Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanessa White
...my other big challenge/absolute is that even though the opponents don't, the supporters DO need to keep religion out of it when talking constitutional amendments. That will hopefully, be their down fall. By accusing judges of being "activist" (which to me is not a bad thing!) they are speaking from their values and supposed morals rather than from a legal, constitutional perspective. I am sure that they do not expect us to be calm and well educated in the issue and in our demeanor. |
I applaud loudly what you are contemplating, and what I am going to offer is NOT meant to be contentious - just something to think about.
When the opponents DO bring RELIGION into the equation, they garner some important support from those who are religious, but not necessarily rabid Christians. Christians have long been told that "secularization" is a threat to their belief system - which is, of course, a load of crap. But they believe it.
Perhaps, faith issues (rather than RELIGION, per se) does need to be included, just not center stage. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is recognizable to Christians as a faith value that stands in contrast to "they're all going to hell". Could the expression of some egalitarian and more ecumenical faith values create a bit of a scenario in which people have to decide what values they give priority?
Even key Democrats have learned that you can't NOT talk about faith, even you you avoid religiosity. An interesting read might be one of the recent Christian Century issues that dealt with this.
Anyway, just a thought. Does NOT talking faith leave people with faith issues on one hand and secualr ones on the other, while talking softly about faith leaving them wrestling with conflicting faith issues that just might move them into action?