Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since it is increasingly obvious that theroc5156 will not let this go until somebody explains to him why there were nay votes for this bill, I did manage to find a couple comments by two of the nay voting Senators. Apparently they also feel.... like most reasonable Americans.... this bill to be a waste of time, and are a bit uncomfortable with such strong wording about the United States being a Christian nation, what with that pesky separation of church and state that we have placed in the Constitution by our founding fathers.
As far as why did they approve the other two bills, please see a quick comparison of the resolutions below.
In response to King's tirade against those 9 who voted against his ridiculous bill, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) ripped King’s religious zealotry as “another sad attempt by conservative Republicans to skew the line between church and state”:
“America is not a Christian nation,” Hastings said. “It is a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and everyone in between. Our diversity is our strength and those who seek to use religion as a litmus test are doing a disservice to all of us.”
As for the “assault on Christianity,” Hastings said, “all someone has to do is visit a shopping mall, turn on the radio or TV or look at the Christmas trees sitting on the front lawns of the White House and the United States Capitol to realize that no such assault is underway.”
And not only that, why don't we just **** on non-christians while we're at it and say, nyeh, this holiday season.
Yesterday, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) explained his nay vote:
While the Republicans are passing a resolution celebrating Christmas, the president was vetoing health care for children. There’s a little bit of irony going on around here.
RAMADAN
HR 635: "Acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and conveys its respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion."
DIWALI
HR 747: "Acknowledges the onset of Diwali and expresses its deepest respect to Indian Americans and the Indian Diaspora throughout the world on this significant occasion."
I'll bet they would all have approved HR 847 if it read like this:
"Acknowledges the onset of Christmas and expresses its deepest respect to Christians in the United States and throughout the world on this significant occasion."
Instead of this:
H. Res. 847
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
December 11, 2007.
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:
Well, we all have our agenda, and it appears that Congressman King, who put this motion forward, declared yesterday on Alan Colmes’ radio show in no uncertain terms that it is time to teach Christianity and its tenents in American schools.
The audio of the broadcast is available on the net (see C&L).
More dancing around the question. You don't have an answer, nor any good reason why they voted no, so you avoid the main question and propose other questions (which I have answered) in an effort to get the focus away from the main point.
I can't figure it out either myself why they voted no, and I am sure many people who are offended by them voting no to honor Christians and Christmas will feel that these people may be anti-Christian.
You know what's funny? Had the Ramadan resolution gotten 9 "no" votes from Republicans and the Christmas resolution gotten zero "no" votes, CAIR would be up in arms and you would be saying how hypocritical Christians are.
I bring up why the 9 voted no when they could have easily not voted. You bring up the Republicans who didn't vote point. This is not the answer to my question, but I will still answer yours and that is because those Republicans probably thought that this bill was ridiculous, couldn't have physically been at the voting, or are out campaigning.
Maybe those who voted no, or who didn't vote at all are pro celebrating diversity by not favoring one religion through federal legislation. That's one possibility. Why would anyone be offended by that?
Well I havent actually seen his birth certificate and I hear the name of the father was left blank, but many religious scholars, you know the ones who actually study the bible, agree that JC wasn’t born around December 25th. You can celebrate christmas for your reasons and I’ll celebrate if for my reasons.
Again, for the third time, you are missing the point, it is a day of recognition, it doesn't matter when since no one knows his birth date. But to drive the point home, it is not about WHEN, it is about WHO and WHAT and WHY.
Quote:
Well if you’re going to quote it you should quote it accurately and not leave any words out that changes its meaning, the actual wording is” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Founding fathers didn’t want government entanglement and preference with religion. They saw how when government and religion intertwine, bad things happen to the people.
I didn't actually cut the quote up as you did for selective interpretation. Again, the FF wanted to worship as they saw fit and not be told by their government that they had to worship a certain way. That is a plain and simple truth. That is why the second part of the quote protects freedom of religion. This clause should not be used to remove references to religion, it should be used for it's original purpose of having the government "pass a law" establishing one religion and one religion only. Please show me where congress has ever established a law or tried to establish a law saying that Christianity is the only religion allowed in the USA. That is what I originally asked. I feel that hiding behind the COnstitution to promote ignorance is a shame. Unfortunately in this country now, no one seems to realize that you cannot please all the people all the time.
This whole situation is nuts. It's a waste of time. If this offends Christians, grow thicker skin. No one is feeding you to the lions, so stop acting like you're persecuted. That's an insult to people who are facing real persecution in this world.
Again, voting no doesn't mean that they are evil Christian Haters. They just feel that the wording is too strong compared to other bills of this nature.
As for the person who proposed the bill, he wants Christianity to be taught in public school. Rar, evil Non-Christian Hater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHouse9
I feel that hiding behind the Constitution to promote ignorance is a shame.
And I feel that ignoring the constitution to promote arrogance is a shame. Again, see above point that those who voted no are NOT, and I will repeat: NOT Evil Christian Haters who are tossing Christianity to the side.
In fact, Christianity gets the benefit over other religions. If needed, I can pull up an article where a judge okayed a woman to hold Christian Services in her suburbia home, but on the same day denied a man from allowing Buddhist meditation services in his rural home on 20 acres of land.
So many Christian Holidays are thrown in the faces of Non-Christian Americans if anything. Last I knew, even for Passover - there's only a small amount of foods to chose from at a higher price than normal. Christmas? All the "necessities" are on sale. I haven't seen Sukkot become nationally commercialized.
I haven't seen big sales on Burkas for Eid ul Fitr.
In fact, Christianity gets the benefit over other religions.
Quote:
It's important to note that a similiar bill was done for Muslims and for Hindus and these bills didn't have anyone vote "no".
Please explain how there were previous bills to protect Islam (Muslims) and Hinduism and how Christianity gets the benefit over these by having the same bill?
Quote:
And I feel that ignoring the constitution to promote arrogance is a shame
Please explain how there were previous bills to protect Islam (Muslims) and Hinduism and how Christianity gets the benefit over these by having the same bill?
Actually the bills were very different. See my post 454.
OK, fine, but did Christianity get any benefit over these other religions?
Why should they? No religion is any better than any other - the other bills were not as strongly worded as this bill. In fact, neither of the previous bills mentioned anything about "rejecting any bigotry towards" said religion.
There were nay votes for this bill, there were nay votes for other bills. Why? Because not everybody feels the same way.
And Christianity already has "benefits" over even the High Holy Days of other religions.
Try finding a Burka for Eid Ul Fitr (Islamic Festival), or an etrog/esrog for Sukkot (or Sukkos, depending on which sect of Judaism)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
