Thursday, December 13, 2007

Oh to live a few miles to the north...

Can someone please tell me what Jim McDermott is smoking so I can avoid it at all costs? I mean, I'm as areligious as the next Gen-X Seattlite but "no" against a recognition of Christmas seems, well, offensive in it's apparent intent not to offend. Let's compare the three religious holiday-acknowledging resolutions (all pulled from the PI's article):

1. Ramadan: HR 635: "Acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and conveys its respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion." (Approved 376-0)

2. Diwali: HR 747: "Acknowledges the onset of Diwali and expresses its deepest respect to Indian Americans and the Indian Diaspora throughout the world on this significant occasion." (Approved 358-0)

3. Christmas: HR 847: "Acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith." (Approved 372-9)

Maybe the problem is that HR 847 didn't acknowledge the onset of Christmas. Or that it didn't express its deepest respect to Christians throughout the world on this occasion. Or maybe it's the "religious and historical importance" piece that's included in Christmas but missing from the other two. Unfortunately, since I don't know the congressman I don't know why he decided to vote "no" on this one (which, according to a staff member in his Seattle office quoted in the article, I would if I did). But it gives me one more reason to wish I hadn't been re-districted out of Insley Country.

No comments: