Friday, January 11, 2008

Is Gary Ackerman anti-Christian?

Dear Editor (of the Times Ledger):

A member of the House of Representatives who voted against House Resolution 847 about the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith is logically a prototype of what an anti-Christian is and its potential threat to the security of approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States. America was founded by Christians.

The House resolution passed on Dec. 10, 2007 with 372 voting "Yes" and nine voting "No." U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Bayside) from the 5th Congressional District of New York is one of the nine Democrats who voted against the Resolution, arrogantly challenging Christians to "light a candle" for his soul. Congressman Ackerman therefore betrays himself to be a strong modern-day persecutor of Christians in the United States.

These are the things Democratic Rep. Ackerman rejected: "That the House of Representatives-

1 recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

2 expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

3 acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

4 acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

5 rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

6 expresses its deepest respect to American Christians throughout the world."

It is high time to separate the "goats" from the "sheep" in the halls of the American capitol. And Gary Ackerman is such a congressional "goat." I call on all American Christians to deny Mr. Ackerman and his fellow anti-Christian colleagues in Congress the power to participate in law-making in the coming 2008 congressional elections by voting them out of office with a resounding thud.

Gonzalo "Jun" Policarpio
Douglas Manor

30 comments:

georgetheatheist said...

So long as the December 25th holiday is officially known as "Christmas" and white men are portrayed in the medallions on the English & Latin language U.S.currency, Policarpio, there's nothing to worry about.

BTW, the United States was founded by gentlemen of the Deist persuasion. There's no mention of Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, or Buddha in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution - none.

Anonymous said...

Ackerman hasn't had a competitive election in at least a generation. As an established incumbent, he has the luxury of runnning for reelection unopposed.

Anonymous said...

Ackerman is right to vote the way he did. In this country, we have separation of church and state. Congress and government should not be supporting or expressing support of any religion, Christian or otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Bravo to Ackerman for resisting this silly, unnecessary resolution.

Anonymous said...

It's baffling as to why the Rep A. would vote against this resolution or is there more to the resoulution not disclosed or is the Rep simply another clueless Pol?

Fred said...

Could you imagine if a Queens rep refused to sign onto the idea that Judaism was a major world religion? Yikes!

Anonymous said...

it's amazing that they take time out from so many important issues facing queens to vote on some make believe religous crap.

Taxpayer said...

"5 rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; ..."

Probably Ackerman objected to clause # 5, above. He wants to preserve his right to cheer for bigotry and persecution ....

As for the usual blather about "separation of church and state", point to the clause in the Constitution that requires that.

If you refer to the First Amendment, read it again; this time thoroughly.

Anonymous said...

It is baffling why Congress is wasting its time on useless resolutions like this when there are actual important things it should be focusing on.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Republican and I say it's a stupid bill, and I'm glad Ackerman voted against it.

But George, many founders were practicing Christians too. Washington and Adams in particular. I'm not a man of faith, but there's no reason to deny the Christianity of many of our founders.

Anonymous said...

I really do not want to waste my time trying to explain constitutional law and principles to people who just can't understand them. Try to read Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet if you want to understand the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

faster340 said...

uh oh this one could get ugly...

Anonymous said...

Pardon me, but isn't our government supposed to be separated from religion??? Why should a bill like this even be presented?

Anonymous said...

Funny how he has no problem expressing his support for Israel.

Anonymous said...

Taxpayer, someone who has read the 1st ammendment and is easily more qualified than you to discuss "seperation of church and state" said this about the ammendment:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

-Thomas Jefferson in his Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

James Madison, the primary author of the Bill of Rights, supported Jefferson's take on the 1st ammendment and often wrote about the "total separation of the church from the state."

Anonymous said...

I don't know about Washington, but I do know that Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson weren't Christian. They were Unitarian (Deist), which is definitely not Christian. They believed in God and the moral teachings of Christ, but did not believe in the divinity of Christ, which is probably necessary for being considered a christian.

In fact, Jefferson wrote the "Jefferson Bible" which is similar to THE Bible, except it leaves out the divinity of Christ, his virgin birth, all his miracles, his accension to heaven, etc.

Julie said...

"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"

How does this resolution establish Christianity as the official religion of the United States or prevent people from practicing whatever religion they choose?

Anonymous said...

I think Fresh Meadows would revolt against him if they signed that bill.

Anonymous said...

I admittedly didn't look at every comment posted here... but has anyone even bothered to google this clowns name?

http://www.junpolicarpio.com/

I would hope that Congress would be concentrating on more important things than a reso collectively tipping our hats to Christianity. How about...ummm...WAR, MASSIVE DEBT, LOOMING RECESSION. Jesus...

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, Christians are VICTIMS in America. Getting thrown to the lions, getting lynched for their views, only being able to talk about their beliefs in secrectly. GIVE ME A BREAK.

