Congress Votes ‘Yes’ for Christmas

By Andy Birkey
Saturday, December 15, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Last week, Minnesota’s House delegation voted for Christmas. The passage of House Resolution 847 has generated criticism from separation of church and state advocates, and those who voted against the bill have been accused of anti-Christian bigotry. A few others have asked whether Congress has the time to waste on resolutions aimed at fanning the flames of the supposed “War on Christmas.”

HR 847, or the “Christmas Bill” says in part:

[T]he House of Representatives recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world; expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide; acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith; 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; rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

Introduced by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, the bill, according to King’s spokester, was meant as a response to a bill recognizing the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and another recognizing the festival of Diwali, celebrated by Hindus, Sikhs and Jains. The resolution was cosponsored by Rep. Michele Bachmann.

“The Christmas resolution Congressman King has offered is only being offered because there have been two previous resolutions earlier this year in October,” a spokester with King’s office told Think Progress. “It was actually entirely unprecedented to even consider them for a vote. Religions have not been singled out and honored previously in Congress. But now that this precedent has been set, Congressman King thought it was important to honor Christmas. This is just simply the exact same language used as the Ramadan resolution on Oct 2.”

Several Democrats voted “no” on the resolution, a vote that has resulted in harsh criticism. “The naysayers didn’t make it to the floor to debate. I would like to know how they could vote ‘yes’ on Islam, ‘yes’ on the Indian religions and ‘no’ on Christianity,” King said in a press release. “The foundation of this nation and this culture is Christian… I think there’s an assault on Christianity in America.”

“It’s time we stood up and said so and said to the rest of America, ‘Be who you are, and be confident, and let’s worship Christ and celebrate Christmas for the right reasons’,” he told Fox News.

Those who voted against the measure have been dealt the predictable rhetoric. “Why Do Dems Hate Christmas?” writes one columnist. “The Democrats’ Jesus smack down,” writes another.

One Democrat who voted against the resolution said it wasn’t a vote against Christmas or Christianity; it was a vote against King. “Obviously, it’s a protest vote against Steve King,” Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who is a Christian, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. “It’s Christmas time. There are lots of Christians in the U.S. Hurray for Christmas. It’s ridiculous,” McDermott said. He said the resolution is a waste of time. “We’re talking about Christmas, and we do not care about kids in the state of Washington,” McDermott said referring to President Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program last week.

Christmas and Jesus won in Minnesota this year, however. All of Minnesota’s House delegation voted for the resolution, a move that has caused some consternation among constituents. A DailyKos diarist penned his first post ever, with a letter to Rep. Betty McCollum:

Your Yea vote today on Steve Kings motion, Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith, is a travesty to the separation of church and state and goes directly in the face of the ideals embraced by the Founders of this nation. By voting Yea on this measure you have aided in the tearing down of the wall founded in the Constitution between church and state and have advanced this nation closer to a theocracy, embracing one religion over all others.

This is a shameful vote.

August Berkshire, public relations officer for the Minnesota Atheists said that the resolution is legal, but it does raise ethical questions. “What business is it of the government to make proclamations regarding religion?  Wouldn’t the authority to praise a religion also entail the authority to condemn a religion?  Do we want our government meddling into religious affairs?”

Berkshire continued, “It also begs the question: Don’t these legislators have better things to do with their time?  How about balancing the budget so that every Christian, not to mention everyone else, doesn’t have a $30,000 share of the national debt on his or her back?”

Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter


Categories & Tags:

Comments

10 Comments

beryl k gullsgate
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 12:24 pm

Ring them ding-dong bells for 847, a bad Resolution Whereas it’s beginning to look alot like Christmas with a political agenda, and whereas that is one giant step backwards indeed, I can only say, I would love to (rhetorically of course) hang Bachman and every other drooling neo-con from any tree in the public square be it tinseled pine or oak, in response to H.R. 847: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian Faith.”

So now a personally sacred, privately chosen religious observance tragically enters the political arena by virtue of such careless Congressional response?

One could say self-delusional political trolls just set us back a few centuries by welding the dangerous alliance of church and state as so recently endorsed by our legislators?

Do remember, the reason why many of our ancestors came here in the first place with high hopes, was because they believed that here, in Minnesota or the greater USA, was a civil place that would protect the liberty of religious freedom; a nation where such choice would not be eroded nor compromised down the line by not-too-wise-men/women bearing false gifts like H.R.847. It is a dangerous form of politics, meddling in religion; or the reverse, religion meddling in politics. We’ve got enough of that now with candidates sounding like camp town preachers selling the grand elixir of ol’-time religion as political agenda; praying or preying on voters on the campaign trail.

Or to say it more bluntly…whereas H.S.847 is a dangerous resolution to contemplate, much less pass…be it resolved that this nation will not sacrifice Constitutional integrity by resolutions as so written in  H.S 847, but continue to respect the right of every citizen; the right to believe whatever damn thing one chooses!  beryl k gullsgate 


Nicholai
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 2:30 pm

Where will it end? Just another church/state- politically correct /incorrect ‘travesty occurred in our local school.
  A 5th grade student, was working very hard on her ‘Peace Poster’ in art class.  She proceeds to place a cross at the top portion of her ‘world’ and the art teacher…comes to her and says, “You’ll have to erase the cross, it may offend people.”
I am just disgusted with this chronic bickering about who will be offended?!?!?!  If a child’s perception of ‘Peace’ is based upon Christ, what place does a teacher have in telling her to ‘remove the cross”? 


