Dusty Chalk Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 I believe that large mass that just flew over your head was a large chunk of sarcasm. Oh. You mean, he was agreeing with me? Yeah, I missed that, thanks for the clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aerius Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 Why let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way, you know that document that doesn't mention the word "god" anywhere. Since when have Bush and his Republican fuckheads given a fuck about the Constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrion Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 Oh. You mean, he was agreeing with me? Yeah, I missed that, thanks for the clarification. I realize that's shocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grawk Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 But...but...but...(sputters)...what about separation of church and state? No establishment of a state religion going on there. That's what the constitution prevents... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 No establishment of a state religion going on there. That's what the constitution prevents...No, it goes further than that:...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof -- that's what I meant by freedom from religious persecution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grawk Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 No, it goes further than that: -- that's what I meant by freedom from religious persecution. Saying "yay christians" neither persecutes anyone nor establishes a state religion. So what's the problem again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 Saying "yay christians" neither persecutes anyone nor establishes a state religion. So what's the problem again?It crosses the state/church line. If it said "yay satanists" or "yay wood pagans", I would have just as much of a problem, but somehow I doubt the government would consider such nonsense. The bill goes so far as to establish Christianity's "superiority", despite my feelings to the contrary. Government should keep their nose out of business in which their nose does not belong. You know, what if it said, "yay for publicly-schooled individuals"? Or "yay for people who touch themselves at night"? Or "yay for homosexuals"? Or "yay for people who eat omnivorously but secretly think the vegans are right"? "Yay for luddites"? "Yay for civil war battle recreationists"? You know, it's like posts from moderators stating imperatives (like "GTFO" or "STFU" or whatnot) are somehow perceived differently than posts from non-moderating members stating imperatives. Having the government involved is the problem -- I have no problem with individuals or even organized institutions such as churches saying "yay christians" (after all, someone has to -- I certainly won't). It is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hungrych Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 This is retarded and I as an American am embarrassed to have these idiots in our government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granodemostasa Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 there are many ways to pass this will without violating the constitution, they just have to change/cross out about 20 words or so and i'll actually be acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blessingx Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 Since so many individuals view any idea as either Christian or anti-Christian (interesting framing), could this be a further legal maneuver toward protection of actions in the name of Christianity? Discrimination against gays, women, Muslims, etc. because "my faith tells me so"? not to mention rewriting history, but they've sacrificed historical accuracy a long time ago in the interest of converting souls. Case in point: assuming Christmas, the Christmas tree, the Yule Log, etc. began as Christian celebrations. And such nice timing with Bush using only his seventh veto last week to prevent expansion of healthcare for children and the Senate Republicans today blocking a bill to prevent torture. As an atheist I gotta ask, where the hell did they get their version of Jesus? Hatred - the reason for the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granodemostasa Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 the bill is not that far off. If it could be reworded as a liberal-classic defense of religious freedom, it might have some democratic values to it. As it stands, it's just asking to be killed. The worst problem with it is that it is simply wrong: dec 25th has other non-christian holiday meanings, not all christians celebrate Christmas, and western tradition is far more than just "judeo-Christian." The other issue is that it seeks to define exactly what Christmas means, including what it means for Christians... (i'd at least call for a synod before making this declaration!) I'm pretty sure that the language in this funky resolution has a predecessor that it is being compared to. That is, the bottom half of it reads like a document, not unlike the ones congress has approved of before, that is meant to protect a historically persecuted minority. IN the resolution format, it does not carry any legal power, but the moral support; think of the resolution condemning persecution against Armenians. The meaning of the document is the biggest problem. If a resolution like this is passed, it would signal an attempt by congress to protect the "persecuted" group and aid it in it's "struggle." Now what does this mean if only "Christians" are included in the bill? While a person with wilsonian sentiments like myself might want to expend it and make it into a bill about human rights... no matter it could end up taking energy away from our already over-complicated foreign policy goals. (Do we know start putting sanctions on European countries for violating the rights of many muslims?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph0rk Posted December 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 Perhaps more context is needed: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-697 (A similar resolution, thanking Brett Favre for throwing his 421st touchdown pass) I think a lot of the discomfort around the christmas resolution stems from the argument (not made in the resolution, of course) that the United States was and should be a christian nation again - it is certainly a goal of the evangelical right. There is aways awkwardness when the group in power does something like this - it would be like a resolution recognizing Caucasians are competent workers and generally intelligent. The majority of congress is christian - so why do they need to pass a resolution recognizing this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granodemostasa Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 I suppose the bill had to pass... it was after a bill recognizing ramadan and diwali. Still, with 435 house members, you'd think there'd be someone competent enough to understand the variances within Christianity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blessingx Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 Watching C-Span right now. They're discussing a motion to "recognize the importance of the Christmas tree industry to America." 36 million trees a year for Americans. Started in 1816. Donated trees to our armed forces overseas, etc. Okay, it just passed. Wonder how much more time they can waste before the end of the year? Ah wait, they just started a motion on recognizing the importance of a specific Virginian cemetery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.