Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 412 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

H.Res. 888: Bigots Seek to Establish Christian Religion in Government

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there exists within our government a set of people whose aim is to undo the very basis of American government from within. Their last names don’t start with “al-,” and their skin tends toward a pasty shade of pink, so our eyes don’t see them as threats to our country. But they threaten this country nevertheless.

The people I’m referring to insist on being referred to in correspondence with “The Honorable” placed before their names. They are the United States Representatives who have placed their formal support behind the bill H.Res. 888. H.Res. 888’s official title sounds innocuous if unnecessary:

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation’s founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as ‘American Religious History Week’ for the appreciation of and education on America’s history of religious faith.

The United States of America does indeed have a rich spiritual and religious history. But the meat of the bill isn’t about celebrating the richness of American religious history. The bill makes repeated reference to Christianity and the supposition that “the United States is a Christian country, a Christian nation, a Christian people.” Baloney. 21 percent of Americans report that they are non-Christians, and only a fifth of Christians appear to regularly attend church.

The United States is a nation with a wide variety in the extent and substance of religious belief. But H.Res. 888 makes no reference whatsoever to any belief system other than Christianity. No reference to Judaism. No reference to Hinduism. No reference to Islam. No reference to Unitarianism. No reference to agnosticism. No reference to humanism. No reference to Buddhism. No reference to Wicca. Only reference to Christianity.

The attempt to pass a law declaring “United States is a Christian country, a Christian nation, a Christian people” by these 85 supporters of H.Res. 888 has elements of the ridiculous. After all, it justifies its claim to a Christian America by noting that someone once carved scripture on some blocks of the Washington Monument, that the Liberty Bell has text from Leviticus on it, and that our money has “the eye of Providence in a triangle over a pyramid” on it. Quick, someone call Weekly World News — this is a scoop!

Yes, this bill is ridiculous and would be simply ridiculous if it did not have the force of the Congress behind it. H.Res. 888 an attempt to establish one religion’s priority over other religions and above secular life using the power of government, even establishing a week in which we are all to be “educated” and led to properly “appreciate” America as a Christian nation.

The 85 members of Congress who would foist this pretense onto the American people are:

Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL – 4]
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO – 2]
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA – 5]
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL – 6]
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC – 3]
Rep Barton, Joe [TX – 6]
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT – 1]
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA – 2]
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN – 7]
Rep Blunt, Roy [MO – 7]
Rep Boozman, John [AR – 3]
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA – 10]
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC – 1]
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA – 44]
Rep Campbell, John [CA – 48]
Rep Coble, Howard [NC – 6]
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX – 11]
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX – 7]
Rep Davis, David [TN – 1]
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN – 4]
Rep Deal, Nathan [GA – 9]
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA – 4]
Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA – 2]
Rep Fallin, Mary [OK – 5]
Rep Feeney, Tom [FL – 24]
Rep Forbes, Randy [VA – 4]
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC – 5]
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ – 2]
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA – 11]
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX – 1]
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA – 5]
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA – 6]
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX – 4]
Rep Hayes, Robin [NC – 8]
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX – 5]
Rep Herger, Wally [CA – 2]
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI – 2]
Rep Hulshof, Kenny C. [MO – 9]
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC – 4]
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX – 3]
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC – 3]
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH – 4]
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA – 1]
Rep Kline, John [MN – 2]
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO – 5]
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH – 5]
Rep Lewis, Ron [KY – 2]
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK – 3]
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL – 16]
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX – 24]
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX – 10]
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI – 11]
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC – 10]
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC – 7]
Rep Mica, John L. [FL – 7]
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL – 1]
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA – 18]
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO – 4]
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC – 9]
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX – 19]
Rep Paul, Ron [TX – 14]
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM – 2]
Rep Pence, Mike [IN – 6]
Rep Pickering, Charles W. “Chip” [MS – 3]
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA – 16]
Rep Poe, Ted [TX – 2]
Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL – 12]
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV – 3]
Rep Ross, Mike [AR – 4]
Rep Ryan, Paul [WI – 1]
Rep Sali, Bill [ID – 1]
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH – 2]
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX – 32]
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE – 3]
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN – 3]
Rep Terry, Lee [NE – 2]
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH – 12]
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH – 3]
Rep Walberg, Timothy [MI – 7]
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN – 3]
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC – 2]
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA – 1]
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA – 10]
Rep Young, C.W. Bill [FL – 10]
Rep Young, Don [AK] – at large

