The most principled are the ones who voted against this blatant disregard for separation of church and state

The worst offenders, are the shrill "war on Christmas" nutters who constantly waste the time of lawmakers putting out these useless proclamations. 

Good timing by the Republicans though.  Anything to take away attention from Bush vetoing health care for children a SECOND time.  A bill voted on by both Republicans and Democrats. I'd wonder which action makes the lead in the news, if I didn't already know.

Good points, Chuck.

Personally, I'd prefer if both parties focused more on real issues like healthcare.  It is rather sad that Bush spends so much on war but thinks these childcare/healthcare bills are too expensive.

As for the religion thing, I would've voted no on recognition of any religion.  As Chuck said, we need to keep church and state separate.

Frankly my dear, I don't give a rat's ass.
::)

Anyway, if I want to participate in Ramadan, I have to peruse the weekly freebie's cultural calander and find a festival.  Whereas, Santa Claus, Rudolph, Perry Como, and crass commercial exploitation are shoved down my throat every time I run an errand!!!!

8-P

The most principled are the ones who voted against this blatant disregard for separation of church and state

The worst offenders, are the shrill "war on Christmas" nutters who constantly waste the time of lawmakers putting out these useless proclamations. 

Good timing by the Republicans though.  Anything to take away attention from Bush vetoing health care for children a SECOND time.  A bill voted on by both Republicans and Democrats. I'd wonder which action makes the lead in the news, if I didn't already know.

Karma + 2 !

(but you'll have to take a raincheck on the second point, unless you want to change the rules.)
;)

The most principled are the ones who voted against this blatant disregard for separation of church and state

The worst offenders, are the shrill "war on Christmas"...

Not one democrat voted 'No' on both resolutions.  That's the whole point.  What possible justification is there for voting in favor of a resolution honoring Ramadan and against one honoring Christmas?  There is not one good reason.  I'll let voting 'Present' on one and 'Yes' on the other slide.  And some wonder why some others think there really is a "war on Christmas".

Personally I'd love if every democrat voted against this amendment and it failed.  It'd make a great campaign issue....and not for the democrats.

All this Limbaughism is played out and passe.  This isn't the '90s anymore.  The entire right-wing political cycle that started with Reagan is in its death throes.  Regardless of which party wins which office, the Friedman-Falwell axis has entered its bunker days.  Crash and burn.  Time to let the grownups start running the country again, and no more of this sophomoric piffle.
::)

The last time I check, Christmas IS a federal holiday. Why does the Congress need to waste time in voting for this? Oh yeah, as Chucky already pointed out, it is another "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" ploy.




Cat

The last time I check, Christmas IS a federal holiday. Why does the Congress need to waste time in voting for this? Oh yeah, as Chucky already pointed out, it is another "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" ploy.




Cat


To stick to their own principles,  what the Right should be bellyaching about!

What business does the federal government deciding what is to be a holiday and what is not?

If you want Christmas day off, that's between you and your employer.

BAH HUMBUG!  Get back to work, Cratchett!
>:(

Good points, Chuck.

Personally, I'd prefer if both parties focused more on real issues like healthcare.  It is rather sad that Bush spends so much on war but thinks these childcare/healthcare bills are too expensive.

As for the religion thing, I would've voted no on recognition of any religion.  As Chuck said, we need to keep church and state separate.


If the pricetag can be agreed for the poor and working-class, then they'll approve of it. C'mon guys, overrule this damn Bill! You're runing the country right now!

And I think if you say 'no' to Christmas, then it might be illegal soon. I hope we don't become a Communist nation. And I'll try to read all the books about Communism and find out if we're going down that path as well.

If the pricetag can be agreed for the poor and working-class, then they'll approve of it. C'mon guys, overrule this damn Bill! You're runing the country right now!

And I think if you say 'no' to Christmas, then it might be illegal soon. I hope we don't become a Communist nation. And I'll try to read all the books about Communism and find out if we're going down that path as well.


Corporatism is far more likely than Communism.  Trust me, our main worries involving the extension of governmental powers are economic in nature, not religious.  Religion is mostly used to manipulate people.  Granted, the Chinese government manipulates people through atheism.

I guess the easiest way to put this is that any ideology can be used to manipulate people, but as long as we are stuck fighting each other over religious and racial affairs, we'll continue to ignore the true issue in this country -- class.

