Re: alarming new law?
Would a resolution for Secular Humanism violate the Constitution? No need to answer - I've been reading Daniel Conkle's book, and not only am I enjoying it, I'm learning that this question cannot have a simple answer. S Richard Dougherty wrote: Well, maybe you will; see below. Congress does this sort of thing regularly. (Haven't seen one for atheists yet, but I can't keep up.) Marty: Do you think the whereas you cited that was left out was omitted because it was too over the top, or because the wording of it might actually divide Christians? (I'm thinking of the specific reference to the Bible especially.) Richard J. Dougherty Resolution on Buddhism (Vietnam): http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Dec/01-499319.html Resolution on Judaism: http://www.350th.org/commission/Jewish%20350th%20Res%20passes%20Joint%2011-24.pdf Resolution on Islam: http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-englishx=20071003165444mlenuhret0.9762384m=October http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-englishx=20071003165444mlenuhret0.9762384m=October On Ramadan: http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=14293 -Original Message- From: Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent 12/15/2007 11:12:13 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: alarming new law? It's not a law, it's a non-binding resolution. Legally, it's pabulum. Still, it's a waste of the House's time, IMO. What effects it has on society at large is up for speculation. I see it as indicative of a wider mindset that Christians are persecuted here and the world over. Of course they are; As are Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, and every other cultural subset. Susan, you and I will not live to see a resolution like this passed for any other religion in the good ol' US of A. Jean On Dec 15, 2007, at Sat, Dec 15, 8:49 PM, Susan Freiman wrote: This just came to me from an atheists' list. Is it true? Susan ~~` *PRESS RELEASE* *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* *The Council for Secular Humanism Chides Congress for Disrespecting Religions * (December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular Humanism noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House of Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law, under the misleading title Recognizing the Importance of Christm as and the Christian Faith passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious tolerance necessary in these changing times. Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four Jewish men in New York City were attacked on the subway for replying to a group of ten people who wished them a Merry Christmas with a similar greeting: Happy Hanukkah. For this, these men were first insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who came to their physical defense. The actions of the Congress, by passing the resolution and thus expressing preference to the Christian faith over all the others represented by the diverse population of these United States , encourages this sort of behavior. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given preference. The language of the House resolution effectively undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like those four Jewish subway riders in New York . Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, It is deplorable that in this day and age and in light of violence against religious minorities here in the United States that the Congress would stoke those flames with preferential language in support of a single religion. David Koepsell , CSH's executive director, noted, Te First Amendment Guarantee was designed to prevent the sort of religious intolerance that resulted in violence in Europe, and our Congress should respect the intent of the Founders. We call on the Congress to reject this resolution, to stand up for religious freedom, secularism, and pluralism, and to foster a climate in which all believers and nonbelievers alike are treated equally. __._,_.___ ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu mailto: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
Re: alarming new law?
Jean, I'll be glad to celebrate with you, whatever holidays you like! I'd be interested to know how the Islam resolution passed unanimously, and Christianity had nine votes against. Maybe for Islam a lot of Representatives were absent? Are we getting too far off topic and annoying people here? If so, I'm sorry, and I'll stop. Susan Jean Dudley wrote: On Dec 15, 2007, at Sat, Dec 15, 9:36 PM, Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: Actually, Jean and Susan, you've already lived long enough to see a House resolution like this passed honoring other religionsincluding Islamunanimously this year. I stand corrected, Mr. Klingenschmitt. Would you kindly cite the resolution numbers for the following honored religions? Wicca Buddhism Shinto Zorastrian Judaism Asatru Secular Humanism/Atheism (prolly not religions, but hey, I've heard Christians arguing that they were, so why not?) My point still stands. In a country dominated by Christians, isn't it self-serving to honor themselves? Especially in light of the recent attack on Jews in a New York subway by self-identified Christians? Neither sounds very Christian to me. Christianity is the default; Our legal holidays are based on many Christian holidays. Non-Christians are ridiculed, attacked, defamed and have to fight for our rights at every turn. Jean Blessed Yuletide in the names of the Oak and Holly kings, and the Maiden, Mother and Crone. I'll see your Jesus, and raise you a pantheon. ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: alarming new law?