Andy Birkey
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 4:42 pm

That is overboard A child should have the freedom to create whatever art she would like. I’m not sure what story you are referencing but it’s definitely out of line. Now, if the teacher directed all the kids in her class to put a cross on their art or incorporate Christ into it, then it would be a problem — if it’s in a public school.

I think these knee-jerk reactions are a waste. Do we need a congressional pronouncement that the majority of Americans are Christians and that Christmas is an important holy day for Christians? Probably not. I think everyone, everywhere in America is well aware of Christmas.


Les
Comment posted December 18, 2007 @ 10:38 am

Les “they believed that here, in Minnesota or the greater USA, was a civil place that would protect the liberty of religious freedom; a nation where such choice would not be eroded nor compromised”

Unless, of course, that religion happens to be christianity in the 21st century.

Then it’s OK to be against such things.

Where’s you input on the muslim and hindu proclamations?


swiftee
Comment posted December 19, 2007 @ 3:10 pm

Don’t get too worked up. The “neas” by the Democrat caucus was predictable.

But it is wrong to say that the Democrat party hates Christmas, or Christians in general for that matter. To do so betrays an ignorance of what drives today’s leftists.

The Democrat hatred that permeates any discussion about Christianity is actually just another manifestation of the pervasive hatred that Democrats have for America and every thing it stands for.

If Crystal worship was the dominant faith of the country, you can be sure that all good leftists would be heaping scorn upon it.

Right now, it just so happens that Muslim fanatics have targeted the United States for destruction…so of course the Democrat response is to champion all things Muslim. QED.


Nicholai
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 8:30 am

Where will it end? Just another church/state- politically correct /incorrect 'travesty occurred in our local school.
  A 5th grade student, was working very hard on her 'Peace Poster' in art class.  She proceeds to place a cross at the top portion of her 'world' and the art teacher…comes to her and says, “You'll have to erase the cross, it may offend people.”

I am just disgusted with this chronic bickering about who will be offended?!?!?!  If a child's perception of 'Peace' is based upon Christ, what place does a teacher have in telling her to 'remove the cross”? 


Andy Birkey
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 10:42 am

That is overboard A child should have the freedom to create whatever art she would like. I'm not sure what story you are referencing but it's definitely out of line. Now, if the teacher directed all the kids in her class to put a cross on their art or incorporate Christ into it, then it would be a problem — if it's in a public school.

I think these knee-jerk reactions are a waste. Do we need a congressional pronouncement that the majority of Americans are Christians and that Christmas is an important holy day for Christians? Probably not. I think everyone, everywhere in America is well aware of Christmas.


beryl k gullsgate
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 6:24 am

Ring them ding-dong bells for 847, a bad Resolution Whereas it's beginning to look alot like Christmas with a political agenda, and whereas that is one giant step backwards indeed, I can only say, I would love to (rhetorically of course) hang Bachman and every other drooling neo-con from any tree in the public square be it tinseled pine or oak, in response to H.R. 847: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian Faith.”

So now a personally sacred, privately chosen religious observance tragically enters the political arena by virtue of such careless Congressional response?

One could say self-delusional political trolls just set us back a few centuries by welding the dangerous alliance of church and state as so recently endorsed by our legislators?

Do remember, the reason why many of our ancestors came here in the first place with high hopes, was because they believed that here, in Minnesota or the greater USA, was a civil place that would protect the liberty of religious freedom; a nation where such choice would not be eroded nor compromised down the line by not-too-wise-men/women bearing false gifts like H.R.847. It is a dangerous form of politics, meddling in religion; or the reverse, religion meddling in politics. We've got enough of that now with candidates sounding like camp town preachers selling the grand elixir of ol'-time religion as political agenda; praying or preying on voters on the campaign trail.

Or to say it more bluntly…whereas H.S.847 is a dangerous resolution to contemplate, much less pass…be it resolved that this nation will not sacrifice Constitutional integrity by resolutions as so written in  H.S 847, but continue to respect the right of every citizen; the right to believe whatever damn thing one chooses!  beryl k gullsgate 


Les
Comment posted December 18, 2007 @ 4:38 am

Les “they believed that here, in Minnesota or the greater USA, was a civil place that would protect the liberty of religious freedom; a nation where such choice would not be eroded nor compromised”

Unless, of course, that religion happens to be christianity in the 21st century.

Then it's OK to be against such things.

Where's you input on the muslim and hindu proclamations?


swiftee
Comment posted December 19, 2007 @ 9:10 am

Don't get too worked up. The “neas” by the Democrat caucus was predictable.

But it is wrong to say that the Democrat party hates Christmas, or Christians in general for that matter. To do so betrays an ignorance of what drives today's leftists.

The Democrat hatred that permeates any discussion about Christianity is actually just another manifestation of the pervasive hatred that Democrats have for America and every thing it stands for.

If Crystal worship was the dominant faith of the country, you can be sure that all good leftists would be heaping scorn upon it.

Right now, it just so happens that Muslim fanatics have targeted the United States for destruction…so of course the Democrat response is to champion all things Muslim. QED.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.