We Resolve to Really Like the Majority
I didn’t believe this at first because it’s just weird. H. Res. 847: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith. When I read the following, it’s just seems like someone’s either worried about being on Santa’s Naughty list or is just trolling for votes. And, if you can believe it, it passed. 372 to 9, with 10 voting Present and 40 not voting. You owe it to yourself to read the whole thing, but below are some quick highlights. The Resolution…
(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;
(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;
(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.
Subscribe to Feed
This resolution is ludicrous. I’m glad all is so peachy-keen in our nation and world that the most important piece of business Congress had on its agenda was this piece of garbage.
OK, I’ll admit it. As a Christian, this is the first time in my life I would even think twice about this. I’ve grown up thinking of America as a “basically Christian nation.” I visit here to try and “expand my horizons” and rub shoulders with people who see the world differently than me. I’m not saying I can make the leap yet, but I am beginning to understand how this might look to people of no faith or of some faith other than Christianity.
So while I’ll openly admit that this is not something Jesus would have spent his time trying to do (from what I gather reading about His life), I do want to ask a question and ask for an honest answer. In light of what you are trying to accomplish in getting people of no faith to be as equally recognized as people of various faiths (aka your recent Mitt Romney post), would you be equally upset with a House Resolution basically recognizing the contribution of people of no faith to our American culture and nation? This question is not just to Lisa, but also to others making comments.
I’m trying to appreciate a different perspective here, but I struggle with the thought of a pro-humanist/secularist/atheist, etc House Resolution being picked apart here as much as this resolution no doubt will.
Any civil responses?
Well, Rob in fairness I’d be pleasantly surprised if such a resolution came out, then I’d wonder what the reasoning was. I don’t trust resolutions of this sort other than as pandering so I’d be trying to figure out what they want. That’s the most honest answer.
With time for reflection I would question need (ie is this really affirming for a group, especially one that needs affirming from our government) and I’m not sure I’d be pleased. Unless there were resolutions for every group that has been the subject of bias. That might be OK but to single out one group just smacks of pandering to me.
Happy Holidays everyone
Lisa
I would have little trouble with the resolution if the following resolution were also passed. Could we get a sponsor?
(1) recognizes Secularism as one of the great philosophies of the world;
(2) expresses continued support for secular thinkers in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the international and historical importance of secularism;
(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by secularism in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against secularists, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(6) expresses its deepest respect to American secularists and those throughout the world.
Pandering? Sure. It’d be a first, though.
We are ruled by idiots.
There is absolutely no reason for Congress to spend ANY of its time passing resolutions designed to do nothing but inflate the egos of its Bible-thumping constituents.
As to Rob’s question, I personally would not support a resolution of this type for secular thought, because this sort of thing is NOT the business of the U.S. Congress.
There are people dying in foreign lands for a failed war, people dying at home with no medical care, people dying on the street for lack of assistance, people dying from AIDS in poor neighborhoods for lack of birth control and sex education, and these pieces of crap (both parties, oh yes) are farting around passing pandering statements about how great the majority religion is.
Does it violate the rules of this site for me to issue a very sincere invitation for the members of Congress to fuck off?
I’d like to see how many of the more evangelical, conservative, and/or fundamentalist kind would respond to a resolution substituting the word “Christian” with “Islam”. Would they feel the same? I doubt it.
There is no reason for a government that is based on democratic, pluralistic, and secular principles to make a resolution regarding any religion or philosophy.
To our U.S. Reps and Senators: do your jobs and stop wasting time with these sorts of resolutions.
I guess as Beachblogger points out they have recognized things ranging from the festival of Diwali to Ramadan to Cinco De Mayo. They’ve even recognized hunters commitment to gun safety. The congress has recognized so many things that I guess it’s just a meaningless gesture. It takes some of the sting out of the Christian/Christmas resolution, but I still think they’re just pandering.
This resolution is in response to H. Res. 635: Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal,…recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world; which passed the House on Oct 2, 2007.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-635
search bills for Recognizing tuns up about 100 bills like this. I found some sort of funny.
I’d like to see a balance where recognizing something of value does not decrease the value of something or someone else. And I’m to he point where I would rather Congress do anything except vote more money for war.
Beachblogger, thanks for the link. Your right some of the recogitions are somewhat amusing and even absurd. I see it’s at your blog too. I really like your cartoon section. If people want to check it out http://beachblogger.net/pics/index.php?cat=64
Can somebody give me one good reason why Congress should have anything at all to say about private religious issues?
*shrug*. I have never understood why we have a government-appointed commissioner of baseball, either.
Far too many things are assumed to be the business of the Federal government. What could be more utterly personal than your religious convictions? Why involve the state? The legitimate role of the government is to inhibit fraud and force, and keep records for our convenience. End of story.
I am proud to be a citizen of a reasonably well-run State and one benefit is that the Democratic legislature of California, backed up by a Republican governor, moves forward with worthwhile issues, such as stem cell research, better air pollution standards than the Feds, and progress towards becoming the first State to eradicate cigarette smoking. Our cops tend to ignore the foolish Federal laws about marijuana. Next door Oregon defies Federal government views on euthanasia. We are better off for keeping religious prejudices out of our laws, and decide on these issues on a secular rational basis.
California is a State enjoying vast religious diversity. I don’t think Sacramento would ever do anything so dumb as this sanctimonious Washington effort at official pietism showing government favor for one faith.
Francis, could you clarify a couple points for me?