These 85 members of Congress are not patriots. A patriot is someone who supports and defends the founding document of this nation. A hint — that founding document is not the Bible. If those who founded the United States of America had wished to incorporate the Bible as the basis for all law, they certainly could have done so, and many nations have. The founders of the United States of America did not do so. There is no reference to the “Bible,” to “Jesus,” to the “Ten Commandments,” to “Christianity” or to “God” in the Constitution of the United States of America. None whatsoever. There are references to religion:

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

and

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

The 85 supporters of H.Res. 888 seek to violate the spirit and structure of the Constitution, making a case that when someone once wrote Christian language on the Liberty Bell, they established America as a “Christian nation.” So no, these 85 are not patriots. They would betray and usurp the Constitution.

What are they, then? They are bigots. Christian bigots. The term “bigot” has become one of those untouchable words over the past few decades, one of those terms that courteous people simply do not use in reference to another. But I’m not a member of any court, so here I go. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “bigot” as:

One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

That’s exactly what these people are. They’re Christian partisans first and primarily, interested in using the tools of government to establish Christianity as the favored religion of the nation. If they have to twist the American system of constitutional law to accomplish their bigoted ends, they’ll do it.

America is not the ground underneath your feet. America is an idea, an idea of liberty unfettered by dogmatic, partisan, bigoted allegiance to some established religious orthodoxy. These people stand against the very idea of America.

32 comments to H.Res. 888: Bigots Seek to Establish Christian Religion in Government

  • Joe

    Too bad its not “Man-Boy Love History Week” or “Transexual Americans History Week”. That would probably get a lot more support from “Progressives”. As well as be required to be celebrated in our schools. Too Bad… Boo Christians, your the only religion its okay to hate still, hiss hiss.

  • Jim

    You just keep up your fantasy about what I actually believe, and you just keep on using it as a shield to keep out the mind rays. No matter that not one piece of your comment accurately reflects what I think. You just keep right on going. Your shield is so bright and garish that it will keep others at a safe distance from you.

  • Joe

    Yikes Jim, didn’t mean to accuse you of believing anything. It would just be nice if “Progressives” showed such a passion when say, actually trying to defend America from a real threat, like Muslim Extremism, thats all.

  • Jim

    You stupid cow. Read this web site. You will find dozens of instances of opposition to Islamic fundamentalism here.

  • jeff

    Joe. You’re an idiot.
    This whole notion of “Progressives” not being willing to fight is absurd. People will always fight to protect what’s theirs, bottom line. The only problem that you have w/ Progressives is that they understand that we, as a nation and a people, shouldn’t be forced to rewrite our laws and valued principles because another group aims to harm us. Progressives understand that once the rules are bent, a gray area will fill that space. And that space will bend, and shift, and grow as the powers that be see fit.
    We all want to be safe and secure, and be free to practice our own faith (which this blog post was about) but a line has to be drawn. You stand your ground and stay true.

  • Joe

    A.) Glad to see the loving and accepting “Progressives” quickly resort to personal insults. Very forward thinking of you.
    B.) Jeff, The only people I see on the news at night trying to take away my personal freedoms i.e. don’t smoke, don’t produce carbon, don’t use gas, don’t become energy independent by actually drilling for our own oil, Don’t own Guns, Don’t provide for your own family let the Government do that for you are “Progressives”. Liberals I mean “Progressives” will certainly fight to protect THEIR interests, other Americans be damned. i.e. Screw Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Wal-mart and now Big Religion. You will fight though to protect Big Government, Big Social Welfare and Big Environment though, Ironic. So we can all have our line that we wish to stand but standing the line on this Holiday? Courageous, Thank God (oops) I mean Thank “Progressives”

  • Jim

    Dearie, when you trotted out the “Man-Boy Love,” you set the tone.

