digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Dear U.S. Representatives & Senators, PLEASE Repeal H.R. 847

archives.gov — The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says: "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."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • vroom101, on 12/13/2007, -6/+41Correction...

    H. Res. 847: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h.res.8 ...
    • vroom101, on 12/13/2007, -12/+2Here's the corrected DIGG title...

      Dear U.S. Representatives & Senators, PLEASE Repeal H. RES. 847
    • cusoman, on 12/13/2007, -6/+45Ladies and Gentlemen, before you go pegging this on the Christian right, please recall that a similar resolution was passed in October recognizing Ramadan and the Muslim religion.

      http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=w ...

      Just an FYI.
      • zweben, on 12/13/2007, -6/+22And that was stupid too. Let's see them pass a resolution recognizing those who do not believe in god, and expressing the "deepest respect to atheists in the United States and throughout the world". We'll stop complaining.
        • Solkre, on 12/13/2007, -8/+4Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw
        • gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -5/+8To what end? Ultimately, it would be toothless recognition. Is that what you want? Congress to just recognize that you don't believe in god, and that that's cool with them? What a pathetic waste of time and tax dollars all of this is. So yeah, let's waste more. I mean having solve all of the worlds problems, let's vote on ***** religions and holidays? Stupid!

          Correct me if I'm wrong here, but In order for them to do anything of meaning, they would have to pass resolution for you, at the cost of not recognizing anyone else. Likewise this resolution means nothing. I mean how could a resolution recognizing atheism be meaningful at all if they simultaneously recognized everyone else who believes in a deity of some sort? Bottom line is a stupid waste of taxpayer money, as was the Ramadan stuff. We shouldn't be railing to get them to overturn anything, because that would likewise be a waste of our tax money. We should be telling them to quite wasting our damn taxpayer dollars on this stupid BS.

          Now, yesterday there was an article that sparked a huge conversation about the etymology of the word "Atheism." The consensus seemed to be that A (without), Theism (belief in god) was the correct interpretation. Simply, without a belief in god, which would be semi-passive. Not an active belief that there is no god which would not. That if proof were obtainable, a belief could be formed. In other words, the difference between atheism and anti-theism.

          That being the case, there's nothing to recognize. I mean realistically, who gives a crap what anyone else believes? Especially Atheists, by the definition above you shouldn't give a ***** at all. As I said before, if you wanna bitch about this, make sure they never do it again. Don't tell them to reconvene and overturn something they shouldn't have voted on the first place.

          On the other side of this coin, being a Christian, I could give a crap less what a bunch of over paid, under achieving, ineffective politicians think about Christmas or Christianity. It doesn't effect me or anyone else, and frankly, they shouldn't be getting paid to waste tax dollars on such pathetic wastes of time. They shouldn't be passing resolutions on this kind of garbage at all. Much less trying to equalize it across all belief systems.
        • Logicexe, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3@gn0stic.

          I think zweben agrees with you, I think his comment about recognizing atheists was more of a tongue in cheek comment than a serious suggestion. I think any reasonable person (religious or not) would agree with you.

          The only role the government should play in religion is to protect the rights of individuals to practice any religion (or not) they want within the limits of the law (I don't care if it says you can stone sinners in your holy book, you can't do it here :p )
          • gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1My bad. I read it with the wrong intonation it seems.
          • CoolWind, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2@gn0stik: It doesn't matter. Your presentation was solid, and it needed to be said. Now we all know there are 2 kinds of atheists.
      • lydecker, on 12/13/2007, -2/+1This article says Muslims are now respected because the assert themselves in the public sphere. We shouldn't only be respecting religions that are popular, we need to not pass H Res 847 and repeal this "recognition of Ramadan" both under the constitution.
      • Corrosionx, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4We'll peg this on the government which constantly does things it should not be doing.
    • cusoman, on 12/13/2007, -6/+15Oh, and one more FYI: H.R. 847 isn't a law.
      • mlostracco, on 12/13/2007, -2/+17I don't get it...what's the point of "recognizing" something...especially something that is pretty much already recognized and isn't going anywhere any time soon. And why is the government wasting time on this? Expliquez, s.v.p.

        /Canadian
        • withincontext, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6It is meant to keep us arguing. The same effect can be seen with a cat and a laser pointer.
        • bobertf, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1It's not uncommon for parliamentary bodies to vote on things that do not have the force of law. It would be like if a city council were to commemorate somebody upon retirement.

          I also do not believe that the House spent much time on it. Vroom101 links below (and so I shan't repeat the link) to the resolution, and the Congressional Record references that can be found appear rather sparse. The "personal explanations," for instance, were from people who simply indicated what their vote would have been had they been present (of which, the "extensions of remarks" were simply inserted in the record and not even spoken). The resolution was also considered under suspension of the rules (which—fun fact—is a Tuesday thing for the House) so it was probably debated rather quickly too.
          • Malshew, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2It was a 5 minute roll-call vote. I watched the whole thing on C-SPAN trying to find the purpose. The vote was over before they mentioned any.
    • gernblansted, on 12/13/2007, -3/+6H. Res 847: Kiss The Asses of Christian Voters so It Looks Like Were Doing Something Resolution.

      Note to War On Christmas types: If there is a war on Christmas, it has long since been lost. What Credit Card Would Jesus Use?
  • vroom101, on 12/13/2007, -4/+20Link...
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h.res.8 ... ( thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h.res.847 )

    After further research I understand this is a U.S. House of Representatives Resolution and not a Bill, so it won't become a law. However the resolution's language is very troubling and I'm very surprised that it passed the House.

    Full text can be also be found here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ... ( govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-847 )
    • cephelo, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Don't be surprised it passed the House. The House is like middle schoolers, foolish and inexperienced in life. The Senate, by comparison, are high schoolers, who still do wreckless things once in a while, but are much too busy to be bothered by such lame issues.

      The Senate has saved us countless times from asinine bills passed by the House.
  • vroom101, on 12/13/2007, -1/+32Via http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h.res.8 ... ( thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h.res.847 ), here's the full text of the resolution that passed the House of Representatives (HRES 847 EH):

    HRES 847 EH

    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:

    Clerk.

    END
    • mlostracco, on 12/13/2007, -1/+22So, basically, if Christianity is the largest religion in the world, why does it need to be "recognized" by the U.S. government?
      • Shakermaker, on 12/13/2007, -0/+11...because it just got it's hair cut so it looks a bit different? I didn't recognize it either...
        • mlostracco, on 12/13/2007, -3/+11If there's anyone who wouldn't recognize much of contemporary Christianity, it would be Jesus himself. I imagine that if he suddenly appeared, he'd be walking around screaming, "THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT, YOU INTOLERANT DOUCHEBAGS!"
          • norman619, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3I don't know about that... Jesus like every other person on the planet at that time was a product of his times. While yes today's Christianity is w/o a doubt not the Christianity of old to assume you know what Jesus said or meant is naive. The bible has been translated and re-translated and the translations have been translated so many time throughout history that it is not the same book it started out as. Even today lots of meaning hget's lost in poor translations.
          • Rippleeffect, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2You're assumption is incorrect. Scholars constantly search for the earliest manuscripts. I highly recommend reading Case For Christ by Lee Strobel.
          • gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Ripple: Read it. It's OK. He had a tendency to make logical leaps in my opinion, and I'm a Christian. He had a few very good points, but went way too far with it.

