NationStates Jolt Archive

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.Res.888:)

Ummmm... what?! "American Religious History Week"? No. Just no. The very first paragraph implies that the US has a rich history of religious faith... which, when you read the full text of the bill, basically supports re-writing the Constitution and American history to show that Christianity is the one true religion that was the driving force in the nation's founding and development. I couldn't disagree more. I'm writing a letter to my district's Representative, though he supported it (Randy Forbes of Virginia wrote it, but for several other representatives including nine of thirteen North Carolina representatives, including the representative for my district :mad:)

Thoughts on this?

Ick.

Well that's congress for you. Never let reality get in the way, or silly things like laws.

Because reality has a liberal bias.

And "Religious History" week? I'm fine with religious pride and religion itself, but if you are going to try and legally say your religion is the one true faith, you can stick it where the sun don't shine.

when you read the full text of the bill, basically supports re-writing the Constitution and American history to show that Christianity is the one true religion that was the driving force in the nation's founding and development.

Assumption.

Assumption.

A pretty clear one, though --- especially since we've got prayer in government functions, swearing on bibles in court processes, references to god on money, and religious figures and monuments on display at government buildings.

Assumption.

How so?

Assumption.

Do you disagree with the assumption ?
Could all those religious organisations survive an honest history week ?

urgh what a horribly long resolution. with all those little spaces between sentances which distorts how long it really is. I haven't even began on the content. i'll shut up now

I want national atheist week. To affirm the deep disbelif that helped shape this country. Teaching the history of atheism in schools and its vital role in the constitution.

Aren't there more important things for Congress to be getting on with?

Aren't there more important things for Congress to be getting on with?

Yeah, like voting in things like the national poultry farmers day. I think Congress has been whittled down to being the special month elective board.

BREAKING NEWS! Authority figure(s) show(s) flagrant disrespect for rule of law, allow(s) morals and principles to be sacrificed for personal gain.

In other news, scientists have concluded that, when in its liquid form, water can cause severe dampness.

you would think that by now it would be obvious God is not exactly on Americas side

As Phelps has been yelling at funerals for several years now ;)

time to use one of the store rooms under congress to blow up American government?

or..you' know not but a month dedicated to religion? sounds like militant atheism will experience and upswing in todays youth

Well that's congress for you. Never let reality get in the way, or silly things like laws.

you would think that by now it would be obvious God is not exactly on Americas side

Here's how bad my cynicism has gotten-
http://photo.gangus.com/d/26788-2/ackbar.jpg

With the elections coming up a benign religious bill comes up. If you are up for re-election and vote against it you will be campaigned against as anti-christian, a suprisingly easy shade to paint people since American Christians love to pretend they're persecuted. So people vote for to avoid being slammed by chain e-mails and quietly go back to campa-I mean legislating.

Do I have anything to back that up? No. It's just my cynicism.

In other news, scientists have concluded that, when in its liquid form, water can cause severe dampness.
We really need a new one of these as this one is getting pretty thread bare...

While stupid and just plain absurd, there's nothing particularly unconstitutional about this.

While stupid and just plain absurd, there's nothing particularly unconstitutional about this.

Agreed how ever it is interesting they "forgot" the treaty of Tripoli and have the usual misrepresentation of Madison's comments:

"Whereas James Madison declared that he saw the finished Constitution as a product of `the finger of that Almighty Hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the Revolution,' and George Washington viewed it as `little short of a miracle,' and Benjamin Franklin believed that its writing had been `influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler, in Whom all inferior spirits live, and move, and have their being';"

While stupid and just plain absurd, there's nothing particularly unconstitutional about this.

I disagree. This bill is basically promoting Christianity and promoting the idea of re-writing American history to inject christianity, which violates the First amendment in my view.

And to Black Forrest: yeah, the omission of the Treaty of Tripoli is certainly... interesting. It only backs up my view that the bill favors Christianity.

Agreed how ever it is interesting they "forgot" the treaty of Tripoli

Well the treaty of Tripoli is not really relevant. The treaty of Tripoli said america is not a christian nation, nor founded, as a matter of law, on christian principles.

That's not what this is saying. This said, in general "religion has played a major role in the development of our nation and that much of the revolution and subsequent formation of the nation was based on religious principles, and here's a bunch of things that we think supports that idea"

I disagree. This bill is basically promoting Christianity and promoting the idea of re-writing American history to inject christianity, which violates the First amendment in my view.

That's nice. You're wrong. For many reasons, including the fact that this is not a bill. It's a resolution.

