrance of a service animal.
• Make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment that is discriminatory

Hi Syriusly
Notice the policy also states CREED.
So people whose CREED is in conflict, also have to be protected and included equally
and cannot be discriminated against due to faith-based arguments.

It is not yet proven that "sexual orientation or gender identity"
is a behavioral choice or not; so this remains faith-based EITHER WAY.

Neither side is proven, so Neither can be favored by govt, nor excluded.

What can be proven is that people's BELIEFS on "sexual orientation or gender identity"
must be protected equally. Since orientation and identity can be argued as SPIRITUAL issues,
that may or may not change, I would urge personal conflict resolution between people of different beliefs
in order to treat both faiths equally, and not impose this through govt not equipped to resolve spiritual issues and beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Since legal marriage is a civil institution- which is blind to religion- and since atheists, and Jews and Muslims and Budhists and also Christians get legally married, if that is the viewpoint of some Christians, it is as irrelevant as it would be if they objected to Jews being civilly married.

'recognized religions' are not involved in civil marriages, other than that they can take place in houses of worship. But are not required to.

No one is ever going to force someone to marry someone of the same gender, or force a church to marry someone they dont' want to marry.

Beyond that- religion has nothing to do with Civil marriage.

^ Syriusly just letting you know you already made a religious leap there.
You are assuming that civil marriage is going to be viewed as secular,
and this may not be the case for all people.

Just because "other religions" are okay with that, doesn't mean you can force that on others.
"Other religions" such as Islam and Buddhism are okay with references to God, but that
doesn't stop the Atheist from suing to REMOVE the reference to God as offensive on the basis of faith.

So the people (whether Christian or secular gentile as my bf) who do NOT believe in "marriage"
used in that context can argue like the Atheist does to have it removed.

Many people would argue against the Atheist, and say the word God does not have to offend you.
And many people would argue that civil marriage does not have to mean religious marriage either.

But that is our viewpoint. If someone's religious freedom is affected, I listen to them.
The same way I would want to be listened to when I have an objection that affects me.

This is why I believe in mediation and consensus to make sure the WORDING
does not trigger problems like this that can be resolved or avoided.

In conflict resolution, the wording can make all the difference in what things mean to people.
If this cannot be resolved, it should be kept out of the state and separated in private.

It is a personal matter anyway, and was only in the state laws because people consented to that.
If they do not consent, it doesn't belong there, and maybe never did. It just was never contested to this level.

I don't believe it is my place to tell someone they don't have the right to object religiously
"because other religions don't object".

If so, then I could point to the gay people who agree to keep civil unions in the state
and keep marriage private. "Since those gay people don't object and don't believe
this diminishes their equality as human beings, then you can't object either? Really?"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Homosexuals living together and loving each other does not bother me or any of my friends in the least.

Doesn't bother anyone that I know... me included.

It's the redefinition of marriage that presents a problem. There is NO NEED to redefine it in order to grant equal benefits to same-sex couples. None whatsoever!

Just well said!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Such is inappropriate for men who want to playhouse with other men, for those who demand to screw themselves financially by becoming legally obligated to their besty... they can simply form a corporation, assign themselves obligated to one another... then just wait for the penalty to kick in, before they do what they would have done in course... only without at least half of what they otherwise would have had, if they had not been so determined to have been equal.

Civil marriage is whatever the government says it is. You keep babbling about marriage being one man and one woman, and you are wrong every time you say it.

Hi NYcarbineer:
If Atheists can sue over public use of the term God and have that term removed due to objections on religious grounds,
then why can't people sue to have the term Marriage removed due to objections on religious grounds.

My point being, if people cannot agree on the wording without invoking religious bias and conflict,
(such as if they cannot agree that God can mean other things nonreligious like Life, Greater Good, etc. in order to keep that term in public usage) then it can be argued to REMOVE it so the govt does not impose or promote any religious connotation.

People need to AGREE how laws are written, interpreted and enforced that affect their personal lives,
or else keep it out of the state if it is a religious issue.

