The U.S. Congress recently reaffirmed that "In God We Trust" is the national motto. There isn't any danger of it being eliminated as the national motto, unfortunately, but Republicans were sufficiently concerned that they were roused to act in its defense -- and this is a Congress which has demonstrated very little ability to accomplish much of anything at all. Only eight Democrats and a lone Republican voted against the measure.
The bill briefly outlines the history of government references to God, and adds in that "if religion and morality are taken out of the market-place of ideas, the very freedom on which the United States was founded cannot be secured."
Republicans argue that the resolution would help turn the tide against what they see as an informal effort to remove references to God from public buildings.
"Federal agencies and departments have been instructed that the phrase not be posted in those buildings," Forbes wrote in March. "The effect on our public schools has been chilling, as teachers and administrator
Source: The Hill
Either the measure itself was symbolic or it was not, and this Congress has agreed to send away any purely symbolic measures so that's out -- it has to be substantive, right? But it can only be substantive if the national motto itself is substantive rather than empty symbolism. Thus the national motto must be substantive -- and thus the express "In God We Trust" must be communicating something important and substantive from the government to the people.
Funny, but apologists for the national motto often insist that just the opposite is the case -- that it doesn't really mean much. But in that case then the vote was for a symbolic resolution of no real importance. So which is it?
Democratic opponents think that it was crass symbolism, even though right now jobs are a much more important and certainly more substantive matter:
"Instead of addressing any of these critical issues, and instead of working to help American families keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables, we are debating whether or not to affirm and proliferate a motto that was adopted in 1956 and that is not imperiled in any respect," they wrote in the committee report accompanying the bill.
"Without question, the Judiciary Committee has many important and time-sensitive matters within its purview," Democrats added. "The majority, however, seems intent on diverting the committee's time, resources and attention to a measure that has no force of law, only reaffirms existing law and further injects the hand of government into the private religious lives of the American people."
More specifically, Democrats argued that the resolution is unnecessary, and violates the prohibition on the government establishment of a religion.
"It is precisely because we place such a high value on religious freedom -- our first freedom -- that we must keep the heavy hand of government away from that precious liberty," they said. "H. Con. Res. 13, by interjecting Congress into the private right of conscience, threatens that important constitutional bulwark of our freedoms in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."
The House Republican caucus has actually forbidden the suspension of rules to pass a bill if it "expresses appreciation, commends, congratulates, celebrates, recognizes the accomplishments of, or celebrates the anniversary of, an entity, event, group, individual, institution, team or government program." But that's exactly how this particular bill was passed Why?
Well, the House itself was already suffused with religion that day:
On the House floor, the chaplain opened the day's session with a prayer asking God, "may all that is done this day in the people's house be for Your greater honor and glory."
The lawmakers took that quite literally.
"They are far more than words!" howled Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), the sponsor of the resolution. "They are the very fabric that has built and sustained the greatest nation the world has ever known."
Source: The Washington Post
I don't think I've seen anything more objectionable form the House Chaplain -- or a better reason for eliminating his position and shipping out of DC. All that is done in the House and Senate should be for the benefit of the people of the United States, not for the "honor" and "glory" of the god of any one religious group. Putting one group's god ahead of the people is immoral at best, treasonous at worst.
And if the exhortation of a chaplain to turn the government over to the interests of one religious group does not quite qualify as treason, what about actions of Randy Forbes -- allegedly a representative of the people, but now here revealed as nothing of the sort? If it's not treason, what sort of label is appropriate when someone insists that "fabric" of America is not the will and freedom of the people but rather pandering to the theological interests of one religious group?
Only one Republican had enough moral and political sense to vote against the resolution: Justin Amash of Michigan. Here's how he explained his vote:
The nonbinding resolution "encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions." Displaying "In God We Trust" on public property is appropriate in some circumstances. There is no need to push for the phrase to be on all federal, state, and local buildings.
The fear that unless "In God We Trust" is displayed throughout the government, Americans will somehow lose their faith in God, is a dim view of the profound religious convictions many citizens have. The faith that inspired many of the Founders of this country--the faith I practice--is stronger than that. Trying to score political points with unnecessary resolutions should not be Congress's priority. I voted no.
Source: Maddow Blog
If there were more Republicans like Justin Amash, I'd have more respect for the Republican Party. Unfortunately for him, though, his position is out of step with the theocratic direction that the Republican Party has been taking. His sort of Republican was relatively common, I think, up through the 1980s; but now it's almost extinct. He must be very lonely in DC.
No comments:
Post a Comment