House Resolution 847

[Pangloss]

This question came from Dan Rather to his panelists in his HDNet show on separation the other night:

 

If a student in a literature class asks about a passage in Shakespeare that comes from the Bible, should the teacher be allowed to explain the story behind that passage, so that the student will better understand what Shakespeare was trying to say?

 

I'm paraphrasing that a bit because the question came in a certain context that doesn't translate here, but I think it's a great example because I really don't think anyone here would disagree with the teacher being allowed to explain that biblical story in a secular manner, right?

 

But that makes it a perfect example of how the "wall" isn't really a wall at all. It has exceptions that BOTH sides (or most of both sides) agree to.

[Reaper]

Aren't you guys here kinda over-reacting a bit?

 

As silly as the resolution is, it otherwise seems to me that the statements in there are just that, a bunch of statements. One intended to endorse the millions of Christians out there. So what?

 

And for the record, the first amendment states that the government shall not make a LAW respecting the establishment of a religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

Politicians, senators, representatives, presidents, and regular people for that matter can make any statement they want about it. Whether the comments are positive or negative makes no difference, and whether this is a bad or good thing is entirely subjective. Indeed, this sort of thing happens all the time where ever you go and on all sides of the political spectrum, and not all of them are directed toward Christians.

 

<quote>

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

{quote}

Everything except this bit seems reasonable, if completely worthless. This point would be abused plenty. And people who aren't Christians would feel left out. Fortunately, it is just a resolution.

 

I agree. The wording on that point isn't that great and does have the potential to being used for manipulation. But I'm pretty certain that most people out there don't really mind.

 

 

=============================================================================================

 

 

Now back to my earlier stance: Tell me, would you guys still be offended if they had made a statement intended to endorse all the Atheists rather than Christians out there?

[PhDP]

I'm not sure to understand Dan Rather's example (or even why it is an exception), the teacher is an individual, he has the right to his opinions. This is clearly not a case of the state taking the side of a religion over another.

 

Now back to my earlier stance: Tell me, would you guys still be offended if they had made a statement intended to endorse all the Atheists rather than Christians out there?

 

Whether they're "supporting" Christians or Atheists, I still don't see the point.

[ParanoiA]

As silly as the resolution is, it otherwise seems to me that the statements in there are just that, a bunch of statements. One intended to endorse the millions of Christians out there. So what?

 

No one is saying it is a law. We're saying we're disturbed by it. They are passing this "statement" while operating in the capacity of legislators - not while being a private citizen minding his personal belief. As a legislative body, they have passed a non-binding statement of their intents. I've read their intents and I don't like them because they are contrary to the constitution.

 

What's the point of making a statement if you have no intention of following up and through with some kind of complimentary action?

 

I don't think they've done anything wrong here, as it's not a law. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be alarmed by it's implications.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure to understand Dan Rather's example (or even why it is an exception), the teacher is an individual, he has the right to his opinions. This is clearly not a case of the state taking the side of a religion over another.

 

Right, I said that all sides likely agree on this question. Why it's interesting is because it points out that the wall is not truly a wall.

[bascule]

For the record, from the verdict of Everson v. Ewing:

 

The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion... . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'

[Mr Skeptic]

RESOLUTION

 

Recognizing the importance of the Winter Solstice Celebrations(a.k.a Christmas)

 

Whereas Winter Solstice, a holiday of great significance to most civilizations and cultures past and present, is celebrated annually.

 

Whereas the symbols of Christmas - the Tree, Yuletide carols, presents and Santa are not representative of any modern religion.

 

Whereas the solstice is an observable fact, not fiction;

 

Whereas all people can observe the solstice and partake in this celebration;

 

Whereas all peoples and cultures have contributed greatly to the development of civilization;

 

Whereas the United States, being founded as an oasis from religious persecution and known as a melting pot of diversity shall recognize this event as a secular holiday, while allowing all citizens to attach their religious meaning to this celestial event;

 

Whereas at this time of year, our ancestors recognized the ending of winter and the coming of spring and celebrated this rebirth in various ways;

 

Whereas Western Civilization happened to adopt the Roman celebration Saturnalia and other Pagan rituals, which were absorbed by Christianity;

 

Whereas solstice is a secular event, it can be celebrated by all peoples and cultures without bringing offense to any reasonable person and the secular symbols should not be attributed to any religion.

 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

 

(1) recognizes the diversity of beliefs in the US and the world;

 

(2) expresses continued support for all peoples in the United States and worldwide;

 

(3) acknowledges the secular and historical foundation of the solstice (a.k.a Christmas);

 

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by the diverse peoples and cultures in the founding of the United States and in the formation of civilization;

 

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against all peoples, both in the United States and worldwide; and

 

(6) expresses its deepest respect to all peoples throughout the world

 

 

 

This would be better.

