Apparently, "Separation of Church and State" means nothing to our current administration

[annathepiper]

So I just found out about House Resolution #153 via spazzkat, which is talked about up on CNN.com in this particular article. I cannot express how deeply unhappy this makes me... not because I am anti-war or anti-religion, but just because this seems to be yet another indication of how the current administration seems to be actively going out of its way to deliberately ignore the fact that not everybody in this country worships the same way they do.

I don't honestly expect it'll actually do anything, but nevertheless this concerns me enough that I have sent email to President Bush and my congresscritters. This is what I had to say:

I have just read on cnn.com a news article pertaining to the
resolution just passed by the House regarding a call for a
national day of "prayer and fasting" because of the current
time of terrorism and war, and I am writing to express my
concern about such a resolution.

Specifically, my concern is this: not everybody in the United
States of America worships the same god. Many Americans are
Christians, certainly, but many Americans are also Hindu,
Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, pagans of countless varieties, etc.
Some Americans choose to avoid worshipping any deity at all.
All of these choices are part of the rights of all Americans
to worship--or not--as they please.

And I am deeply worried that our current administration is
not acknowledging the fact that Americans can and do make
these choices in their lives.

Don't get me wrong. I am a person of faith. I do not dismiss
the value of calling upon the powers one reveres in a time of
crisis. But I urge you to please remember that Americans vary
as richly in their religious beliefs as they do in all other
aspects of their lives, and to have a government that seems
to officially sanction only one religion above all others is
a grave slap in the face to Americans who do not share that
particular religious belief.

If our government wishes to call for a day of respect for the
time of crisis our country is undergoing, I must urge you as
well to please remember the rich variety of religious beliefs
in this country. This call should be one that unifies Americans,
rather than dividing us.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Angela Korra'ti

Comments

[holyoutlaw.livejournal.com]

I'm completely in favor of writing one's congresscritters, as you say. Before the war, I was sending a fax a week or so. They need to know what we think.

Re:

[annathepiper]

Yeah. I figure if one wants to sound off about the government doing things one does not agree with, at the very least the government needs to be informed about that disagreement.

[princessheacock.livejournal.com]

You can't say it is JUST this administration: (Well, you can. But it isn't exactly accurate)

http://www.night.net/thanksgiving/kwash-11.html
http://grove.ufl.edu/~leo/clinton.html
http://www.ceai.org/prayer03.html
http://envirotext.eh.doe.gov/data/eos/clinton/19930430.html

What our own Rep McDermott had to say about it: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:4:./temp/~r108yruXgL::

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108O4S4QP:: lists the resolution itself and precedents
As well, it states: "Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should issue a proclamation--"

Here is the rules on "sense of resolutions" http://www.house.gov/rules/98-825.pdf (note, they don't go to the president for a signature or anything)

(note the numbers as well. 346 to 49 in the House. this was NOT a Current administration/others issue.

The one concern *I* would have is this: "may be seen by some as an attempt to inject religion into this war at a time when some of America's enemies abroad are asserting that this indeed is a war about religion."

After all, we can't fly our flag over there for fear of what it would be seen as.

However, I don't think Bush is going to refuse to do what his Congress is asking him for overwhelmingly. Do I think it's a good thing? I guess I'd put it as indifference. I think it is good for the nation to be praying. But I don't think anything government does is going to make this happen any more or less than it is now. And don't they have better things to be discussing while in session anyway?

But I think that bashing our President over it is just showing prejudice (in the sense of "preconceived judgement or opinion"

[princessheacock.livejournal.com]

You can't say it is JUST this administration: (Well, you can. But it isn't exactly accurate)

http://www.night.net/thanksgiving/kwash-11.html
http://grove.ufl.edu/~leo/clinton.html
http://www.ceai.org/prayer03.html
http://envirotext.eh.doe.gov/data/eos/clinton/19930430.html

What our own Rep McDermott had to say about it: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:4:./temp/~r108yruXgL::

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108O4S4QP:: lists the resolution itself and precedents
As well, it states: "Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should issue a proclamation--"

Here is the rules on "sense of resolutions" http://www.house.gov/rules/98-825.pdf (note, they don't go to the president for a signature or anything)

(note the numbers as well. 346 to 49 in the House. this was NOT a Current administration/others issue.

The one concern *I* would have is this: "may be seen by some as an
attempt to inject religion into this war at a time when some of America's enemies
abroad are asserting that this indeed is a war about religion."

After all, we can't fly our flag over there for fear of what it would be seen as.

However, I don't think Bush is going to refuse to do what his Congress is asking him for overwhelmingly. Do I think it's a good thing? I guess I'd put it as indifference. I think it is good for the nation to be praying. But I don't think anything government does is going to make this happen any more or less than it is now. And don't they have better things to be discussing while in session anyway?

But I think that bashing our President over it is just showing prejudice (in the sense of "preconceived judgement or opinion

[annathepiper]

*sigh*

Sarah, hon, I really don't want to get into an argument with you about this. However, I am rather disturbed that you seem to be accusing me of "bashing" the President because of a "preconceived opinion".