Well the treaty of Tripoli is not really relevant. The treaty of Tripoli said america is not a christian nation, nor founded, as a matter of law, on christian principles.

That's not what this is saying. This said, in general "religion has played a major role in the development of our nation and that much of the revolution and subsequent formation of the nation was based on religious principles, and here's a bunch of things that we think supports that idea"

Actually it is relevant, it just does not support the view that they are promoting.

Actually it is relevant, it just does not support the view that they are promoting.

it is, perhaps, a counter example in support of an opposite idea, however it does not, in and of itself, refute that idea.

That's nice. You're wrong. For many reasons, including the fact that this is not a bill. It's a resolution.

My mistake, for the bill part. I still think it's favoring Christianity.

There is nothing unconstitutional about proposing a bill. Heck you can offer a bill for national smoking, drinking and porn week.

and, as I point out again, this is not a bill, it's a resolution. A bill is a thing that if it gets majority support from both houses, and signed by the president (or super majority in the case of veto), it becomes a law.

A resolution is a bunch of members of congress going "hey, here's what we think about stuff". It has no legal value, has no binding authority, can not be vetoed, and is not, in any way, law.

It's the opinions of the members of congress who signed it. It reflects their opinions on the matter. It doesn't actually do anything.

As Phelps has been yelling at funerals for several years now ;)and isn't he right?

I disagree. This bill is basically promoting Christianity and promoting the idea of re-writing American history to inject christianity, which violates the First amendment in my view.

And to Black Forrest: yeah, the omission of the Treaty of Tripoli is certainly... interesting. It only backs up my view that the bill favors Christianity.

Ahh but you are overlooking Neo's comments.

There is nothing unconstitutional about proposing a resolution. Heck you can offer a resolution for national smoking, drinking and porn week.

it is, perhaps, a counter example in support of an opposite idea, however it does not, in and of itself, refute that idea.

True

Ahh but you are overlooking Neo's comments.

There is nothing unconstitutional about proposing a resolution. Heck you can offer a resolution for national smoking, drinking and porn week.

I see. But if it were voted on by the HoR, and gained support, then it would be.

Again, my mistake for calling it a bill. But it's still fishy.

EDIT:

and, as I point out again, this is not a bill, it's a resolution. A bill is a thing that if it gets majority support from both houses, and signed by the president (or super majority in the case of veto), it becomes a law.

A resolution is a bunch of members of congress going "hey, here's what we think about stuff". It has no legal value, has no binding authority, can not be vetoed, and is not, in any way, law.

It's the opinions of the members of congress who signed it. It reflects their opinions on the matter. It doesn't actually do anything.

Interesting. Why does such a pointless thing exist?

and, as I point out again, this is not a bill, it's a resolution. A bill is a thing that if it gets majority support from both houses, and signed by the president (or super majority in the case of veto), it becomes a law.

A resolution is a bunch of members of congress going "hey, here's what we think about stuff". It has no legal value, has no binding authority, can not be vetoed, and is not, in any way, law.

It's the opinions of the members of congress who signed it. It reflects their opinions on the matter. It doesn't actually do anything.

You got me mid edit. I realized my mistake after reading it again. ;)

I see. But if it were voted on by the HoR, and gained support, then it would be.

No, again, it would not. The first amendment prevents Congress from passing any law that would establish a religion, promote one religion over another, and generally enshrine, into the law, the particular covenants, practices, faiths, dogmas and beliefs of any religion.

A resolution on the other hand is not law. An adopted resolution is nothing more than a statement by the House that the resolution accurately reflects the viewpoints of the majority of the house. It is a statement of their personal beliefs.

And while the constitution may forbid putting their beliefs into practice as a matter of law, they are still certainly free to hold those beliefs.

Interesting. Why does such a pointless thing exist?

Because it was generally found useful for Congress to have the ability to formally make their viewpoints known to the president and others, even in matters they had no formal power in.

Congress was, theoretically, not merely a law creating institution, but one filled with the representatives of the american people, and the opinion of these representatives of the american people, can at times be relevant, even when the constitution has given them no formal power to act on it.

It is unfortunatly that a mechanism, with good and useful intentions, gets turned into a method for some house reps from the deep south to go "god is great! yay god!"

It has no legal value, has no binding authority

Except in certain contexts, like declarations of war.

I'm going to blaspheme twice as much during the first week of May out of spite.

*points and laughs*

Man, I love schadenfreude.

Because it was generally found useful for Congress to have the ability to formally make their viewpoints known to the president and others, even in matters they had no formal power in.

