Clearly, no, as I have done exactly that.
Were you not afraid that passerby might be offended by this blatant display of religiosity on public property?
No, I wasn't for it was not an advertisement for religion of any kind. It was a temporary event and I paid a substantial fee and it was held during hours that the park is normally closed.
In fact, the only thing that might have even implied there was something religious going on was Reverend Dozier's collar. (Side Note: It would have been more in keeping with our beliefs to have a government official of some kind perform the ceremony but we feared that they may not be able to encapsulate the abstract emotional side of the ceremony. So, Michelle left it up to me and so I split the difference and found a Unitarian minister who would agree to not mention any deities of any kind. I often tell the story of when I talked to him on the phone and explained our situation and he agreed to do the ceremony with a most understanding manner and we were finishing up exchanging details, I asked him if he wouldn't mind holding a live fish throughout the ceremony. There was a short pause on the other end of the line and I just burst out laughing and said I was just kidding. He laughed really hard and said, "What's so funny is I was just about to agree." He was a really nice guy. Haven't seen or heard from him since.)
Have a marriage in a public gardens during closed hours is not even remotely the same as hanging the ten commandments (the tenets of a religion and alleged direct words of a god) in a court of law.
You guys should try a different approach. Try starting a movement to have all the government requirements for building codes removed from churches. You could say that "man's law" has no place in the house of the old lordy. You could say that it is "God's private property" and so he doesn't have to have elevator capacity signs or lighted exits or fire extinguishers anymore than any other personal residence. No, especially because he's the most powerful being the universe. That would be the exact slant to my argument from the religious fanatics' point of view.
Hey, churches already don't have to pay taxes. Why not go for the whole enchilada?
I'll try to get my beliefs on religion/government spaces over to you once more with another explanation.
Let's say that BT, sirs and I are all bequeathed a hammer. We didn't personally buy it and its not part of a business but we all need the hammer to hammer personal nails. BT has the hammer, he hammers his nails and passes it on. Sirs hammers some nails and leaves it where I can get to it when I need to hammer some nails. Its all good. The hammer is serving its purpose.
Then sirs comes around after church one day and says he's going to put a little sticker on the hammer that says "Hammering nails is part of God's Plan." BT's like, "Ok, whatever." But I'm an atheist and now I've got to make a choice. Is it really worth it for me to complain over some stupid sticker or should I just ignore the sticker and go on hammering nails? As I have done numerous other times, maybe I just go along to get along and say nothing. It's just a stupid sticker, right? It's still all good for the most part and we're all still hammering nails with our hammer. Cool.
But then something happens. My kid sees me hammering nails one day and he says, "Who is god and why are you working on his plan?" Now, we've got an issue. There are so many things wrong with the situation and so many issues that now have to be resolved. Suddenly, my idea of how I want to run my family (my personal choice) is being threatened. Now, I have to spend time telling my kid the ins and outs of theism and atheism and explain to him why I'm utilizing a tool that is partly mine but bears information that he knows I patently think is nonsense.
The hammer whose purpose is to hammer nails is now a major issue in my life and sending shockwaves through the fabric of my family structure. It's not as simple as saying, "Oh that's just something Uncle Sirs put on there but it doesn't mean anything." Sure, I could just explain it away with that with a young kid but what if my kid is in his teens when he needs to be able to see his father as strong?
The real issue is not whether or not hammering nails is part of God's plan. The real issue that I am no longer democratically equal to Sirs, and to a lesser extent, BT and the only way, in relation to the hammer (which belongs to all of us and none of us). The hammer isn't something I paid for and neither did they but now, due to the sticker, it now appears to be more theirs.
That is not democracy.
The hammer is no longer simply a tool that we all use. It is an advertisement for sirs' beliefs and it implies that anyone who uses the hammer subscribes to the message of the sticker or worse,
should subscribe to the message. The application of the sticker set in motion a division, a conflict. Of course, if I never say anything everyone just assumes that I concur with the message of the sticker as I simply use the hammer to hammer my nails. Those same people may then make decisions in relation to our trio through the prism of the perception of our beliefs. Sure, those people may decide to help us hammer. They may decide to hammer more of their own nails believing that it is a god's plan.
I could potentially benefit from the misconception that I think hammering is a god's plan.
But, as we all know, that benefit will be small compared to the ensuing detriment and division caused by the conversations, disputes and arguments over the nature of hammering, god's plans (whose god, which god, what plan?) and stickers in general. More over, the importance of the basic hammer's use, hammering nails, will suffer because there will be protests for more stickers on hammers everywhere. And inevitably, there will be demands of removal of stickers from all hammers no matter to whom they belong as well there should; not because of the "tyranny of the minority" but because that is nature and intent of democracy: equality under the law.
Government (formerly known as hammer) in a democracy must seek to represent all of its citizens in the purest level of equality possible. Religion and Government must be separate for not all the citizens of this democracy agree to one single religious dogma therefore the official business of one must never affect the other. Government must not dictate the beliefs/dogma of Religion and Religion must not dictate its dogmatic beliefs upon the Government that represents all people. (Obviously, arguments can be made with this statement such as Thou shalt not kill which I daresay everyone can agree with though religious nuts seem to be the ones that take the greatest joy over the latest person to die on death row. Its' easy to ignore God's Laws when you want to.)
Of course, if I believe that it is wrong to molest a child because it is inhumane and destroys a child's innocence and someone else believes that it is wrong to molest a child because it is a god's will that you don't THAT is agreement; therefore, our government should then make laws against child abuse and set proper punishments for said illegal act. The law then will represent the beliefs of all of us that we condemn child abuse.
"The hardest thing for me is true simplicity," says a line from a Tim Curry song and for Americans, perhaps most Humans, it appears to be truth. For the only rule anyone needs in this world to follow is "Harm None. Do What You Will."
In regards to the stickers on hammers/10cc's in courtrooms, the simplest thing is to be respectful for what the real function of the space is, say hammering nails or conducting the business of a society of equals under the law and not try put that purity, that historical beauty, under the umbrella of someone's personal beliefs.
Can I get an "Amen"?
