If you want to know more detail of the resolution itself, this is where to go.
I’m writing this not only to ask for you to call your Rep and tell them to vote against this resolution, but also, as Bruce has asked, to help get some traction against this bill. After all, it’s only a resolution, but in the end, Res 888’s passage will become a triumph for the Intelligent Design and Christian Founding revisionist movements (which as he says are mostly one and the same), who will be able to point to this resolution in getting their particular brand of teachings into our schools and public life.
As Bruce says, if this bill was enshrining actual Intelligent Design concepts into it, the media would be all over it like white on rice. However, it has been mum because this threat – the history revisionism threat – is largely ignored by them. I’m sort of sick of the media determining what is and isn’t important to pay attention to, aren’t you?
for posting about this. I too read the post this morning on talk to action. For those of you who remain doubtful about the incursion of dominionist and evangelical influences in this area, there is an article in the New Yorker Come One, Come All that spells things out fairly clearly. Nondenomination superchurches run by evangelicals are looking to pull in worshippers and replace existing churches. The picture attached to the article is a logo of Star Bucks altered to be “Son Bucks” with a depiction of Jesus.
I think H. Res. 888 is silly, but I wonder whether it’s worth any attention. It seems to me that the sponsors of the Resolution probably had two goals: to throw a bone to the religious right and to push the buttons of the secular left.
<
p>As for the religious right, I think we may be seeing the natural death of the alliance between fundamentalists and other Republicans in this election cycle, and I don’t see why we would want to give the religious right a reason to hop back into the arms of the GOP establishment by making a rucus about this resolution.
<
p>As for the left, it seems pretty clear that the resolution has pushed your buttons, Lynne. But to the extent people have a limited amount of political “energy” to spend supporting or opposing various causes, doesn’t it make sense to spend that energy on issues that matter rather than opposing a resolution that is basically a collection of “wheareas” clauses that won’t have the force of law and doesn’t do anything?
<
p>Just my two cents. I agree wholeheartedly, as I said, that the resolution is foolish.
<
p>TedF
I’d say let it simmer, perhaps pass. If Howard Dean et al are doing their job they’ll make sure the Ds are absent for the vote, let the stupid thing pass and then turn it into a campaign issue.
<
p>Seems to me there is a growing discontent in America with religion in government/politics. If the Ds can show this is the Rs in bed with the religious right (isn’t that a sin? but I digress) I think it could be a fun rallying cry.
did you read the bill? Did you honestly give that thing a gander from top to bottom?
it’s absurd. What’s your point?
So recognizing that our country has a very deeply-seeded religious history that has consistently espoused religion in public with everything from the words of its politicians to the trees in our houses to the words on our money is absurd?
<
p>Stop trying to revise history you don’t agree with.
only purpose of this bill is to further the intrusion of religion into government. My forebearers came here to escape religious tyranny. How about yours? Now if this were a bill that openly embraced all religions and all those who choose to be secular under the great umbrella of this country, I could go for that. Doesn’t seem to do that though.
Came here to escape a potato famine and were met with discrimination for being Catholic.
<
p>Why should the bill be about all religions? What were the contributions of Islam to American society in the 1800’s? Where’s the talk of Baha’i Faith in the 1940s? We have an entire month for blacks. Do you believe that being black in government is ok but being Christian isn’t?
accurate question is why should there be a bill at all? It has no purpose other than to insert religion once again into legislation to appease evangelicals. I’m very tired of that because it excludes about 70% of the population. Is that succinct enough for you?
That’s the most made up figure I’ve seen recently. Here are some facts to chew on.
Evangelicals do not represent 70% of the population. If that were the case, we would already be the United Theological States. Let’s hope we never reach that point for the sake of mainstream religious freedom.
and the word “evangelical” is not mentioned ONCE in the entire bill.
<
p>But I can see how you think it’s implied, since the bill references famous evangelicals like Abraham Lincoln, JFK and FDR, among others.
only dispel one set of myths at one time. Sorry, you’ll have to wait your turn.
admit you’re wrong. I’ve done it before. It isn’t that painful.
when you gave a “6” to someone who was being abusive and discriminatory to women in general? Yes, you are so good at that and the whole painful thing.
Couldn’t you attack me with something of substance? Man, looks like we got a Mitt Romney fan here with that kind of strategy!
and giving someone a “6” for using the word c*** is a very Christian thing to do. It speaks volumes.
