Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hezekiah jones · 06-28-2002, 10:45 AM

The following three Congressmen voted "Nay" to the House's resolution to condemn the Ninth Circuit's opinion:

Robert C. Scott, Virginia Democrat
Mike Honda, California Democrat
Pete Stark, California Democrat

Eleven more were "present":

Gary L. Ackerman NY Democrat
Nydia M. Velazquez NY Democrat
Jerrold Nadler NY Democrat
Earl Blumenauer Oregon Democrat
Michael E. Capuano Mass. Democrat
Barney Frank Mass. Democrat
Luis V. Gutierrez Illinois Democrat
Alcee L. Hastings Florida Democrat
Jim McDermott Washington Democrat
James L. Oberstar Minnesota Democrat
Melvin Watt North Carolina Democrat

Good for them.

My Congressman on the other hand, the aging fossil James Sensenbrenner, actually sponsored the resolution.

Lone Wolf · 06-28-2002, 10:52 AM

Yeah, I've got one of those curmudgeon congressmen too...

<a href="http://www.house.gov/hyde/news0627b.htm" target="_blank">http://www.house.gov/hyde/news0627b.htm</a>

Babaloo · 06-28-2002, 10:53 AM

I saw Robert Scott and Mike Honda on Crossfire last night.. (I think it was CF, I didn't start watching too much CNN til now). I was very, very pleased at Honda's answer when they asked him why. He was very, very logical about it.. he even stated that yes, he is a Xtian, but voted no because of the unconstitutionality.

Abacus · 06-28-2002, 10:53 AM

Yes. Good for them. Unfortunately, this will probably be their last term.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Random Number Generator ]</p>

ohwilleke · 06-28-2002, 10:55 AM

I e-mailed my Congresswoman chewing her out.

Toto · 06-28-2002, 11:04 AM

What's really going on here:

In 1988, Michael Dukakis was running for president against Bush the First. From <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pols28jun28.story" target="_blank">here:</a>

Quote:

For Democrats, the episode also stirs painful memories of the 1988 presidential campaign, when the flag became the most potent symbol of former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis' loss to former President George Bush.

During his first term as governor, Dukakis vetoed a bill that would have required teachers to lead their classes in the pledge each day. Bush hammered his opponent on the issue at virtually every campaign stop, most memorably at a flag-making factory in New Jersey.

After that, Democrats were determined never to be out-flagged, as it were.

Out-flagged or out-Godded.

So the choice is between putting up with a little ceremonial Deism, a small amount of hypocrisy in a highly imperfect world, or ceding to Republicans the control of the government, including the right to appoint judges, pass spending bills, wreck the environment, let welfare mothers starve, etc. Not much of a choice.

That's why every Democrat outside of those in safe, liberal districts with no higher political aspirations, acted like a brainless coward and came out for God and Country, like little knee-jerked robots. Governor Davis in California, the most astute political hack and also the most successful politician we've seen lately, immediately moved to jump into the lawsuit before his Republican opponent could open his mouth (to accuse him of being asleep at the wheel for not intervening in the lawsuit before this.)

I understand it, I support it, but I am still disgusted. I think the best thing that can happen politically is for the Ninth Circuit to reverse with a mushy paean to tradition and ceremonial Deism, and put it on the record that "under God" is a completely meaningless phrase. It's not worth handing the issue to the Republicans.

simian · 06-28-2002, 11:17 AM

Looking at the list, it is a sad confirmation that there is only one party even remotely capable of understanding a separation between church and state. Kind of sad. There was a day (from what I understand from history books

) when at least some Republicans could be counted on to defend the constitution. Now they <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> before the ignorant fundy masses to maintain support so they can get elected next time.

Maybe, just maybe, one of these days when the fundies try to freely cross the "yard" between church and state this will happen: <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Perhaps there will be those there willing defend the separation, and prevent the fundies from wrecking religious freedom. Of course, I am not counting on this.

It could make an interesting math word problem, though. Let's see...Simian is in Fargo when atheism is decided to be a capital offense, he must pack the books most important to him, break the legs and letters off the darwin fish on his car, and must obey the speed limit so he doesn't get arrested on the way to Canada. It takes the simian 20 minutes to grab books and other important items. He takes 10 minutes to find a hammer and other tools to modify his darwin fish into a Jesus fish. He spends 20 minutes modifying his fish. He must drive 2.3 miles to reach the interstate, at an average speed of 23 miles per hour. Once on the interstate, he must drive 140 miles, with an average speed of 64 miles per hour to reach the Canadian Border and freedom. How long do federal officials have to identify the liscense plate numbers of this evil atheist's car and get it to the US Border Patrol to prevent him from escaping "God's justice."