  • Joe

    Sorry Jim didn’t realize you would take that one to heart. It wasn’t directed at you personally, though it seems you took it that way. Just entertained by the fact that so many people cry for debate and discussion and when confronted with opposing views respond with, “Stupid Cow”. How very academic of you Jim. I have gained great respect for your point of view since you so elegantly defended it. Searched the archives for your article against islamic fundamentalism. Only found the article you wrote reporting about not protecting the right to call December 25 Christmas. Thank “Progressives” you were standing the line for us Jim.

  • Jim

    Well, I’m not an academic, and when you act like a stupid cow I’ll call you one. You aren’t searching well enough.

  • AT

    Notice how Joe doesn’t actually make a point, other than trying to put down what he believes to be “progressive” idealogy. So Joe, tell us how YOU would solve our nations problems if you are so gosh darn smart.

  • Fritz Gorman

    United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion
    See Web-Ste Below
    Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli?
    http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html

    Excerted from tready
    As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

  • Joe

    AT, after just several posts you ask me to explain how to fix the country and what ideas I have? The majority of the people posting here seem to be Obama supporters and he hasn’t told you any of his ideas, nor explained how to fix the country. Therefore I say my best idea is “Hope and Change for the Future…” Refer to original post which has nothing to do with how to fix country.

    Jim, post a link please. I have a real life where I try to actually impact my own destiny instead of relying on the Government to make decisions for me. That and trying to influence my representatives to add Christianity to the water.

  • AT

    So Joe basically says that he can’t give an opinion about anything because it would take too long to do so. Yet he somehow seems to have plenty of time to mock concepts he may not fully understand. Thanks for clearing things up for us “progressives”.

  • Joe

    AT, Hope and Change is enough for your vote but not a blog? Easy way to fix the country move back towards an actual representative republic and away from a oligarchy. Term limits, so that are government can actually act in the peoples best interest instead of appeasing you would be a good step. Create a few more parties so that we don’t have to fit in two boxes would be another. I’m sure you will mock this not fitting up to your standards but I’m not writing a dissertation for people who don’t actually care. Notice all my post on this board you bust me for not discussing facts, all I get is insults and sidesteps.

  • AT

    Joe, I’m not going after you personally as much as the hoards of people who come here to launch assaults at regular readers with little to offer themselves. If that is not you then welcome.
    I like term limits. I’m especially happy that Bush can’t run for a third term. I wouldn’t have enough faith in the American people to not vote him back again.
    I like the idea of more parties, especially if one represented my views more closely. However, many parties aren’t always so good either. Hitler was voted into power. He was able to do so because Germany was fractured into so many small parties at the time and all he had to do was edge the others out by a tiny margin.
    I did vote for Obama, my first vote in a democratic primary. I didn’t do so because I fell for “hope and change” retoric. Simply put, I have a lot of issues with Clinton. Although I see Obama as flawed in some ways, I felt he was hands down better than Clinton. And although I feel McCain is an honorable man and far more intelligent than Bush, I have no faith in his ability to handle the war. He still doesn’t know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. Could you imagine trying to navigate a war in Northern Ireland if you didn’t know there were Protestants and Catholics? Even more importantly, he jokes about waging war with Iran. Waging war with any country is not something I want my president to joke about, period. Whatever you feel about the prospect of going to war with Iran, do you think it’s something our leader should take lightly?
    So for some of us, a vote for Obama is not a vote for someone we find perfect and blameless. It’s the only choice we really have.

  • Joe

    Fair enough, but it is the system at its basis that is flawed.
    I can’t stand McCain, Clinton or Obama. If you flunk one out for lying or being shady then they all fail. Obama has no track record of bluntly anything, but melting under media pressure. Regardless of your race it has to concern you that there is more than a 50-50 chance he hates white people and called Israel a festering sore. Scary to say the least.
    My thought is, setting aside the chance of Hitler, several parties that worked in set term limits would do what they felt was best for America not best for their re-election or lifestyle. Politicians constantly raise taxes and sidestep them & the laws that normal Americans follow, with no recourse.

  • Micael

    It seems to me the lone bigot here is the very author of this article. A bigot implicating anything or anyone “religious” as simply stubborn and intolerant.

    What part of this resolution states anything about a particular religion?

