Somebody please go to this page and tell me that I'm not hallucinating. Tell me that my representative, Tammy Baldwin, did not vote in favor of House Resolution 847. I keep going back to that page and refreshing it but it always shows "Aye WI-2 Baldwin, Tammy [D]". Why is my representative aiding right-wing Christians in their attempt to impose their dogma on everyone else?
To be sure, the text of the resolution is banal and almost identical to H.R. 635. As far as I know, the resolution is non-binding, but it's very symbolic and troubling. First of all, the government should not be going around passing feel-good legislation for religions. Secondly, it is the leading edge of a new wedge strategy seeking to displace the secular nature of our government. I am shocked that Ms. Baldwin voted aye considering that this resolution is for people who would just assume have all homosexuals shoved back into the closet at best and stoned to death at worst.
These people must be stopped at every turn because they will never cease their crusade to have themselves recognized as being special, being given privileges by our government which ought to be impartial, and, most disturbingly, have their views imposed on everyone else. What makes this resolution insidious as opposed to H.R. 635 is that Muslims here in the U.S. are a small minority and do not have the clout to impose their religion on others. On the other hand right-wing Christians do and they have been actively seeking to do so for some time now.
The next sortie is House Resolution 888: Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith. It is in committee and will hopefully die there. And this bit of atrocity has a Wisconsin sponsor – Rep. Paul Ryan. I agree with Chris Hedges:
This is an insidious attempt by the radical Christian right to rewrite American history, to turn the founding fathers from deists into Christian fundamentalists, to proclaim us officially to be a Christian nation. If you want to know why Mike Huckabee is dangerous, why his brand of right-wing Christian populism is so frightening, you should read this resolution.
The resolution is staggering for its sheer volume of falsehoods about our history, our system of government and our democracy…The resolution may never work its way out of committee, and even if it does, it may never be passed. But it is important because it expresses an increasingly influential ideology…It is a mistake, despite the seeming implosion of the Republican Party, to count these people out. The Christian radicals have, as the Huckabee candidacy illustrates, broken free from the fetters of their corporate and neocon handlers. They have unleashed a frightening populism that, in the event of an economic meltdown or period of instability, could see the movement ride the wave of a massive right-wing backlash.
Check out this entry over at Talk To Action for some debunking of the text of the resolution. I would also point readers to Positive Liberty (a – gasp! – libertarian blog) to read some of Jonathan Rowe's discussion on the faiths of the Founding Fathers. Rowe endorses the work of Gregg Frazer, a self-described "evangelical, born-again Christian" who has said:
…that those most responsible for the Declaration (Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin) and for the Constitution were theistic rationalists and neither Christians nor deists. The Right and the Left are both wrong.
So Ms. Baldwin, please tell us why you voted aye. Were you seeking to give Christians comfort? Perhaps you were afraid of coming across as anti-Christian. Whatever your reason, please tell us so we can understand why you see fit to abet the Christian right. And, should H.R. 888 come to a vote, please assure us that you will vote against this atrocity of lies and distortions instead of for giving Christians the warm fuzzies and yet another foot in another door in their quest to reshape the nation in their image.
2 comments:
Wow, is this all Palmer can find to bitch about Tammy Baldwin? She probably votes how he would want her to vote 99.999% of the time. But she votes for a non-binding resolution and according to Palmer you would think George Bush had just been given a 3rd term. Believe me, I'm no Bible-thumper. She probably thinks exactly what you do, but wanted to spare her staff from the blowback of the Christian right if she voted no. Instead her "friends" pounce on her for a non-issue.
If you don't want Tammy Baldwin as your rep, can I have her as mine??
99.999% is an exaggeration but I vote for Baldwin and I'm generally satisfied with her representation. I'm quite pleased with her views on impeachment, for example. I believe I've mentioned this previously in posts detailing my disappointment with Feingold's apprehension in the matter. But why should she be immune from criticism? It's not like I called for her head on platter. I didn't ask for a recall vote nor did I say that I didn't want her as my rep.
What I did say is that this is very much an issue. This particular resolution isn't the equivalent of Bush being granted a 3rd term, but I'd prefer to not have my rep appeasing the Christian right because it won't stop with non-binding resolutions like this. As you read, HR 888 is next. You give them an inch and then they take a yard. They get their feel-good resolution and now they're looking for the House to acknowledge their Christian Nation BS. And it won't stop there. That's why this is an issue. The most major, apocalyptic issue facing us? No. But that doesn't mean it's wholly insignificant.
If church-state separation issues aren't important to you, so be it. If you think this particular resolution is going to be the end of it and the Christian right will be happy with what they have, then say so and explain why you think that is. Instead you tell me that Baldwin is above criticism.
Post a Comment