-
From: Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent 12/15/2007 11:12:13 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: alarming new law?
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
Jean, I'll be glad to celebrate with you, whatever holidays you like!
I'd be interested to know how the Islam resolution passed unanimously,
and Christianity had nine votes against. Maybe for Islam a lot of
Representatives were absent?
Are we getting too far off topic and annoying people
new law?
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
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
It's not a law -- it's a House resolution, which was passed 372-9 and which
reads as follows:
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
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
Actually, Jean and Susan, you've already lived long enough to see a House
resolution like this passed honoring other religionsincluding
Islamunanimously this year.
The hypocrisy by these nine Democrats, however, who apparently voted yes to
honor Islam but voted no and refused to
issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: alarming new law?
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
What a silly waste of time.
Thanks to all of you for the information.
Susan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not a law -- it's a House resolution, which was passed 372-9 and which
reads as follows:
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many
other cultures and
On Dec 16, 2007, at Sun, Dec 16, 5:40 AM, Richard Dougherty wrote:
Well, maybe you will; see below. Congress does this sort of thing
regularly. (Haven't seen one for atheists yet, but I can't keep up.)
Marty: Do you think the whereas you cited that was left out was
omitted because it
On Dec 15, 2007, at Sat, Dec 15, 9:36 PM, Gordon James
Klingenschmitt wrote:
Actually, Jean and Susan, you've already lived long enough to see
a House resolution like this passed honoring other
religionsincluding Islamunanimously this year.
I stand corrected, Mr.
This law shows the deep insecurity of politicians in the year before an
election. Silly barely describes this.
Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York 12208-3494
518-445-3386
I've seen several comments, here and in cited materials, that this
isn't the first resolution regarding Christmas; I've found one other
one after a quick Google search, resolving to protect the symbols
and traditions of Christmas in 2005. Can anyone here cite some
other ones for me?
13 matches
Mail list logo