    “(H. Res 888) Declares that the House of Representatives:
    (1) affirms the rich spiritual and DIVERSE religious history of our nation’s founding and subsequent history, including up to today;
    (2) recognizes that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our nation’s most valuable institutions;
    (3) rejects any effort to remove, obscure, or omit such history from public buildings and educational resources; and
    (4) expresses support for designation of a “American Religious History Week” every year.”

    If anything it promotes open mindedness and encourages the celebration of the rich religious diversity of this nation. Unfortunately, it seems the author’s opinion has been skewed by some radical “Christian” extremists and has allowed hatred to grow in his heart for anything even hinting “religion” just as has occured in general for anything Islamic since “9/11″.

    This nation is a nation united under one flag made up of agnostics, athiest, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, not to mention Christians of every single denomination (the founding fathers truly established this nation with “religious freedom” from denominational preference established by the government as was the norm England and most of Europe) not a rejection or acceptance of Christianity in general or any other faith. Hence celebrating the religios history of this nation “including up to today” in no way implicates the establishment of ANY religion, in fact it celebrates our unity ALONG SIDE with our religious DIVERSITY, including areligious freedom as well!

    But to say that this nation can not celebrate its religious diversity and rich history is to deny that this is a fundemental characteristic of this nation since its very inception. An attempt to hide this primordial heratige of this nation for the religion the UN-RELIGIOUS. Which contradicts the goals of the founding fathers- preventing the establishement of any particular religion/denomination BUT simultaneously not forbiding the practice or recognition OF religion as a essential aspect of the every-day life of many of its citizens now, in the recent past, and from the foundation of this nation.

    Hence since, there is nothing in the resolution that places say the Baptist, or Presbyterian, much less all of Christianity or the Bible as authoritative rule of the land, but merely recognizes the open practice of religion (aka, Religious FREEDOM) as a fundimental characteristic of our great nation which should be recognized outwardly before Areligious fanatics establish their beliefs in denying anything religious from this nation.

  • Jim

    Well, that sure would be true if the portion of the bill that you quoted were all there was to the bill.

    But it’s not.

    Read the whole bill.

  • Ralph

    Diversity?

    Here are the results of some word searches, in no particular order, followed by the number of instances of each word. Decide for yourself how diverse the language of this bill is:

    Bible: 22
    Torah: 0
    Tao Te Ching: 0
    Koran: 0
    Confucian Analects: 0
    Vedas: 0
    Ramayana: 0
    Lotus Sutra: 0

    Jesus: 1
    Christ: 1
    Mohammed: 0
    Buddha: 0
    Confucius: 0
    Bertrand Russell: 0
    Jean-Paul Sartre: 0

    Christianity: 1
    Islam: 0
    Buddhism: 0
    Judaism: 0
    Santeria: 0

    Christian: 6
    Muslim: 0
    Taoist: 0
    Buddhist: 0
    Confucian: 0
    Hindu: 0
    Sikh: 0
    Zoroastrian: 0

    I could come up with a whole lot more zeros, and I encourage anyone else to give it a try. The language of this bill does not embrace the religious diversity of the United States or the diverse religious and non-religious heritages of the people who live here.

  • Micael

    Jim & Ralph, if you read the entire bill you realize its focus is not simply A religion above another, but religion in general. Its use of Christian examples is more-so due to historical nature than a specific preference. Rendering Ralph’s entire “word” search really quite irrelevant, even then the numbers were not very impressive- all things considered:

    First, the entire piece sets up the resolution’s conculusion that the historical foundations of this nation were based on religious fundimentals, period. The problem, is that the basis of present day criterion is based on present norms of religious diversity. The ENTIRE document basis and language is historical and inclusive in nature. It mentions “Christians” and “Bible” as merely examples of the religious mindset of the founders of this nation. It is simply a historical fact that this nation’s founders where nearly all “religious” men, and they all happened to be Christians, though even then they did not abide to one church/denomination or as they mention “religion”. You see the notion of religious freedom did not come about because Christians were fighting Muslims or Jews- but because in Europe they where persecuting themselves by their particular Christian denominations/ “Religions”.

