Friday, January 18, 2008

Ackerman's double standard

Congressman says church, state should be separate

Facing attacks from political opponents and right-wing bloggers, U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Bayside) staunchly defended his vote against a House resolution recognizing the religious importance of Christmas, saying he was being maligned by people who were distorting the facts and creating political smokescreens.

He said he opposed the measure because he strongly believes in the separation of church and state and wanted Congress to focus on key issues, such as health care and the subprime mortgage crisis.


Ackerman's Dilemma

In October, the same congressman co-sponsored House Resolution 747, which recognizes the religious and historical significance of the Hindu, Sikh and Jain holiday of Diwali. Earlier that month, he voted in favor of House Resolution 635, which recognizes the importance of the Muslim holiday Ramadan.

Ackerman represents one of the most diverse congressional districts in America. We don't see what harm it would have done, particularly given his other votes, for Ackerman to explain his rationale and apologize to constituents who may have misinterpreted his vote.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Once again, if it was Isreal, he would be falling all over himself to sing to high heavens the contribtution$ (to the clubhouse) of that tweeded group.

Anonymous said...

He further asserted that these earlier resolutions had "compelling objectives" and appeared in a different context not directly comparable to that of HR 847.
----------------

Compelling? Yea sure, the potential tweeded in those groups.

Like Hillary becoming a 'preservationist' because she supports Weeksville, while the rest of the city gets bulldozed, what the clubhouse holds as improtant, or ignores, is easily determined by votes and donations.

And nothing else.

georgetheatheist said...

Verbatim from the House Resolution: "Whereas the United States being founded as a constitutional republic in the tradition of western civilization, finds much of its history that points observers to its Judeo-Christian roots.."

Really? Judeo-Christian roots?

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence "we hold these truths to be self-evident". SELF-EVIDENCY is a philosphical idea that does not date to Moses or Jesus. The concept of SELF-EVIDENCY is attributable to the Greek "pagan" philosopher Aristotle, the defender of reality-the here and now. The philosphical foundation of our country is based on the ideas of the Enlightenment philospher John Locke, the intellectual heir of Aristotle.

America is the child of enlightened rational Greek philosphy and Roman legal tradition (both the intellectual rage of late 18th century Britain) not that of Judeo-Christian theocratic mysticism. Our leaders are called "senators", the Capitol is architecturally derived from the Pantheon, the symbol of state authority is the Roman fasces -not the temple or cross.

BTW, what the hell is the Filangieri Society? What local noodle-brain conjured this up on his kitchen table?

How many of you out there have ever heard of its namesake, Gaetano Filangieri? Check him out at "wikipedia: Gaetano_Filangieri"

These attacks against Ackerman, by members of the "Filangieri Society", are launched by "admirers" of Filangieri, the late 18th century Neapolitan man of letters. How ironic in their so-called defense of Christianity, they champion a thinker whose work ("The Science of Legislation") was placed on the Catholic Church's Index Liborum Prohibitorum (The List of Prohibited Books) in 1786 for promoting reformist ideas and attacking the privileges of the clergy.

Long live so-called Judeo-Christian "roots"!

Ramadan and Diwali?

A POX ON ALL THEIR HOUSES.

verdi said...

As Sinatra sang in his early crooning days.....
".....it's all or nothing at all....." .

Either you recognize ALL religious symbols
or you recognize NONE !

I'm sick of having to lay eyes on that seedy twerp
and that rotten white carnation stuck in his lapel.

Anonymous said...

On all of our US coins and currency
we should, perhaps, substitute the words,

"In the Divine (? or whatever) we trust"......
omitting the current reference to "God".....
which some might find offensive.

Nah.....strike that suggestion.
On second thought it should be.....
"In God we trust.....all others pay cash"!

Taxpayer said...

Nobody "misinterpreted" Ackerman's vote.

How has this bigoted hypocrite denounced the obsessive use of tax-free churches for political campaigning by the two Clinton misfits?

How has he protested the campaigning by clergy in tax-free churches for Obama?

Oh! Wait! Don't bother. These are campaigns and fund raising in tax-free churches by his party.

Here's bigot Ackerman, doing nothing when his party campaigns in tax-free churches, desecrating those churches by full throated demands for more abortions. What will bigoted Ackerman do when a Republican campaigns in a tax-free church and demands an end to abortions?

What will bigot Ackerman do when the clergy of a tax-free church use the pulpit to denounce abortion and the politicians who support it.

Here's the answer: Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)

That vote against funding health providers who won't provide abortion info was to attack church facilities (including schools) where abortions and abortion assistance is banned as against the religion.

He hates Christianity and Christian practice.

Connie R said...

It’s time to retire him already! Get someone in office who is in touch with the needs and issues of the constituency and not his special interests groups. His grandstanding on unimportant issues is getting boring. Throw the bum out!

Anonymous said...

As for Israel, Ackerman wrote the president a letter urging him to pressure Israel into make more peace concessions. Many observant Jews feel he is too liberal.

Anonymous said...

That fat toad certainly looks like
he's a "liberal eater"!

Keep on feeding him pounds of your votes
and he'll expire in office.

But when the time comes to ask him for a crumb
you'll get "bupkas" (that's Yiddish for beans) !

georgetheatheist said...

Anonymous says we should substitute on US coins and currency "In the Divine(?or whatever) we trust"

The terms "Supreme Being", "the Creator", "nature's God", "the Supreme Judge", and "Divine Providence" found in the Declaration of Independence are examples of what Eugene Rostow famously called CEREMONIAL DEISM. (see "wikipedia: ceremonial deism")

Face it, religionist readers of this blog - there is no theocratic religionist elements of any sort in the founding of this great country. Read the Preamble to the US Constitution. The Founders had the audacity to say that the new country was granted sovereignty by "We the People" - no priests, ministers, rabbis, mullahs, shamans.

There are no Judeo-Christian roots!

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the inclusion of even the Deistic, I repeat DEISTIC, word "God" on the currency and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Verdi, I respectfully disagree, with you. Government should be religiously neutral.

(An interesting case arises, however, with religious symbols on veterans' gravestones in national cemeteries. But that's "another can of worms".

Liman said...

Arrogance. It's what separates mere poltiicians from the true demagogues. Bloomie's got it. Spitzer's got it. Ackerman's had it for years, but on a smaller stage. What's he got to be arrogant about? This: name ONE candidate who EVER ran against him. I know, you can't. They've all been nobodies with no funding. He is re-elected by acclamation, more or less.

He obviously made the political calculation that he could insult Christians because they are the majority, and it's always in good liberal taste to insult the majority whilst pandering to the minorities.

His arrogance took full flight when he got all indignant about getting busted for it.

It's up to us to make sure he can't forget it.

Note to George: you're not fooling anybody. Your asserted lack of religion is itself a set of principles that is - a religion. Don't make the mistake of thinking your views are somehow more enlightened. That would be downright arrogant.

verdi said...

Nah....George....we need some sort of reference
to a "Divine"(?) being.....
otherwise many of our citizens will feel insecure.

They need the guarantee of a heavenly
pink clouded afterlife along with their inadequate retirement benefits to lull them to sleep!

I'm really for a godless
(notice my use of the small "g")
government......provided our president
doesn't appoint himself
the new sovereign Godhead
(pardon my use of the cap "G" in this case)
like Joe Stalin did.

Ye-e-c-c-h.....imagine a new state religion
like the Supreme Soviet ?

You've only to take a look at Bloomberg's
view of himself and where would we all be
if someone didn't "Lord it" over him ? !!!