NationStates Jolt Archive

The United States Congress has passed a bill recognizing that Christmas is a very important holiday. This may sound painfully obvious, but keep in mind this is the same congress where global warming, evolution, and other established facts have their critics.
Link (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1207/Congress_to_say_Christmas_is_important_Sun_and_Moon_declared_good_too.html)

Now, ignoring the silliness of the whole thing, do you think this violated separation of church (fixed) and state? It doesn't endorse the Christian faith (it's more of a paternal slap on the back than an endorsement), but it does bring it up.
Also, anyone have any issues with the actual message of the bill, anything look wrong to you?

EDIT: What I said was slightly misleading. This isn't a bill, the president can't sign it into law. It is a resolution.

This is one straight from the headlines of the Onion. ......

:D

-edit-

Hmmm.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110Wz8Ry7::

I am not going to worry about. You can submit a bill for pick your nose day. It really doesn't mean much. So the house recognizes Christians. Duh! So what. Now if they said all other religions are bunk, then you would have a problem or I should say they would.

It will not do much and it's probably an easter egg for the loyal followers.

It's amazing, most of the country is Christian and yet they are oppressed.

Waste of time; but that is Congress......

The United States Congress has passed a bill recognizing that Christmas is a very important holiday. This may sound painfully obvious, but keep in mind this is the same congress where global warming, evolution, and other established facts have their critics.
Link (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1207/Congress_to_say_Christmas_is_important_Sun_and_Moon_declared_good_too.html)

Now, ignoring the silliness of the whole thing, do you think this violated separation of religion and state? It doesn't endorse the Christian faith (it's more of a paternal slap on the back than an endorsement), but it does bring it up.
Also, anyone have any issues with the actual message of the bill, anything look wrong to you?

When I saw the thread title, I thought just the same thing-- "what the hell are they doing, with so many more important issues????"

Though just to clarify, its a separation of church and state-- something that can be interpreted completely differently.

There are much more important things for them to do, this was just silly. Christmas is here and as many radical atheists may compain, it's not going away, so this was a stupid waste of time.

Congress cannot establish an offical religion for the entire country, but religion can play an influence in government. Or so the founding fathers would say.

Congress cannot establish an offical religion for the entire country, but religion can play an influence in government. Or so the founding fathers would say.

The government is supposed to be Religious neutral.

But let's let President Madison have his say:

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State"

*shrug*

In b4 "OMG ZE KRISTIANS ARE OPPRESSING US ZOMG NOT THE THEOCRACY".

The government is supposed to be Religious neutral.


Not exactly. One of the guidelines is of the government is majority rules, minority rights. As long as the church (i.e. priests) don't officially become involved in running the government, and so long as the right to freedom of worship/speech are not infringed on, the people may choose whatever they'd like. If that includes increased/decreased morality or whatnot, so be it.

Quick, get the Jews, Islam, Buddhists, Hindi, and Confucians in there demanding equal recognition. The more we tie up Congress will "feel-good" trivialities, the less time they'll have to try and micro-manage our lives.

The government is supposed to be Religious neutral. actually, the Government cannot establish a National Relgion. so as long as they also pass seperate bills reconizing Haunnuka (sp), Ramadan, etc... then all is fine.

But let's let President Madison have his say:

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State"*cough**cough* ...

sorry, something got stuck in my throat there... :p

In the last couple years, there has been a major push to make things "holiday" this and that...so if enough people feel they are having their holiday discriminated against by those who don't agree with it and push it in that direction of at most a casual nod of existense, then there would be cause for Congress to act on it.

Example: Kohl's department store was calling everything holiday this and that, and there were only a few references in their catalog to Christmas at all. Then there was a huge uproar by many average Joes that were Christian that it changed, but Kohl's shouldn't have needed the pressure in the first place to keep to a traditional value because somebody complained about "Christian" things being forced on them.