The rich elite laugh at the petty conflicts we engage in, like gay marriage, while they get richer at our expense through things like war.

Am I the only one here who's a Christian and considers Bush not the Worst President, but the Unluckiest President? :-\\

Am I the only one here who's a Christian and considers Bush not the Worst President, but the Unluckiest President? :-\\

Well, maybe his "luck" would be better if he hadn't stolen the damn office in the first place!

If only Gore would've kept quiet in 2000.... :-X

If only Gore would've kept quiet in 2000.... :-X


Eh...  more like, if only we didn't have an electoral college....

From the office of GOP Rep. Steve King:
...
Congressman Steve King reacted this morning to the nine “NO” votes on his resolution to honor Christmas and the Christian faith.
...
King said, “I think there’s an assault on Christianity in America.”

Nine people vote against his resolution, and that constitutes "an assault on Christianity"?  He's pathetic.

Without wanting to spend hours reading up on the different resolutions, how similar were they?  And what was the point of any of them?

Honestly, is there really any point whatsoever in using Congress time debating a motion to "honour" any religion or religious festival?

Not one democrat voted 'No' on both resolutions.  That's the whole point.  What possible justification is there for voting in favor of a resolution honoring Ramadan and against one honoring Christmas?  There is not one good reason.  I'll let voting 'Present' on one and 'Yes' on the other slide.  And some wonder why some others think there really is a "war on Christmas".

Personally I'd love if every democrat voted against this amendment and it failed.  It'd make a great campaign issue....and not for the democrats.


The real reason for the whole "war on Christmas" or "war on Christian" nonsense, is to allow a group of individuals who have never experienced true discrimination to feel like they are somehow "downtrodden". 

I'm sure the whole vote thing plays well to these folks.  I'm sure the people that were represented in the Ramadan vote however, have felt some real hardship due to their religion thanks to a vocal minority of their followers.  The vocal minority of Christians however, are the ones that are least likely to feel any sort of pressure about celebrating their religion in a country where over 90% of the country follows the practice already.  The loss or win of the vote on the Christmas resolution does nothing but provide a wind bag on radio another rallying point for a bunch of brain washed followers to raise their fist and scream "but what about me? I'm persecuted as well" as they drive their over-sized SUV to the shopping plaza for more Christmas shopping.

I'm sure they don't feel manipulated though, and that is the real crime.  That the education system has failed the public so mightily that these folks can't see how they are manipulated by the so called "news". 

I might run an 80s nostalgia site, but the current political elite in this country are actually trying to make every day 1984.

Eh...  more like, if only we didn't have an electoral college....


Well...Lincoln wasn't popular in his time either. (Not making it up!)

Well...Lincoln wasn't popular in his time either. (Not making it up!)

In the great sphere of human knowledge, I don't know much, but I know enough to know Dubya ain't noooooo Abe Lincoln!!!

Whereas Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address himself,
Dubya couldn't read the Gettysburg Address himself!

The real reason for the whole "war on Christmas" or "war on Christian" nonsense, is to allow a group of individuals who have never experienced true discrimination to feel like they are somehow "downtrodden". 

I'm sure the whole vote thing plays well to these folks.  I'm sure the people that were represented in the Ramadan vote however, have felt some real hardship due to their religion thanks to a vocal minority of their followers.  The vocal minority of Christians however, are the ones that are least likely to feel any sort of pressure about celebrating their religion in a country where over 90% of the country follows the practice already.  The loss or win of the vote on the Christmas resolution does nothing but provide a wind bag on radio another rallying point for a bunch of brain washed followers to raise their fist and scream "but what about me? I'm persecuted as well" as they drive their over-sized SUV to the shopping plaza for more Christmas shopping.

I'm sure they don't feel manipulated though, and that is the real crime.  That the education system has failed the public so mightily that these folks can't see how they are manipulated by the so called "news". 

I might run an 80s nostalgia site, but the current political elite in this country are actually trying to make every day 1984.

Right on, Charles!