Congress was, theoretically, not merely a law creating institution, but one filled with the representatives of the american people, and the opinion of these representatives of the american people, can at times be relevant, even when the constitution has given them no formal power to act on it.

It is unfortunatly that a mechanism, with good and useful intentions, gets turned into a method for some house reps from the deep south to go "god is great! yay god!"

And that's why this resolution is a horrible one. The facts in it are either incorrect or distorted to suit the beliefs of the supporters of the resolution, which are "America should be run by Christianity because 90% (or more) of Americans are Christians and would thus support this". Many Christians would NOT support it, and nor will any non-Christians.

Except in certain contexts, like declarations of war.

er...sorta. Any "resolution" that carries the force of law is what is called a "joint resolution". Joint resolutions require a majority from both houses, are submitted to the president for approval, require 2/3 majority in each house to overwrite a presidential veto, and are, for all intents and purposes, treated identically to a bill proposing a law (and, in fact, there really is no legal distinction between them, other than congressional desire to sometimes call bills resolutions)

On the other hand, there are both concurrent, and non-concurrent resolutions Neither of these can not be vetoed, are not presented to the President, and have no force of law at all. Concurrent resolutions are considered by both houses though it originates in one, non concurrent resolutions are considered by only one house, the one in which it originates.

This resolution is entitled "H. RES. 888" making it a house resolution, non concurrent. (for reference, if it were a concurrent resolution originating in the House it would be H. Con. Res. and if it were a joint resolution (those are the ones with power of law) it would be H. J. Res...likewise the deisgnations for resolutions originating in congress are C. Res., C. Con. Res., and C. J. Res respectively)

edit: "non concurrent" resolutions are also refered to as "simple" resolutions

Concurrent resolutions on the other hand, can not be vetoed, are not presented to the President, and have no force of law at all. This is an example of a "concurrent" resolution, not a "joint" resolution.

Yes, I know. I'm just being pedantic.

And that's why this resolution is a horrible one. The facts in it are either incorrect or distorted to suit the beliefs of the supporters of the resolution, which are "America should be run by Christianity because 90% (or more) of Americans are Christians and would thus support this". Many Christians would NOT support it, and nor will any non-Christians.

As I said, I think the resolution, in and of itself, is bad and disgusting.

But nothing of that makes it unconstitutional.

Interesting. Why does such a pointless thing exist?

Beats the hell out of me.

Beats the hell out of me.

as I said, they exist, in general, under the belief that there may be times when the input of one or both houses of congress is worthwhile, even if congress does not have any official power in that matter.

If anything, this thread just makes me a little dismayed that apparently our high schools have utterly failed to teach our american history if people believe that religion did not play a very substantial part of our early formation.

I disagree. This bill is basically promoting Christianity and promoting the idea of re-writing American history to inject christianity, which violates the First amendment in my view.
Erm.

They're not making any laws regarding any particular establishment of religion, seeing as it's a general celebration of Christianity, rather than, say, "churches can only be open on Tuesdays" or whatever else, nor are they prohibiting others from being practised. So I don't really see what the problem is.

Incidentally, it's hardly a rewrite. Christianity played a massive part in the morals and ethics held by the Puritans who came over, and then the Founding Fathers' own views.

If anything, this thread just makes me a little dismayed that apparently our high schools have utterly failed to teach our american history if people believe that religion did not play a very substantial part of our early formation.

So is there a week to commemorate, say, the role tobacco played in our early formation?

So is there a week to commemorate, say, the role tobacco played in our early formation?

no, but, damn it, there SHOULD be!

If anything, this thread just makes me a little dismayed that apparently our high schools have utterly failed to teach our american history if people believe that religion did not play a very substantial part of our early formation.

As far as I can see nooone is disputing that. It is just expected that there will be some.. discrepancies between the historical role and the one that they propose to celebrate.

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.Res.888:)

Ummmm... what?! "American Religious History Week"? No. Just no. The very first paragraph implies that the US has a rich history of religious faith... which, when you read the full text of the bill, basically supports re-writing the Constitution and American history to show that Christianity is the one true religion that was the driving force in the nation's founding and development. I couldn't disagree more. I'm writing a letter to my district's Representative, though he supported it (Randy Forbes of Virginia wrote it, but for several other representatives including nine of thirteen North Carolina representatives, including the representative for my district :mad:)

Thoughts on this?