And there was one, with a similar bunch of whereas boilerplate, in honor of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. There was a nitwit on Usenet who claimed that one of the whereas, by mentioning the Law of Noah, enforced said code on the US. (It is typical of ideologues to have such difficulty distinguishing between boilerplate and operative clauses.) These, like extensions of remarks in the Record, may seem like a waste of time to you and me, but they are not to legislators with their eyes on their constitutents who are reading the Record. (I thought the Armenian Genocide resolution was a waste of time, being an exercise in what Snopes calls slacktivism instead of paying attention to people who are alive to suffer now. But they had their eyes firmly on votes.) On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Richard Dougherty wrote: Well, maybe you will; see below. Congress does this sort of thing regularly. (Haven't seen one for atheists yet, but I can't keep up.) Marty: Do you think the whereas you cited that was left out was omitted because it was too over the top, or because the wording of it might actually divide Christians? (I'm thinking of the specific reference to the Bible especially.) Richard J. Dougherty Resolution on Buddhism (Vietnam):http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Dec/01-499319.html Resolution on Judaism:http://www.350th.org/commission/Jewish%20350th%20Res%20passes%20Joint%2011-24.pdf Resolution on Islam:http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-englishx=20071003165444mlenuhret0.9762384m=October On Ramadan:http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=14293 -Original Message- From: Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent 12/15/2007 11:12:13 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: alarming new law? It's not a law, it's a non-binding resolution. Legally, it's pabulum. Still, it's a waste of the House's time, IMO. What effects it has on society at large is up for speculation. I see it as indicative of a wider mindset that Christians are persecuted here and the world over. Of course they are; As are Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, and every other cultural subset. Susan, you and I will not live to see a resolution like this passed for any other religion in the good ol' US of A. JeanOn Dec 15, 2007, at Sat, Dec 15, 8:49 PM, Susan Freiman wrote:This just came to me from an atheists' list. Is it true? Susan ~~`PRESS RELEASEFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Council for Secular Humanism Chides Congress for Disrespecting Religions(December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular Humanism noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House of Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law, under the misleading title Recognizing the Importance of Christm as and the Christian Faith passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious tolerance necessary in these changing times. Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four Jewish men in New York City were attacked on the subway for replying to a group of ten people who wished them a Merry Christmas with a similar greeting: Happy Hanukkah. For this, these men were first insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who came to their physical defense. The actions of the Congress, by passing the resolution and thus expressing preference to the Christian faith over all the others represented by the diverse population of these United States , encourages this sort of behavior. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given preference. The language of the House resolution effectively undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like those four Jewish subway riders in New York . Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, It is deplorable that in this day and age and in light of violence against religious minorities here in the United States that the Congress would stoke those flames with preferential language in support of a single religion. David Koepsell , CSH's executive director, noted, Te First Amendment Guarantee was designed to prevent the sort of religious intolerance that resulted in violence in Europe, and our Congress should respect the intent of the Founders. We call on the Congress to reject this resolution, to stand up for religious freedom, secularism, and pluralism, and to foster a climate in which all believers and nonbelievers alike are treated equally.__._,_.__To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi
Re: alarming new law?
It's not a law -- it's a House resolution, which was passed 372-9 and which reads as follows: Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world; Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 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; Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization; Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its Judeo-Christian roots; Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ; Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore, be it 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. Attest: Clerk. The most interesting thing about it is that it originally included one further whereas clause, later removed for obvious reasons: Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible. -- Original message -- From: Susan Freiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] This just came to me from an atheists' list. Is it true? Susan ~~` *PRESS RELEASE* *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* *The Council for Secular Humanism Chides Congress for Disrespecting Religions * (December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular Humanism noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House of Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law, under the misleading title Recognizing the Importance of Christm as and the Christian Faith passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious tolerance necessary in these changing times. Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four Jewish men in New York City were attacked on the subway for replying to a group of ten people who wished them a Merry Christmas with a similar greeting: Happy Hanukkah. For this, these men were first insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who came to their physical defense. The actions of the Congress, by passing the resolution and thus expressing preference to the Christian faith over all the others represented by the diverse population of these United States , encourages this sort of behavior. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given preference. The language of the House resolution effectively undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like those four Jewish subway riders in New York . Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, It is deplorable that in this day and age and in light of violence against religious minorities here in the United States that the Congress would stoke those flames with preferential language in support of a single religion. David Koepsell , CSH's executive director, noted, Te First Amendment Guarantee was designed to prevent the sort of religious intolerance that resulted in violence in Europe, and our Congress should respect the
Re: alarming new law?