When you want your people to be aggressors, you must first make the victims, and when your people aren't victims, make some stuff up for them to feel victimized about!

oh, i dunno. a lot of cats in small towns who subscribe to a lot of this war-on-christmas right-wing ideology live in towns where the local factory has closed to relocate to china or india, or are stuck in the hills of kentucky or west virginia, say, in the mountains of shenandoah... or, in the case of my grandparents (liberal democrats both, actually, but they're definitely the exception rather than the rule where they live) in rural texas where there's a tradition of independent farming and cattle ranching that's been co-opted by the usual multinational suspects. they know downtrodden but predictably would differ with me as to the cause. from my point of view these cats wouldn't be looking for scapegoats if there weren't a wrong to find a scapegoat for, but the genius of it is that the perpetrators of their hardship, by and large, are the same people convincing them to blame welfare queens and big-city godless liberals instead of looking around them to recognize the true cause of the loss of their livelihoods.

oh, i dunno. a lot of cats in small towns who subscribe to a lot of this war-on-christmas right-wing ideology live in towns where the local factory has closed to relocate to china or india, or are stuck in the hills of kentucky or west virginia, say, in the mountains of shenandoah... or, in the case of my grandparents (liberal democrats both, actually, but they're definitely the exception rather than the rule where they live) in rural texas where there's a tradition of independent farming and cattle ranching that's been co-opted by the usual multinational suspects. they know downtrodden but predictably would differ with me as to the cause. from my point of view these cats wouldn't be looking for scapegoats if there weren't a wrong to find a scapegoat for, but the genius of it is that the perpetrators of their hardship, by and large, are the same people convincing them to blame welfare queens and big-city godless liberals instead of looking around them to recognize the true cause of the loss of their livelihoods.


you think people in those situations are actually worried more about Christmas being taken away from them than their livelihood?  If that's the case, the media brainwashing is complete.

They should be leadin the charge for Ramadan.  The kid isn't gonna be heartbroken if he doesn't get the GI Joe with the Kung-Fu grip for Ramadan!
:-\\

If that's the case, the media brainwashing is complete.
well, um... yes, that's exactly my point.

well, um... yes, that's exactly my point.


sorry... I was holding out hope that you weren't serious

sorry... I was holding out hope that you weren't serious
did you not hear what jerry falwell, or pat robertson or whoever it was, said after september 11? god lets planes fly into buildings and kill thousands because there are gays. and jobs vacate the heartland not because of unpleasant but rectifiable geopolitical realities, but because america has turned away from christ.

it really is a totally different world in the red states, man. totally different world.

In the great sphere of human knowledge, I don't know much, but I know enough to know Dubya ain't noooooo Abe Lincoln!!!

Whereas Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address himself,
Dubya couldn't read the Gettysburg Address himself!




Of course not! Lincoln can only be Lincoln and DUH-bya can only be DUH-bya. (At least he has a good sense of humor.) ::)

Well...Lincoln wasn't popular in his time either. (Not making it up!)


Very true, and I really wish he had never become a president, but that's another discussion altogether.

Of course not! Lincoln can only be Lincoln and DUH-bya can only be DUH-bya. (At least he has a good sense of humor.) ::)


I hope you don't mean GW's sense of humor.  It's the lowest form of frat boy humor I've ever seen.  Especially the nickname thing.  Guys give other guys nicknames as a mutual process, his are more like assignments from the boss, and usually rather demeaning, almost like he doesn't want to learn their names.

What really gets me, is the statements from people that "They'd rather have a beer with GW than with Gore."  Al Gore's personality aside, I'd rather not give the former alcoholic a beer myself, but I guess that's just because I know better.

did you not hear what jerry falwell, or pat robertson or whoever it was, said after september 11? god lets planes fly into buildings and kill thousands because there are gays. and jobs vacate the heartland not because of unpleasant but rectifiable geopolitical realities, but because america has turned away from christ.

it really is a totally different world in the red states, man. totally different world.


Not everyone's an idiot in red states, but yes, we do have a surplus of them in places like my state.

Still, I wouldn't exactly say that Falwell or Robertson represent the majority of Christians -- just a significant minority.

Not everyone's an idiot in red states, but yes, we do have a surplus of them in places like my state.