            A much better book is Darwin's black box. That book is pure science, citing example after example in a fashion that will put anyone but molecular scientists to sleep. (it put me to sleep every night for about a month), but is well worth it. The best part of it, is the guy who wrote it believes in Darwinism, and to my knowledge is not religious. however, He does believe in some kind of initial spark, whatever that may be. This guy would run Dawkins through the paces. However, it's completely unusable in a debate at anything but a high level of understanding of microbiology, and adds no ammo to the lay person's armory, due to the fact that it's way above most people's heads, and would require too much explanation. The book is chocked full of sources and citations of well accepted papers and established science.. Take a look.
          • norman619, on 12/13/2007, -2/+1gn0stik:

            Please define "Darwinism."
          • gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Norm: The process of adaptation via natural selection as described and defined by Charles Darwin, in his book, The Origin of the Species.
          • vulapine, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4-norman619
            "The bible has been translated and re-translated and the translations have been translated so many time throughout history that it is not the same book it started out as"
            This is one of those "everybody with any sense knows..." statements. It's similar to the "copy of a copy" argument, and it holds up just as well.
            A few notes:
            -The KJV (King James Version) was translated from Latin translations (one language removed), but most every translation today is taken from original language.
            -The texts were written originally in one of three languages originally: Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. References to standardized translations for all three of these languages are readily available.
            -There have been few differences between the older and older copies found and those used to make the Latin translations. Those differences amount to copy errors (omitted word, switched word order, misspelled word). However, because of the vast number of manuscripts in original language available, these copy errors are easy to find, and in no way have changed the meaning of the text.
            We are all richer for having learned.
          • gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2GUYS: The reason Christianity today is not what it was in 1st century is not because of mistranslation. It's because the focus has switched from being a religion of love to one of intolerance for a vocal few who spew their hatred and win converts and undermine Christianity as a whole. I for one am Sick of it. We should be railing against these people, admonishing them as to where their humility is? We should be shunning political entanglement on anything but the personal level. We shouldn't be hating gay people, or trying to deny people the rights their constitution provides them because of some personal common belief, we should be trying to win them over with compassion and understanding. If you have switched from loving thy neighbor to hating thy enemy you are no longer keeping Jesus's commandments.
          • vulapine, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4gn0stik-
            Re: "The reason Christianity today..."
            I agree with you 99%. Maybe you mean 'misinterpretation' rather than 'mistranslation'. I feel that the greatest issue is that people remove context from the texts. If one picks up a copy of the NIV or KJV or any translation, the words are there and the message is true, but one must understand that despite being 66 books, they are all interconnected and related. Most of the New testament ref errs to the Old, and the Old looks forward to the New. But even taking things out of context, it is clear that we are to love everyone, that we are all sinners, and that there is only one remedy for sin.
          • gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Valupine: Actually I was responding to the sub-debate about the accuracy of the scripture vs. the integrity of the church doctrine, hence the mistranslation bit. I would agree with you that misinterpretation has taken place a great deal, and that if people really studied the bible, and tried to understand it, rather than memorizing a few chosen verses out of context they would have a completely different understanding of it.

            Context is everything, not just textual context either, but historical context, and even geographical context with regard to a few concepts.

            I think in context, we are actually 100% in agreement ;)
        • gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4mlostracco: Precisely. It's disgusting, even to many of us Christians. Also, I for one was perfectly comfortable without having had this blessing bestowed up on me by these dimwits who took it upon themselves to waste my tax dollars on this ineffective toothless *****.
          • vulapine, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5I guess they felt they needed some busy work since they couldn't get anything of substance done.
      • Smaulz, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2I can't even believe what I'm reading. A clear, thought-out, logical discussion regarding Christianity? On DIGG?!?

        That being said, I have to heartily agree with mlostracco, as well as most of gn0stik's comments. There is very little, if any, resemblance between today's Corporate Christianity, and Jesus' original intent. And before anyone gets their panties in a twist, yes, I do believe you can accurately glean His true intent through reading scripture, translation be damned. They all say basically the same thing. The bottom line is Mankind screwed it up, just like everything else we touch. Christians today are paying the price for 2000 years of personal agendas whittling away, watering down, and corrupting what was the most important message ever. As with everything else we've been handed (i.e. the environment, the economy, etc.), it's now up to our generation to try to fix it.
    • diggydougie, on 12/13/2007, -9/+3Holy crap! They passed this? The constitution means nothing anymore.
      Where's the supreme court when you need them. It's there job to stamp this sort of thing out.
      • FKnight, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Quite the contrary to your entire comment. A House Resolution is not a bill and is not a law. It is a statement being made by the House of Representatives. Nothing else. As such, this basically boils down to the members of the House of Representatives, as a whole, exercising its right to free speech by making this statement. Ergo, there is nothing here for the Supreme Court to "stamp out" because they aren't violating any provision of the US Constitution.

        Had this been a House BILL, however, destined to be sent to the White House to be signed into law, that's an entirely different story.
    • boomchockalocka, on 12/13/2007, -3/+5(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide;

      ... unless they're gay.

      Nothing like a little hypocrisy to start the season.
    • Dundasbro, on 12/13/2007, -2/+2Nice little Christian circle jerk they have going there
    • ngnboone, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Oh no! The House of Representatives thinks Christianity is one of the "great religions" of the world! This changes EVERYTHING!!
    • larcher01, on 12/14/2007, -0/+0a colossal waste of time. we need to vote all of these people out - both parties.
  • vroom101, on 12/13/2007, -6/+56I hope no one ever cites H. Res. 847 as full or partial proof that the United States of America is a "Christian Nation." And I also hope that no one ever uses H. Res. 847 in an attempt to transform the United States of America into a religio-political nation, i.e., a pseudo-theocracy.
    • alsahir, on 12/13/2007, -4/+3Just like no one should ever cite Washington's letter to the Barbary Pirates as full or partial proof that we are not. Or that Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists means that government and religion are forever split asunder in America.
      • jenrzzz1, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6We don't _want_ a religious government. That goes against the basic principles of our nation. I'm a Christian, but I think it'd be wrong to identify ourselves as a Christian nation. Yes, the founders were Christians. But if you look way back to the roots of the country, the Pilgrims originally came to America because they weren't allowed to practice their religion in England. That would be one gigantic step backwards.
      • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5You must mean John Adams and the Treaty of Tripoli.
      • gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6As a Christian, I don't understand what the issue is with you people. You seem to think you have some kind of right to a state religion. This is complete garbage. It's not historically accurate that this has ever been a "Christian nation" nor is the idea of a Christian nation biblical. Jesus said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, Give unto God, that which is God's."