It's not a law, it's a non-binding resolution. Legally, it's pabulum. Still, it's a waste of the House's time, IMO. What effects it has on society at large is up for speculation. I see it as indicative of a wider mindset that Christians are persecuted here and the world over. Of course they are; As are Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, and every other cultural subset. Susan, you and I will not live to see a resolution like this passed for any other religion in the good ol' US of A. Jean On Dec 15, 2007, at Sat, Dec 15, 8:49 PM, Susan Freiman wrote: This just came to me from an atheists' list. Is it true? Susan ~~` PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Council for Secular Humanism Chides Congress for Disrespecting Religions (December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular Humanism noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House of Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law, under the misleading title Recognizing the Importance of Christm as and the Christian Faith passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious tolerance necessary in these changing times. Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four Jewish men in New York City were attacked on the subway for replying to a group of ten people who wished them a Merry Christmas with a similar greeting: Happy Hanukkah. For this, these men were first insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who came to their physical defense. The actions of the Congress, by passing the resolution and thus expressing preference to the Christian faith over all the others represented by the diverse population of these United States , encourages this sort of behavior. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given preference. The language of the House resolution effectively undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like those four Jewish subway riders in New York . Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, It is deplorable that in this day and age and in light of violence against religious minorities here in the United States that the Congress would stoke those flames with preferential language in support of a single religion. David Koepsell , CSH's executive director, noted, Te First Amendment Guarantee was designed to prevent the sort of religious intolerance that resulted in violence in Europe, and our Congress should respect the intent of the Founders. We call on the Congress to reject this resolution, to stand up for religious freedom, secularism, and pluralism, and to foster a climate in which all believers and nonbelievers alike are treated equally. __._,_.___ ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: alarming new law?
Actually, Jean and Susan, you've already lived long enough to see a House resolution like this passed honoring other religionsincluding Islamunanimously this year. The hypocrisy by these nine Democrats, however, who apparently voted yes to honor Islam but voted no and refused to give Christianity the same honor, speaks volumes about the left's religiously intolerance toward Christianity, especially in light of the right's religious tolerance of all faiths equally. --Gordon James Klingenschmitt (Merry Christmas, in Jesus' name...) Read the AP version here (underline added): CAPITOL HILL (AP) -- The U.S. House has passed a resolution Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith -- but it wasn't unanimous. The measure was approved by a vote of 372-to-9, with all of the no votes cast by Democrats. A similar resolution recognizing the importance of Ramadan and the Islamic faith was passed unanimously in October. The 9 votes against the Christmas resolution were cast by Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke of New York; Diana Degette of Colorado; Alcee Hastings of Florida; Jim McDermott of Washington; Bobby Scott of Virginia; and Barbara Lee, Pete Stark and Lynn Woolsey of California. -- Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not a law, it's a non-binding resolution. Legally, it's pabulum. Still, it's a waste of the House's time, IMO. What effects it has on society at large is up for speculation. I see it as indicative of a wider mindset that Christians are persecuted here and the world over. Of course they are; As are Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, and every other cultural subset. Susan, you and I will not live to see a resolution like this passed for any other religion in the good ol' US of A. Jean On Dec 15, 2007, at Sat, Dec 15, 8:49 PM, Susan Freiman wrote: This just came to me from an atheists' list. Is it true? Susan ~~` PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Council for Secular Humanism Chides Congress for Disrespecting Religions (December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular Humanism noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House of Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law, under the misleading title Recognizing the Importance of Christm as and the Christian Faith passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious tolerance necessary in these changing times. Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four Jewish men in New York City were attacked on the subway for replying to a group of ten people who wished them a Merry Christmas with a similar greeting: Happy Hanukkah. For this, these men were first insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who came to their physical defense. The actions of the Congress, by passing the resolution and thus expressing preference to the Christian faith over all the others represented by the diverse population of these United States , encourages this sort of behavior. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given preference. The language of the House resolution effectively undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like those four Jewish subway riders in New York . Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, It is deplorable that in this day and age and in light of violence against religious minorities here in the United States that the Congress would stoke those flames with preferential language in support of a single religion. David Koepsell , CSH's executive director, noted, Te First Amendment Guarantee was designed to prevent the sort of religious intolerance that resulted in violence in Europe, and our Congress should respect the intent of the Founders. We call on the Congress to reject this resolution, to stand up for religious freedom, secularism, and pluralism, and to foster a climate in which all believers and nonbelievers alike are treated equally. __._,_.___ ___ 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. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
Re: alarming new law?
