Congressional Votes On Religion
Posted December 13th, 2007 by Da King
On tuesday, December 11th, 2007, The House of Representatives voted on House Resolution 847 (H.R. 847), which dealt with "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith". H.R. 847 was sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), and had 60 co-sponsors (58 Republicans and 2 Democrats).
My first reaction to this news was, why is Congress voting on a resolution about religion at all ? Congress doesn't need to recognize the importance of Christianity or Christmas. The 75% of americans who call themselves Christians can do that just fine all on their own. Congress just needs to stay out of religion's business altogether. That is what the Establishment Clause in the Constitution is all about. The Republicans should never have brought this issue to the floor of Congress. It isn't their business. Of course, the resolution passed overwhelmingly (372 - 9, with 10 voting merely 'Present'), because who is going to vote 'No' on a resolution saying that Christianity and Christmas are important ? Even if you aren't a Christian, I think it's pretty obvious that Christianity is iimportant in america. It's the leading american religion by far.
Except 17 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted either 'No' or merely 'Present' on H.R. 847. More on that later.
Now, let's go back in time a few months to September 2007, and House Resolution 635 (H.R. 635), which dealt with "Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and expressing respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion, and for other purposes". This one was sponsored by Rep. Eddie Johnson (D-TX), and co-sponsored by 29 Democrats and 1 Republican.
I have the exact same reaction to this resolution about Islam as I do to the resolution about Christianity. This isn't the business of Congress. This time, the Democrats are the ones who shouldn't have brought the resolution. This resolution also passed overwhelmingly, by a vote of 376-0, with 42 voting merely 'Present' (1 Democrat and 41 Republicans).
Here's the part you members of the left side of the political spectrum will not like that I'm mentioning:
17 Democrats voted either 'No' or 'Present' on the Christianity resolution, but voted 'Yes' on the Islam resolution. Those who voted 'No' on H.R. 847 and 'Yes' on H.R. 635 were Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Diana DeGette (D-Co.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fl.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Fortney Stark (D-Calif.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.). Those who voted "present" on H.R. 847 and "yes" on H.R. 635 include: Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Donald Payne (D-N.J.), Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.).
What is the possible explanation for this ?
A defense of the Dems voting 'Yes' on the Islam resolution is that they wanted to show Muslims that we are not prejudiced against them. This does not explain the 'No' vote on Christianity, however. Does this show a bias within the Democratic party against Christianity ? I think it probably does, even if it's the minority opinion.
There were also 41 Republicans who voted merely 'Present' on the Islam resolution and voted 'Yes' on the Christianity resolution. The same thing could be said in reverse about them. Does this show a bias against Islam ? I think it probably does, even if it's the minority opinion, but it is radical Islam that is the enemy of america, so I think this is somewhat understandable, even though I disagree with it. We shouldn't condemn all of Islam due to the actions of the radicals (though they have an AWFUL LOT of radicals, I have to admit).
Any thoughts on this, folks ?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Oops King, you got to throw the penalty flag on you for this one. You write, “Congress doesn't need to recognize the importance of Christianity or Christmas.”
Yes it most certaintly does. This is because Christmas, and Christianity in general, has been under unrelenting assault from militant secularists & atheist who have, with their glib tongues, distorted American history and the clear meaning America’s founding documents to try and exclude religion from the public square.
You then add, “ The 75% of americans who call themselves Christians can do that just fine all on their own. Congress just needs to stay out of religion's business altogether.”
There’s a contradiction in what you say here, King. American people are doing it on their own by the free exercise of their political rights to get their representatives in DC to re-affirm that Christmas is indeed the national holiday on December 25 and that Christanity is important for the nation.
The message to radical libertarians [which I trust you are not one of] and militant secularists/atheists is the same — Christianity will not be banned from the public square.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Da King's right on this one. These things are an incredible waste of time and money.
I don't consider myself a Christian or a Muslim, but seems to me the American people have done just fine making sure everyone knows this is a Christian nation without Washington mucking it up. Those of us who are not Christian know exactly where we stand in this country. But I bet everyone brings up how they voted on these things come election time………..
Gosh, imagine what Congress will do if a Mormon gets elected!
December 13th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
We seek statesmen but get politicians. I'd be more interested in which politicians refused to go along to waste their time voting on these resolutions.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
frank, why do you care which of them voted present or not at all. If one of them isn't your representative it shouldn't mean anything to you unless you manage to vote in multiple districts. You aren't that unethical are you?