Still, I wouldn't exactly say that Falwell or Robertson represent the majority of Christians -- just a significant minority.
i'm not saying they are idiotic or anything like that. but is the tendency to think in terms of wrath and moral righteousness prevalent in the middle states? yes, in fact, it is, and i think we about all of us know that. i mean, it's not idiotic, it's just a different way of thinking. but is it based on reason? not so much. after all, we're talking about a constituency that manages to buck the overwhelming consensus of the scientific world and insist global warming isn't happening. hands go up at republican debates when it gets asked whether anyone disbelieves evolution. i mean we have to be realistic about what we're dealing with here.

but really, the issue isn't "idiocy." these are smart, competent, decent people, in the same proportion (more or less) as anyone else. something other than that's at work.

i'm not saying they are idiotic or anything like that. but is the tendency to think in terms of wrath and moral righteousness prevalent in the middle states? yes, in fact, it is, and i think we about all of us know that. i mean, it's not idiotic, it's just a different way of thinking. but is it based on reason? not so much. after all, we're talking about a constituency that manages to buck the overwhelming consensus of the scientific world and insist global warming isn't happening. hands go up at republican debates when it gets asked whether anyone disbelieves evolution. i mean we have to be realistic about what we're dealing with here.

but really, the issue isn't "idiocy." these are smart, competent, decent people, in the same proportion (more or less) as anyone else. something other than that's at work.


I guess my point is...  (and probably your point too) there is a huge difference between being smart and being wise.  Wisdom is how consistently you use reason to guide your actions.

I think we can agree that the religiously fanatical are way too emotional and dogmatic for their own good.

The truly wise in the realm of politics are the rational liberals and the rational conservatives, both of whom tend to be secular.  You don't have to be atheist to be wise, but trusting organized religion is rarely a wise thing.

yeah. but this is the question i'm asking... what makes them do it? why is that way of thinking so prevalent in certain parts of the country? i dont care about whether it's foolish or anything like that... i just wanna know, like, what their deal is.

yeah. but this is the question i'm asking... what makes them do it? why is that way of thinking so prevalent in certain parts of the country? i dont care about whether it's foolish or anything like that... i just wanna know, like, what their deal is.


That is a very good question...  I would guess that it has to do with upbringing.  Red states tend to be more rural, and rural areas tend to be more religious.  If you're raised in a religious family, you're more likely to be religious yourself.  Baptism happens to be very prevalent in the South, and it's well known for being very dogmatic.  Mormonism basically serves the equivalent purpose in much of the West.  Either way, you have people raised with dogma, who aren't likely to distance themselves from it.

Urban areas tend to be more secular and better educated (aside from poverty-stricken inner cities, but that's a different discussion altogether).

My personal theory is that, with more exposure to the outside world through media and through traveling, most people generally become more open-minded and moderate/tolerant about things.  This often leads to agnosticism and sometimes secular humanism.  Whatever the case, with the rural and dogmatic environments of the red states, people just tend to be less rational and more traditional.  This is true throughout the world in terms of the urban and rural cultural divide.

My personal theory is that, with more exposure to the outside world through media and through traveling, most people generally become more open-minded and moderate/tolerant about things.  This often leads to agnosticism and sometimes secular humanism.  Whatever the case, with the rural and dogmatic environments of the red states, people just tend to be less rational and more traditional.  This is true throughout the world in terms of the urban and rural cultural divide.


While I'm sure it would be easy enough to find exceptions, I think that broadly speaking you're right, here: and it's not only small-town America, it's small-town UK and small-town Iran: if the only world you know is what's right next to you, then thinking in those terms is inevitable.  This is where television could be a real force for good... except that there's enough rubbish on so that people's horizons don't have to be expanded, they can keep watching in their own comfort zone.  The internet likewise, and especially sites like this, with its fairly cosmopolitan (if almost completely Anglophone) denizens.

I hope you don't mean GW's sense of humor.  It's the lowest form of frat boy humor I've ever seen.  Especially the nickname thing.  Guys give other guys nicknames as a mutual process, his are more like assignments from the boss, and usually rather demeaning, almost like he doesn't want to learn their names.


Good point. It not only makes his presidency look bad, but even himself look bad as well. Nixon and Clinton came out of the presidency with "Tricky-Dick" and "Slick-Willy" respectively, but Bush being called Dubya from Harvard to the White House seems hard. Maybe that's why Laura Welch Bush told us once to leave the President alone.

And as for First Ladies...I'd pick Laura over Hilary, Tipper, and Teresa any day.

Nine Democrats voted Present – Conyers, Frank (MA), Holt, Payne, Schakowsky, Schwartz, Wasserman Schultz, Welch (VT) and Yarmuth





We got a "holiday" card from Peter Welch today.  :D ;D ;D



Cat