emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Hi Skylar and Redfish
And with or without these threads,
what is so hard about admitting that
BOTH beliefs for gay marriage or for traditional marriage only
are BOTH BELIEFS.
Christianity and Buddhism are BOTH belief systems,
BOTH equally protected by law, and nobody goes around
trying to sue that Buddhism should be equally recognized by law as Christianity or there is discrimination against Buddhists.
We don't change the wording or laws about religion
to "specifically include or defend" Buddhism as opposed to Christianity.
Religious freedom already applies to both.
Why can't laws on civil unions and contracts be neutral and apply to all situations?
If they did not mention gender at all, then it would be left to the people to recognize and practice the beliefs
of their choice as they should be.
if people and parties of different beliefs cannot learn to quit
bullying and abusing govt to push theirs over others,
maybe we will see a push to either ban political parties or separate them from govt
similar to keeping religion out of govt.
Maybe political parties should be recognized equally as religious organizations
and be required to set up their own programs for their own members and not mix with public policy and funding!!!
I agree with you 100%. The problem is that the left is totally intolerant of any beliefs except theirs. All others are to be demonized, ridiculed, called racist or homophobic, and otherwise trashed.
they preach tolerance but practice bigotry.
Dear Redfish
How can we organize a campaign to teach people that political and secular beliefs
still count as a belief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
What does it take to reach a public agreement and full awareness
that these political beliefs should be treated equally as any other religious institution?
How do you suggest we approach this?
Do we form a team, and start asking around for legal help to
SUE one or both parties for pushing an agenda that is the equivalent of political beliefs onto the public through govt?
Would this get more attention and success
if it is suing BOTH parties, or suing specific people or cases?
For example, I thought of suing both parties for not resolving the
conflicts in BELIEFS over health care, which caused the 24 billion dollar
shutdown at taxpayers expense.
In order to show BOTH sides are equal beliefs, why not have both
singlepayer believers sue the Democrats to set up a system that
represents and serves those beliefs; while free market believers
sue the Republicans to set up a system by free choice. And demand
that the 24 billion lost over the deadlock (because both parties were
trying to push one plan over the other instead of creating separate plans)
be paid back to taxpayers by investing in a solution (either split the cost
and have both parties raise half to invest in setting up separate health
care networks for both parties according to their members' beliefs
or raise and invest 24 billion into reforming VA and veteran care
which both parties agree on. Develop that to meet the health needs of vets,
and eventually expand on it to include more of the public once the best
sustainable solution is found for Vets, prove that works before replicating it for the public.)