glish&x=20071003165444mlenuhret0.9762384&m=October>
> On Ramadan:
> http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=14293
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Jean Dudley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent 12/15/2007 11:12:13 PM
> To: "Law & Religion
I think many would agree that this resolution is unfortunate pandering to a
constituency who believe that there is an organized and declared "war on
Christmas." For evidence of that war, they cite items like my local home
store's policy of saying "Happy Holidays" to a large number of Jews, athie
Unfortunately, I think Rev. Klingenschmitt denies his own theology when
he asserts that the right (or at least many -- but not all --
evangelical Protestants) are "tolerant." Those who persist on trying to
convert others -- who denounce other faiths -- are inherently not
"tolerant." I understand,
Separationists probably don't want anyone giving a legislative
invocation. But if it's going to happen, they would rather see the
opportunity to give it spread around as widely as possible.
Quoting Will Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Douglas Laycock wrote:
As for Rev. Kl
I think the 9 votes against includes representatives who thought the
Christmas resolution could be interpreted as a governmental endorsement
of religion - not so with the other resolutions.
Jean Dudley wrote:
>Susan, email me privately for celebration details. ;-)
>
>As for the unanimousity
Steve Jamar writes:
I pretty much put this into the "get a life" category on all sides. If
Congress wants to do these things, they seem harmless enough. And if some
people
want to get vexed about it, well it is just their day being ruined.
I'm not sure how a simple question such as
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Douglas Laycock wrote:
>
> As for Rev. Klingenschmitt's claim that the right tolerates all
> religions, nonsense. There are tolerant folks and bigots on both
> sides. For the intolerant right, look at the anti-Mormon hostility to
> Mitt Romney in Republican primaries; recall th
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Steven Jamar wrote:
>
> BTW, I don't buy Linden's point that the fact that something is in the
> "whereas" clause shields it from criticism.
>
That's because I did not say so. I said that boilerplate does not have
any legislative effect. (E.f., that it does not "impose the
I agree it's pablum. I also agree that Congress should not be
passing such resolutions, about Christianity or any other religion.
But once a sponsor pushes such a resolution forward, it is
politically very difficult for politicians to vote against it. So
this kind of thing will keep passing,
I pretty much put this into the "get a life" category on all sides. If
Congress wants to do these things, they seem harmless enough. And if some
people want to get vexed about it, well it is just their day being ruined.
I don't like these sorts of resolutions any more than I like prayer opening
I'm curious whether "non-binding resolutions" are authorized by the
Constitution or the rules of each House or both or neither.
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
Ratio Juris
, Contributor: _ http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_
(http://rat
%20Joint%2011-24.pdf
Resolution on
Islam:http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&x=20071003165444mlenuhret0.9762384&m=October
On Ramadan:http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=14293
-Original Message-
From: "Jean Dudley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
S
Susan, email me privately for celebration details. ;-)
As for the unanimousity (is that a word? It is now!) of the Ramadan
resolution, it had 42 votes of "present". We may be straining at
gnats and swallowing camels here, but that hardly seems "unanimous"
to me.
Jean
On Dec 16, 2007, at
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 here
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?
Th
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
[E
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. Klingensc
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
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 a
OTECTED]>
Sent 12/15/2007 11:12:13 PM
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
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 eff
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
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 co
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 ther
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