        For centuries we persisted in countries that did not want us, and did it gracefully. We converted people with understanding and compassion, never having dictated anything to anyone. Christianity became the worlds largest religion, because it was a religion of love. Until the dark ages that is. Since then, we really haven't recovered as religion. We got fat on the idea that we were the big kid in town, and now feel entitled. Well, I call BS. We are no more entitled to anything than anyone else, and unless we stop this arrogant crap, we're not doing any good. Until Christianity rediscovers the humility that Jesus spoke about, you types will continue to create more Atheists than Christians. You will continue to damage the body of Christ.

        Besides from a doctrinal standpoint, its a contradiction, it makes no sense.. There can be no Holy Nation, not Roman, not Spanish, not French, not American, not anywhere, biblically, until Christ takes the throne. So who are you guys kidding?
        • RonBurgundy76, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Smartest Christian on digg? Looks that way so far.
        • Smaulz, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Keep talking, I'll keep diggin'.
      • Dush, on 12/13/2007, -1/+0Exactly, Jefferson's letter clearly points to the fact that Congress is restrained from establishing or prohibiting religion. It is the "church" being protected from the state by the Constitution. Any action taken by the federal government that restricts religious behavior is in fact diametrically opposed to the Constitution.
        • gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1You have absolutely zero understanding of history do you? It was intended as a two way street. In England there was a state religion that prohibited the establishment and practice of other religions. They sought to provide liberty. They knew that religious infiltration into govt was just as bad as govt inhibition of religion, and that one necessitated the other. Stop making my religion one of ignorance and intolerance.
          • Dush, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0What is this "religious infiltration" you speak of? We already know from the Constitution that Congress is restrained from establishing a particular religion. Thus providing for the elimination of any federally mandated "state religion" as in old England. I very much doubt you are meaning that only non-religious people should be public servants at the federal level so what are you talking about?

            I'm talking about the fact that the free exercise of religion is supposed to be kept protected from impositions upon this natural right by the Congress. That's why I put "church" and not Church or Christianity. But unfortunately this clause and the idea of "seperation of church and state" hasn't been used to protect each institution from themselves. It has been used push religion and the free exercise of it more and more out of society as a whole.
          • gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Dush: All due respect brother, but I think your way off base. By infiltration, I mean Christians who think it's their duty to politicize Christianity by forming PACs and Lobbies designed to push as much doctrine as they can into law, whether it be Gay Marriage, or Abortion, or something else that comes up later on.. I could care less what belief system our public servants adhere to. Only that they are good stewards of their jobs (as the Bible tells them to be). And part of that stewardship is preserving liberty. For everyone.

            I agree that the practice of religion is supposed to be protected from govt interference, but likewise there is to be no religion favored over any other, in any way. I also agree that it's plainly stated that govt is prohibited from establishing a state religion. However that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't happen in every capacity besides an official capacity. Nobody is pushing us out of society, we're doing this to ourselves. If it really bothers you, address the real issue: Hateful, arrogant, intolerant Christians who make us all look bad.
          • Smaulz, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1You got a freakin newsletter or something? Where do I sign up?
          • gn0stik, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Smaulz: I've been thinking about blogging, but man, I just don't know where I'd start. And frankly, I don't know if I'd be very good at keeping up on a blog. Maybe I'll write a book, and format it in the style of the Pauline letters, or the letters to the churches in Revelation, that'd probably be too condescending and arrogant though.
    • pintomp3, on 12/13/2007, -2/+14i'm sure they will. the christian right pushed to get "in god we trust" on our money and "under god" in the pledge. now they refer back to their own actions as proof that this country was founded as a christian nation. this is just another arrow in their quiver.
    • diggydougie, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4But they will.
    • drakia, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1How many asses do you have to kiss to be 4 of the first 5 comments on your own story and still get dugg up?
  • JimmySpaza, on 12/13/2007, -46/+9The atheists will do ANYTHING to keep every vestige of Christianity out of public life and government. Heck, some of them don't even want a public official's morality to be even indirectly based on the Bible.

    All this resolution is is a proclamation of the history of Christianity in this nation and its importance. It does NOT establish a theocracy. It does NOT proclaim Christianity as the only true religion.

    Stop worrying.
    • MacEnvy, on 12/13/2007, -4/+10Oh, hi "Jimmy". Are you new?
      /s
    • killakan, on 12/13/2007, -7/+27*****. You and your ilk have been trying to make your death cult the official national religion of the U.S.A. for decades.
      • polymyxin, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2You don't know if JimmySpaza wants to make Christianity the official national religion of the United States. And you should know that millions of Christians are quite clear in their belief that they do not want Christianity to be an official religion of any sort; the current leader of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is an ordained Christian minister.
    • 01l0, on 12/13/2007, -4/+34The Christianists will do ANYTHING to insert their religion into government. If you want to live in a theocracy so badly, why don't you move to Iran?
      • polymyxin, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2We must be reading different posts, because I didn't read anything in JimmySpaza's post advocating theocracy.
      • citizen782, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1But this is, in fact, what you are constructing when you allow religion to guide political decisions.
    • citizen782, on 12/13/2007, -3/+12"some of them don't even want a public official's morality to be even indirectly based on the Bible"
      You are correct. I do not want my public officials good decency and morals to be based on a scripture open to vast levels of interpretation. Very few Christian's interpretation of passages in the bible are the same. The argument is "it's suppose to be more of a moral compass". Please take your hypocritical, self indulging book and remove it from public influence. I want the bible to be no more a guide for any politician than I want the Koran. America is NOT a Christian nation despite how many self proclaimed Christians live here.
    • psyjoniz, on 12/13/2007, -2/+5JimmySpaza is a troll.
    • norman619, on 12/13/2007, -2/+1Theists will do anything to try and shove their religious views down our heathen throats.
    • kreneskyp, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2if you need someone to spell out morality in a book then you inherently lack morality to begin with. Morals come from empathy about what your actions would do to the other person. A book can't give you empathy. You may know something is wrong, but if you don't feel bad about doing it then you lack morals.

      This is an attempt at proving the united states was founded because of Christianity. While i will never disagree that Christianity is an important part of American's lives our government was founded to be absent of any particular religion. This law unfairly props up a single religion. It also paves the way for a religion to be included in government.