    The key to understanding this is comprehending that historically speaking this nation was defined by its religious diversity and freedom, though that was limited to a diversity of Christian denominations…not necessarily non-Christian groups, because they simply did not exist… except for perhaps a few Jewish Congregations. “RELIGIOUS FREEDOM” as I mentioned before was not a “Christian vs NonChristian” diversity but inter-“Christian” diversity among Christian denominations which had been a great problem in the lands they were fleeing from.

    What you fail to see is that in merely mentioning “Christians” nowhere is anyone mentioning the Baptist, Methodist, Puritans, Quakers, Catholics, or Anglicans as a better form of Christianity. OR, for that matter even the Jews. It is really quite remarkable to say that Christ was mentioned so few times in the entire document considering this nation has been overwhemlmingly Christian for the great majority of its history (it still is though to a lesser extent.)

    Another aspect that is missed is the word “Bible”; it is primarily utilized as the Historical “Religious” Book. For nowhere does it say its merely a KJV Bible-only, A Protestant Bible, Catholic Bible or even Hebrew Bible. That said, even of the Scriptures verses cited 9 of the 12 mentioned came from the HEBREW Bible, the Old Testament. Oh! and for that matter it DOES mention the Torah- the book of Exodus (one of the 5 books of the Torah) is actually mentioned TWICE.

    Ultimately, the fact that the word “God” is mentioned 29 times (not more specific words as Yaweh, Buddah, Jehovah, Brahma, or Allah-which is simply the Arabic word for GOD) demonstrates the inclusive nature of the entire work…not to mention other words as “Creator, Lawgiver, Protector” none of which sway toward any particular group.

    In conclusion, the essence of the entire document is summed up in its resolution:

    “Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives—-

    (1) affirms the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation’s founding and SUBSEQUENT history, INCLUDING up to the CURRENT DAY;

    (2) recognizes that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation’s most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America’s representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;

    (3) rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation’s public buildings and educational resources; and

    (4) expresses support for designation of a `American Religious History Week’ every year for the appreciation of and education on America’s history of religious faith.

    None of which implicates a an acceptance or establishment of a particular religion, much less a denomination (the original focus of the founding fathers). But merely expressing respect by celebrating the religious nature and historical basis that has formed the heart of this great nation from its very inception. Any denial of this reality is to deny a fundimental characteristic of this nation and its history in favor of the “Religion” of the Areligious whose sole purpose is to deny every aspect of religion upon the Amercan way of life whether presently or historically.

  • Micael

    (addendum)…in favor of the “Religion” of the Areligious whose sole purpose is to deny every aspect of religion upon the Amercan way of life whether presently or historically…A DIRECT, contradiction to the very concept of “Religious FREEDOM”!

  • Plutian

    Micael, you dense little prayer-bug, your argument, though clumsy in its delivery, is irrelevant in its target. The First Amendment clearly forbids establishment of religion, NOT just establishment of a religion.

    Read. Think.

    It is the conceit of the religious that the sole purpose of areligious people is to deny religion.

  • Carne

    If someone in the congress would bother to have their legislative assistants spend as much time looking up the history of food in our nation as they have wasted with this drivel, I think you would find that food, specifically meat and potatoes, is the REAL foundation of the country. The first act of congress was not to hire a chaplain but to adjourn for lunch. I think everyone would agree that an army travels on its stomach and that from time to time congress has funded meat and potatoes in military rations as well. Not rice. Not garlic. Not noodles. And not, not, not, vegetarianism.

    The purpose of the vegetarian is to deny food.

    Oh and did you know that George Washington was frequently known to utter the words “What’s for supper” and also “Is dinner ready yet?” What could be more patrioticker than George Washington?

    It is time to celebrate the food diversity in this country by recognizing the role of the meat and potato.

  • Micael

    “Micael, you dense little prayer-bug, your argument…”

    Now whom here is the bigot?

    Oh, as far as Carne is concerned, it is quite ludicrous to compare religious belief with dietary preference. Doing so shows a complete lack of understanding of the impact of faith (of any kind) upon this nation and throughout its history.

    “The First Amendment clearly forbids establishment of religion, NOT just establishment of a religion.” That is simply a word play on semantics… sadly you leave out the second half “(Congress shall make no law )prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…why is that important? Because it is well known that the founding fathers were all deeply religious, but they did not impose their particular form of religious/Christian faith upon other. That is the focus of the document the religous respect and freedom that has been integral to our nation throughout its history.

