H. Res. 847 is absolutely absurd

December 13th, 2007 | Comments (9) | Trackbacks (1) |

H. Res. 847: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith has passed the House of Representatives and is on its way to a vote in the Senate. It’s not long at all; I encourage you to read the whole thing (if you can make it that far without vomiting). Here’s an excerpt from the end:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(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.

So much for separation of church and state, I guess. And to top it all off, the congressman who introduced the bill, Steve King, is from Iowa. I’m ashamed.

When nine members of congress voted “No”, King said,

I would like to know how they could vote… No on Christianity when the foundation of this nation and our American culture is Christianity… I think there’s an assault on Christianity in America.

The following acronym accurately defines my reaction: OMG.

What are your thoughts on H. Res. 847?

(ht: Nathan Rice)

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed to have articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always sign up for email updates and have fresh content delivered daily to your inbox.

Technorati tags: christianity, christmas, congress, government, h. res. 847, house of representatives, religion, senate
Categories: Faith/Theology, Miscellany

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

[...] [ht Jake Bouma] December 13, 2007 By Ben Gray | Posted in article | Tagged church, constitution, separation, state | « 18 thought-provoking technology quotes Alternative Xmas Carols » [...]

Pingback from openswitch » So much for separation of church and state on February 1, 2008

Comments

I just watched the video. I hadn’t realized that there were similar resolutions passed for other religions’ holidays.

I do think it’s a bit disingenuous to vote for those resolutions, but against this one.

But, that doesn’t negate the fact that:

1. Government has NO BUSINESS passing this useless junk.
2. The wording of the resolution goes far beyond recognizing a holiday. It actually puts Christianity on a higher level than other religions. That is a clear violation of the first amendment.

I understand the reasoning behind this resolution, but at a fundamental level, it (as well as the other resolutions mentioned) are completely unnecessary.

Gosh, no wonder people hate our congress so much!

Posted by Nathan Rice on December 13, 2007

Nathan: I totally agree that congress has no business “passing this useless junk”. They should be spending their time working on resolutions that actually get things accomplished other than “Reclaiming America for Christ” because America never was (and never will be) claimed by Christ.

Posted by Jake on December 13, 2007

Other than it being a blatant example of political pandering, I have no real problem with it. I do like that they reject the persecution of Christians. I would hate to think they might approve of it.

Posted by Pistol Pete on December 13, 2007

Check out this book by Alan Dershowitz - Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence. I haven’t read the book but I did hear the author on a podcast. He’s a professor of law at harvard and he specializes civil liberties and secularism. He debunks the idea that America was establish by Christians for Christians. (Those are my words.) Interesting stuff nonetheless. Any hooters, thanks for the update Jake, it’s always nice to be reminded of these things when I get homesick. Eat at Taco Bell for me. Peace out.

Posted by Skip Bouma on December 13, 2007

What I found interesting was that 9 members of congress out of 435 (though I don’t know how many actually voted) vote against this bill and it’s an assault on Christianity. Maybe it’s a nanoassault!

Posted by Henry Neufeld on December 15, 2007

I can see the rationale behind it even though it is a useless bill. If they are passing resolutions for other religions, might as well for Christianity too.

I don’t like the phrase “seperation of church and state” since it isn’t terminology used in the Constitution, and has been misinterpreted since Jefferson’s words have been taken out of context. Better language would be talking about the establishment clause and free exercise clause. I can’t really see how this bill “establishes” religion, since the only thing it really does recognize/condemn persecution - we can argue whether that happens in the United States, but it does happen worldwide. So perhaps it is a statement on “free exercise”?

Anyway, I would agree that Congress would be better off spending time on bills that actually accomplishes something.

Posted by Shane Vander Hart on December 15, 2007

Shane,

Fair enough, but the wording of this resolution was more superlative than the others. It went further than just recognizing a holiday, and indicated that Christianity is the best religion.

Secondly, separation of church and state was Jefferson’s commentary on the first amendment. He said that by ratifying the first amendment, the American people have successfully erected a wall of separation between church and state.

Finally, the establishment clause doesn’t just prohibit the “establishment of a state religion”. The wording of the establishment clause goes like this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….”

In other words, it’s not just keeping government out of the establishment of religion … that’s a given … but it also states that the congress is to make no law that respects any establishment of religion. It’s pretty tight.

Anyway, just thought I’d clear that up :-)

Posted by Nathan Rice on December 15, 2007

Well the “wall of separation” bit was taken from a personal letter written to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 who was concerned about their religious liberty since they were a minority in Conneticut and the Legislature was dominated by Congregationalists. Also, many of the “several states” had established churches which was allowable in a pre-fourteenth amemdment view of the First Amendment. So in a sense he was agreeing with them that they should have religious liberty, but he could not interfere with the state. He also said in his second Inaugural Address:

“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general [i.e., federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”

I’m not so sure he would agree with the way the “wall” metaphor is used today.

Really though, James Madison should be the authority on the First Amendment, not Jefferson since he is dubbed the “Father of the Constitution”. And his commentary (found in a legal record, not a personal letter) sheds some light.

“Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress,” Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

H.R. 847 does not establish religion, it does not enforce legal observation of it, nor does it compel anybody to worship. It doesn’t even lift up Christianity to pre-eminence as the bill calls it “one of the great religions of the world.” And as another commenter has mentioned similar bills have been passed for other religions.

Like I said before, it is really a meaningless bill. Balance needs to be maintained between establishment and free exercise - one could argue that the free exercise clause has been overlooked in past court decisions.

I guess my position is not to be too concerned about it, there is nothing in the bill that violates the First Amemdment and nothing that really elevates it above another religion.

Posted by Shane Vander Hart on December 16, 2007

If this reslolution is absurd, take a look at H.RES.635. It recognizes islam and passed 376-0.

Posted by D Wood on December 20, 2007

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

H. Res. 847 is absolutely absurd

Subscribe via RSS

At the movies ↴

Popular Posts

Elsewhere

Literature

On the ipod

Categories

Photos

Miscellany