Let's Use Some Common Sense and Courtesy
Let me conclude by asserting that this is not the most important question facing our culture. Groups and organizations on both sides of the debate use it stir up emotions, generate support, and raise money for their causes. A little common sense and courtesy can go a long way toward reducing the tension this issue creates.
First of all, we should acknowledge that the law is pretty clear on this matter. Governments are not supposed to offer financial support or official approval of religious displays on public property.
Secondly, religious groups have great freedom to do whatever they want to do on their own property.
If Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Navahos, or Secular Humanists wish to erect symbols of their convictions, let them do so on private property. Instead of clamoring to put a nativity scene in front of the courthouse, put dozens, even hundreds of them in front of churches. If a church or individual owns a hilltop and wants to erect a cross on it, even a really big one with neon lights, so be it. And so be it for all groups, religious or secular.
As a matter of courtesy and effective communication, it makes sense and shows respect for others—a tenet of nearly all religions—to avoid displays that will offend others. But given the great and growing diversity of our population, some offense is probably inevitable, even when unintentional. Fortunately, unlike the display of religious symbols on public property, it is permitted by the Constitution.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
In case "Oh no! Someone might get offended" Well Christians might get offended when they see a gay couple holding hands in public, but does anyone care about that? No! It doesn't matter if Christians or whites or men or Republicans get offended by anything! Everyone just tells us to buck up because we appear to be the ones in power (with the exception of Republicans). People in general need to grow up and stop whining to the government when ever something offends them! It's a diverse world. Don't like being the minority? Well move somewhere that you aren't! Don't try to change the way we do things in America to meet your "needs" and take away what we hold dear.
Unfortunately, there is no clearly defined "we" that you mention. The "we" you speak of is a smaller class than the "we" which is "all the people". What you hold dear isn't precisely what another holds dear, however, I will grant you that, at least in the United States, what unites us is our value of "liberty for all". That necessarily includes persons that lie outside of the "we" you are likely thinking of.
The "gays holding hands in public" you mentioned are no different than any other individual or group of individuals wearing christian crosses or any other religious symbolism on their person in public. Although individuals can of course display what they like on their persons and on their personal property, public endorsement on public property, i.e. official government sanction, must be balanced and fair or no sanction can be expressed at all. For government to be selective in its endorsements out of the diversity of the United States is to play favoritism which is unequal representation by government - clearly irresponsible of a government "of the people, for the people, by the people".
Your private person - which, as it happens, includes you private property - is necessarily distinct from "public property". If you can keep a clear distinction between the two in your actions, no offense is likely to occur. Be as unbalanced as you like with what you own, however, it is mandatory that publicly-owned properties be balanced and fair in their representation of those who own it - all of the people, not simply the majority.
The government bears the right to hold religion in favor of "irreligion", so long as they do not promote a specific religion. Our nation was founded on faith-based principles! If someone has a Christmas tree or nativity scene on public property, then those who celebrate other holidays around this time of year should have their say, but anti-religious groups shouldn't have the right to put up some sign full of hatred, and so against the holiday spirit, and idiot governor Christine Gregoire here in Washington State has allowed one to do.
"Our nation was founded on faith-based principles!"
Clearly it was not. If this were so, matters of religious faith would be explicit throughout the U.S. Constitution with wording very reminiscent of certain religious documents some claim to be the basis of the founding of the United States and the writing of its supreme laws. As it happens, the highest values serving as the framework for our national constitution are inalienable individual rights and the liberty to exercise them. It is that fact of one's life that gives you rights and an understood social agreement of "liberty in return for liberty". Since the beginning, the individual has had primacy over government. This is evident in the wording of the Constitution restraining the powers of government, not the liberties of individuals. There is also no clearly defined role written into the U.S. Constitution for an alleged "deity" or for any religious prophets or "messiahs" general or specific in individual rights and liberties nor in the government they establish for themselves.
The U.S. Constitution, not any religious text, serves as the supreme law of the land. The highest values of the U.S. Constitution are respect for individual life, that individual life's rights within a civilized society and their liberty to exercise those rights provided their mutual respect for the liberties of others. The constitution expresses the value of restrained government and the most liberty for the most people.
At the very foundation of our nation, no deity, no specific or general religion, no religious texts, no religious authorities are granted rights or liberties above those of the individual and their chosen form of government. If our nation's foundation were "faith-based" as some claim, you would expect our originating documents and laws created afterward and rooted in their values to be incredibly and primarily oriented toward the explicit values, commandments, laws, guidances, practices or patterns of traditional western religions.
They are not.
On that last matter, I will say this: skepticism, critique and rebuttal related to your specific philosophy and set of practices isn't inherently hateful. In my view and in the views of many others, such expression is considered to be for the good of those who appear clearly under the spell of poor thinking rooted in traditions or habits they find hard to break, let alone hard to abandon.
The sign in Washington does you a favor. It's to be expected you would not see it as such. Nevertheless, it contains things that need to be said, even if those who hear them do not wish to. I saw it as a positive message and still do. To me, it is a message of hope that reason prevails over unreason. It is no different from the act of a mother or father assuring their child there are no monsters in the closet, so be at peace. If you need the child's security blanket or teddy bear to feel safe, so be it. Perhaps you will grow out of such dependence.
Perhaps not.
The U.S. may not be a de jure Christian nation, but it is a de facto Christian nation, and there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids civic religion at the state level. (As Justice Harlan noted in Griswold v. Connecticut, the incorporation doctrine is "historically unfounded.")