King, you are right on about this one. If religion is to be left alone by the legislative bodies what is all this about. I see political posturing for nothing, only.
December 13th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Roy,
I do care about other than my representative. However, I meant that I would like to know which congresspeople had enough integrity to not participate in this pandering.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The word "respecting" in the first amendment means "with respect to" or "regarding". It means that the framers of the constitution knew that the U.S. Congress would do the wrong thing if they even touched the subject of religion, so they are prevented, in effect, from voicing an opinion on the subject.
So, what are they doing with this vote, if not violating the first amendment? As soon as they violate that amendment with something kind to say about religion, they set a president that throws out the no-touch policy and paves the way for restrictions on our freedoms.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Vince, I agree that the Establishment clause has been perverted by the left and has been used in an attempt to remove all mention of religion from the public square, which is nothing more than censorship. It has been done un-democratically, primarily through the most despotic branch of government, the courts. That was never the intent of the founding fathers. The Establishment clause was intended to provide freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
However, that is also the reason Congress should leave their hands off of the subject. They shouldn't be forming resolutions picking out this religion or that religion for praise. If they formally praise Christianity or Islam, then what about Judaism, Buddhism, Hindu, etc ? I think we can handle Christmas just fine without Congress, and when the secularists try to remove Christ from Christmas, the people will object (and have).
December 15th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
The Not Ready For Prime Time Holiness Ghost said:
"Yes it most certaintly does. This is because Christmas, and Christianity in general, has been under unrelenting assault from militant secularists & atheist who have, with their glib tongues, distorted American history and the clear meaning America’s founding documents to try and exclude religion from the public square."
What exactly is the "public square"? Isn't that "square" owned by the taxpayers? All the taxpayers? Isn't that why it's called "public"?
So if the public square is owned by the taxpayers, then the document that ultimately governs the public square would be the Constitution. The Bill of Rights to that Constitution states that the government cannot make a law or rule that establishes religion.
It doen't say "establish a religion" or establish one religion". It says "establish religion". A rule or law that establishes religion is clearly prohibited.
Therefore, any government action that establishes Christianity, like placing Christian symbols on public property, is a violation of the Constitution.
No one prohibits churches from placing whatever they desire on their own private property. So Christians are not being militantly victimized here. The Constitution prohibits placing religious symbols on public property.
It really couldn't be any clearer.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Excuse me, Rev, but it's time for a reality check. You have taken the Establishment Clause too far. You said:
"The Constitution prohibits placing religious symbols on public property. It really couldn't be any clearer".
There is only one problem with your statement - the people who WROTE the Constitution would NOT agree with you. They would think it was perfectly fine to place the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, or to place 'In God We Trust' on a coin. You have changed the 'freedom of religion' concept to a 'freedom from religion' concept. You are advocating censorship. A symbol is not a law. A symbol doesn't prevent anyone from practicing their religion of choice.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
The Constitution is what it is.
How could "all men be created equal" in 1789 while slavery was legal? That contradiction doesn't mean all men aren't equal. They are. Think about that in relation to the establishment clause. We ain't perfect but we're slowly headed in the right direction. Too bad Roberts and Alito will slow down America's progress a bit, but it's inevitable.
Consider religion as outdated brain technology. We are in the midst of converting to Rational Thought 2.0.
The Constitution is the goal, the ideal. Eventually religion will no longer be "established" by the government as it is now with the Department of Faith Based Initiatives which has gone through a billion dollars of tax dollars. Private, religious schools should not be subsidized with tax dollars, at all. That's establishing religion. There are lots of other examples.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:52 am
You left out some of that "all men are created equal" quote. The actual statement is:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…"
You can dismiss the Creator part if you wish, but you are dismissing the rationale behind "all men are created equal" along with it.
And if Rational Thought 2.0 means that we are to entirely dismiss the idea that creation implies a Creator, opting instead for the pseudo-scientific conjecture that life sprang meaninglessly from some unknown, non-reproducable, and random mixture of mud and water (with maybe some lightning thrown in a la Frankenstein's monster for dramatic sci-fi effect), well, I think I wait for a later release, when your program is debugged.
The thing atheists always forget when they are trumpeting their so-called superiority over the knuckle dragging religious folk is that the athesists have no idea whatsoever if they are right or wrong. That means there is zero basis for their claim. It's just pulled straight out of their ass.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:50 am
King,
You might get a lauguh out of this. The atheists are promoting the usage of the term "brights" to refer to themselves.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Definitely comical. I think a better word for them would be that one you use - "Dims"