      The only way this resolution would be acceptable is if they made an individual resolution for every other religion proclaiming support and protection for it. This course of action is very obviously absurd. These protections are already guaranteed in the constitution.
    • rabidmonkey1, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Quite frankly, keep the government OUT of my religion!!!
  • irvman21, on 12/13/2007, -3/+30This is one of those election year things that means absolutely nothing in any real sense. Its only purpose is to force House Members to either vote for a meaningless resolution, or vote against it and open themselves up to criticism for hating Christmas. It's just politics, there is no deeper theocracy based conspiracy here.
    • pintomp3, on 12/13/2007, -3/+3by itself, it's meaningless. but many of the candidates running don't believe in seperation of church and state. many conservatives in the house and senate also don't. they want to push things like intelligent design in our school and funnel money to faith-based institutions. one example is the federal government giving $30 million to pro-life groups to set themselves up as women's health clinics and use lies and scare tactics to dissuade women from getting abortions. this country has been sliding slowly towards theocracy for decades. we have strayed very from from where the founding father intended, this type of legislation pushes it a little further along.
  • corranhorn85, on 12/13/2007, -14/+79Christmas is a pagan holiday, not Christian.
    • savetheusa1, on 12/13/2007, -6/+7True
    • screamthenrun, on 12/13/2007, -7/+25Christmas is not a pagan holiday... however, the roots of the celebration of Christmas certainly have to do w/ pagan holidays... religions were competing (if it can be called that) for followers... when pagans converted, they brought some of their old traditions with them-- celebrating their winter festival (i dont remember what it was called... sorry)
      • DrMonkeyLove, on 12/13/2007, -2/+11If Jesus ever really existed, all Biblical evidence points to him being born some time around June. If someone can explain to me how a vast majority of all Christmas traditions are in any way related to Christianity, I'd love to listen.
        • screamthenrun, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=mi ...
          this should answer all your questions
        • dgooding, on 12/13/2007, -4/+1Check out http://www.bethlehemstar.net
          Dr. Larson's research is scientifically grounded, and highly acclaimed.

          He shows that it is highly likely the Magi from the East came to Bethlehem on the day that would become December 25th in our current calendar. When they got to Bethlehem, they gave the baby Jesus gifts. This is a likely cause for why we give gifts on Christmas, December 25th.
        • cusoman, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Abridged:

          Although some evidence suggests that his birth may have occurred in the spring (why would shepherds be herding in the middle of winter?), Pope Julius I chose December 25. It is commonly believed that the church chose this date in an effort to adopt and absorb the traditions of the pagan Saturnalia festival.
        • norman619, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Just an FYI in Russia they celebrate "Christmas" in January.
      • kilps, on 12/13/2007, -5/+6Look at it this way - why on earth does it matter if we get the date right or wrong? Why does it matter if the *date* was borrowed from someone else? What matters is what you use it for...
        • Syujinkou, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5for consumerism?
          • Tilon, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2lol, the Christians originally used Dec. 25th because the Pagans did, and used it to compete and gain followers.

            But hey, Capitalism is okay even in Religion, right kilps?
        • norman619, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Christmas is a commercial holiday. A day for you to worship at the altar of materialism and embrace debt.
      • alliekins619, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5Christmas has it roots in Saturnalia, a winter festival held by Ancient Romans. It was a classic Roman holiday- drinking, public nudity, rampant sex, and generally un-Christian things related to fun and personal pleasure. Christmas began to be celebrated in December to attract the Pagan followers of the Hellenistic deities who were hesitant to give up what Romans considered the greatest of all holidays.
        • citizen782, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3"In ancient Babylon, the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast.

          In Rome, the Winter Solstice was celebrated many years before the birth of Christ. The Romans called their winter holiday Saturnalia, honoring Saturn, the God of Agriculture. In January, they observed the Kalends of January, which represented the triumph of life over death. This whole season was called Dies Natalis Invicti Solis, the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun. The festival season was marked by much merrymaking. It is in ancient Rome that the tradition of the Mummers was born. The Mummers were groups of costumed singers and dancers who traveled from house to house entertaining their neighbors. From this, the Christmas tradition of caroling was born."
        • Corrosionx, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1"It was a classic Roman holiday- drinking, public nudity, rampant sex, and generally un-Christian things related to fun and personal pleasure. "

          You're talking about my office party?
      • citizen782, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2You're talking about the Winter Solstice and the majority of Christmas roots are from a Pagan Holiday celebrating the feast of the Son of Isis. The fact that many years later, as this Holiday was moved into Roman culture, it became tied to the Birth of Christ (who was actually born sometime in September after passover) doesn't mean it wasn't originally a Pagan holiday. It in fact was.
      • citizen782, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3"In 350, Pope Julius I declared that Christ’s birth would be celebrated on December 25. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans (who remained a majority at that time) to convert to Christianity. The new religion went down a bit easier, knowing that their feasts would not be taken away from them."
    • dgooding, on 12/13/2007, -6/+0http://www.bethlehemstar.net/

      The Magi from the East went to Bethlehem on what would become December 25th in our calendar.
      • gandhi2, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2There is absolutely no factual support for this idea. The scripture itself places the actual birth closer to springtime, and the rest was just decided on by early Christian popes. Dec 25th does coincede with many pagan holidays, including the celebration of Mithras from Roman lore, whose mythology bears striking parallels with the Catholic dogma of Christ. It also occurred very close to the winter solstice and Yule. Seeing as how so many other early Christian holidays were co-opted from the simple village folks' ceremonies, it seems the most likely explanation for the decision by the papacy to declare that Christ was born on Dec. 25.
    • magstheaxe, on 12/13/2007, -3/+1I guess that's why no one but pagans celebrate it then, right?

      Christmas STARTED OUT as a pagan holiday. It's not a pagan holiday anymore.
      • dennisnicholas, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Christmas started out a Pagan holiday, then became a Christian holiday, but now it's just a commercial, corporate holiday or rampant consumerism.
      • gandhi2, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1What is the religious significance of the Christmas tree to a Christian? How about the pentagram at the top of it? Do Christians still exchange gifts, hang wreaths, holly and mistletoe? Do they still celebrate it in winter? If the answer is "yes," to any, then there are still lots of pagan elements in it, you just aren't aware of what the are nor what they mean.
    • Logicexe, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Slightly incorrect. The part about sitting in midnight mass while a priest drones on and on about wise men this and goat herders that is pure Christianity. The part about decorating trees, getting drunk with your family and exchanging gifts is all Pagan baby!
      • gandhi2, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Great! All the COOL parts of the holiday come from ancient belief systems.
    • Topheh, on 12/14/2007, -0/+0*sigh* That line gets older and older every time I hear it. Yes, we dont know when Christ was born, yes, the early church may have decided to have it correspond to the winter solstice to ease the transition for pagans to Christianity... But at the same time, its also the most fitting time to have such a celebration

      Winter solstice == Yay! The Sun is coming back and the darkness is going way!
      Jesus' Birth == Yay! "the darkness of sin" is going away.