 

Wow! Did you write that yourself? Maybe we should get it passed.

[ecoli]

Aren't you guys here kinda over-reacting a bit?

 

As silly as the resolution is, it otherwise seems to me that the statements in there are just that, a bunch of statements. One intended to endorse the millions of Christians out there. So what?

I'm pissed, because we're not paying congress to make feel-good, useless resolutions about religions (even if it may not be directly unconstitutional).

This resolution will (presumably) have no affect on the general public. I wonder how much resources, time and money went into creating this useless document.

 

Are we sure there's no pork in it?

 

Ouch! I wonder what Dr Paul would say about this resolution.

I'm assuming something close to what I said.

 

He has stated we shouldn't be afraid of religion coming into contact with government, but that doesn't mean we should be wasting resources on it. If a congressman wants to take five minutes wishing everyone 'Merry christmas' I have no problem with... but creating a resolution is just not necessary.

 

edit: It looks like Dr. Paul wasn't present at the time of voting. He was probably on the campaign trail. Though, from what I hear, he usually gets back to Washington to vote on bills.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-1143

 

My rep voted for it. damn

[D H]

Ouch! I wonder what Dr Paul would say about this resolution.

 

He has plenty to say about this issue in general. Here's one such gem,

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary' date=' our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

[/quote']

[ecoli]

He has plenty to say about this issue in general. Here's one such gem,

 

I think this is a misrepresentation of his position. He does argue against directly banning active religious participation in public institutions, thinking they are not as harmful as some 'secularists' would have us believe.

 

However, this does not mean Paul would advocate actively promoting a religion by wasting the resources of congress to pass an official resolution.

 

His position is one of promoting religion by treating it passively in regards to public institutions. Congress's bill is one that actively recognizes a religion, even if it doesn't really do much.

 

Anyway, 'Dr. No' would have voted against this bill just because it is a waste resources that doesn't accomplish anything.

[iNow]

Pondering this issue a bit further... I'm curious about what is the *true* issue from which they're trying to distract us.

 

 

 

It's like when you're boxing someone... and you raise your left hand really high with palm out and yell "hey!! look at that!!" ... and, as they reflexively look up at your left hand, you sock them hard with a right.

 

 

Or... perhaps a more common example... when you rattle your chair or make a noise in order to camoflage the sound of a fart.

[ecoli]

They're probably trying to appease the neocon idea that there is a 'war on christmas.' They're probably just trying to get some support for the evangelical constituents back home.

 

Why else would a one page bill have like 50 sponsors?

[Pangloss]

If you want to talk about political strategies here, I think one has to look beyond appeasement of the far right. Most Democratic politicians frequently profess their religious nature. There is a very large base of religious support in the Democratic party, especially amongst (but most definitely not limited to) African Americans. I'm afraid logically-minded post-graduate intelligentsia are still a minority in this country, would that those of us here at SFN would have it otherwise.

 

Remember that in spite of what MoveOn.org would have you believe any real growth in Democratic power is based on BROADENING appeal, not pandering to extremists. They used to call the Democratic party "the party of the Big Tent", referring to the fact that it appealed to such a wide variety of people. The loss of various groups from the big tent in the 1970s and 1980s signalled the rise of Republicans in the Southern states (when I was growing up in Georgia you couldn't find a Republican if your life depended on it).

 

Returning the Democratic party to the "big tent" means moderacy and cross-party support. And THAT means finding issues with common ground, such as this Christmas thing, or video game censorship, for example.

[iNow]

What purpose does this bill serve which improves the lives of US citizens?

[Mr Skeptic]

What purpose does this bill serve which improves the lives of US citizens?

 

Makes em feel better. Kind of like landing a man on the moon.

[ParanoiA]

I'm pissed' date=' because we're not paying congress to make feel-good, useless resolutions about religions (even if it may not be directly unconstitutional).

This resolution will (presumably) have no affect on the general public. I wonder how much resources, time and money went into creating this useless document. [/quote']

 

Right on.

 

He has plenty to say about this issue in general. Here's one such gem,

 

Well that's another unfortunate disagreement I have with Dr Paul then, albeit a minor one. He appreciates the ultimate intent in the establishment clause and that's good. I just prefer the default position of government to be more secularist.

[iNow]

Makes em feel better. Kind of like landing a man on the moon.

 

So, you equate a bill proposed to recognize the perceived importance of christmas with landing on the moon? Interesting.

[Reaper]

I'm pissed, because we're not paying congress to make feel-good, useless resolutions about religions (even if it may not be directly unconstitutional).