Honestly, I believe the government has no business whatsoever sanctioning one religion over another. I don't like "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Alliance, and I don't like "In God We Trust" on the money. America is a land of many religions. And to be blunt, this administration is the first one I can remember in a very, VERY long time who is as near as I can tell and as near as what gets reported in the media going out of its way to forget the fact that not all Americans worship the same god. Some Americans don't worship a god at all, and yet, they're still ethical, moral people who care about this country and everybody in it.

I completely and thoroughly believe that ideally, the government shouldn't be calling on the country as a whole to pray at all. That comes perilously close to ignoring the whole principle of the separation of Church and State, one of the many principles on which this country was founded.

That said, please also do note that I did not tell either President Bush or the Congresspeople I wrote that they shouldn't do this national day of prayer. What I asked for was them to please be mindful that not everybody worships the same way they do. I would be a hell of a lot more comfortable with the whole concept if Bush stood up and asked all Americans to call upon whatever deities they hold sacred... and also asked those who do not acknowledge a deity to take a moment of quiet respect... that the nation will pull together in this time of crisis.

I am not asking those in the government not to worship. I am not telling Bush he shouldn't be a Christian, and I sure as hell am not trying to be prejudiced. I am, however, asking the government that if they want to do something faith-based that is supposed to involve the entire country, that they should remember that not everybody has the same faith.

Period.

I'm sorry if my opinion upsets you, or if you believe I am prejudiced because of it, but I stand by it.

[annathepiper]

P.S. Please also do note that I tried for a respectful tone in the letters that I sent. But the fact of the matter does remain: I disagree with President Bush and with Congress in this matter. Disagreeing with them does not mean "bashing" them. But it does mean I disagree with them. And as holyoutlaw mentioned in his own comment, it is vital to let people in power know what we think.

[clauclauclaudia]

FYI, those URLs from thomas.loc.gov with "temp" in them are just that, temporary. They don't work now.

I don't think Anna was bashing at all. I thought she set a respectful appropriate tone for something that is important.

Bush, Jr. has not, as far as I know, stated like his father, "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." But there is nevertheless a strong thread in his faith-related discourse that presumes that all good people agree with him on this, and I think it's more important than ever at a time like this to strive for true unity, not just bully people into it. Because that's what this feels like--a pressure tactic to worship as others see fit.

And I don't believe this didn't originate within the White House. Bush will not simply be aquiescing to the will of the people. I'm certain he pushed for these resolutions to be introduced.

Re:

[annathepiper]

I do acknowledge that the subject line of my original post might be construed as inflammatory, and if that's what Sarah was twigging on, I'll apologize for that. (Yo, Sarah. I apologize for that. :) )

This is an issue that people can't help but feel strongly about, though, regardless of what flavor of religion they adhere to. Or don't adhere to. Though indeed, I did strive for a properly polite tone in the letter I sent... thanks, Claudia.

[dianala.livejournal.com]

I read the resolution, and while it isn't perfect, to be sure, I don't think it's that bad. It does mention the nation's various traditions, etc. It doesn't go out of its way to mention athiests, true, but it doesn't seem to necessarily exclude athiests either. After all, it talks about unity and fasting. If you're athiest you could just do that part.

Now don't get me wrong, I think ideally it would be great if they had made the wording a bit different, but to me separation of church and state doesn't mean that we have to totally pretend that religion doesn't exist either. Honestly I kind of like the idea, though bringing in everyone religious and non-religious more eloquently would be better.

I'm much more worried about many other religious-based things Bush promotes than this. And I don't agree that this bill promotes only one religion. It would do for any monotheistic one, and with a slight tweak, could be made to include others.

It's not like they're going to go house to house to enforce it or anything... it's voluntary.

So I guess, I see some of your objections but I don't think it's quite as bad as you make out in your letter.

Re:

[annathepiper]

Fair enough... I did actually see that the resolution in question mentioned many faiths. Still though... they made a big point about how everybody should "call on God". Not everybody worships a deity called God. Not everybody worships just one deity, regardless of what he or she or it is called. And not everybody even worships. The resolution did go part of the way to acknowledge the multiple faiths in this country; I just don't think it went far enough.

Also... I know for a fact that atheist friends of mine are consistently pissed off when the government keeps talking about how this is "one nation under God", and such. No, this resolution doesn't specifically exclude atheists, but it certainly does nothing to encourage them to feel like their opinions and beliefs are just as important to America as everyone else's.

Lastly... while I really think that I agree with spazzkat in this matter, i.e., that this kind of thing really ought to be sponsored by religious leaders rather than the government to begin with, I'll note that I'm not necessarily bitching about the fact that this resolution exists. I could live with it a lot more easily if the government did work harder to remember that we're not all Christians. Most of the time, though, I tend to not see much to convince me that when they talk about the faiths of America, they're not just talking about the various denominations of Christianity. :/

Anyway. Thanks for chiming in. Like I told Sarah... I appreciate hearing from others on this even if we don't necessarily exactly agree. :) It does keep me honest!