I agree it's pablum. I also agree that Congress should not be passing such resolutions, about Christianity or any other religion. But once a sponsor pushes such a resolution forward, it is politically very difficult for politicians to vote against it. So this kind of thing will keep passing, even if 90% of members of Congress think it's a bad idea. Condemning it is a bit like King Canute telling the waves to stop. Given that this sort of thing will always pass, the only redeeming virtue is to do it for any religion that asks. I therefore find it bizarre to suggest that one religion, the religion of a majority of the country, should be a priori excluded from the practice. That would make things worse, not better. As for Rev. Klingenschmitt's claim that the right tolerates all religions, nonsense. There are tolerant folks and bigots on both sides. For the intolerant right, look at the anti-Mormon hostility to Mitt Romney in Republican primaries; recall the protests when a Hindu gave the prayer in Congress. In a restroom remodeling project at the University of Michigan at Dearborn, they put in footbaths for the large body of Muslim students who washed their feet before prayers (and who were damaging the fixtures trying to wash their feet in wash basins attached to the walls); an angry wave of protest from the right complained about -- get this -- an Establishment Clause violation! First Establishment Clause violation many of those complaining have ever noticed. It is true that sensible religious leaders, including many on the right, have decided the right thing to do both ethically and strategically is to defend religious liberty for all faiths. (Some of them are still having trouble with defending the religious liberty of nonbelievers.) But they have not come close to selling that message to the rank and file yet. It is also true that on the left there is a significant body of bigoted hostililty to all religions. Quoting Jean Dudley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
One and the same, actually; I can't find a resolution on Islam.
Of
all three, this one is the closest to the current Christmas resolution; However, it makes little mention of the (non)
prominence
of Islam in America, no boastful numbers of how many there are on our shores. In fact, it leaves out the fact that Islam is one of the world's fastest growing religious bodies. Further, it
doesn't
mention specific religious beliefs to the degree that the
Christian/
Christmas resolution does. Finally, it was not passed "unanimously". 42 representatives couldn't even stand up honestly
and say "no". They voted "present". 42, compared to 9 who stood against the Christian/Christmas resolution. I remain unconvinced, Mr. Dougherty. None of the resolutions you cited are analogous to the recent HR resolution. They strike me
as
gracious acknowledgments of other peoples and religions, or a condemnation of religious persecution in the case of the first
one.
Once Islam overtakes Christianity as the dominant religion in the
US,
and they pass a resolution regarding Christmas, THEN we will see equality.
* * * It strikes me hubris pure and simple that a legal body
comprised mostly of self-identified Christians pass a resolution
to
honor their own holiday. If that's "PC", then I am proud to be
PC.
My grandmother would call it being polite. Jean
Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