*really, really, REALLY misses the Daily Show right now.*

Quick, get the Jews, Islam, Buddhists, Hindi, and Confucians in there demanding equal recognition. The more we tie up Congress will "feel-good" trivialities, the less time they'll have to try and micro-manage our lives.
*nods in agreement*

Boo-hoo. Guess what, Christmas is a holiday so it's perfectly fine to call it "holiday." Whereas a private organization is deciding to use "less offensive" terminology, we have the government right here openly throwing away the concept that church != state

Boo-hoo. Whereas a private organization is deciding to use "less offensive" terminology, we have the government right here openly throwing away the concept that church != state

But why should it even be considered offensive if it is something that comes from the founding principles of this country?

To me, that is what Congress was trying to remedy. It may cause more strife instead, but that seemed to be the idea behind it.

The whole "War on Christmas" was made up by the media to sell books and boost TV ratings. Every atheist I've ever met celebrated Christmas.

Christmas is celebrated as a secular holiday. Santa Claus, Scrooge and candy canes aren't religious symbols. Christmas is a Federal Holiday, and the courts have ruled it is secular. So what's the problem?

Boo-hoo. Guess what, Christmas is a holiday so it's perfectly fine to call it "holiday." Whereas a private organization is deciding to use "less offensive" terminology, we have the government right here openly throwing away the concept that church != state

What is funny? How many of the corporate execs that made the declaration for "happy holidays" are Christians?

But why should it even be considered offensive if it is something that comes from the founding principles of this country?

To me, that is what Congress was trying to remedy. It may cause more strife instead, but that seemed to be the idea behind it.

And what principles are those?

But why should it even be considered offensive if it is something that comes from the founding principles of this country?

To me, that is what Congress was trying to remedy. It may cause more strife instead, but that seemed to be the idea behind it.

Which founding principles would those be?

I couldn't care less if Congress passes a bill recognizing Christmas a holiday. Really, I tried, and I couldn't. As several posters have mentioned earlier, Congress can't establish Christianity or any other religion as the National Religion of the United States of America. The only thing that annoys me about this is that there's so much more other work they could be doing, but instead they're using my tax dollars to basically send a giant Christmas card.

Yay for political posturing!

The whole "War on Christmas" was made up by the media to sell books and boost TV ratings. Every atheist I've ever met celebrated Christmas.

Christmas is celebrated as a secular holiday. Santa Claus, Scrooge and candy canes aren't religious symbols. Christmas is a Federal Holiday, and the courts have ruled it is secular. So what's the problem?

Oh contrare. Santa Claus is a Saint, Scrooge is a call for a departure from Capitalist-mas (the real secular holiday here), and candy canes are meant to symbolize the sheperd cane, which is yet another religious symbol.

I, as an atheist, don't celebrate Christmas. I celebrate the Winter Solstice, and Capitalist-mas. Chicka wow-wow.

Wow that reeks of unconstitutionality...how could any sane person vote for it? Shame on all those Democrats for pandering.

*cough**cough* ...

sorry, something got stuck in my throat there... :p

:eek:

er...

:eek:

Wow that reeks of unconstitutionality...how could any sane person vote for it? Shame on all those Democrats for pandering.

Yes, shame on them, but this is like passing a resolution declaring that the House thinks ... I don't know, that you should wash your hands after going to the bathroom. It's meaningless. Actually, my idea would actually be in the public interest than this waste of time.

This is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, Amendment #1.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This is acknowleging, a technical religious holiday. It cannot be passed.

This is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, Amendment #1.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This is acknowleging, a technical religious holiday. It cannot be passed.

Too late sucka.

*drives away slowly, blasting Christmas rap muzak*

The United States Congress has passed a bill recognizing that Christmas is a very important holiday. This may sound painfully obvious, but keep in mind this is the same congress where global warming, evolution, and other established facts have their critics.
Link (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1207/Congress_to_say_Christmas_is_important_Sun_and_Moon_declared_good_too.html)

Now, ignoring the silliness of the whole thing, do you think this violated separation of religion and state? It doesn't endorse the Christian faith (it's more of a paternal slap on the back than an endorsement), but it does bring it up.
Also, anyone have any issues with the actual message of the bill, anything look wrong to you?
Choose right now, is Christmas a Christian holiday or a secular one......you can't go back and forth whenever you want something to rant about.

