  |
|||
|
|
|
||
|
Posted by Brian Tubbs Dec 22, 2007 |
On December 11, 2007, the US House of Representatives passed House Resolution 847: "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith." The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) affirmed the Christmas holiday and recognized Christianity as being "one of the great religions of the world." It further acknowledged "the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization."
Nine House members voted "NO" to the resolution. Appearing on FOX News, Rep. King quite reasonably demanded to know "how they could vote Yes on Islam, Yes on the Indian Religions and No on Christianity."
King is referring to the fact that none of the nine who voted against HR 847 stood against earlier resolutions honoring the Islamic holiday of Ramadan and the Hindu holiday of Diwali.
And that does raise a fair and reasonable question. While many are objecting that Congress is wasting time passing these types of resolutions, the fact is that Congress passes non-binding resolutions all the time -- many of them little more than ceremonial endorsements of individuals, organizations, or holidays. So, if it's okay for Congress to pass these other resolutions (especially ones recognizing Islamic and Hindu holidays), why is it not acceptable to do the same for Christmas?
The nine who voted against Christmas, but FOR Islam and Hinduism are without excuse. Had they voted against all the resolutions, they could credibly assert their neutrality on religion and their opposition to any perceived "establishment of religion" by the U.S. Congress.
Alas, the naysaying nine cannot make such an appeal. And, so...to the nine Scrooges who voted against Christmas, I say...
"Merry Christmas!"