Tired of "Happy Holidays" said...

To all you losers out there. This is not a bill, it is not legally binding, it is a resolution which just states the congress' collective opinion on a subject. The NYC Council has passed more than one resolution supporting Israel in the last couple of years and that is a Religious State. Nobody pissed and moaned back then about separation of church and state. All this was supposed to be was a nice gesture by the congress to a segment of our society that has been feeling persecuted in recent times with the attacks on Christmas and outward displays of such. Rep. Ackerman is not a very savvy politician to take this kind of stance. One day he may need his fellow Christian colleagues support on a resolution to support Israel and I hope they tell him to go fuck himself.

Anonymous said...

"Oh yeah, Christians are VICTIMS in America. Getting thrown to the lions, getting lynched for their views, only being able to talk about their beliefs in secrectly. GIVE ME A BREAK."

Who said they were victims?

Anonymous said...

This resolution was just one more example, albeit small, in the campaign by religious extremists (Pat Robertson and his buddies) to make Christianity a dominant force in our government.

Robertson's clan has never accepted the secular nature of American government.

As for the founding fathers, well, James Madison even objected to having a minister recite a prayer at the opening of Congress each day. The founders were products of the Enlightenment. That's why religion is only mentioned once in the Constitution (no religious test for office-holders) and the First Amendment specifically forbids Congress from recognizing any faith as the established religion, or prohibiting any religion from being freely followed.

The historical facts are there. Rep. Ackerman was right in refusing to support this unnecessary and pernicious resolution.

Liman said...

This was a meaningless feel-good bill of the kind Congress passes all the time. I would be shocked if there aren't similar laudatory resolutions praising the historical significance of Muslims and Hindus (maybe not Scientologists). And they don't violate the constitution. These bills do not "establish" a state religion, they do not restrict anyone from practicing a religion, nor do they interfere with George's rejection of same.

The problem is, Ackerman could have just abstained. Or not been on the floor when the vote was taken. He didn't. He affirmatively voted against it. That implies he has a problem with even recognizing the historical relevance of Christianity.

The bill is actually a silly but harmless waste of time. Voting against it, however, is politically dumb.

I don't like his politics at all. But, he once got the IRS to stop bugging me and actually send me a letter of APOLOGY! So I cut him slack.

Taxpayer said...

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

-Thomas Jefferson in his Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

So, the concept of separation of church and state IS NOT in the constitution. IT IS in a letter Jefferson wrote.

So, Jefferson's letters are to be interpreted as law?

So, a supreme court ruling cemented the concept into law? Didn't a supreme court ruling also find slavery legal?

Anonymous said...

Who do you think"held hands"
with the notorious Tommy Huang
when that crook
first came to Flushing?

Ackerman !

Now THAT'S REALLY SOMETHING
TO WORRY ABOUT......not this trivia.

I'd love to see that bloated pig in jail some day!

The Picture of Dorian Gray in the flesh!

Anonymous said...

To all you losers out there. This is not a bill, it is not legally binding, it is a resolution which just states the congress' collective opinion on a subject. The NYC Council has passed more than one resolution

It's time the City Council does less "resoluting" and focus on working to resolve critical issues instead.

Anonymous said...

I think Gary Ackerman has double standards. If he believes Church and State should be separate , then why did he votes yes for House resolution No.635 favouring Muslims and resolution No. 747 giving preference to Hindu. Why then he did not brought up the issue of Church and State separateion. In Israel constitution, conversion is forbidden . And look how much money
they draw from USA. Any resolution favouring Israel , He will say yes
rightaway. I think Gary Ackerman is hypocritic.
Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Given the tenor of this posting and its attending comments, QC should rejoice every time an old church building bites the dust! As Voltaire once said about religion, "Good riddance."

PlanetThoughts said...

Since some are claiming that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, the answer is, yes it is in the Constitution via the 1st Amendment. Other than historical interest (i.e. psychology of the founders etc) all the amendments to the Constitution are equivalent to the Constitution. The 1st amendment starts: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Well, that does not affect local governments, I guess, but it IS in the Constitution.

However, on to considering the merits of all this. It seems to me superficial to regard a legislative resolution stating respect for Christians (or any other religious group) as being beneficial to our people. I agree with those who say a government should focus on better issues.

If there was ongoing persecution of Christians (or any other legal belief system) that would be different, and government should indeed stand up and protect persecuted groups as part of our democracy.

Which leaves the remaining open question: are some claiming that Christians (or Catholics, or Jews... put in your favorite special group) are being persecuted? There are few groups that are persecuted on a legal basis in this country - and those do not include any legitimate religions, other than perhaps illegal profiling of those suspected of Muslim ties (no, I am not in the least Muslim myself). For that reason, government should advance to REAL issues - there are plenty of those, and important ones!