It was so random and uncalled for, I 6’d it because of hilarity.
Christian values at work. I found it rather sad and pathetic myself.
are you guys writing about?
by poster who shall not be named referring to various anatomical parts of the body. I guess you missed them, the hillarity of it all and the resulting “6” from above poster.
I’m just going to randomly call you the c-word! woo!
… want to have a ‘religious history week’, I don’t actually see anything wrong with that in and of itself. However, the bill is written in such a way as to draw a conclusion about the religious history of the country and does so citing many individual points that are not only debatable as to their being alleged evidence of the weight of religion in the founding of the country, but are in fact debated among professional historians and have been for generations.
<
p>I find congress the incorrect arena for such a debate, never mind such a conclusion.
<
p>Furthermore… looking at the actual resolution in the bill:
<
p>
<
p>No problem with item one.
<
p>With regard to item two, government should be declaring anything at all about the value of faith in it’s workings, let alone declaring how faith is ‘critical’ or ‘inseparable’ to institutions and representative precesses, and legal systems. Even watering this down into more a statement of history by changing the tense from ‘is’ to ‘was’ is problematic for reasons I outline above.
<
p>Item three is the most outrageous of the lot. The notion that references to faith not be ‘tampered with’ usurps the courts role in deciding cases with respect to the establishment clause. It furthermore hamstrings state governments from acting similarly.
<
p>No problem with item four.
it is a nonbinding resolution, mind. I can’t usurp or hamstring anything.
<
p>I wonder why it warrants energy to support or oppose.
… I assume would be the red meat factor. It may also be even more of a red meat factor if it is strongly opposed I guess, since the victim card is such a theme for the GOP (go figure).
<
p>Still… hate to see it pass. I can guess how it would play as a campaign issue if it were strongly opposed, but I have to wonder how it would play out as a campaign issue if it were to pass without major opposition.
We’re not short of those anyway.
<
p>I think most people realize that we have nonbindig resolutions on all kinds of junk, such as whether Tuesday should be Broccoli Grower’s Day, and don’t give it much thought.
<
p>Then again, given the nonbindng resolutions on the Iraq war and on Armenian genocide, maybe the purpose behind this one is specifically to enrage people like you and lolorb. Is it still red meat if no one notices and is offended?
factually incorrect? I think that religion was a crucial part of the founding of this country. It might not have been founded as a “Christian Nation” but it certainly was a nation of Christians, and naturally the traditions stuck with us. It’s not really declaring anything new, just recognizing what’s there.
… as a nation of Christians is very different than saying:
<
p>”religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation’s most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America’s representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;”
<
p>As stated this implies that if Christianity were to disappear tomorrow, our “representative processes, legal systems” (otherwise known as our form of government) would collapse. Not only is this debatable (I have more faith in the institutions than congress I guess), but it comes awfully close to an official government endorsement of faith.
<
p>Recognizing the Christian faith as a part of the history of the country and declaring faith as a critical component to the operation of government aver very very different things.
<
p>The role of faith in the founding of these institutions, which were created specifically to endure such changes as religious reformation and such unscathed, is debatable. Indeed, it could be argued that the enlightenment’s influence of secularism had more influence on the way the institutions were designed. Remember, the founders were looking for a form of government that could survive religious strife while still ensuring the freedom of all religious sects within the country. In this respect, yes, religion was crucial.
… as a nation of Christians is very different than saying:
<
p>”religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation’s most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America’s representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;”
<
p>As stated this implies that if Christianity were to disappear tomorrow, our “representative processes, legal systems” (otherwise known as our form of government) would collapse. Not only is this debatable (I have more faith in the institutions than congress I guess), but it comes awfully close to an official government endorsement of faith.
<
p>Recognizing the Christian faith as a part of the history of the country and declaring faith as a critical component to the operation of government aver very very different things.
<
p>The role of faith in the founding of these institutions, which were created specifically to endure such changes as religious reformation and such unscathed, is debatable. Indeed, it could be argued that the enlightenment’s influence of secularism had more influence on the way the institutions were designed. Remember, the founders were looking for a form of government that could survive religious strife while still ensuring the freedom of all religious sects within the country. In this respect, yes, religion was crucial.