      Regardless... 1,650 years later... its wholly Christian celebration, and sniping about how it is 'really' a pagan celebration is not only silly, its wrong.
  • screamthenrun, on 12/13/2007, -12/+4ok... being christian and all... i'm not too sure why they passed this (i honestly didn't even know about this until i saw it on digg)... if there was one thing that I wished they passed, it would be to protect religious symbols from secular infiltration:
    Christmas Tree =/= Holiday Tree
    Menorah =/= Holiday Candelabra (luckily i havent seen this one yet)
    etc.
    • emalen, on 12/13/2007, -3/+8So the "religious" symbol you're concerned about is the Christmas tree? That, by definition, is secular.
    • emalen, on 12/13/2007, -1/+11Oh and by the way, before you digg me down, I realize there are some religious roots of the use of trees around winter time, but they certainly predate Christianity, and for 99% of Christians today there is no religious connection to the tree but rather a secular tradition woven into the celebration.
      • screamthenrun, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Mi ...
        The Christmas tree is different by the inclusion of lights and ornaments "It is a widely held belief that Martin Luther, the 16th-century Protestant reformer, first added lighted candles to a tree...."
        You are right however that celebrations including evergreens has its origins in pagansim...
        • DumDumDog, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0so keep your lights .. we pagans say stop using the TREE ! ... oh the Jews say they OWN the celebration of lights so you can't have that either. No lights for you Christians.

          sorry
          dum
      • boonesfarm, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Breaking News!! Degrading Christians does not get you buried in Digg. The so-called progressives here hate conservatives in general, and label them as intolerant, amongst other things. Ironically enough, many of those firebrands are themselves intolerant of Christians, and revel in telling them how silly THEIR faith is. I for one don't participate, but I respect those who responsibly practice their faith.
        • emalen, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Please illustrate where in either of my comments I degraded Christians. I replied to one person's erroneous comment about the supposed innate Christian aspect of the Christmas Tree.
    • Logicexe, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Does what other people call a decorated tree impede on your right to celebrate whatever holiday you want in whatever way you want? It certainly doesn't affect me, they could call them hotdogs and I'd still call it a Christmas tree (despite its roots in paganism).
  • PsilocybinCube, on 12/13/2007, -16/+24Wow, I'm a Christian, but it offends me that our government would make a law which so overtly conflicts with the establishment clause. There are billions of muslims too, but I sure don't want to pass a law saying we must recognize and respect their traditions. I though the whole point of this whole 'separation of church and state' thing was to avoid these sorts of bills. Stupid politicians.
    • Shawn4168, on 12/13/2007, -3/+12It's not a law, it's a resolution. Big difference.
    • MikeFallopian, on 12/13/2007, -2/+5How is this a law? What are you talking about?
    • LastVisibleDog, on 12/13/2007, -2/+7It is not a law and it does not in any way conflict with the "establishment clause" in that it does not try to establish a state religion.

      Check out what you are saying before you call somebody else stupid
    • swollentiki, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3This isn't a law. This is just a public announcement that the U.S. Congress recognizes the Christmas Holiday and the Christian roots of not only the holiday, but the founding of this nation.

      Also, your understanding (and use) of "separation of church and state" is flawed.
    • polymyxin, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2How does this establish a religion, and how is it a law? (Hint: it does not, and it is not).
    • larcher01, on 12/14/2007, -0/+0it's not a law bung-wad.
    • dildoolielly, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Most of the general criticism isn't directed at moderate or liberal Christians but at the fire and brimstone Fanatics. If you oppose them, then speak up against them. A Good Christian's silence is a tacit approval of these fanatics actions.

      Moderates like to distance themselves from extremists by pointing out that these extremists don't represent the majority of christians, but they fail to explain why the majority of christians don't take exception to the actual texts of the bible. Nor do they present any coherent argument as to how they came to chose which parts of the bible are to be take literally and which are metaphorical lessons. The problem is not, as so many like to say, that a few extremists get things wrong, its that these extremists get things right... biblically speaking that is. Moderates need to admit that the bible is a human text that expresses moral and ethical viewpoints that are several thousand years out of date. Until they do, they need to live with the stink that the biblical literalists bring.

      So if you aren't an gaybashing hate-mongering Christian, good for you. However, your leaders all are; that's why we generalize, because the face of Christianity in this country is bigoted, anti-science, and repressive in general. Choose better leaders that espouse intelligence and acceptance, and we won't all think you're dumb assholes.
  • screamthenrun, on 12/13/2007, -3/+19similar resolution for muslims... this one was backed unanimously:
    http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=w ...
    847 had 9 votes against the resolution
    • emalen, on 12/13/2007, -1/+13What's sad about that statistic is it has nothing to do with religion but political correctness. We can't all support a Christian resolution because Christians are the big bad baddies of the religious right and it would seem prejudicial. However, we can all certainly support a Muslim resolution because that shows "acceptance" and "tolerance." That makes the unanimous support of the Muslim resolution more patronizing than earnest. *Note - I am not saying I disagree with the Muslim resolution, just the use of it as a political tool.
      • hobbitaussie, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3So your own "note" is PC too :)
        • emalen, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2The difference is that I did not make the statement solely for the purpose of being "PC" but for clarification of my position and beliefs.
    • werkshop, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1That was going to be my post but you got here long before I did. All this does is recognize Christmas as a holiday that is and may be observed in the USA. It is a tolerance measure, saying that none observing Xmas should be descriminated against. We need these types of bills for all religions, but your ignorant waving of this bill only serves to support that which you denounce, special treatment or favoritism for X-ians.
    • jgzman, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I was preparing a "they would never pass a resolution like this for muslims" statement. But it seems they did.

      Fair enough. Objections withdrawn.
  • coyoteblue, on 12/13/2007, -26/+10I ***** hate this country
    • santiago1, on 12/13/2007, -9/+5 I ***** hate the complete ***** utter morons in control of this country

      ...fixed that for you.
    • Kythas, on 12/13/2007, -6/+16Leave, then.
      • flygirl62, on 12/13/2007, -1/+7True, A better statement would have been what I have been thinking:
        "I hate the direction that this country seems to be heading"
      • scoottie, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5/agree
      • jezsik, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4Leaving is the path of the coward.
    • sithlordoflanc, on 12/13/2007, -2/+5Then leave.
    • swollentiki, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3Ahh, the great thing about this country is you have the ability to LEAVE!!! And even voice your opposition to what is going on in this country.
    • polymyxin, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2Dugg down for being an idiot, but some of these replies are almost as bad. "Love it or leave it" is one of the worst responses to people who say they hate or dislike America. Most of us were born here, without any choice in which country we would grow up in. The cost of leaving one's job, home, and friends and moving your entire life to another country is enormous; not to mention, you need to deal with your destination country's immigration laws before you can even start thinking about this.

