 | Dennis Kucinich Votes For Religious Pandering Act of 2007 |
Dennis Kucinich made a serious blunder today in his effort to gain support for his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination from political progressives. He voted in favor of the Religious Pandering Act of 2007.
No, that’s not the official name of the legislation, but it might as well be. Check out some of the language in the resolution:
“Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible…â€
“Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its roots in Christianity…â€
“acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States…â€
What business does the Congress have of passing legislation with this sort of blatant attempt to establish a special status for Christianity? The clear legal answer: None at all.
The very first words in the very first line in the very first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America read:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
H. Res. 847 is legislation that establishes Christianity as a religion with special status recognized by the federal government. It is clearly unconstitutional.
It’s also historically inaccurate. The resolution expresses support for the idea that the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. That’s not just false. It’s a politically dangerous assertion. These claims are being made by the Religious Right in order to promote laws giving a privileged legal status to Christians above all other Americans. By voting for the resolution, Congressman Kucinich gave aid to their effort to transform the USA from a democracy into a theocracy.
Congress must not hinder Christianity or Christmas, but it must not give any special preference to Christianity or Christmas either. If Americans want to be Christians, that’s their private business, not the business of the government’s. If Americans want to celebrate Christmas, that’s their right, but the government should not be acting in order to promote the Christian holiday.
At a time when the Democrats in Congress have failed to stop the Bush wars, have failed to hold Bush accountable for his grave crimes against the Constitution and American law, have failed to do anything significant to address the crisis of climate change, and have not even succeeded in completing a federal budget for 2008, the Religious Pandering Act of 2007 is a dangerous waste of time.
Apparently, members of Congress like Dennis Kucinich think that they can cover up for their many failures this year by hiding behind Christianity and Christmas. Shame on them for trying such a blatant attempt at distraction. Shame on us if we fall for it.
Contact Us
Link?
I usually have some kind of clue about what you’re talking about, but not this time.
Comment by Iroquois — 12/11/2007 @ 10:10 pm
Congressional resolution. H. Res. 84. Me Ug. Me speak simple. Me Congress establish religion. Big bad no constitution. Ug.
Comment by Fruktata — 12/11/2007 @ 10:47 pm
Now if there really was something like that in the congress I would certainly want to know how my elected officials are responding as well as “the rest of the story”, so here is the big hairy deal:
“Recognizing the 100th anniversary of Glenn Curtiss’s achievement of record-breaking speed and his contributions to the motorcycle and aircraft industries.” Not even scheduled for debate.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-84
Ug, you smokum plenty heap bad shit.
Comment by Iroquois — 12/11/2007 @ 11:20 pm
Talk about religious pandering… look at what’s being said in the media about Youth With a Mission and the tragedy in Colorado, and then follow some of the links in this article regarding some of the stuff that’s been dug up about that group. Weirdly, the ONLY media outlet that’s reported on YWAM’s history and practices so far is Faux News, of all things. It seems that the media is pandering to the religious rightwing in all of this just as much as our government does on a daily basis.
Comment by Mike O'Risal — 12/12/2007 @ 7:58 am
Iroquois, wrong bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-847
Comment by Ummm — 12/13/2007 @ 12:28 am
gaak, Biblical literalists. Isn’t there enough controversy from various Christian groups writing their own creeds that the congress has to try their hand at it too?
this is the correct title of the bill:
Oh but it doesn’t have the force of law:
Comment by Iroquois — 12/13/2007 @ 1:32 am
So, it’s basically like them saying they respect the accomplishments of slaves in helping build the Capitol building, then?
I guess saying you respect the history, culture, and accomplishments of a group of people depends on the people.
Good job on the research on Simple Res, Iroquois!
Comment by Ummm — 12/14/2007 @ 11:03 pm
It’s like passing a resolution saying baseball and apple pie are Good Things, but I’m disappointed in my otherwise sensible rep who voted for it.
Comment by Iroquois — 12/14/2007 @ 11:59 pm
Ummmmm, there’s a big difference. One group of people, the slaves, had their freedom taken away from them with the help of the U.S. government, which then used their enslaved labor to literally build itself up.
The other group of people, Christians, have not been exploited by the U.S. government (though many individual politicians do exploit people’s religious credulity for personal benefit). On the contrary, the government is supposed to keep its hands off of religion by not establishing it. Read the First Amendment.
There is no equivalent part of the Constitution for dealing with slavery. There is no clause in the Constitution that reads, “Congress shall make no act regarding a recognition of the historical fact of slavery”.
I suggest a basic course in American history for you, Ummmm.
Comment by J. Clifford — 12/15/2007 @ 7:53 am