    I only ask where the document is there any inclination toward a religion/denomination throughout the entire document.

    The fact that historically the majority of Americans have been “Christian” and thus the word is mentioned does not suffice. As stating “Christian” does not implicate a particular “religion” as intended by the founding father any more than the actual word “religion” merely implicates a belief system. As for them to just state “Christian” was as good as stating “Religous person” today. For the problem of their day was inter-Christian division and persecution if one did not abide by a particular Christian “religion” / denomination. Not Christian vs Jew vs Muslim or otherwise.

  • Plutian

    Micael, it is NOT merely “word play” to say that the First Amendment bans the establishment of religion. It is to QUOTE that part of the Constitution.

    Historically, the majority of Americans have not known even about the existence of Christianity. How very odd it is that you choose to claim that American history only begins with the arrival of Christians on their boats across the oceans.

  • Micael

    It is word-play because whether you state “‘a’ religion” or simply “religion” it truly makes absolutely no difference. What does make a diffence is mentioning strictly the first part of the amendment “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION” excluding the latter section “,OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”

    And it is exactly that which should be recognized by this act of Congress. We should celebrate the fact this nation has not violated its initial amendment. Avoiding the establishment of religion and simlutaneously allowing for the free excercize of religion…something that can not be said in many nations of the world. Ironically, it is in the rejection of such a act of Congress that we must read the writing on the wall and question ourselves:
    If in rejecting any such bill celebrating this freedom from prohibition, are we are actually tiranically prohibiting anything mentioning the word “religion” from being recognized even if it does not contribute in any sense to the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. (I reiterate can anyone find any section of the bill even insinuating the ESTABLISHEMENT of religion?)

    as for the comment-
    “Historically, the majority of Americans have not known even about the existence of Christianity. How very odd it is that you choose to claim that American history only begins with the arrival of Christians on their boats across the oceans.” ??HAH?? :o(

  • Ralph

    I agree that the language of the resolution is historical. But for that very reason it is not inclusive.

    The founders of the United States had a lot of great ideas, and gave us a good start considering the times.

    But they simply were not diverse. Not in terms of race, gender, overt sexual orientation, social class, or religion.

    The majority of Americans who have not been like the founders in every single one of those ways have had to struggle for equality or accept inequality for most of the last 230 years.

    Yes, historically speaking it is understandable that eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Americans would speak out of the prevalent assumption that Christianity was the only religion worth mentioning.

    But this resolution was written in the twenty-first century. Its failure to mention any religious or non-religious terms, texts (“Exodus” ergo “Torah” is bogus, since “Exodus” is also a chapter of the “Bible” as you well know), gods, or people is less understandable. It is also inconsistent with the resolution’s twenty-first century language of “diversity” (which, by the way, is a historical anachronism you won’t find in the writings of the founders).

    Presumably you would see the contradiction in a twenty-first century resolution purporting to champion racial diversity, but (for “historical” reasons) only mentioning white people dozens of times but never any other race.

    Presumably you would see the contradiction in a twenty-first century resolution purporting to champion gender equality, but (for “historical” reasons) only mentioning men dozens of times but never women.

    Why do you fail to see the contradiction here?

  • Micael

    There is no contradiction Ralph. You are getting caught up with merely “historical” language. The document’s theme utilizes presidence as its driving force leading up to the resolution. What you fail to recognize is that the writers of the document are just using PRESIDENCE as its basic theme, a common basis of many legislative decisions. Its fundimental meaning no matter how much it utilizes historical quotes in order to lead to its conclusion is immaterial to the essence of the resolution itself. As truly it is not promoting religion in and of itself, but celebrating FREEDOM of Religion as it has existed and developed to this very day.

    Additionally, you are viewing Christianity as simply one uniform system of belief, not recognizing the vicious persecutions the founding father’s European ancestors had to deal with. It alone being the very reason for their “exile” to the New World. For DISPITE calling themselves “Christians” and abiding to the same book (the Bible), all these various “Christian” divisions interpreted the bible in vastly different ways, Viewing their particular denominations as separate “religions” dispite all refering to themselves as Christians.