      If someone doesn't like America, yet still lives here, they may want to leave and just not be able to do so. Or, if someone doesn't like America, yet still lives here, they may not like the current state of their country, but for all you know they want to stay here and improve it. Cut out this "GET OUT" crap, it sounds like FreeRepublic in here.
  • daxsymbiont, on 12/13/2007, -4/+5do not say PLEASE.

    they are supposed to be representatives. REPRESENTatives.

    ok say please if you're british or polite.
  • postaldave, on 12/13/2007, -17/+11lol.
    years of stupid ***** like "holiday tree" and "holiday break" have led up to this stupid resolution.

    you hate religion so much? then just shut up about it. nobody cared about anything until leftist tried to take "christmas" and those evil "ten commandments" away.

    who the hell knew the ten commandments were posted anywhere until someone started bitching about it.


    • hawkspur, on 12/13/2007, -7/+3You do know that the Ten Commandments as they are popularly splayed about are not actually anywhere in the Bible? As the Old Testamant says, when Moses comes down from the mountain with the tablets he throws them down in a rage and they are never listed. The actual "Ten Commandments" are much different and archaic if you actually do some reasearch.
    • TheHydrogens, on 12/13/2007, -3/+6You would ***** a brick if there was a government building that had a sign up saying that you had to worship Zues, FSM, Ganesh, etc. Don't even pretend you wouldn't.
    • joessandwich, on 12/13/2007, -1/+7We're not trying to take the ten commandments away from you, we're trying to stop you from pushing them on us in government sanctioned places. You can feel free to live your life according to those commandments without having to put them in a courthouse.
      • gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1The reason it's in the courthouses isn't because of religion. It's because it's an ancient example of law, and the Hammurabi code was way too ***** brutal.

        Seriously, that is a pretty petty and irrational ***** thing to bitch about.
        • temsi, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2Only two of the 10 commandments are actually laws (don't steal & don't murder), and since our legal system was in no way based on the ten commandments or the christian religion in general, displaying the ten commandments as "an ancient example of law" is meaningless at best.
        • gn0stik, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Only two of the 10 commandments are actually laws today.... fixed.

          Back then it was civil law to the Jews, not just some moral code passed down by God. Adultery, etc were all punishble... severely so.
    • temsi, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1"you hate religion so much? then just shut up about it."
      You hate leftists so much? then just shut up about it.
      You hate gay marriage so much? then just shut up about it.
      You hate liberals so much? then just shut up about it.

      See, your logic doesn't work, does it...

      1st Amendment means no Ten Commandments featured in federal buildings. Very simple.
      Would you be OK with it if your federal court house had a big statue of Mohammed in the lobby reminding us that Allah is great and women should be subservient and covered from head to toe?
      Would you mind if a statue of Buddha was erected and on display on Capitol Hill?
      Of course you would. The ONLY reason why you don't think this is a 1st Amendment violation, is because it's for YOUR RELIGION.
      Think a little... please.
      • gn0stik, on 12/13/2007, -2/+2he didn't tell you to just shut up about anything.

        • temsi, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1how about you actually understand the comment before replying to it?
  • garbanzo, on 12/13/2007, -9/+10The link doesn't have any information about the resolution. Buried.
    • brisbin33, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3hear hear, (here here?) if your title is asking not to pass a bill link to the effing bill (or resolution whatever it is) i digg you despite your current -3.
  • okthxbai, on 12/13/2007, -18/+1Dear Idiot Digger..

    Congress doesnt read digg, so stfu
  • MikeFallopian, on 12/13/2007, -5/+28On a scale from 1 to terrifyingly fascistic, this resolution is a 1. It doesn't establish any new laws, it's just a feel-good piece of fluff to appease the people who bitched about the earlier, similar Muslim-targeted resolution . Is it a waste of time by Congress? Sure, but it's not unconstitutional or restrictive in any way to non-christians. The knee-jerk reactions on digg to stuff like this border on self-parody sometimes.
    • itsthebrod, on 12/13/2007, -6/+3It doesn't have to establish any new laws to be utterly against governmental ethics AND to be COMPLETELY against the 1st Amendment. It's a waste of time and resources and an even clearer sign that the government is SERIOUSLY ***** up. We're in a useless war and this is what our Congress is doing right now?!
      • MikeFallopian, on 12/13/2007, -1/+8A waste of time? Absolutely. Against the 1st Amendment - care to explain how that's true? (Hint: this is a resolution not a law)
        • itsthebrod, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1It doesn't need to be a ***** law but the government is still supporting a STATEMENT that is for a specific religion. That is clearly against the 1st Amendment! Who cares if it's a law, a resolution, or a ***** birthday cake, the government should stay out of religion and vice versa.
  • Kythas, on 12/13/2007, -10/+19What's wrong with this? It's not establishing a State religion. It's simply recognizing Christianity as one of the major religions in the world - which it is.

    Where's the comdemnation of the Ramadan Resolution? Did that establish Islam as the official religion of the United States? No, it merely recognized it as a major world religion - which it is.

    Oh, that's right. People are only afraid of Christian things. I wonder why that is....
    • itsthebrod, on 12/13/2007, -4/+6Perhaps what's wrong with it is, WHY do they need to recognize Christianity as one of the "greatest" religions (I believe they said greatest)? The fact is that government should be completely and utterly devoid of any and ALL religions, not just Christianity.
      • Kythas, on 12/13/2007, -2/+10FTA: Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

        (1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

        Note it says "one of the great". In this instance, the word "great" does not mean "better than others" but simply of a large or grand scale. Note that World War I used to be called The Great War. Not because it was an excellent war, but because of the size and scale of it.

        And, no, as you can see also, they didn't say it's the "greatest".
        • link5280, on 12/13/2007, -5/+1"one of the great".... so there are others not so great then?
          • TheSabre, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Sure. There are many religions in African tribes that are practiced by a few dozen people. They are not as great as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.
    • jake61, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1LOL
      Must agree with ya, seems to me that people nowadays are only afraid of Christian things... against rationality: Christians didn't fly into the Twin Towers. I'm amazed that there was nothing like this on digg against the muslim one.
  • melonhedd, on 12/13/2007, -23/+13FREEDOM OF RELIGION NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION
    • scoottie, on 12/13/2007, -11/+3well said
      • jbs3600, on 12/13/2007, -2/+5I fail to see how this is well said.

        Aside from being a fragment without a verb, what was presented was the logical fallacy of reduced choice.