Personally I believe that any matter touching an issue of religious, political or personal belief should be resolved
by consensus to protect all creeds equally by law. I believe this is best accomplished by reaching agreement among people directly first, then trying to mediate on a state level, and if a consensus can be worked out, then offering that on a national level if other people or states want to adopt writing/wording that is neutral enough to remain free of bias as govt should be.

The same sex marriage issue is doing that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Homosexuals living together and loving each other does not bother me or any of my friends in the least.

Doesn't bother anyone that I know... me included.

It's the redefinition of marriage that presents a problem. There is NO NEED to redefine it in order to grant equal benefits to same-sex couples. None whatsoever!

Just well said!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Such is inappropriate for men who want to playhouse with other men, for those who demand to screw themselves financially by becoming legally obligated to their besty... they can simply form a corporation, assign themselves obligated to one another... then just wait for the penalty to kick in, before they do what they would have done in course... only without at least half of what they otherwise would have had, if they had not been so determined to have been equal.

Civil marriage is whatever the government says it is. You keep babbling about marriage being one man and one woman, and you are wrong every time you say it.

Hi NYcarbineer:
If Atheists can sue over public use of the term God and have that term removed due to objections on religious grounds,
then why can't people sue to have the term Marriage removed due to objections on religious grounds.

My point being, if people cannot agree on the wording without invoking religious bias and conflict,
(such as if they cannot agree that God can mean other things nonreligious like Life, Greater Good, etc. in order to keep that term in public usage) then it can be argued to REMOVE it so the govt does not impose or promote any religious connotation.

People need to AGREE how laws are written, interpreted and enforced that affect their personal lives,
or else keep it out of the state if it is a religious issue.

Personally I believe that any matter touching an issue of religious, political or personal belief should be resolved
by consensus to protect all creeds equally by law. I believe this is best accomplished by reaching agreement among people directly first, then trying to mediate on a state level, and if a consensus can be worked out, then offering that on a national level if other people or states want to adopt writing/wording that is neutral enough to remain free of bias as govt should be.

It strikes me that the US Constitution was written, to precisely that end... and that even that is no where NEAR enough for today's anti-theists.

But you Emily, working extremely hard; nearly two and a half centuries later to be lend as much credence as is humanly possible to the atheists, working so hard to strike a sense of moderation with everyone else... have just issued the suggestion: "My point being, if people cannot agree on the wording without invoking religious bias and conflict, (such as if they cannot agree that God can mean other things nonreligious like Life, Greater Good, etc. in order to keep that term in public usage) then it can be argued to REMOVE it so the govt does not impose or promote any religious connotation.".

Does it occur to you that by this, you've just conceded, in theory, the full scope of US governance to utter godlessness; governance with no sense of; thus no potential for: objective truth, OKA: 'good'?

And does it further dawn on you that in so doing, you have demonstrated the inevitable consequences of tolerating Godlessness?

Demonstrating once again the catastrophic potential in the attempt to reason with subjectivism, which is to say: Relativism.

In truth, the dank reality in which we presently find ourselves is not so much as a single degree separated from your point. The Ideological Left's determination to strip God from the US Culture, establishing what amounts to an Anti-Theocracy and, in the process, over what amounts to just 22 years, (combining the 8 years of the debauched Clinton Cult's reign, the 8 years of the neutral Bush period, the 6 years of darkness that is the obama Cult) what no even remotely decent human being could have IMAGINED in the winter of 1992... which we can now claim to be the beginning of the end of the United States of America.

We are now where the absolute zenith of modern "Democrat" reason... perhaps the last Democrat on earth with some sense of reason, suggests that 'the reasonable thing to do is to agree that all sense of God should be removed from government... because so much as the 'sense of God' is offensive to some, because apparently, it's not fair that God should be so much as recognized in a government wherein its foundation rests entirely upon nothing short of THE RECOGNITION OF GOD > . <