![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
kadath has
a better rant about it, but the House decided to pass a resolution (no real actions, just a statement) stating that Christianity rocks. 372 Representatives passed it, 9 against, 10 abstentions, and 40 didn't vote. Mine was one of the ones voting for -
find and write to your Rep here, and
look up how they voted here, and
modify or copy this no thanks for voting letter, unless of course you wish to write your own.
Subject: H RES 847 - Recognizing the Importance of Christmas and the Christian Faith.
I was sorry to hear of your recent vote in support of House Resolution 847 (Recognizing the Importance of Christmas and the Christian Faith). I live and vote in your district, in $Town$, $State$. I am a Professor of Physics at *** Community College in $Town$, and I earned my Master's degree in Astronomy from $University in Your State$.
I am multi-cultural in background, with a Jewish father and Chinese Christian mother. My family has always valued all cultures and religions, celebrating both Hanukah and Christmas, as well as respecting our ancestors as in traditional Chinese culture. I myself am atheist and believe strongly in the separation of Church and State. As a science educator I find myself concerned whenever religion motivates politics.
I was quite disappointed when I learned that you had voted in support of Christianity and Christmas. I feel it was in particularly poor taste to do so during the celebration of Hanukah, not to mention in light of the increasing phobia of Americans against people of different backgrounds. I take it as a personal attack upon my own beliefs, as well as those of my family members, and am offended that no effort has been made to reach out to different cultures.
I hope that in the future you keep in mind that by legislating official support for Christianity, you are legislating against XX% of the population in $State$, and you are sending a message that those outside the mainstream are not acceptable in this nation. Actions such as these are what lead to other countries' animosity towards the United States. When you meddle together the affairs of the government with religions matters you are going against the wishes of our founding fathers, and taking steps towards repeating tragic historical acts where one religion persecuted people not of that religion and beliefs outside that religion.
Please consider the opinions of your voting constituents when you make decisions such as these in the future.
Sincerely,
Zandperl
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
(besides the "no" part)
no subject
no subject
Ew, the images...
no subject
Off-topic, I've been reading Transmet on your recommendation and another's and it's ... interesting...
no subject
my favorite story, though, out of all 60, is still issue #8, about the Revival.
no subject
One of the responses was something to the effect that it's a nonbinding resolution, i.e., there's nothing really being done here except emitting warm fuzzies (which, of course, are not viewed as being warm or fuzzy by everyone): http://gwyd.livejournal.com/579450.html?thread=1228410#t1228410
So I'm kind of two minds on this point.
I'm definitely concerned about making sure that church and state are kept separate. To the extent that such resolutions provide slippery slopes toward their combination, they should be avoided.
On the other hand, it might be more to the point to worry about what sorts of crap our elected representatives are wasting their time on rather than directly addressing the critical issues that are currently before them.
no subject
no subject
Well, that's a bit tricky, really. My mind immediately leapt to "what about Buddhism? And Baha'i? and...and...and...".
Even if they'd said something nice and inclusive about religions in general, I might have grumbled about their implied criticism of atheists and agnostics. ("What, our ethical systems aren't good enough for you?")
Really, I wish they'd just stayed out of this topic entirely. But arguably the graver offense, given how much exposure these things usually get, is in the wasting of their time.
no subject
no subject
Also if you look at the text of those recognitions, they're limited to a single holiday and, while they express "support" for Islam and "respect" for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains, they clearly don't express it in as sweeping terms as the Christianity thing. And the thing with Ramadan spends wayyyyyy too long talking about how not all Muslims are terrorists... my lady doth protest too much.
no subject
(FWIW, your first link says search results are only available for a limited amount of time, and your second link isn't one.)
ETA: But so, your point is that recognizing a religion isn't too strange for them, and therefore we should only get pissed on behalf of unrecognized atheists, and possibly at their time-wasting.
no subject
I guess my point is both that recognizing religion isn't strange, but you're right, they don't recognize atheists, and when they do recognize religions they seem to show biases in what they say about them. I am somewhat pissed that they acknowledged Christianity in sweeping, historical language and only acknowledged Islam by saying "most Muslims aren't terrorists." Also, for Ramadan, they were still just recognizing RAMADAN, whereas for Christmas, they were recognizing CHRISTIANITY itself.
somewhat related
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/index.html
*sigh*
Re: somewhat related
Re: somewhat related