        True religious freedom, like true sexual freedom, is the freedom to abstain.
    • Willravel, on 12/13/2007, -1/+6You need to sit down and talk with the founders before you blurt things out, kiddo. It's both.
      • xelerated, on 12/13/2007, -8/+0Actually if you read the federalist papers, which goes into detail what the founders meant when they wrote the constitution, they WANTED christianity in the government.
        • TheHydrogens, on 12/13/2007, -0/+9Which is why they specifically didn't mention Jesus, or God by name, or the Bible. They just plum forgot!
        • ArmyOfFun, on 12/13/2007, -0/+8Care to cite this? Which article says anything like that?
    • DreKor, on 12/13/2007, -0/+7Wow, you had all this space in your text box to put out a coherent and thoughtful answer and instead you quoted a bumper sticker. Sound bytes and slogans are the driving force behind the decline of serious discourse in the country. Oh, Caps lock is also harmful to intelligent conversation.
    • BadseedJR, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That's pretty self explanatory.
  • monkeysteps, on 12/13/2007, -5/+7Resolution....means nothing ....move on nothing to see here
    • fogster, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1The resolution carries no legal weight. That's not to say it "means nothing."
  • iconnor, on 12/13/2007, -2/+12110th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. RES. 847
    Recognizing the importance of Eid and the Islamic faith.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    December 6, 2007
    Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. AKIN, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BAKER, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. HAYES, Mr. HERGER, Mr. ISSA, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. POE, Mr. SALI, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. TERRY, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, and Mrs. DRAKE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    RESOLUTION
    Recognizing the importance of Eid and the Islamic faith.
    Whereas Eid, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Muslims throughout the United States and the world;
    Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, making Islam the religion of many of the American population;
    Whereas there are approximately 1,500,000,000 Muslims throughout the world, making Islam the largest growing religion in the world and the religion soon to be over one-third of the world population;
    Whereas Muslims identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the teachings of their prophet, Mohamed, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Koran;
    Whereas Muslims and Islam have contributed greatly to the development of 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 roots in Islam;
    Whereas on at the end of Ramadan of each calendar year, American Muslims observe Eid;
    Whereas for Muslims, Eid is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and
    Whereas many Muslims and non-Muslims throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Eid as a time to serve others: Now, therefore be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
    (1) recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world;
    (2) expresses continued support for Muslims in the United States and worldwide;
    (3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Eid and the Islamic faith;
    (4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Muslims and Islam in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
    (5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide; and
    (6) expresses its deepest respect to American Muslims and Muslims throughout the world.
    • diggydougie, on 12/13/2007, -4/+4Equally troubling. Not because it's muslim but because it clearly recognizes religion by the government.
      • Nothlit, on 12/13/2007, -1/+6Recognizing religion is nowhere near the same thing as establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Founding Fathers did not intend for government in this country to pretend as though religion does not exist; merely for the church and the state to stay out of each other's affairs.
      • tmgentry1, on 12/13/2007, -2/+0Excellent comment; nice to see someone thinking clearly. Not that the resolution is not a waste of time, but it clearly means nothing.
      • polymyxin, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Why is it troubling for the government to recognize the existence of religion?
    • DreKor, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1So, is this really a thing or not?
    • creditsuisse, on 12/13/2007, -1/+0Neither of them have any business in Congress and Congress should have no business entertaining them.
    • melonhedd, on 12/14/2007, -0/+0terrorist
  • pintomp3, on 12/13/2007, -12/+9but if you don't let the christians run everything and take away rights from other people, you are persecuting them.
  • flahavin, on 12/13/2007, -2/+14Great....Right before the asshats take a month off for christmas, they are writing/passing bills for holidays, we still haven't taken care of:
    1. A fix for the AMT(Alternate Minimum Tax)
    2. War Funding for Iraq or something official to get us out.
    3. A federal reserve killing the value of the dollar intentionally
    4. A Presidential Administration beating the drums to invade a third country
    5. A National Debt of $10 Trillion
    6. An Unsecure border and a serious illegal immigration problem
    and more....
    • citizen782, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1The important thing is that NONE of these things (or anything) will occur between this Congress and our current President in any session. No laws passed by this congress will survive a Veto. Don't expect much.
    • larcher01, on 12/14/2007, -0/+0vote EVERYONE out! both parties. completely clean slate.
  • Ilyanep, on 12/13/2007, -9/+5Why is this nowhere to be found in the news?
    • Nothlit, on 12/13/2007, -1/+9Because it's not in any way, shape, or form newsworthy.
    • jake61, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Because it's not a law
  • stealthboy, on 12/13/2007, -15/+16Ahh, good, another non-story to bring out the anti-Christians on Digg.

    • lazybum90, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Appearently so. Its not harming anything and if the anti-christians hate christianity so much go to work on the 25th o wait you cant because your to busy celebrating christmas...... or to be politically correct the "Holiday Season" its not a holiday unless you have something to celebrate......
      • howwitty, on 12/17/2007, -0/+0Obviously most of these "anti-christians" you're referring to work with, or for, Christians who enforce the overbearing mentality that the U.S. is Christian. Also most of them do celebrate other holidays. Your entire comment is *****, ***** you.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 12/13/2007, -8/+15Please actually read the Constitution - the first amendment prohibits the government from creating a state religion and prohibits the government from doing anything that would limit the free exercise of one's religion. H.R. 847 - while being a silly pointless bill - does not establish a state religion. You are not ever close.
    • fogster, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1In this case, you have to do more than read the Constitution. SCOTUS precedent holds that endorsement of a particular religion constitutes an Establishment Clause violation.

      Check out Lynch v. Donnelly. Or, in particular, the consequential "Endorsement test" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsement_test
  • aspec, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4They don't read the emails you send to them, they don't pay attention when you ask them a question... they're certainly not going to read an appeal on digg.
  • scoottie, on 12/13/2007, -13/+9Dear House of Representatives,

    Thank you for passing H.R 847. It seems like being white or Christian has become sin or at least a thing to be ashamed of in this country.
    • macsaver, on 12/13/2007, -7/+4It is sad to say, but you are right.
    • citizen782, on 12/13/2007, -4/+3Scoottie,
      Keep your blanket statement, offensive, satirical ***** to yourself. It wasn't cute.
  • MerryMortician, on 12/13/2007, -1/+6The main thing im offended at is how much time was spent to basically say NOTHING?
  • Wander2000, on 12/13/2007, -7/+5Buried for being totally meaningless and a waste of time reading something that is not doing anything to anyone.
  • angelwings1777, on 12/13/2007, -6/+5From what I've read of the "law" H.R. 847. All I gather is that we recognize that people of the Christian faith helped make this country and western civilization. We also recognize that Christians celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December in order to celebrate certain beliefs. We don't support the removal of Christmas.

    In the bill they neither agree or disagree with any beliefs in general. It basically states that Christians have the right to celebrate Christmas and we will not take that away.
    • nblsavage, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3like that was going to happen. big ***** deal
  • tman84, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4its more like they just publicly laid out their marketing strategy. 225,000,000 Christians in the US, is a lot of voters to pander too.

    It's not a law, but that doesn't excuse that this shouldn't be made a Resolution, way more people would be pissed if this was Muslims or Jews that were being recognized by congress in a Resolution.
  • videographer, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Woo-hoo, my tax dollars at work. Aaaargh.
  • leslieawil, on 12/13/2007, -2/+4WTF, I really want to know what is wrong with people.
  • Peabdog, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5As screamthenrun pointed out, a similar resolution about the Muslim holiday passed unanimously.
    • TheSabre, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1That's because Muslims don't kill in the name of God, only Christians do that.

