= new reply since forum marked as read
On the one hand, I think organized atheist groups should be given the same standing as organized religious groups. But the insistence by some groups that they are not anything like religious groups makes that very difficult to implement.
I guess the judge is basically ruling that they can't have it both ways.
And that seems very rational.
The legislature is going to need to address this or the current law may need to be found unconstitutional, right?
I can see that if a couple want to be married by an atheist, they may have an issue. None of the designated government officials may be atheists.
Then again, wanted to be married by an atheist teeters on religiosity, doesn't it.
Your first point:
I think most people would agree that that is precisely what "Congress shall make no law..." means. But that doesn't necessarily mean that CFI has no standing, IMHO. (IANAL!) So, I am totally with you on this since the law apparently does provide for non-religious marriages (judges, etc.). So we are thinking the same way here. If CFI wants to be recognized, it's not a constitutional issue, but a legislative one. Good luck with that, CFI, in Indiana.
Your second point, about wanting to be married by an atheist is (IMHO) tantamount to raising atheism to a religion, but not because the juxtaposition of such a thing with the so-called religious institution of marriage -- although one could argue that, too -- but because the secular state of marriage in this country is a legal one, thoroughly entangled with family obligations (no matter how one interprets family), divorce, and a family's obligation to children in its care. These are strictly practical legal issues and have no religious argument in law. (Strictly speaking)
So, if an atheist wants to be married by an atheist, that comes as close as I can imagine to any claim that atheism is a religion, in this context. And context here is everything. As an atheist, who would care whether the person officiating is an atheist or not? The issue for an atheist should be that it be a secular ceremony, not that the actual beliefs of the official.
You're in trouble here because I see you posting arguments which could have come out of my own pen.
You'd better watch out, or you'll be labelled as one of those evil, militant, pushy atheists.
As always.
same page.
The issue is that where one finds oneself is not necessarily on just one side of the line. While there are many that identify strongly as theist or atheist, there are many who really identify as neither (or both in some strange way).
It's similar to sexuality, imo. There are those who absolutely identify as gay or straight, and those that fall everywhere else on the spectrum in between.
To insist that one must either believe or not believe does not make sense to me. That's why I continue to argue for the agnostic label and against it only being used as a modifier. Again, similar to GLBT discussion, Q is often used for "questioning", indicating that there is a lack of assuredness.
Would that not explain the difficulty with the atheism as religion question? And it is no surprise that this would be particularly problematic when it comes to marriage. While the civil rights and obligations of marriage are strictly legal, I have rarely met a couple who are marrying exclusively for those reasons. Whatever one wants to call it, it generally transcends just being a legal arrangement.
As to being called an evil, militant, pushy atheist, I've been called much worse.
But not by you.