    Hence, the need for a special commemoration of this particularly American method of goverment, and its contribution to the modern world as it was previously unseen in the history of Western Civilization or the World for that matter.

  • Ralph

    Bull.

    Over and over again, this resolution uses uniquely Christian language, prededed by “Whereas…” For instance, this little gem:

    “Whereas the United States Supreme Court has declared throughout the course of our Nation’s history that the United States is `a Christian country’, `a Christian nation’, `a Christian people’,”

    The resolution finishes with “Resolved…”

    To claim that, in a resolution framed this way, “precedence” has absolutely nothing to do with the “essence” of the resolution is simply not an honest argument.

    I understand your point, so please don’t try to explain again. I just do not think your point is valid, and I suspect that you are not being entirely straightforward.

    If the historical precedents mentioned in the bulk of the resolution have nothing to do with the essence of the resolution proper, why does section 3 of the resolution read that the Congress of the United States:

    “(3) rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation’s public buildings and educational resources;”

    Take a careful look. That is not a defense of religious liberty, diversity, or even religion at all. It is a defense of “history”–the very history the authors of this resolution took such care to couch in uniquely Christian terms.

    This “history” is the deciding factor in what is protected in our nation’s public buildings and educational resources. Get it? Christianity stays in our courthouses and textbooks, not because of freedom or equality of all religions before the law, but because of its “history.” Religions without that “history” are not protected. It’s a sneaky use of “history” to promote government protection and promotion of one religion over another.

  • Micael

    I’m very sorry Ralph, but you truly are misunderstanding what is being discussed. Yes it says “Christian Nation, ect, ect.” But that simply does not change the essence of the entire resolution. It says nothing more than stating merely that this nation was founded by Christians of various RELIGIOUS backrounds and that to the present day that fact still exist though to a lesser extent. But that alone does not change the possiblity that in the future that myay be different. It does not mean much any more than historically this or that was “blank” this or that during a specific period of time. Egypt, used to be a nation predominantly adhereing to the religion of Pharaonic gods before Christianity and Islam came about- that does not change the fact that they should preserve historical/cultural contrubutions of that particular religion any more or less than such items relate to Christianity or Islam in modern day Egypt. And as far as the preservation of such history for the mere “history” is also incorrect. It is speaking directly of religious history and its history of tolerance/Freedom.

    Sure I will give you that there may be an element of what may appear as partiality however, functionally it makes absolutely no difference. No more than saying that a comemoreration of FDR, or JFK would show some partiality to a particular political party even though that may be a real potential secondary gain of a specific group of Democrats.

    I remind you that the purpose of the document is the preservation of “religious history” as it relates to the concept of religious freedom. That means what is considered history now and what should be considered historical down to modern day.

    The actual resolution leaves open any present day religious item (of any particular religion) that adds to the example of religious freedom.

    “(this resolution) affirms the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation’s founding and SUBSEQUENT history, INCLUDING up to the CURRENT DAY”

    That means if anyone desires it important to commemorate the contributions of say Judaism and their people by quoting the Mishnah or some other such document in a public display: that its presence would be protected as an item of historical significance …specifically an example of the controbution of the Jewish people and their religion as it defines this nation. This openess to recognize this as such, would epitomize our concept of “religious freedom” and celebrate the diverse religious history of this nation.

  • Micael, what part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” do you not understand?

    Even by your profound distortion of this bill (“the preservation of “religious history”), it’s unconstitutional.

    It isn’t the job of Congress to establish religious projects like those dedicated to preserving religion.

  • Ralph

    I understand perfectly what is being discussed. I just think it’s baloney.

    If the resolution is about preserving history, why doesn’t it mention anything other than Christian history?

    If the resolution is about equal treatment for religions other than Christianity, why doesn’t it mention a single one of them once?

    It doesn’t add up.

    The bill is very carefully phrased to redefine “history” as “Christianity,” in order to sneak around the establishment clause.

    I understand your argument that, well shucks, they just plum forgot to mention any religion other than Christianity. But that level of sloppiness simply isn’t consistent with the cleverness with which Christianity is redefined as “history” (which the United States government can promote, right?).

    This is not a slovenly, well-intentioned resolution. It is a cleverly crafted, bigoted resolution.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>