      Oh wait...
  • Timetheos, on 12/13/2007, -3/+4Why are they wasting time with this crap? Rep. King (sponsor, Republican) is an idiot.

    Republicans keep screwing up government, and the Dems are to cowardly to stop them.
    • citizen782, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3"the Dems are to cowardly to stop them"
      What do you propose they do?
    • Rippleeffect, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Well, considering how Dems control the house and the senate, I'm not sure I follow your logic.
  • Neonfire277, on 12/13/2007, -4/+6I really worry that this will be yet another tool for fundamentalists to use to get dogmatic laws in.
    • polymyxin, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Please explain how this will happen.
  • BannedTwice, on 12/13/2007, -15/+3Buried. Suck you stupid atheist *****.
    • pintomp3, on 12/13/2007, -1/+6^ religion of love.
    • tman84, on 12/13/2007, -2/+2what a holy and devout thing to say. i'm so glad your God is all forgiving, because you will need lots of it.
      • lazybum90, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1as long as your haiting christians help us out and dont celebrate christmas since you don't believe in what it really stands for.....
        • Ramble, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Christmas really stands for a new farming season. It's at the winter solstice for a reason.
    • Smaulz, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Wow, way to do their job for them. Please don't assume you speak for any other Christians, or deists for that matter.
  • Tommyhawk, on 12/13/2007, -5/+9I have no problem with this resolution. And I'm an athiest.
    • fogster, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2That funny, I have a problem with it, and I'm a Christian.
  • link5280, on 12/13/2007, -2/+7So what is the point of this legislation? Waste money? Alienate non-Christians? Push religion? Make a statement? This is a total waste of time!
  • geddon, on 12/13/2007, -3/+8U.S. House Passes Historic Ramadan Resolution
    http://digg.com/politics/U_S_House_Passes_Historic ...
  • dungbeetle, on 12/13/2007, -2/+10I'm a Christian and as I drove to work today, upon hearing this, I had a facepalm moment. Why is this necessary at all? First Jesus would have a huge problem with this, what with the hypocrisy and all. Secondly, in this country anyway, if you're going to give preference to one group, you eventually will have to give preference to them all. It opened a huge can of worms that only deepens the resentment toward Christianity and religion in general. People, please don't think every Christian is like this. It makes my skin crawl to think that the same people running the war and taking our freedoms away would do something like this.
    • jake61, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1I totally agree with your comment: I'm a Christan and do Not support the war.
  • icecycles, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6Is this all that Congress can do these days? Can they do ANYTHING of real value? What a waste of time! I'm Christian and I don't care AT ALL about what Congress thinks about Christmas! Do something like worthwhile like impeachment followed by the restoration of the constitution!
    • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0A true "restoration" of the constitution would mean the end of all the New Deal programs, like Social Security. It would mean the end of national speed limits, most federal regulatory bodies, federal licensing requirements. It would end federal drug laws, civil rights laws, and gun control.

      I would bet my last dollar that 99% of the people who advocate restoring the Constitution, especially on Digg, have something else in mind.
  • JoeVet, on 12/13/2007, -1/+7This resolution has nothing to do with Christmas or Christianity. It has everything to do with the 9 democrats who voted ney. This will be used in a most unchristian way to further a republican candidates election bid.
  • mikebaldwin67, on 12/13/2007, -7/+9well I'd like to say THANK YOU Representatives and Senators, thank you for sticking up for the little guy. Too long have I experienced bigotry and discrimination because of my christian beliefs. I think with the help of this bill that christians, the under-dogs and little guys across the country can finally stand up and say WE will be heard and We will be recognized. Thank jesus that our govenment finally had the guts and decency to stick up for us christians who have been beaten on, ignored and discriminated against for so long.
    • nblsavage, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6awww....the poor oppressed majority. My heart bleeds.
    • pintomp3, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4/sarcasm.
    • ironhide, on 12/13/2007, -3/+3eat me you hypocritical dirtbag
    • Eivo, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1LOL!!! Wow, seriously?
    • polymyxin, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3I'm not sure how serious you are, but there's a point to be made here. Christians may not be the "little guy," but it's hard to argue that, at least in some quarters, they do face bigotry and discrimination because of their beliefs. Exhibit A: half the comments on this story.

      /atheist
  • cjays1, on 12/13/2007, -5/+0Maybe Jesus trimmed his beard back to a goatee to be hip, and now he can't be recognized. This bill is just an official "Hey, is that you, Jesus? I thought I recognized you!"
  • swollentiki, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4This is buried because the title says one thing, but the link goes to the US Constitution.
  • Big1984Brother, on 12/13/2007, -2/+6Thank you for passing a bill that serves no real purpose, other than polarize the country. This is just the kind of thing the "top tier" candidates of both parties need to help further the illusion that there is some sort of significant difference between the Democrats and Republicans. This type of bill will help fool fundamentalist Christians into thinking that their silly iron-age mythology has some sort relevance on NeoCon policy, and in turn, it will help Hillary get support from rational people who fear that the country is declining back into some sort of religious Dark Age.

    But in truth, neither candidate will be able to force a major shift in societal morality. People will still have homosexual sex and abortions under a Huckabee/Romney administration, and people will still believe that Jesus hates fags and that creationism is “science” under a Hillary/Obama administration. There is only one major candidate int his race who will bring about significant *political* reform (This is something that a president *does* have the power to do), and I think we all know who I’m talking about. So please, let’s not allow the political discourse in this country to get muddied by this sort of silly religious pandering. Stick to the issues.
    • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0There isn't any presidential candidate that will bring about any sort of reform. The president simply doesn't have the power to do it. Even your unnamed candidate will find himself completely innefective.
  • CondoleezzaRice, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Dennis Kucinich voted for this. Why?
    • jake61, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Cause it's not a law but instead a Resolution. Plus he probably voted for the Muslim one as well...
      I think he's one of the best candidates (together with Ron Paul)
  • swollentiki, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3If most of you people are sooo worried about the so called "separation of church and state", then wouldn't that mean that Christmas should not be a national holiday??
    • nblsavage, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3considering that Christmas isn't really a religious holiday I don't care.
      • ducinaltumus, on 12/13/2007, -3/+2Really I will have to notify my parish priest of this brilliant insight. You're obviously a Mensa member.
        • nblsavage, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3I more properly should have said...not a christian holiday. Ever hear of Yule or the Feast of Saturnalia?
      • nblsavage, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3Before anyone else gets their panties in a wad. I should have said not a christian holiday. Almost all the Christmas traditions we celebrate were taken from earlier pagan celebrations.
        • lazybum90, on 12/13/2007, -2/+1yah but the true meaning of christmas is the birth of christ the traditions may not be original but the meaning is.....
          • nblsavage, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Jesus wasn't born on christmas day genius.
  • jonnyboy1544, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Bills like this go through all the time. The Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other groups get recognized all the time by House resolutions. It means nothing.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.