This resolution will (presumably) have no affect on the general public. I wonder how much resources, time and money went into creating this useless document.

 

Are we sure there's no pork in it?

 

I don't know what exactly the intentions were in making this document (nor do I really care), but I can tell you that it probably took up far less time and resources than most other projects (military or otherwise) or maintaining public facilities usually take up.

 

 

As silly and maybe useless as the resolution is, they're just words on a sheet of paper.

 

I don't know about you guys, but there really is nothing to be worried about, unlike other activities that the government takes part it (Trident missiles anyone?)

 

Makes em feel better. Kind of like landing a man on the moon.

 

Actually, the apollo programs did a little bit more than that

[iNow]

As silly and maybe useless as the resolution is, they're just words on a sheet of paper...

So is the constitution. So are our laws. It's the implications of this action that has stirred the proverbial hornet's nest. It's more than words on paper. It's intention and implication. It's disgusting.

[john5746]

Wow! Did you write that yourself? Maybe we should get it passed.

 

Yeah, took me all of 20 minutes. I'm sure we could improve upon it. I will email it to my Representative, but without a bunch of signatures, doesn't matter.

 

I like Christmas and am not offended by any of it at all. I am not offended by those who do not celebrate it or say happy holidays either. I am irritated by those who think I owe their religion thanks for Santa Clause, Christmas Trees and any other good things in society. If I go around an wish everyone happy solstice, they will look at me like I am crazy. Half probably wouldn't even know what solstice is - maybe some weird God! Bah Humbug!

[Reaper]

So is the constitution. So are our laws. It's the implications of this action that has stirred the proverbial hornet's nest. It's more than words on paper. It's intention and implication. It's disgusting.

 

Well, what exactly is its intention or its implications then. Maybe it's just naivety on my part, but I don't see anything wrong with this resolution. So far, I haven't really seen anything that would suggest that this is something to be genuinely worried about.

 

There is a difference between saying "I like/hate Christians" vs "We will arrest/prosecute anybody who is/isn't one".

[mooeypoo]

Whereas there are approximately 225' date='000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;

 

Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;

[/quote']

 

Uh.. I was under the impression that Islam is the largest religion, even for the simple reason that most of the people of the people that live in Islamic countries practice Islam (unlike countries that are identified as Christian countries, where you have a diversity of beliefs).

 

Any idea where they're taking their statistics from?

[PhDP]

I think there's more people "registered" as christians, but more practicing muslims. Technically, my parents, and most of my friends are "catholics", my father even had the privilege of been harassed by nuns because he was left-handed. Anyway, very few of them actually believe in god, they're CINO (Catholic In Name Only).

 

The pattern is similar through Europe, the actual number of practicing christians in rich countries is very low (with the notable exception of the U.S., of course).

[Mr Skeptic]

So, you equate a bill proposed to recognize the perceived importance of christmas with landing on the moon? Interesting.

 

Both were in great part to make people feel good. The resolution was cheap, and makes several Christians feel good; the moon landing made most Americans feel good. Certainly there was much scientific value to all of the Apollo program that was required to land on the moon, but much of the value of actually landing on the moon was national pride (we beat the Russians!). The projects for putting a man on the moon again (in about 2020), and wanting to send a man to Mars, as opposed to sending just rovers, is for pretty much this reason also. I didn't mean to sound as though good feelings were the only value to space exploration. In fact, I think we should be doing much more with space travel than we are doing now, but that's for a different thread.

 

Also, improved morale does have value and can be worth spending money on.

[iNow]

Both were in great part to make people feel good. The resolution was cheap, and makes several Christians feel good; the moon landing made most Americans feel good.

I do see what you're saying, I just intensely disagree.

 

 

 

 

Any idea where they're taking their statistics from?

 

It's politics, not science. They could make a bill stating that purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns. It only matters if they can convince others in the legislature to pass it... which, in this case, they have:

 

 

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-847

This resolution has been passed in the House, which is the end of the legislative process for simple resolutions. The resolution now takes effect.

 

 

 

It's interesting to me also to see what text was originally written, but removed or edited. You can see that here:

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-847

 

 

 

 

Per the statistics, one has to first explain how they define religion, and also how they define those which practice. Basically... what definitions are ultimately feeding their numbers are subject to bias. Here's one source which appears to have a lot of google strength, but I have not personally sought to validate it's accuracy:

 

 

 

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

 

Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents

 

(Sizes shown are approximate estimates, and are here mainly for the purpose of ordering the groups, not providing a definitive number. This list is sociological/statistical in perspective.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

One so inclinded could probably pull more accurate numbers from the CIA World Factbook, available below:

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html