Well, maybe you will; see below. Congress does this sort of thing regularly. (Haven't seen one for atheists yet, but I can't keep up.) Marty: Do you think the whereas you cited that was left out was omitted because it was too over the top, or because the wording of it might actually divide Christians? (I'm thinking of the specific reference to the Bible especially.) Richard J. Dougherty Resolution on Buddhism (Vietnam):http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Dec/01-499319.html Resolution on Judaism:http://www.350th.org/commission/Jewish%20350th%20Res%20passes%20Joint%2011-24.pdf Resolution on Islam:http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-englishx=20071003165444mlenuhret0.9762384m=October On Ramadan:http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=14293 -Original Message- From: Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent 12/15/2007 11:12:13 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: alarming new law? It's not a law, it's a non-binding resolution. Legally, it's pabulum. Still, it's a waste of the House's time, IMO. What effects it has on society at large is up for speculation. I see it as indicative of a wider mindset that Christians are persecuted here and the world over. Of course they are; As are Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, and every other cultural subset. Susan, you and I will not live to see a resolution like this passed for any other religion in the good ol' US of A. JeanOn Dec 15, 2007, at Sat, Dec 15, 8:49 PM, Susan Freiman wrote:This just came to me from an atheists' list. Is it true? Susan ~~`PRESS RELEASEFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Council for Secular Humanism Chides Congress for Disrespecting Religions(December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular Humanism noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House of Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law, under the misleading title Recognizing the Importance of Christm as and the Christian Faith passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious tolerance necessary in these changing times. Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four Jewish men in New York City were attacked on the subway for replying to a group of ten people who wished them a Merry Christmas with a similar greeting: Happy Hanukkah. For this, these men were first insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who came to their physical defense. The actions of the Congress, by passing the resolution and thus expressing preference to the Christian faith over all the others represented by the diverse population of these United States , encourages this sort of behavior. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given preference. The language of the House resolution effectively undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like those four Jewish subway riders in New York . Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, It is deplorable that in this day and age and in light of violence against religious minorities here in the United States that the Congress would stoke those flames with preferential language in support of a single religion. David Koepsell , CSH's executive director, noted, Te First Amendment Guarantee was designed to prevent the sort of religious intolerance that resulted in violence in Europe, and our Congress should respect the intent of the Founders. We call on the Congress to reject this resolution, to stand up for religious freedom, secularism, and pluralism, and to foster a climate in which all believers and nonbelievers alike are treated equally.__._,_.__To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.___ 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
Re: alarming new law?
What a silly waste of time. Thanks to all of you for the information. Susan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not a law -- it's a House resolution, which was passed 372-9 and which reads as follows: Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world; Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 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; Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization; Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its Judeo-Christian roots; Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ; Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore, be it 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. Attest: Clerk. The most interesting thing about it is that it originally included one further whereas clause, later removed for obvious reasons: Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible. -- Original message -- From: Susan Freiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] This just came to me from an atheists' list. Is it true? Susan ~~` *PRESS RELEASE* *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* *The Council for Secular Humanism Chides Congress for Disrespecting Religions * (December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular Humanism noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House of Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law, under the misleading title Recognizing the Importance of Christm as and the Christian Faith passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious tolerance necessary in these changing times. Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four Jewish men in New York City were attacked on the subway for replying to a group of ten people who wished them a Merry Christmas with a similar greeting: Happy Hanukkah. For this, these men were first insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who came to their physical defense. The actions of the Congress, by passing the resolution and thus expressing preference to the Christian faith over all the others represented by the diverse population of these United States , encourages this sort of behavior. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given preference. The language of the House resolution effectively undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like those four Jewish subway riders in New York . Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, It is deplorable that in this day and age and in light of violence against religious minorities here in the United States that the Congress would stoke those flames with preferential language in support of a single religion. David Koepsell , CSH's executive director, noted, Te First
Re: alarming new law?