Ok, once I got past all the "whereases" in search of a "wherefor," I didn't find anything about rewriting the Constitution. What I found was a proposal for a "religious history week." I'm not religious, I find organized religion destructive at worst and silly at best, but I really see no problem if the nations religious people want to recognize what they perceive as their history. We have black history month, women's history month, various days, week and months recognizing various groups, movements and causes, why not religion?

Just in case I missed something in my, admittedly swift, perusal of the resolution, point it out to me.

Sorry pcake, but there's been a law on the books for 53 years that violates tho Constitution. I hope this doesn't get passed. The Founders were deists at most and definitely did not support the imposition of religion like is being done.

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.Res.888:)

Ummmm... what?! "American Religious History Week"? No. Just no. The very first paragraph implies that the US has a rich history of religious faith... which, when you read the full text of the bill, basically supports re-writing the Constitution and American history to show that Christianity is the one true religion that was the driving force in the nation's founding and development. I couldn't disagree more. I'm writing a letter to my district's Representative, though he supported it (Randy Forbes of Virginia wrote it, but for several other representatives including nine of thirteen North Carolina representatives, including the representative for my district :mad:)

Thoughts on this?

Nothing serious. Christianity was very important to most people during the founding era. Though it does seem to be a bit of religious propaganda.

Nothing serious. Christianity was very important to most people during the founding era. Though it does seem to be a bit of religious propaganda.


I'm not trying to say that Christianity was never important. I'm saying that a bunch of our Representatives brought up a resolution that is essentially Christian propaganda. It IS religious propaganda that has no place in our government.

Hey Congress! Seperation of Chruch and state, do you know it?

Notice how all of it's supporters are from the bible belt? (With Wisconsin the only other.)

I'm not trying to say that Christianity was never important. I'm saying that a bunch of our Representatives brought up a resolution that is essentially Christian propaganda. It IS religious propaganda that has no place in our government.

True dat. But we do have Hispanic and Black national heritage months, among others. I see no reason why not to have a Christianity heritage week, so long as it is accurate. Though we should make something for the other religions while we're at it.

It'll never pass, but it isn't meant to. It's meant to polarize before the upcoming election. *nod*

True dat. But we do have Hispanic and Black national heritage months, among others. I see no reason why not to have a Christianity heritage week, so long as it is accurate. Though we should make something for the other religions while we're at it.

What part of
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
don't you understand?

While stupid and just plain absurd, there's nothing particularly unconstitutional about this.

So...this doesn't violate the Separation of Church and State?

So...this doesn't violate the Separation of Church and State?

how about you read the thread through before asking me to repeat myself? No, it does not violate the seperation of church and state, for several reasons:

1) it is not a law, nor any thing of legal weight
2) it does not endorse, value, or presume true any religion. It recognizes the role religion and religious beliefs have played in the formation and history of our nation, but does not make any claims as to the validity of those religious beliefs

What part of
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

don't you understand?

How is recognizing the contributions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Sikhs, practitioners of Voodoo, Atheists, Agnostics, Rosicrucians and various Native American Religions in breach of this?

Or do you think for a New York Minute the Crazy Christians (as opposed to the sane ones) should be or are going to be permitted to deny the contributions of other religions if, indeed, a religious history week is established?

Personally, I think our Founding Fathers would find it both stupid and hilarious that we have all these days, weeks and months recognizing groups, movements and causes. I'm sure that Ben Franklin would come up with some pithy and perhaps even pissy comment about it.

That's an idea, come up with a "what would Franklin say" quotation about all this "recognition." What would he or Jefferson or Washington say when confronted with "Women's History Month" or "Black History Month" or "Cesar Chavez Day" pr "Religious History Week" (Why not a month or don't they have enough to fill a month?). Oops, I just ranted, didn't I, sorry.

how about you read the thread through before asking me to repeat myself? No, it does not violate the seperation of church and state, for several reasons:

1) it is not a law, nor any thing of legal weight
2) it does not endorse, value, or presume true any religion. It recognizes the role religion and religious beliefs have played in the formation and history of our nation, but does not make any claims as to the validity of those religious beliefs

It's still pretty retarded. Well, I know who I'll be voting against in '08. No so much of what the Resolution says, but the sheer retardness of actually even proposing such a Resolution.

What part of

don't you understand?

What part of

"Resolutions have no legally binding authority"

don't you understand?

What part of

don't you understand?

Recognizing Christianity as important to US history does not constitute the establishment of a religion and you know it. Nor does it prohibit the free exercise thereof. Stop your theophobic rantings.

Um... anyone else notice that it's been referred to committee? Resolutions go to committee to die, this hasn't been voted on by the House and is unlikely to be so.

