...the House of Representatives "acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith" and "expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world".
Whew. Glad they got that off their chests.
Ok, so those of you who care about politics have probably already heard about House Resolution 847, which recognizes the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith. And those of you who don't care about politics probably stopped reading after the first sentence. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to offer my insights on this historic piece of legislation.
The bill in question was passed by the House on December 11, 2007 with a vote of 372-9-50. Its stated purpose was to recognize the historical importance of Christianity and Christmas. Now, clearly, this piece of legislation was urgently needed at this precise time in American history, as evidenced by the following facts:
a) The vast majority of Americans are clearly unaware of the important role Christianity plays in this country. I mean, gosh, it's been almost a month or so since the last serious threat to the separation of chuch and state. I almost forgot we were a theocracy...I mean, democracy.
b) With a war in progress and another one looming ever closer on the horizon, Congress clearly had nothing more productive they could have been doing with their time on December 11, 2007.
c) Those goddamn atheists are trying to kill Christmas, again.
Delving deeper into this intriguing example of democracy in action, I was heartened to discover that my own Congressional representative voted "nay" on this particular resolution. I was under the impression that he did so because it was clearly a waste of precious Congressional time (which, ahem my tax dollars are paying for), and I wrote him to thank him. Imagine my surprise when I got back this seemingly personalized letter:
Dear Rachel:
Thank you for contacting me regarding my "nay" vote on H.Res.847, a resolution, "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith." I appreciate the time you have taken to share your comments with me.
As a Christian, I have long honored and celebrated the holiday of Christmas. I, too, believe that Christmas is, "a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, {and} is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world." I voted no on the resolution, not to diminish the importance of the holiday, but rather as a reflection of what I believe the priorities of Congress should be.
To be frank, I was taken aback that the sponsor of H.Res.847 was Rep. Stephen King who, like many of the cosponsors of the resolution, has consistently opposed efforts to provide health care to children from poor families by voting against the State Children's Health Improvement Program (SCHIP). In my opinion, t he bill was a Republican tactic designed to draw attention from pressing issues in Congress, especially the President's second veto of an extension of health care for children in low-income families. I knew I would take criticism for my actions, but if my vote forces awareness and a discussion of Bush's SCHIP veto that same day, then it was a good protest vote.
It seemed to me that the spirit of Christmas and the message of Jesus were not honored by having this resolution promoted by those who, in my opinion, have not looked to the well-being of "the least of these" (Matthew 25:40). I did not feel right joining in support of this resolution because I felt it was contradicted by the sponsors' actions.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will continue to contact me with matters of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Jim McDermott
Now this, I found interesting. While I fully agree with his position on the SCHIP veto, it seems to me that there are better reasons to oppose this resolution. It's fine to recognize the provisions of the bill as true (I agree with most of them), but it seems to me that McDermott would have been fine with this bill if it were not for the idealogical contradictions it illuminated in some of his fellow Congressmen. Even if this is not the case, and he does believe this resolution was a waste of time (as I think could be reasonably inferred), nowhere does he mention any violations of the separation of church and state, which this bill comes dangerously close to tresspassing on. No, it doesn't actually say anything about favoring one religion over another, but if we interpret the first amendment literally, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Well, this is a law, made by Congress, which "expresses its deepest respect for American Christians". Hmm...
Yes, I am taking this too seriously. Yes, I should just be happy that my Congressperson has enough sense to vote "nay" in the first place. And yes, this is entirely a case of principle. But some principles, I think, are worth defending, and the seperation or church and state is one of them.
2 comments:
Well, to be fair, the constitution says "congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," This law has nothing to do with "an establishment of religion" which I assume would be the establishment of a state religion or federal funding for it, this is no different than congress giving a medal of honor. You can argue that the recipient isn't worthy of the medal, but it's not unconstitutional.
I know, but I'm still slightly pissed. I don't think it's the government's place to be respecting or recognizing any religion. It's a waste of time, and it's pointless. And a bit too close for comfort. Legislate against religious discrimination, and then stay out of it.
Post a Comment