Now, ignoring the silliness of the whole thing, do you think this violated separation of religion and state? It doesn't endorse the Christian faith (it's more of a paternal slap on the back than an endorsement), but it does bring it up.
Also, anyone have any issues with the actual message of the bill, anything look wrong to you?

My first thought was 'okay, that's pretty damn obvious' like most people, but looking at it I'm pretty sure it does endorse the Christian faith.

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."

Seems like a violation of the separation to me. Does Congress not have any moderation of submitted issues?

My first thought was 'okay, that's pretty damn obvious' like most people, but looking at it I'm pretty sure it does endorse the Christian faith.

Practically idolizing it.

Holy shit! Give them a flashlight and let them use both hands, and next thing you know they'll find their asses.

This is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, Amendment #1.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This is acknowleging, a technical religious holiday. It cannot be passed.

No, it's not really a First Amendment violation. Now, if the bill said, "Oh, and by the way, Christianity, especially the Presbyterian faith, is now the official religion of the United States," that would violate the Constitution. Simply recognizing that Christmas and Christians are "important" (whatever that means) is meaningless. Obviously some members of Congress need something to take home to the folks at home this Yuletide ("Yes, friends, I introduced/voted for that bill recognizing Christmas and Christians as important to our great nation! Can my opponent say that? No!" blah blah blah).

Christmas is as religious as you want it to be. Who cares? Just as long as the government doesn't make me string lights around a jewish guy suffering on a crucifix.

Christmas is as religious as you want it to be. Who cares? Just as long as the government doesn't make me string lights around a jewish guy suffering on a crucifix.

Good thing the Roman Empire is no more then.

Too bad there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Independence stating there is or should be a separation between church and state. All the first amendment says is that Congress won't make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit freedom of religion. That means nothing about a mandatory separation between church and state.

This is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, Amendment #1.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This is acknowleging, a technical religious holiday. It cannot be passed.
Like I said before, this isn't really a law. It may still be breaking the church-state barrier though, I don't know.

Like I said before, this isn't really a law. It may still be breaking the church-state barrier though, I don't know.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Make of that what you will. If it were a minority religion, they would be simply trying to honor them, but since Christianity is the majority religion, their intentions and the bills implications are ambiguous... Regardless, it's largely just posturing. I don't think it really means much.

This is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, Amendment #1.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This is acknowleging, a technical religious holiday. It cannot be passed.

Exactly, it's so blatant a violation, it's amazing it got passed...

Exactly, it's so blatant a violation, it's amazing it got passed...

They're neither establishing a religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It falls into a very grey area constitutionally.

Quick, get the Jews, Islam, Buddhists, Hindi, and Confucians in there demanding equal recognition. The more we tie up Congress will "feel-good" trivialities, the less time they'll have to try and micro-manage our lives.

Ordo Drakul wins the thread.

Exactly, it's so blatant a violation, it's amazing it got passed...
It's a resolution. The article in question reads that Congress can establish no law. Congress passes resolutions all the bloody time, most of them fairly useless and just as a nod to whatever the hell it is that some member introduced to say 'hi'. It's no different than a presidential declaration that such and such is now Breast Cancer Awareness Week. It adds no monies, changes no laws, and does not influence any policies.

Quick, get the Jews, Islam, Buddhists, Hindi, and Confucians in there demanding equal recognition. The more we tie up Congress will "feel-good" trivialities, the less time they'll have to try and micro-manage our lives.

Hindu, and leave us the fuck out of it. We've got better things to worry about (i.e. taking over the country one restaurant, convenience store, and gas station at a time) than whether or not our (in some cases former) imaginary friends are recognized by the state.

It's a resolution. The article in question reads that Congress can establish no law. Congress passes resolutions all the bloody time, most of them fairly useless and just as a nod to whatever the hell it is that some member introduced to say 'hi'. It's no different than a presidential declaration that such and such is now Breast Cancer Awareness Week. It adds no monies, changes no laws, and does not influence any policies.

Exactly. It means nothing, and probably isn't even really slowing down important bills. What is funny about it is its promise to protect and honor three-quarters of the United States who weren't too badly off before it was passed, and there is a possibility it shouldn't exist.