On Dec 16, 2007, at Sun, Dec 16, 5:40 AM, Richard Dougherty wrote: Well, maybe you will; see below. Congress does this sort of thing regularly. (Haven't seen one for atheists yet, but I can't keep up.) Marty: Do you think the whereas you cited that was left out was omitted because it was too over the top, or because the wording of it might actually divide Christians? (I'm thinking of the specific reference to the Bible especially.) Richard J. Dougherty Resolution on Buddhism (Vietnam): http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Dec/01-499319.html Which urges VIETNAM to allow freedom for Buddhists. It doesn't list the prevalence of Buddhism in the USA. In fact, it doesn't mention Buddhism in the USA at all. It's a smackdown on Vietnam, and not an honoring of a particular religious group in America. Resolution on Judaism: http://www.350th.org/commission/Jewish%20350th%20Res%20passes% 20Joint%2011-24.pdf This one is better; However, it honors and recognizes the 350th anniversary of the American Jewish Community and doesn't honor Judaism in America. Oddly, no mention of the particular beliefs of Judaism are enumerated, as they were regarding Christianity and Christmas. Resolution on Islam: http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile- englishx=20071003165444mlenuhret0.9762384m=October On Ramadan: http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=14293 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. FYI: I am writing under an assumed name on this list for many reasons. I am using my grandmother's name, who was a registered Republican. It was her grace and dignity that inspired me, and she used to say that it's rude to wear a mink coat to volunteer at the soup kitchen. 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___ 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.
Re: alarming new law?
On Dec 15, 2007, at Sat, Dec 15, 9:36 PM, Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: Actually, Jean and Susan, you've already lived long enough to see a House resolution like this passed honoring other religionsincluding Islamunanimously this year. I stand corrected, Mr. Klingenschmitt. Would you kindly cite the resolution numbers for the following honored religions? Wicca Buddhism Shinto Zorastrian Judaism Asatru Secular Humanism/Atheism (prolly not religions, but hey, I've heard Christians arguing that they were, so why not?) My point still stands. In a country dominated by Christians, isn't it self-serving to honor themselves? Especially in light of the recent attack on Jews in a New York subway by self-identified Christians? Neither sounds very Christian to me. Christianity is the default; Our legal holidays are based on many Christian holidays. Non-Christians are ridiculed, attacked, defamed and have to fight for our rights at every turn. Jean Blessed Yuletide in the names of the Oak and Holly kings, and the Maiden, Mother and Crone. I'll see your Jesus, and raise you a pantheon. ___ 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.
Re: alarming new law?
This law shows the deep insecurity of politicians in the year before an election. Silly barely describes this. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, New York 12208-3494 518-445-3386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/16/07 1:09 AM What a silly waste of time. Thanks to all of you for the information. Susan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not a law -- it's a House resolution, which was passed 372-9 and which reads as follows: Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world; Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 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; Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization; Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its Judeo-Christian roots; Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ; Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore, be it 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. Attest: Clerk. The most interesting thing about it is that it originally included one further whereas clause, later removed for obvious reasons: Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible. -- Original message -- From: Susan Freiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] This just came to me from an atheists' list. Is it true? Susan ~~` *PRESS RELEASE* *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* *The Council for Secular Humanism Chides Congress for Disrespecting Religions * (December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular Humanism noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House of Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law, under the misleading title Recognizing the Importance of Christm as and the Christian Faith passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious tolerance necessary in these changing times. Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four Jewish men in New York City were attacked on the subway for replying to a group of ten people who wished them a Merry Christmas with a similar greeting: Happy Hanukkah. For this, these men were first insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who came to their physical defense. The actions of the Congress, by passing the resolution and thus expressing preference to the Christian faith over all the others represented by the diverse population of these United States , encourages this sort of behavior. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given preference. The language of the House resolution effectively undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like those four Jewish subway riders in New York . Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, It
Re: alarming new law?
I've seen several comments, here and in cited materials, that this isn't the first resolution regarding Christmas; I've found one other one after a quick Google search, resolving to protect the symbols and traditions of Christmas in 2005. Can anyone here cite some other ones for me? Thank you. Jean ___ 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.