1. The eradication of cigarette smoking that you mentioned, does that fall under the inhibition of fraud and force or the record keeping responsibilities that you say are government’s only legitimate roles?
2. Also, to make sure I understand your stance: cigarette smoking is bad, but marijuana smoking is good?
I do agree with you about keeping government and religion separate.
You raise a fair question. In praising the State of California I suppose I am cutting them some slack, recognizing it as a socially desirable goal to eradicate a public health hazard in the same way that we don’t regret the extinction of the smallpox virus and the abolition of public spttiing, both of which were once as generally accepted as cigarette smoking has been. And I am not eager to privatize fire departments just yet.
In all three cases anove, the issue is one of public health, and indeed the current project to abolish smoking is being pursued without a trace of moralism but simply as a public health measure funded by the State’s Division of Health Services. It is demonstrable that as they succeed, the cost to the public is reduced, and that is their motivation.
As an anarchist, I would prefer to see people free to do as they wish with their own lives on their own dime. Therefore, I would welcome the establishmnet of tobacco dens in the same way that Chinatowns once had opium dens, where addicts were free to smoke without imposing costs on the rest of the community. The smokers must pay for such dens. In a sense this process is already under way. We already have cigar bars in this city.
My objection is primarily to public smoking. That is an act of violence which is quite properly inhibited by government. You may feel a need to urinate, to fornicate, to clear your throat and spit, or to get your nicotine fix. Your need does not justify an act of rape, of dumping secondhand smoke on others, spitting on them, or unzipping your pants and emptying your bladder in their sight. There is no reason to consider that people on the street must endure your odor and fumes any more than they are expected to watch you urinate. To compel others to inhale your smoke without their consent is an act of violent force and there is increasing evidence that it is a lethal one.
I will object if you compel me against my will to inhale any of your ejected bodily wastes, whether from the mouth, nose or anus, and whether they be effluvia of your use of marijuana, tobacco, beans or garlic. But in the privacy of your own premises among consenting other adults, go crazy - pick your nose, spit on your own floor, smoke up your own house, enjoy whatever you like at your own cost.
I am fine with that approach. I do smoke, but only in two places: at home and in a designated, outside smoking area at work. I do not smoke in restaurants, public sidewalks, etc. I guess that is the humanist in me, not wanting to impose my bad habit on others. I very rarely even smoke around my kids at home. When I do, it is because they came to where I was smoking to ask me a question.
When you mentioned the eradication of smoking, I took that to mean a complete ban regardless of whether the location was public or private. I am not quite ready for that yet, and probably reacted a little bit too emotionally to the thought of it.
My response to the first comment is that our government should simply not be taking time to promote and honor ANY religious belief during a congressional session. It would be different if a “new” religion was fighting for acceptance and tolerance under the freedom of religion guaranteed by our constitution, and something like this was passed a symbolic recognition of the rights of those followers to practice their faith.
This is like declaring Rich White Man’s Day a national holiday.
And in response to your statement about America being a “christian” nation, usually (although not in your message) people refer to America as a “christian nation”, “under God” and point out that we even have In God We Trust on our money.
Did you, as a christian, know that the under god and in god we trust bits were added in the 1950’s as a way to distinguish ourselves from the “godless” communists?????? It had nothing to do with what our founding fathers had to say. They never, EVER, anywhere made any specific references to christianity. This was designed specifically NOT to be a christian nation - to be a nation where NO religion would be made the official state religion, where the government had NO right to place the importance or value of one faith above another, or to restrict the rights of people to practice any (or no) faith.
This resolution seems one step closer to declaring Christianity the official religion of America. Or maybe it’s the best they can do without ACTUALLY violating the constitution.
I think that any American who places their faith in the Bible ahead of their allegiance and defense of the Constitution is a traitor. Happy Yule.
I don’t go to church and I don’t pray, But I do think christmas should stick around. People jus seem to be a litle nicer. Even if they look pissed off walking around the mall
Rob-
I am an atheist, a humanist and a libertarian. i do not think that our government has any business commenting on religion, Christmas or god. Also, congress should not be involved in passing resolutions concerning religion, Christmas or god. That said, I find the resolution to be innouccuous.
As an atheist, a humanist and a libertarian I think that one needs to pick his or her battles rather then fighting over everything. Fighting over a resolution like this is not worth it. I am more concerned about “Intelligent Design” science and the horrors committed in the name of religion.
I think that this resolution would fail if Christian were switcehd with Islam. I’d love to see such a resolution passed and then take all of the opponents who supported the Christian version to task for their hypocrisy.
William Bogle is correct. This is not worth fighting over.
Ideally, the governmnet should limit itself to inhibiting force and fraud and keeping records. It is unfortunate that many idiotic and utterly unnecessary things are routinely done by the Feds.
We have stupid resolutions addressing all kinds of stuff that should not involve Congressional time and paper and ink. This silly one is just another in the series. We should laugh it off. It’s not worth taking too seriously.
Much more serious issues exist. An example is the fact that the Boy Scouts of America, chartered by Congress, receive a lot of handouts from agencies of government at all levels. Yet when challenged over their policy of excluding gays and atheists, they shelter behind the claim that they are a private, not a public, organization so they can discriminate as much as they like. The Supreme Court has agreed. O.K. then, BSA, if you are a private organization, then live on private support. Get your sticky fingers out of the taxpayers’ pocket. You guys say you are private - now act like it.
There, you see, the favoritism that panders to the BSA actually hurts us all in the pocketbook. That silly Resolution does not. So let’s focus on issues that really matter.