Grumpy · 06-28-2002, 04:59 PM

I understand that Rep. Scott of VA voted against the resolution mainly because he doesn't think Congress should tell judges how to rule. I guess he disagrees with the ruling, but figures there's nothing he can do about it.

The other two are squarely in favor of the ruling.

Atheist121 · 06-28-2002, 05:22 PM

Quote:

I understand that Rep. Scott of VA voted against the resolution mainly because he doesn't think Congress should tell judges how to rule. I guess he disagrees with the ruling, but figures there's nothing he can do about it.

At least he has some principles. I don't care too much about the ruling, and I would be disappointed but not upset if it was overturned. But Congress trying to bully around the Judiciary with threats and whatnot (see comments be Byrd) makes me sick. It's more like something you'd hear about one of those *other* countries.

Buffman · 06-28-2002, 05:55 PM

Toto

You just hit a Home Run...both in the accuracy of your political insight and the resultant nausea of the reality of just how successful the radical religious right has been in undermining our secular, pluralistic, federal republic with their supernatural disease.

06-28-2002, 10:45 AM	#1
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	A few Congressional dissenters The following three Congressmen voted "Nay" to the House's resolution to condemn the Ninth Circuit's opinion: Robert C. Scott, Virginia Democrat Mike Honda, California Democrat Pete Stark, California Democrat Eleven more were "present": Gary L. Ackerman NY Democrat Nydia M. Velazquez NY Democrat Jerrold Nadler NY Democrat Earl Blumenauer Oregon Democrat Michael E. Capuano Mass. Democrat Barney Frank Mass. Democrat Luis V. Gutierrez Illinois Democrat Alcee L. Hastings Florida Democrat Jim McDermott Washington Democrat James L. Oberstar Minnesota Democrat Melvin Watt North Carolina Democrat Good for them. My Congressman on the other hand, the aging fossil James Sensenbrenner, actually sponsored the resolution.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-28-2002, 10:52 AM	#2
Lone Wolf Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 383	Yeah, I've got one of those curmudgeon congressmen too... <a href="http://www.house.gov/hyde/news0627b.htm" target="_blank">http://www.house.gov/hyde/news0627b.htm</a>

06-28-2002, 10:53 AM	#3
Babaloo Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 8	I saw Robert Scott and Mike Honda on Crossfire last night.. (I think it was CF, I didn't start watching too much CNN til now). I was very, very pleased at Honda's answer when they asked him why. He was very, very logical about it.. he even stated that yes, he is a Xtian, but voted no because of the unconstitutionality.

06-28-2002, 10:53 AM	#4
Abacus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South Dakota Posts: 2,214	Yes. Good for them. Unfortunately, this will probably be their last term. [ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Random Number Generator ]</p>

06-28-2002, 10:55 AM	#5
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	I e-mailed my Congresswoman chewing her out.

06-28-2002, 11:17 AM	#7
simian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 1,924	Looking at the list, it is a sad confirmation that there is only one party even remotely capable of understanding a separation between church and state. Kind of sad. There was a day (from what I understand from history books ) when at least some Republicans could be counted on to defend the constitution. Now they <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> before the ignorant fundy masses to maintain support so they can get elected next time. Maybe, just maybe, one of these days when the fundies try to freely cross the "yard" between church and state this will happen: <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Perhaps there will be those there willing defend the separation, and prevent the fundies from wrecking religious freedom. Of course, I am not counting on this. It could make an interesting math word problem, though. Let's see...Simian is in Fargo when atheism is decided to be a capital offense, he must pack the books most important to him, break the legs and letters off the darwin fish on his car, and must obey the speed limit so he doesn't get arrested on the way to Canada. It takes the simian 20 minutes to grab books and other important items. He takes 10 minutes to find a hammer and other tools to modify his darwin fish into a Jesus fish. He spends 20 minutes modifying his fish. He must drive 2.3 miles to reach the interstate, at an average speed of 23 miles per hour. Once on the interstate, he must drive 140 miles, with an average speed of 64 miles per hour to reach the Canadian Border and freedom. How long do federal officials have to identify the liscense plate numbers of this evil atheist's car and get it to the US Border Patrol to prevent him from escaping "God's justice."

06-28-2002, 04:59 PM	#8
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	I understand that Rep. Scott of VA voted against the resolution mainly because he doesn't think Congress should tell judges how to rule. I guess he disagrees with the ruling, but figures there's nothing he can do about it. The other two are squarely in favor of the ruling.

06-28-2002, 05:55 PM	#10
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Toto You just hit a Home Run...both in the accuracy of your political insight and the resultant nausea of the reality of just how successful the radical religious right has been in undermining our secular, pluralistic, federal republic with their supernatural disease.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.