alarming new law?

[Jean Dudley]

It's not a law, it's a "non-binding resolution".  Legally, it's  
pabulum.  Still, it's a waste of the House's time, IMO.  What effects  
it has on society at large is up for speculation.  I see it as  
indicative of a wider mindset that Christians are "persecuted" here  
and the world over.  Of course they are;  As are Jews, Muslims,  
Atheists, Buddhists, and every other cultural subset.  Susan, you and  
I will not live to see a resolution like this passed for any other  
religion in the good ol' US of A.

Jean
On Dec 15, 2007, at Sat, Dec 15,  8:49 PM, Susan Freiman wrote:

> This just came to me from an atheists' list.  Is it true?
>
> Susan
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>
> PRESS RELEASE
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> The Council for Secular Humanism Chides Congress for Disrespecting  
> Religions
>
> (December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular  
> Humanism noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House  
> of Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law,  
> under the misleading title "Recognizing the Importance of Christm  
> as and the Christian Faith" passed the House with overwhelming  
> bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious  
> tolerance necessary in these changing times.
>
> Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four  
> Jewish men in New York City  were attacked on the subway for  
> replying to a group of ten people who wished them a "Merry  
> Christmas" with a similar greeting: "Happy Hanukkah.  For this,  
> these men were first insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who  
> came to their physical defense.  The actions of the Congress, by  
> passing the resolution and thus expressing preference to the  
> Christian faith over all the others represented by the diverse  
> population of these United States , encourages this sort of behavior.
>
> The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the  
> nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state  
> in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given  
> preference. The language of the House resolution effectively  
> undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere  
> where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like  
> second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like  
> those four Jewish subway riders in New York .
>
> Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, "It is deplorable that in this day  
> and age and in light of violence against religious minorities here  
> in the United States that the Congress would stoke those flames  
> with preferential language in support of a single religion."  David  
> Koepsell , CSH's executive director, noted,  "Te First Amendment  
> Guarantee was designed to prevent the sort of religious intolerance  
> that resulted in violence in Europe, and our Congress should  
> respect the intent of the Founders."
>
> We call on the Congress to reject this resolution, to stand up for  
> religious freedom, secularism, and pluralism, and to foster a  
> climate in which all believers and nonbelievers alike are treated  
> equally.
> __._,_.___
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see  
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed  
> as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages  
> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members  
> can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071215/e49d853b/attachment.htm