"What I'd undoubtedly SETTLE for (and I suspect this is true of a whole flock of other atheists as well) is simple neutrality on the part of government (AKA "separation of church and state")."
You know, I think a lot of Christians would like that, too. I think there have been offenses on both sides. When the state says a Catholic adoption service MUST let gay couples adopt through their service, even though it's against Catholic beliefs, it means state interference in the church's religion--mandating that the church must go against its teachings before it can operate. That adoption service ended up going out of business, to the detriment of that community, I'm afraid, and the state--or other organization--hasn't been able to take up the slack. Some Mennonites in Quebec say that if they don't put their kids in state-sanctioned schools--which are secular and don't have the religious teaching they want--instead of their own private schools, their children will be seized and put in foster homes. I mean, Mennonites, for heaven's sake! They're about as harmless as any kind of Christian I know--pacifists, hard-working, tremendously giving in relief aid, and committed to social justice.
I don't have objections to gays or the gay lifestyle; I tend to be liberal politically and I'm not Catholic. I don't think Canada has church/state separation in their constitution, so the government can force religious people to put their kids in secular schools if the government wants. But I do believe that church-state separation is a good thing, and it's not just been violated on the atheist's side. And I don't want something like what's happening to the Mennonites happening here in the U.S., regardless of whether people are atheist or religious.
I think one big problem is the heavy--and often ignorant--hand of the state on the private lives of their citizens.
Richard R wrote:
"What I'd undoubtedly SETTLE for (and I suspect this is true of a whole flock of other atheists as well) is simple neutrality on the part of government (AKA "separation of church and state")."
You know, I think a lot of Christians would like that, too. I think there have been offenses on both sides. When the state says a Catholic adoption service MUST let gay couples adopt through their service, even though it's against Catholic beliefs, it means state interference in the church's religion--mandating that the church must go against its teachings before it can operate. That adoption service ended up going out of business, to the detriment of that community, I'm afraid, and the state--or other organization--hasn't been able to take up the slack. Some Mennonites in Quebec say that if they don't put their kids in state-sanctioned schools--which are secular and don't have the religious teaching they want--instead of their own private schools, their children will be seized and put in foster homes. I mean, Mennonites, for heaven's sake! They're about as harmless as any kind of Christian I know--pacifists, hard-working, tremendously giving in relief aid, and committed to social justice.
I don't have objections to gays or the gay lifestyle; I tend to be liberal politically and I'm not Catholic. I don't think Canada has church/state separation in their constitution, so the government can force religious people to put their kids in secular schools if the government wants. But I do believe that church-state separation is a good thing, and it's not just been violated on the atheist's side. And I don't want something like what's happening to the Mennonites happening here in the U.S., regardless of whether people are atheist or religious.
I think one big problem is the heavy--and often ignorant--hand of the state on the private lives of their citizens.