Um... anyone else notice that it's been referred to committee? Resolutions go to committee to die, this hasn't been voted on by the House and is unlikely to be so.

Yes, of course, which still isn't relevant to the question of whether it's constitutional or not :p

Well that's congress for you. Never let reality get in the way, or silly things like laws.

Yeah, I'm not sure how it's supposed to be news that Congress doesn't generally respect Constitutional values.

Headline:

"Congress considers proposed resolution to establish the first week of May as National Obvious Pandering to the Loudmouthed Freak Movement of the Moment Week."

They would have just called it National Bullshit Week, but we've already got so many of those.

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.Res.888:)

Ummmm... what?! "American Religious History Week"? No. Just no. The very first paragraph implies that the US has a rich history of religious faith... which, when you read the full text of the bill, basically supports re-writing the Constitution and American history to show that Christianity is the one true religion that was the driving force in the nation's founding and development. I couldn't disagree more. I'm writing a letter to my district's Representative, though he supported it (Randy Forbes of Virginia wrote it, but for several other representatives including nine of thirteen North Carolina representatives, including the representative for my district :mad:)

Thoughts on this?

http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg

Yes, of course, which still isn't relevant to the question of whether it's constitutional or not :p
I thought you had already settled that. :p

Well, that and it's kind silly to get this worked up about something that probably will not see a full vote by the House.

Well the treaty of Tripoli is not really relevant. The treaty of Tripoli said america is not a christian nation, nor founded, as a matter of law, on christian principles.

That's not what this is saying. This said, in general "religion has played a major role in the development of our nation and that much of the revolution and subsequent formation of the nation was based on religious principles, and here's a bunch of things that we think supports that idea"

Yea you are right. I was taking it for Christian thing and I still kind of think that is behind their intent but to the choice of words on the document it's not......

I don't get all the hubbub here.

I'm sure you guys already celebrate Christmas, Halloween or even Martin Luther King day. :confused:

http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg

Watch out on that pic. Some people take offense to it.
<.<
>.>

how about you read the thread through before asking me to repeat myself? No, it does not violate the seperation of church and state, for several reasons:

1) it is not a law, nor any thing of legal weight
2) it does not endorse, value, or presume true any religion. It recognizes the role religion and religious beliefs have played in the formation and history of our nation, but does not make any claims as to the validity of those religious beliefs

Odd how this hasn't come up yet
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

Odd how this hasn't come up yet
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

have you actually read the thread? It's been mentioned several times.

have you actually read the thread? It's been mentioned several times.
Nah, i meant i'm surprised *I* didn't mention it :p
I really didn't.

EDIT: I should've suspected
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13367866&postcount=19
would be behind it ... :)

time to use one of the store rooms under congress to blow up American government?



You don't want us to rip off bonfire night now do you?

Yeah, I'm not sure how it's supposed to be news that Congress doesn't generally respect Constitutional values.

Would be like making a thread titled "Police caught speeding!". Authority figures continually break their own laws yet expect everyone else to follow them.

I don't get all the hubbub here.

I'm sure you guys already celebrate Christmas, Halloween or even Martin Luther King day. :confused:
FYI, none of your examples is in the least way relevant because:

1) Christmas, yes, is a national holiday. I wish it wasn't. In keeping with separation of church and state, I don't see any reason for the government to mandate one religion's observance as a national holiday and let everybody except people who work in retail and service businesses take a day off -- or else they should mandate ALL religions' holidays as official days off. However, observance of one religious holiday does nothing at all to prove the resolution's assertions about the importance of religion in American history -- unless you count the fact that Washington won his pivotal victory at the battle of Trenton by attacking the Hessians by surprise on Christmas Day. That did make a difference to American history, but I hardly think it is the kind of Christmas observance the resolution has in mind.

2) Halloween is not a national holiday. Nobody gets the day off for it, and the banks are not closed. Also, it is not officially recognized as a religious holiday, and there are a few loons who think nobody should be allowed to celebrate it at all, so hey, I guess a protest against National Religious History Week is in keeping with American tradition, since we have a habit of protesting religion.

3) Martin Luther King Day is not a religious holiday, nor is it observed in every US state.



EDIT: Now that I think of it, I might start decorating my house for Christmas with wreaths and garlands of toy muskets and copies of the Declaration of Independence, lights arranged to spell out "Death to the Hessians!" and "This Way to Trenton, NJ", and animated lawn figures of Washington crossing the Delaware with Rudolph the Rednosed Reindeer leading the way.